Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. General Issues / Questions
  3. General Issues / Questions
  4. The Shahada

The Shahada

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Issues / Questions
255 Posts 38 Posters 19.0k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    Muslimtruthrevealed
    wrote on last edited by
    #225

    Wa Alaykum Assalaam MTR,

    I disagree with this part, brother. We have already discussed this before, and the Arabic word "rijaal" is a pluralized form of "rajul"/man, referring specifically to males, not generally as human beings. If it was referring to human beings (general), it would use the term "basharaan"/human beings, which is not gender specific. Also, if the Qur'an said that Muhammad was not the father of anyone "mina bashariya"/from mankind, this would apply something completely different. Instead, it specifically says "ahadin min rijaalikum", using the word for a male ("rajul&quot... And the word "kum" refers specifically to possession (i.e. "YOUR males&quot. So, the literal translation says

    Assalaam Alaikum @Ahmad

    You cant re-write the Quran, in ENGLISH to support that which you don't understand or know.

    Can you show the grammatical reference (Sarf) that supports your statement

    "And the word "kum" refers specifically to possession (i.e. "YOUR males&quot"

    Clue 'kum / denotes number & gender, what is the gender of the word ?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • U Offline
      U Offline
      unknownuser
      wrote on last edited by
      #226

      Peace all --

      Who is AAalayhi?

      3356 That truly God and His angels bless and compliment on the prophet. O you who believe, pray and call for God's blessing on him and great greetings.

      3144 And Muhammad is not except a messenger, had passed from before him...

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • A Offline
        A Offline
        Ahmad_Bilal
        wrote on last edited by
        #227

        Peace MTR,

        You cant re-write the Quran, in ENGLISH to support that which you don't understand or know.

        Are you serious? I'm supporting what I don't know? Do you even understand Arabic language? Most of your understandings are COMPLETELY OFF, especially if you're implying that the addition of "kum" is a reference to number and gender. You should seriously stick to translations...

        Can you show the grammatical reference (Sarf) that supports your statement

        "And the word "kum" refers specifically to possession (i.e. "YOUR males&quot"

        I'm not using a grammatical reference; I'm going from what I know. The addition of "kum" refers to possession of something, and it means "YOUR". There are plenty of examples of this throughout the Qur'an and otherwise. For example, as a basic term that you also use, can you translate the phrase "assalaamu alayKUM"?

        O you people, worship "rabbakum"/YOUR LORD, who created you and those before you. Perhaps you may become righteous. (221)

        In most cases throughout the Qur'an, ending a word with "kum" denotes ownership or possession, usually meaning "YOUR". This case ("rijaalikum&quot is no different, and it means "your men/males". The word "kum" itself doesn't have anything to do with number or gender.

        What is the gender of the word ?

        It is referring to MALES because of the word "rijaal". Adding "kum" doesn't make the gender disappear. What reference are you using? Please provide some proofs of your claims. We already had a discussion on this matter. The word "rijaal" itself means men or males. By adding "kum" onto it, it becomes "rijaalikum", or YOUR MALES.

        Peace,

        Ahmad

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Offline
          M Offline
          Muslimtruthrevealed
          wrote on last edited by
          #228

          Assalaam Alaikum @Ahmad....

          The word in Sura Al-Ahzab is

          'Ra-jaa-lee-kum' NOT 'rijaal'

          = Men & Women (Feminine Irregular PLURAL)

          is a masculine plural pronoun, when used refers to ALL referents, male and female!

          = Man (singular, masculine)

          The gender of an irregular plural noun will not always match the gender of its singular. Classically, all irregular plurals were considered and treated as singular feminine nouns, no matter what the gender of the referents were.

          / Muhammed is NOT from ANY human being, male or female

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Offline
            S Offline
            siki
            wrote on last edited by
            #229

            You guys waste your energies by, "reading and replying" to MTR posts, why ?

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A Offline
              A Offline
              Ahmad_Bilal
              wrote on last edited by
              #230

              Peace Siki,

              You guys waste your energies by, "reading and replying" to MTR posts, why ?

              I see what you mean... rotfl

              Peace,

              Ahmad

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • A Offline
                A Offline
                Ahmad_Bilal
                wrote on last edited by
                #231

                Peace MTR,

                The word in Sura Al-Ahzab is

                'Ra-jaa-lee-kum' NOT 'rijaal'

                = Men & Women (Feminine Irregular PLURAL)

                = Man

                is a masculine plural pronoun, when used refers to ALL referents, male and female!

                The gender of an irregular plural noun will not always match the gender of its singular. Classically, all irregular plurals were considered and treated as singular feminine nouns, no matter what the gender of the referents were.

                / Muhammed is NOT from ANY human being, male or female

                You can't be serious, brother... -\ Can you understand Arabic language, or are you using an Arabic dictionary or something? With what you're saying, there's NO WAY you understand Arabic... nope You're wrong. But I know, based on previous occurrances, you'll never admit that you're wrong, no matter how much I prove the reasonable and logical conclusion to you... So, I'll just stop trying to show you the truth. I suggest you look it up, and possibly take a class in Arabic and Qur'anic speech and grammar if you wish to learn more...

                Peace,

                Ahmad

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Offline
                  M Offline
                  Muslimtruthrevealed
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #232

                  Keep taking notes....

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • W Offline
                    W Offline
                    WayFinder
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #233

                    Peace ,

                    I really do not want to reply to the arabic and grammar expert... but, what to do...

                    MAA KAANA... He was not...

                    not... he is not...

