A simple argument regarding the Quran's being clear
-
Yes mmkhan, I am ignoring your question. I am concentrating on this very matter that if Quran is sufficient, fully detailed, clear, simple, and containing everything, then this follow messenger command has no value. This command becomes redundant, unnecessary, and it is making many ayats of the Quarn hazy. Moreover, it becomes also obvious that Allah is erroneously tagging his love and our guidance with this unnecessay command. If you can solve this puzzle, you will get answers.And thanks for praying for me
-
Did I avoid your question? Or you are the one who ignored my questions?
And I also invited you for a detail discussion of YOUR CHOICE, but you simply ignore it.
I understand you now, you are not looking for the guidance but you are surely wanna win. You will never find in any of posts saying "I don't believe that it is necessary to obey/follow the messenger" or anything similar to that, then can you make such claims?
Please ignore my special NOTE for you on the other thread.
I left your case on Allah. He is the best judge between us and "la'anat Allahi alal kaazibeen".
May Allah guide us all towards His path pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
Good. Let's examine this claim again.
638 and 1689 tell us that nothing has been left out of the quran.
If the Prophet had details of salat then it means he had details not in the quran.
Therefore, there is a contradiction in the quran.
You pay lipservice to 482.
Brother Mushu
In 638 & 1689, the word mentioned is al-kitab; it is not Quran. In my sense, the life of the messenger is included in the Al-Kitab. It means that Al-Kitab consists of the Quran and the life of the messenger. That is how I get rid of the pseudo-contradiction.If you search for the translations of the ayat done by many translators, it may help you find your answers.
You can take help from islamawakened.com.
http//www.islamawakened.com/Quran/6/38/default.htm
http//www.islamawakened.com/Quran/16/89/default.htm
There are many translators who have not taken the word for QURAN.
And, brother, you and I both are searching for the truth. No body is here lipservicing.
And please think about the topic in the post.
If Quran is sufficient, fully detailed, clear, simple, and containing everything, then this follow messenger command has no value. This command becomes redundant, unnecessary, and it is making many ayats of the Quarn hazy. Moreover, it becomes also obvious that Allah is erroneously tagging his love and our guidance with this unnecessay command. Please try to solve the puzzle.And please pray for me. I don't need to win any debate.
-
Brother Mushu
In 638 & 1689, the word mentioned is al-kitab; it is not Quran.So? Are we now resorting to equivocation to get round this contradiction? Al-kitab is al-quran.
22 This is the Book about which there is no doubt
151 ALR these are the signs of the book, and a clear Quran.
1037 This Quran could not have been produced without God, but it is to authenticate what is already present, and to provide detail to the book in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.
413 A book whose signs are detailed, a Quran in Arabic for a people who know.
In my sense, the life of the messenger is included in the Al-Kitab. It means that Al-Kitab consists of the Quran and the life of the messenger. That is how I get rid of the pseudo-contradiction.
This is equivocation and a nonsensical argument. Not surprising though.
You are now attempting to create a new discrepancy in the quran. Where does the quran suggest that the words of Allah + the actions of the Prophet = al kitab? Al-kitab was given to Moses. Does that mean that the words of Allah + actions of Moses + the actions of Harun = al kitab? In fact, according to your logic, al-kitab must be words of Allah + actions of Moses + actions of Harun + actions of Isa + actions of Muhammad etc. = al-kitab, because all of these men were given al-kitab. So are you following the actions of those Prophets? Where is your hadith for them, seeing as they are also part of al-kitab? Where is your evidence for such a definition? When I look in the classical Arabic dictionaries, I see no indication that 'actions of Prophet' is a sub-meaning of al-kitab.
If you search for the translations of the ayat done by many translators, it may help you find your answers.
Thanks, but we all know what al-kitab is. Even you. But you are being disingenuous and further proving my point that your agenda is to create contradictions and confusions in the quran to make room for hadith.
Having been unable to explain how 1689 could be true if the Prophet had details of the salat, you've now gone and changed the very definition of al-kitab. Now, quran + sahih hadith = al kitab. I said from the start that you are a truly unique sunni, because I doubt you would find any other sunni who would agree with your definition of al-kitab.
-
Apart from the equivocation pointed out by Mushu, t is also nonsensical in thesense that those things that suposedly are deeds or sayings of the Messenger and are not in the Qur'an, we cannot take them as a source of doctrine of whatever kind for the very simple reason that they are not guaranteed. The Qur'an is guaranteed by God, God has not guaranteed any other narrative.
