Why no record of prophets in europe,australasia and america?
-
Is it Muhammad ibne Abd Allah or Muhammad ibne Abdullah as per historical analysis? What's the difference?
I tend to write the arabic in eneglish letters without the tashkil to avoide confusion
Abd Allah "no tashkil"
Abdu Allah "with a dumma on both" oooo
Abdi Allah "with a kassarah" eeee
Abda Allah "with a fatiha" aaaa
some join the two words together in english but in arabic they are two separate words
-
AB 1) Why you write it "AR-rasool" and not "Al-rasool"?
2) what is the difference between Al-rasool and rusl?-
Just writing it phonetically. Once again, its a personal choice.
-
Ar-rasool is , in my reading, one who has allowed the office of risaalat take over his entire life. He is the leader of al-mumineen.
bro, this is not going to make it easy because if you will call him mohammad ibn Abduallh, you have to tell me how you verified it to call him as such
I didn't verify it and that's why i'm not standing by it. I use it to differentiate him from Muhammad as used in al-quraan.
so you acceot the history records?, well, can you please tell me how the history proved that Mohammad father is named Abd Allah
Once again, I do not. I'm using it for convenience, ease of communication. If you don't agree with this, fine with me.
thanks, i prefer Mohammad then
fine. I'll try to remember that.
bro, there is no hooking here, my question to you and leyla stands, how did you verify that Mohammad father is named Abd Allah?
There was a guy who recieved al-quraan for the first time. This is due to the fact that we're relying on linnear time and that al-quraan has the concept of people of before. This guy I call 'muhammad ibn abdullah' because when I talk to people about him, they're usually from the Sunni side. This makes it easier for me. If you disagree with this, no problem. I really couldn't care less )
cheers mquran
-
-
Peace be upon you,
My understanding is that ancient CIVILIZATIONS such as Khamit, Sumer, Indus Kush, etc had a superior understanding of the "SELF" and the "SPIRIT" (nafs). There civilizations revolved around spirituality. People from all over went to "egypt" to learn about the sciences of life. In thier philosophy, only the man/woman who were still controlled by thier lower passions were in need of a 'religion'. Therefore certain metaphoric stories were created to help mankind ascend to the higher parts of the spirit.
The truth of the matter is that we ALL have the potential to be prophets and messengers depending on the level of our spiritual work. A prophet is only one who INTUITS information that is not known or has been lost. A messenger is one who delivers truth to another. Messengers are PLENTY, prophets are few.
But we have to understand CLEARLY that there are people who know this and deliberately attempt to cover the truth with falsehood, and on top of that there are blind followers of religions that will fight to keep the falsehood going unaware.
-
Salam
There's plenty of stuff I agree with on this forum and plenty of stuff I 100% disagree with. I think ppl are pushing this quran-only stuff way too far at times to fit their own needs. For example, I read a thread that was all about how you really don't have to pray and another one on how Ramadan is supposed to be fasting from speech, not food and drink. That's just crazy-talk to me. The one that topped it off was the thread that was trying to justify homosexuality. Now I'm beginning to think I'm neither Sunni, Shia, or a Free-Minder (whatever that is). For fear of breaking my religion into more sects I refuse to label myself at all. So at this point, I'm sitting back and trying to understand what the so-called free-mind stance is on alot of issues. I've been following this thread and MQURAN you posted something I didn't understand.
I didn't verify it and that's why i'm not standing by it. I use it to differentiate him from Muhammad as used in al-quraan.
Do you mean Mohamed in the quran and Mohamed Ibn Abdullah are two separate people? I don't know if I misunderstood or that's really what you meant. If you could clarify that would be great.
Salam -
Soul2squeezeDo you mean Mohamed in the quran and Mohamed Ibn Abdullah are two separate people? I don't know if I misunderstood or that's really what you meant. If you could clarify that would be great.
Ok, here goes
-
Muhammad in al-quraan to me is a personality type which anyone can emulate or experience.
-
I call the reciever of al-quraan 'muhammad ibn abdullah' simply to ease discussion.
