The Shahada
-
Peace Siki,
You guys waste your energies by, "reading and replying" to MTR posts, why ?
I see what you mean... rotfl
Peace,
Ahmad
-
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
-
Keep taking notes....
-
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
-
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."
-
"No God but God" is a story, loosely based on fact.
The Traditional "shahadah" can be refuted in several ways
-
The earliest "Islamic" coins make no mention of prophet Muhammad, i.e. only contain the first part.
-
The term "muslim" is used prior to prophet Muhammad, as stated in The Quran itself, thus to be "muslim" is not related to Muhammad.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Wakas
The Traditional "shahadah" can be refuted in several ways
- 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=13583.465and was astonished to find out that the images were removed, only one remains.
-
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. -
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.
-
Peace,
eeemm, this is more of an attempt to get the input from fellow quran-aloners. Just had some thoughts id like to discuss. Any other input is welcome to of course.
I get the impression of that most quran-aloners seem to want to leave the Muhammad part of the shada out. I dont know but, the shada could have different meanings to different people, but as i see it it is a concrete statement of your belief, your faith and religion. If i like was facing certain death or something id maybe want to state my shada so that i surely made clear that i died as a believing man.
Now if i were to say "There is no God but THE GOD, and Muhammad was his servant and messenger" i would imply that, well, exactly what the sentence does say. The only reasonable conclusion you could draw from that expression is that this man believes in the one and only God and his guiding religion and book is the Holy Quran. Through that follows that i also believe in the previous prophets of the other abrahamitic faiths. If i were to make my shada as "There is no God but THE GOD" i would be leaving crucial information out of my declaration of faith as one would wonder what is then your perception of God, where do you get your faith from and what are your principles and so on. Of course everything you believe in comes from the Quran and it is crucial that you make that clear, for you could believe in the one God, but other than that you could also maybe believe in a supposed son of God or that God is made up of three distinct core essences or that God favors only the jewish race and what not.
To me it seems ever more reasonable to state my faith and my whole faith, because i define my self as a "quran-aloner" but when it comes to the declaration of faith i am reluctant to mention my source of scripture and guidance, which is the honorable servant and messenger of God, the prophet Muhammad, Gods medium of communication towards us. I can not see that it would make me idolize the prophet by doing that. As far as i know, and i very well could be wrong, the one who brought up this issue on a public scale for the first time was rashad khalifa. When i frst was discovering Islam that argument made some sense to me as i read it on the submission site. But now after things have come to settle themselves within me it doesnt make such a strong case anymore, especially since i dont believe in anything that khalifa claimed about himself. Maybe i back than was trying to distinguish myself from the sunnism which i had despised for so long, but without losing hold of that rope of guidance and one more chance which God seemed to handing down to me.
So the best and most accurate way of declaring your belief in the Quran as being a guidance from the creator of the universe surely must be to state that you believe that Muhammad was his messenger. Leaving this part out creates an really unnecessary lack of full information about ones faith. At this state i can not draw a more reasonable conclusion than that unnecessary is to exclude not to include it.
God guide us all who seek his guidance.Peace.
-
Peace
There is no single verse in Quran which God asks us to testify to Prophet?s messngership??So far whatever I read in this thread was baseless claims and conjectures??God specifically asking us to believe in His messengers, Angels and Scriptures?Couldn?t God ask us to testify to His Messengers if He wanted us in doing so?
Glory be to God Who revealed the below verse in a chapter by the name of ?Mohammad? and yet majority are into making two shahada instead one through all sort of excuses
You shall know that "There is no other god beside GOD," and ask forgiveness of your sins and the sins of all believing men and women. GOD is fully aware of your decisions and your ultimate destiny.
As far as I know the stamp of Prophet was written as ?Allah ?Rasool-Mohammad? from top to down, if I?m wrong please correct me??Mohammad was messenger of God and that is a fact/true but what?s got to do with testifying to his messngership I really don?t understand.
Asana
-
Dont know if there was a partial reply to my post Asana, buuut ill assume so P
Mohammad was messenger of God and that is a fact/true but whats got to do with testifying to his messngership I really dont understand.
If you read my above post youll find the answer argumenting for that question thats been brewing up inside my head like somewhat lately.
There is no single verse in Quran which God asks us to testify to Prophets messngership
Is there one that clearly states that we even need a shahada and clearly sais "This is the shahada.... (insert revelation)" without having us going certain lengths into interpreting so? Personally i am not aware of a shahada being a form of quranic law, but for me its just a convenient way of expressing my faith, of defining it and summing it up. I dont stand or fall on a shahada, but regardless its nice to have one.
Glory be to God Who revealed the below verse in a chapter by the name of Mohammad and yet majority are into making two shahada instead one through all sort of excuses
As i see it, theres a huge amount of verses in the Quran clarifying the right faith and the truth, including the messengership of Muhammad and the existance of angels and so on. Any one of them could be quoted as one.
Peace
-
peace,
Raaajah,
AFAIK Fred Donner does not follow in the footsteps of John Wansbrough. In his book for example, Donner uses The Quran extensively to make his case.Asana,
I personally have nothing against the factual elements of the traditional shahadah, but the point is, it is simply not necessary.