So we may infer by sound intellectual reasoning that something ATTRIBUTED to the Messenger is good, convenient, wise or whatever, based on its contents, but we cannot be sure that it is right because it comes from God, because it does not. Whether it is inspired or not, it is not guranteed as such nor as anything else by God. It is in every case a questi?n of human judgement, which we may choose to follow, but which does not bind us, since it is not from God nor guaranteed by Him.
Salaam
-
Dear Antibhondo,
WAS THE COMMAND "TO FOLLOW THE MESSENGER" AT ALL NECESSARY???
Yes it was.
On the planet that I am from, God has not spoken to any human being since Moses. Therefore, the statement "obey God" without further qualification becomes an impractical statement "how can I obey God when He has not spoken directly to anyone" - the solution "obey the messenger" - therefore, the statement "whoever has obeyed the messenger has obeyed God" becomes crystal clear.
Regards,
-
WAS THE COMMAND "TO FOLLOW THE MESSENGER" AT ALL NECESSARY???
Dear Antibhondo,
Yes it was.
On the planet that I am from, God has not spoken to any human being since Moses. Therefore, the statement "obey God" without further qualification becomes an impractical statement "how can I obey God when He has not spoken directly to anyone" - the solution "obey the messenger" - therefore, the statement "whoever has obeyed the messenger has obeyed God" becomes crystal clear.
Regards,
Brother Layth
Assalamu Alaikum.There is a serious logical error in your explanation. Before someone obeys the messenger, she/he has to obey the message. If someone does not obey a message of obeying the messenger, she/he cannot obey the messenger.
If she/he obeys the message that has sent down, that should have been enough. The command "Obey the message" clearly expresses what you (Quran-only people) are continuously trying to say. And that should have been enough.
-
God says follow the messenger not 'idol worship' the messenger or to listen to abu huraira and others. Where does God tell us to trust abu huraira, ayesha, etc and bukhari and others who collected all these supposed sayings of the prophet?
So, what you are saying is by God telling us to follow the messenger, we are to grow a beard, open fast with dates, eat with our right hands, etc. And to trust people like abu huraira? Where exactly does God tell us to trust these people and to incorporate these supposed eye witnesses accounts as part of or integral to my faith and life?
If the Koran is not clear and sufficient and if you cannot trust God and his messengers, you can turn to whoever and whatever sources for guidance in your life and live your life the way you see fit. For me, the Koran is sufficient and clear and yes, redundant.
-
So? Are we now resorting to equivocation to get round this contradiction? Al-kitab is al-quran.
22 This is the Book about which there is no doubt
151 ALR these are the signs of the book, and a clear Quran.
1037 This Quran could not have been produced without God, but it is to authenticate what is already present, and to provide detail to the book in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.
413 A book whose signs are detailed, a Quran in Arabic for a people who know.
This is equivocation and a nonsensical argument. Not surprising though.
You are now attempting to create a new discrepancy in the quran. Where does the quran suggest that the words of Allah + the actions of the Prophet = al kitab? Al-kitab was given to Moses. Does that mean that the words of Allah + actions of Moses + the actions of Harun = al kitab? In fact, according to your logic, al-kitab must be words of Allah + actions of Moses + actions of Harun + actions of Isa + actions of Muhammad etc. = al-kitab, because all of these men were given al-kitab. So are you following the actions of those Prophets? Where is your hadith for them, seeing as they are also part of al-kitab? Where is your evidence for such a definition? When I look in the classical Arabic dictionaries, I see no indication that 'actions of Prophet' is a sub-meaning of al-kitab.
Thanks, but we all know what al-kitab is. Even you. But you are being disingenuous and further proving my point that your agenda is to create contradictions and confusions in the quran to make room for hadith.
Having been unable to explain how 1689 could be true if the Prophet had details of the salat, you've now gone and changed the very definition of al-kitab. Now, quran + sahih hadith = al kitab. I said from the start that you are a truly unique sunni, because I doubt you would find any other sunni who would agree with your definition of al-kitab.
Brother Mushu
Assalamu Alaikum.
You have been very much agitated. Probably some parts of my comments have annoyed you. First of all, accept my apologies for that.
However, you must have heard the word Ahl-Al Kitab. This Al-Kitab is not the Quran.
It means that not all Al-Kitab means Al-Quran.I provided you with some links. Ignore my idea of "Al-Kitab". But if you could read those translations, you could have got some samples of different views regarding some "Al-Kitab"s.
Let alone the the SUNNI/SHIA translators. See the translation of "Al-Kitab" in 638 by a Quranist translator, The Monotheist Group
And there is not a creature in the Earth, or a bird that fly's with its wings, but are nations like you. We did not leave anything out of the record; then to their Lord they will be gathered.