                    Regards

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Muslimtruthrevealed
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #234

                      Assalaam Alaikum

                      Sura Al-Ahzab is a Verbal Sentence, that begins with

                      Ma Negative Verb = NOT, governs and denotes ALL tenses of the Verb + Subject + Object

                      Ma kana / means He is NOT- He was NOT- He will NOT

                      As Accusative + Predicate

                      Ma kana / means 'He cannot be

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • A Offline
                        A Offline
                        ayyub
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #235

                        I found this in regards to the Shahadah in the notes section for Chapter 3, "The City of the Prophet" of "No god but God" by Reza Aslan.

                        "I am convinced that the shahadah was originally addressed not to God, but to Muhammad, because a great many of those who had proclaimed the shahadah (and thereby joined the Ummah) while Muhammad was alive considered their oaths to be annulled with the prophet's death (according to tribal custom, the bay'ah never survived the death of the tribe's shaykh). As we shall see in Chapter 5, the annulment of the bay'ah eventually led to the Riddah Wars."

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • WakasW Offline
                          WakasW Offline
                          Wakas
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #236

                          "No God but God" is a story, loosely based on fact.

                          The Traditional "shahadah" can be refuted in several ways

                          1. The earliest "Islamic" coins make no mention of prophet Muhammad, i.e. only contain the first part.

                          2. The term "muslim" is used prior to prophet Muhammad, as stated in The Quran itself, thus to be "muslim" is not related to Muhammad.

                          3. It is nowhere to be found in The Quran in a conversion/reversion narrative, nor as a whole.

                          It seems to have come about to differentiate monotheist followers of Quran, as opposed to other monotheists, in the later formative period. After prophet Muhammad's death, when in-fighting became significant, the question "what constitutes a believer?" quickly became important, whilst at first, it was fluid, it became solidified. This is perhaps inevitable.

                          All information is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always seek knowledge and verify for themselves when possible: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • M Offline
                            M Offline
                            Mazhar
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #237

                            Assalaam Alaikum

                            Sura Al-Ahzab is a Verbal Sentence, that begins with

                            Ma Negative Verb = NOT, governs and denotes ALL tenses of the Verb + Subject + Object

                            Ma kana / means He is NOT- He was NOT- He will NOT

                            As Accusative + Predicate

                            Ma kana / means 'He cannot be

                            It is a negative particle.

                            is one of a group of Verbs which are termed as , deficient verbs. It modifies the nominal sentence, retaining the subject in nominative case and rendering the predicate in accusative case. And their name respectively changes as and of which is a Perfect verb; third person; singular; masculine.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • A Offline
                              A Offline
                              ayyub
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #238

                              The Traditional "shahadah" can be refuted in several ways

                              1. The earliest "Islamic" coins make no mention of prophet Muhammad, i.e. only contain the first part.

                              Interesting, do you have any websites that show this?

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • WakasW Offline
                                WakasW Offline
                                Wakas
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #239

                                http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Coins/

                                It's also discussed in this book
                                http//www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674050975/

                                It's possible the first part of the traditional shahadah is not explicitly on the coin, but references only to Allah instead etc. I'd have to re-read the book.

                                All information is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always seek knowledge and verify for themselves when possible: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • A Offline
                                  A Offline
                                  ayyub
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #240

                                  http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Coins/

                                  It's also discussed in this book
                                  http//www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674050975/

                                  It's possible the first part of the traditional shahadah is not explicitly on the coin, but references only to Allah instead etc. I'd have to re-read the book.

                                  I find it interesting that these coins have faces on them which is something that is considered Haram in Sunnism. There didn't seem to be a problem with it then.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • R Offline
                                    R Offline
                                    Raaajah
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #241

                                    Wakas

                                    The Traditional "shahadah" can be refuted in several ways

                                    1. The earliest "Islamic" coins make no mention of prophet Muhammad, i.e. only contain the first part.

                                    MAny of the Prophet's letters were stamped with the words ?Muhammad Rasul-ullah" (Muhammad the Messenger of Allah). Three of the Prophet?s letters have been preserved. I had posted the images of these letters at the thread
                                    http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13583.465

                                    and was astonished to find out that the images were removed, only one remains.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • R Offline
                                      R Offline
                                      Raaajah
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #242

                                      http//farm1.static.flickr.com/11/96086302_b8b34ffa4f.jpg

                                      http//www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/Islamic%20Coins.pdf

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • WakasW Offline
                                        WakasW Offline
                                        Wakas
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #243

                                        Raaajah,
                                        It seems there is variance about the chronological order of the coins and what they said. What we can say with certainty however, is that the traditional shahadah was not some sort of exclusive badge to stamp on coins.

                                        Re letters allegedly from Muhammad.
                                        Have they been independently verified/dated? I know that Professor Fred Donner in his book for example, does not mention any, except the Medina document which he says is generally regarded as authentic by most Western scholars.

                                        All information is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always seek knowledge and verify for themselves when possible: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • R Offline
                                          R Offline
                                          Raaajah
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #244

                                          Wakas

                                          Re letters allegedly from Muhammad.
                                          Have they been independently verified/dated? I know that Professor Fred Donner in his book for example, does not mention any, except the Medina document which he says is generally regarded as authentic by most Western scholars.

                                          A person who has done extensive research and is so humble to admit it, should not follow the the footsteps of Wansbrough,

                                          following the footsteps of Wansbrough a different approach was taken by Judith Koren and Yehuda Nevo to study Islamic history. They contend that any Muslim source must be checked against a non-Muslim source (preferably material, e.g., archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics), and if the two sources conflict, the non-Muslim source is to be preferred

                                          Why? for them I can understand but for you cannot.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users