-
I don't know if the reciever of al-quraan experienced the 'muhammad' mentioned in (1) above or not.
Hope that helps.
-
-
Salam mquran
Thanks for the clarification on your point. While I do believe anyone can emulate the actions and words of Mohamed (p.b.u.h), I don't believe its just a code-name for a personality type. I think he really was a real person and in fact we are commanded to follow him so we SHOULD emulate the actions and words referred to in the quran (and the quran is enough).
What is your rationale in believing that Mohamed mentioned in the quran is not a person but a personality type that the man Mohamed may or may not have lived up to? Just out of curiosity...
Cheers -
Peace be upon you SoulsSqueeze,
MQ can respond for himself, but I would like to add my 3 cents.
Thanks for the clarification on your point. While I do believe anyone can emulate the actions and words of Mohamed (p.b.u.h), I don't believe its just a code-name for a personality type. I think he really was a real person
You "THINK" or you KNOW? There is a big difference in those words. If you THINK so, then there is room for doubt, and we are not to be of those who doubt, but of those who know..."My Lord, increase me in KNOWLEDGE".., not belief.
and in fact we are commanded to follow him so we SHOULD emulate the actions and words referred to in the quran (and the quran is enough).
We can only emulate what was written because this person we cannot verify. To be truthful against ones own beliefs in the same manner they would judge another "religion" is crucial.
How do you understand the prefix "Mu"? Do you realize that the word "muhammad" is related to "hamd", the same was "muslim" is related to "islam" and "salaam"? Do you also realize that the word "ahmed" is another form of the same word? SO why is one treated as a name and the other not? WHo decided which , if any, should be the nam
What is your rationale in believing that Mohamed mentioned in the quran is not a person but a personality type that the man Mohamed may or may not have lived up to? Just out of curiosity...
See above
-
Thanks for the clarification on your point. While I do believe anyone can emulate the actions and words of Mohamed (p.b.u.h), I don't believe its just a code-name for a personality type. I think he really was a real person and in fact we are commanded to follow him so we SHOULD emulate the actions and words referred to in the quran (and the quran is enough).
Ok, but we cannot follow him , the real person, if he is dead. This would go against the Quranic injunction of verification (17/36).
What is your rationale in believing that Mohamed mentioned in the quran is not a person but a personality type that the man Mohamed may or may not have lived up to? Just out of curiosity...
My reason for believing so is that all Quranic personalities are called 'ibraat' or 'archetypes'. I believe Allah has lifted the crucial elements of each of their lives and codified it in al-quraan. And so, when one access these personalities, one would access their experiences and hence their results.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
I always love the way you explain this )
My reason for believing so is that all Quranic personalities are called 'ibraat' or 'archetypes'. I believe Allah has lifted the crucial elements of each of their lives and codified it in al-quraan. And so, when one access these personalities, one would access their experiences and hence their results.
To recap, there is one way that can be verified, by life experience through emulation, and one way that we will always guess about and have doubts, by blind belief in people we can never verify, like Big Foot and Santa Claus.
There is so much beauty in the message, but it is hard for many to accept the responsibility of actually emulating these examples.
-
-
Salam Mquran
Wow mquran that was really deep! I never thought of it that way. You really stimulated my brain on that one elektrolol
Salam Idolfrree1
I never meant that I have doubts. But that's not for you to decide whether I have doubts or not anyway. But I see your point. I'll be sure to choose my words more carefully next time. Onto your other point about MUhammad and MUslim and such, I had to read it a few times to let it sink in. I think... no wait.. I KNOW I understand it now in conjunction with mquran's explanation.may God Bless and increase you both in knowledge inshallah
P.S. Are there any articles written on this issue that I could read? -
Peace be upon you S2S,
I never meant that I have doubts. But that's not for you to decide whether I have doubts or not anyway.
Please don't take any offense. I did not mean it as a personal attack, just pointing out a true fact about all of us equally, anytinme we believe rather than KNOW, there is an elemant of doubt. There are MANY things that I have doubts about because I have not arrived at KNOWLEDGE.