See the translation of Muhammad Asad
Although there is no beast that walks on earth and no bird that flies on its two wings which is not creature like yourselves no single thing have We neglected in Our decree. And once again Unto their Sustainer shall they be gathered.
About 1689, I have already responded to Brother mmkhan.
1689 And We have sent down to you the Book as a clarification for all things, and a guidance and a mercy and good tidings to those who have submitted.
But you are not paying heed to one of most important clarifying ayat follow messenger. The book is of course a clarification for all the things. One of them is Salat. And the method of Salat is clarified when following the messenger.
However, I will still check the ayat more carefully. Of course I might be wrong too. Not only 1689, there are some other ayats that has expressed the similar meanings. I promise, I will re-check those too.
But, You just tell me one thing
Suppose I agree with you. So, the Quran is sufficient, fully detailed, clear, simple, and containing everything; So, this "follow messenger" command has no value. This command becomes redundant & unnecessary, and it is making many ayats of the Quarn hazy. Moreover, it becomes also obvious that Allah is erroneously tagging his love and our guidance with this unnecessay command.
Would you agree with this statement? Remember, this is simply the logical conclusion of the Quran's being sufficient, fully detailed, clear, simple, and containing everything.
-
God says follow the messenger not 'idol worship' the messenger or to listen to abu huraira and others. Where does God tell us to trust abu huraira, ayesha, etc and bukhari and others who collected all these supposed sayings of the prophet?
So, what you are saying is by God telling us to follow the messenger, we are to grow a beard, open fast with dates, eat with our right hands, etc. And to trust people like abu huraira? Where exactly does God tell us to trust these people and to incorporate these supposed eye witnesses accounts as part of or integral to my faith and life?
If the Koran is not clear and sufficient and if you cannot trust God and his messengers, you can turn to whoever and whatever sources for guidance in your life and live your life the way you see fit. For me, the Koran is sufficient and clear and yes, redundant.
Brother/Sister justamuslim
Assalamu Alaikum.I respect your belief.
You are absolutely right in that Allah has not commanded us to idol worship the messenger.
But the topic here is something different. Whether to trust Aysha or Abu Huraira is a discussion to be made after it is decided whether to go for the practice of Muhammad (sm) at all. If the practice of Muhammad (sm) is necessary, then we can set for the debates, and researches to decide whom to trust. But if it is found out that NO, the practice of Muhammad (sm) to obey GOD's command is not at all important, then simply deduct that discussion from your valuable life. Why even bother about that?
But just remember. This decision is followed by some very important conclusion.
If the Quran is sufficient, fully detailed, clear, simple, and containing everything, then, this "follow messenger" command has no value. This command becomes redundant & unnecessary, and it is making many ayats of the Quarn hazy.
Moreover, it becomes also obvious that Allah is erroneously tagging his love and our guidance with this unnecessay command.Are you OK with this conclusion???
-
Brother/Sister justamuslim
Assalamu Alaikum.I respect your belief.
You are absolutely right in that Allah has not commanded us to idol worship the messenger.
But the topic here is something different. Whether to trust Aysha or Abu Huraira is a discussion to be made after it is decided whether to go for the practice of Muhammad (sm) at all. If the practice of Muhammad (sm) is necessary, then we can set for the debates, and researches to decide whom to trust. But if it is found out that NO, the practice of Muhammad (sm) to obey GOD's command is not at all important, then simply deduct that discussion from your valuable life. Why even bother about that?
But just remember. This decision is followed by some very important conclusion.
If the Quran is sufficient, fully detailed, clear, simple, and containing everything, then, this "follow messenger" command has no value. This command becomes redundant & unnecessary, and it is making many ayats of the Quarn hazy.
Moreover, it becomes also obvious that Allah is erroneously tagging his love and our guidance with this unnecessay command.Are you OK with this conclusion???
Everyone here is following the messenger to the letter , to the best possible, first command of the messenger, follow him while he was follwing th quran, do the math,
Messenger => Follow quran
Us , must follow =========> messengerConculsion US must follow ======== > bukhari, moslem, ibn maja, Nassai, abu dawud, Ahmed, Hanbel, Malik, Ulema Ijmaa, etc... ???
I'm not that good in math, but I can tell that the equation i just made is totally false
here is the correct equationMessenger => Follow quran
Us , must follow ==> messenger
conclusion ==> Us , must follow Quran -
Salaam,
However, you must have heard the word Ahl-Al Kitab. This Al-Kitab is not the Quran.
Yes, it is.
It means that not all Al-Kitab means Al-Quran.
Quran is 'recitation' and kitab is 'book'. You know perfectly well that they refer to the same thing. And you know just as well that kitab does not mean quran + actions of Prophets. If you think I'm annoyed, it is because I know you know this, but are deliberately creating contradictions in the quran precisely to make room for hadith.
22 This is the Book about which there is no doubt
I provided you with some links. Ignore my idea of "Al-Kitab". But if you could read those translations, you could have got some samples of different views regarding some "Al-Kitab"s.
Record, decree etc. are not translations of al kitab. Al kitab is The Book. You know that and so did the translators. But that's not the relevant point here. What is relevant is why you are resorting to equivocation. You know what al kitab is and it does not include actions of any Prophet.
1689 And We have sent down to you the Book as a clarification for all things, and a guidance and a mercy and good tidings to those who have submitted.
But you are not paying heed to one of most important clarifying ayat follow messenger. The book is of course a clarification for all the things. One of them is Salat. And the method of Salat is clarified when following the messenger.
If the method of salat was clarified by the Prophet, then it means he possessed details not present in the quran, which renders 638 wrong.
But, You just tell me one thing
Suppose I agree with you.
Forgive me, but I will decline this invitation until you concede all of my points. There can be no negotiation in regards to the truth and veracity of quran. Once you accept that by definition, and in practice, quran can have no contradictions we can tackle this issue of why the messenger is mentioned at all.
-
Everyone here is following the messenger to the letter , to the best possible, first command of the messenger, follow him while he was follwing th quran, do the math,
Messenger => Follow quran
Us , must follow =========> messengerConculsion US must follow ======== > bukhari, moslem, ibn maja, Nassai, abu dawud, Ahmed, Hanbel, Malik, Ulema Ijmaa, etc... ???
I'm not that good in math, but I can tell that the equation i just made is totally false
here is the correct equationMessenger => Follow quran
Us , must follow ==> messenger
conclusion ==> Us , must follow QuranBrother loxbox13
Very thoughtful comment.But the problem is that we are having the Quran, not the messenger. The GOD could easily express the same idea that "Follow Quran" simply by commanding "Follow Quran", or "Follow the message".
If the main target is to command the people to follow only the Quran, then why even bother to think whether the messenger at all followed the Quran or not???
If Allah really wanted us to follow only Quran, then Allah must have made it very complex by saying "Follow messenger".
And please try to understand
Whether to trust Aysha or Abu Huraira is a discussion to be made after it is decided whether to go for the practice of Muhammad (sm) at all. If the practice of Muhammad (sm) is necessary for us, then we can set for the debates, and researches to decide whom to trust. But if it is found out that NO, the practice of Muhammad (sm) to obey GOD's command is not at all important, then simply deduct that discussion from your valuable life. Why even bother about that? -
But the problem is that we are having the Quran, not the messenger. The GOD could easily express the same idea that "Follow Quran" simply by commanding"Follow Quran", or "Follow the message".
Even if the messenger is no longer with us, that equation is still true,If Allah really wanted us to follow only Quran, then Allah must have made it very complex by saying "Follow messenger".
Pray to god to show you the light, ask a question, what if we're right, What made it so difficult for you to see that we're following the messenger? is it because you feel the quran isn't prophet mohamed's words? but it's his book, allah sent it down on him, all the credit for a human beign is for mohamed, it's him who delievered the quran. Allah chose him, because it is not enaugh, you feel that prophet mohamed also has to have his own words? prophet mohamed relyed 100% on allah, he didn't need to send hadiths through time, he knew that god's word is more than enaugh"Follow messenger". for us is a very clear sentence, follow what the messenger brought u , and whathe taught u , the messenger taught us the quran, all verses are there, he didn't omit or cut or add anything to it. he was trusted with a message, and he delivered it perfectly, to the people , in a holy book, not in persians books or ahadiths or nawawi sacred books, none is sacred except the book of god brought to us by the messenger of god mohamed pbuh
-
Quran is 'recitation' and kitab is 'book'. You know perfectly well that they refer to the same thing. And you know just as well that kitab does not mean quran + actions of Prophets. If you think I'm annoyed, it is because I know you know this, but are deliberately creating contradictions in the quran precisely to make room for hadith.
Brother, Salam.
I am very sorry to say that I don't know that they refer to the same thing. What I perfectly know is that "Al-Kitab" in "Ahl-Al-Kitab" does not mean "Al-Quran".Record, decree etc. are not translations of al kitab. Al kitab is The Book. You know that and so did the translators. But that's not the relevant point here. What is relevant is why you are resorting to equivocation. You know what al kitab is and it does not include actions of any Prophet.