But I see your point. I'll be sure to choose my words more carefully next time. Onto your other point about MUhammad and MUslim and such, I had to read it a few times to let it sink in. I think... no wait.. I KNOW I understand it now in conjunction with mquran's explanation.
Fantastic, because that is a hard pill for most to swallow. Further, continue to verify it by looking at the verses with "muhammad" and "ahmad" to see what is really being said. The key to this all is in understanding "hamd", perhaps MQ has the edge on that.
may God Bless and increase you both in knowledge inshallah
You also.
P.S. Are there any articles written on this issue that I could read?
I dont know what MQ is waiting for ;D
There is probably an old thread on here somewhere where it is hotly debated.
-
Peace Idolfree1, Peace all
Please don't take any offense. I did not mean it as a personal attack, just pointing out a true fact about all of us equally, anytinme we believe rather than KNOW, there is an elemant of doubt. There are MANY things that I have doubts about because I have not arrived at KNOWLEDGE.
No offense taken ! You actually do make a very strong point in that as well!
Fantastic, because that is a hard pill for most to swallow. Further, continue to verify it by looking at the verses with "muhammad" and "ahmad" to see what is really being said. The key to this all is in understanding "hamd", perhaps MQ has the edge on that.
I'll have to refer to the quran on this and see the differences in meaning.
Really I'm very pleased and thankful to you both, its always a positive feeling to gain a higher level of understanding in the quran! Now when I read it I'm sure I'll gain even more insight about the same verses I always read before. Gazak Allah kheir !!
Peace -
Soul2squeeze Wow mquran that was really deep! I never thought of it that way. You really stimulated my brain on that one.
Well, I acquired the information myself through reading and discussion. The important thing to note however, is that al-quraan supports this 'archetype' theory. I was careful to note this as I do not want to deviate from the mindset proposed by al-quraan.
Kyle The key to this all is in understanding "hamd", perhaps MQ has the edge on that.
Well, the only thing I can say is that the experience of the 'taHMeeD' is more vital than any articulated explanation. The people of Nuh upon embarkation are told to say 'alhamdulillah'. Thereby we can imagine their state of being, perhaps?
I dont know what MQ is waiting for
For a clearly articulated system on HOW al-quraan is understood. Al-quraan has, as I've repeated ad nauseum, an internal system which enables the reader to come to a correct understanding but I've yet to be happy with my own findings.
-
Peace all
I understand your theory that Mohamed as depicted in the quran is an archetype personality that if upon emulation may lead to the same series of feelings, consequences, situations etc. So in essence your stance is that God chose the best of his actions to show as an example for the rest of mankind. The man Mohamed may or may not have had experiences outside this high realm. Or perhaps it is what God intended for Mohamed to be and he may or may not have truely lived up to those expectations. If I misunderstood please correct me.My next question to you is that there are a few times God is clearly reprimanding the Prophet for things done and said. There is an instance when God states (in loose terms) "...we know that you were weak and were ready to give in to their demands. Had you inclined to their wishes in the slightest you would have suffered double retribution now and in the hereafter." Another instance of shunning a blind man for asking questions. If this is supposed to be the ultimate archetype personality and not the man Mohamed, why, according to your theory, would God include mishaps?
To me it would make sense if this truely is a testament to the actions and words of what the Prophet actually did. God would show mistakes of the Prophet in order for mankind to know that he is only human and should not be venerated as divine - as what happened with Prophet Jesus. In fact there are mistakes depicted of other prophets as well. But I don't see a place in your theory for showing the mistakes of an ultimate personality-type "Mohamed" or "Moses" etc. Please enlighten me.
-
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a real person. You can evolve to the status of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is what their faulty root defination of Qur'an makes them believe.
Why stop evolving at the status of Muhammad? Why not keep evolving until you become the Lord of the universe?
-
because you can't become the lord of the universe. )
you can only become Muhammad.peace.
They can't even emulate Muhammad, talk about becoming Lord of the Universe. O0