I have already clearly stated that not all "Al-Kitab"s have the One and Only meaning of "Al-Quran". And, yes, if Taorat, Injeel can be translation of "Al-Kitab", divine record, decree also can be possible translations of "Al-Kitab". I know that, and I think the translators also know that.
If the method of salat was clarified by the Prophet, then it means he possessed details not present in the quran, which renders 638 wrong.
Well, I have talked about it. There are translators according to whose translations, 638 has nothing to do with the Method of Salat or the Quran's containing everything. I cannot accept the translation of "Quran's containing everything" only because if I accept this meaning, then I am bound to make a conclusion which must not be true.
And that is
If the Quran is containing everything, then, this "follow messenger" command has no value. This command becomes redundant & unnecessary, and it is making many ayats of the Quarn hazy.
Moreover, it becomes also obvious that Allah is erroneously tagging his love and our guidance with this unnecessay command.Are you OK with this conclusion???
-
Pray to god to show you the light, ask a question, what if we're right, What made it so difficult for you to see that we're following the messenger?
Hey Brother, Why are you thinking about following the messenger? Why will be there the question of following a man? If you are ultimately targeted to follow the Quran, and actually you are following the Quran, then why there is a question of following a man who followed the Quran? Why even bother whether Muhammad (sm) himself really followed the Quran at all?
If you are now following the Quran, and if that be the ultimate target of Allah, then why did he put these ayats regarding following someone who also followed this Quran?
Don't you understand the question? Why Allah needed to command people to follow a man when there is a fully detailed Quran which is also clear and containing everything?
-
Dear Antibhondo,
Yes it was.
On the planet that I am from, God has not spoken to any human being since Moses. Therefore, the statement "obey God" without further qualification becomes an impractical statement "how can I obey God when He has not spoken directly to anyone" - the solution "obey the messenger" - therefore, the statement "whoever has obeyed the messenger has obeyed God" becomes crystal clear.
Regards,
Good argument, very wise, I never thaugh tof it this way , I always went simple, the mesenger gave us the quran to be obeyed, so we obey the message brought by the messsenger from god, therefore we obey god and his messenger
God and his messenger are to be obeyed in god's laws, and god's guidancebut I like the way you put it , very wise
thank you ! -
Hey Brother, Why are you thinking about following the messenger? Why will be there the question of following a man? If you are ultimately targeted to follow the Quran, and actually you are following the Quran, then why there is a question of following a man who followed the Quran? Why even bother whether Muhammad (sm) himself really followed the Quran at all?
If you are now following the Quran, and if that be the ultimate target of Allah, then why did he put these ayats regarding following someone who also followed this Quran?
Don't you understand the question? Why Allah needed to command people to follow a man when there is a fully detailed Quran which is also clear and containing everything?
U know something, find for me one verse that says Obey the prophet or follow the prophet
it's all about Mohamed the messenger of god and not mohamed the prophetMohamed the prophet we have to believe in him
Mohamed the messenger we have to follow him, and the best way to follow him, is to follow what he was following, and not what he wasn't following, because the messenger of god didn't follow hadiths other than the quran
Plain and simple
what happened brother? god sealed your mind so you cannot see it ? -
Hey Brother, Why are you thinking about following the messenger? Why will be there the question of following a man? If you are ultimately targeted to follow the Quran, and actually you are following the Quran, then why there is a question of following a man who followed the Quran? Why even bother whether Muhammad (sm) himself really followed the Quran at all?
If you are now following the Quran, and if that be the ultimate target of Allah, then why did he put these ayats regarding following someone who also followed this Quran?
Don't you understand the question? Why Allah needed to command people to follow a man when there is a fully detailed Quran which is also clear and containing everything?
Actually dude, let's make one thing clear.
Before there EVER was a quran on this earth, man figured out for himself what to do to live via ALLAH's guidelines. The quran's existence makes things easy, it is not the only way for seekers of truth. Actually I would go as far as to say that the quran is a book designed for ignorant stupid people to free themselves because they NEED it. Those people who ALLAH guides will find truth, quran or not, truth comes to one like moths to a lightbulb.
All of the notifications and warnings in the quran are already programmed into our own brains. The reason there is a quran is because humans are stupid enough to say that their egos are bigger than the creator of ALL, to deny truth when it is in front of their face. When you weigh out 60% for something you both paid 50% for, you KNOW you are doing wrong but you will lie to yourself to justify everything. You are decieving nobody but yourself.
But I know that you will not even see or hear this post, indeed it is perhaps invisible to you. Keep trolling the rest of free-minds with your useless discourse and when hell is placed before you, don't say I didn't tell you so.
