Ar'Reh'maan is the Personal Name of Allah, and NOT attributive name/description
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00003.%20Ar%20Rehman/2.gifcontd]
Ar'Reh'maan Personal Name of Allah
b) A slave/servant is referred/introduced/mentioned by the Personal Name of his Master and not by some attribute of Master
In the days of gradual revelation of Grand Qur'aan the rational people paid more attention to the substance and avoided indulging in discourses and discussions about grammar and morphology etc. And moreover such things are of interest and necessity for a non-native/non Arab. And the claim in the Grand Qur'aan is that it has been made easy for comprehension and understanding of humanity irrespective of language barrier. It is thus evident that even without knowing the depth and niceties of language, grammar and morphology etc one can grasp the substance and essence of the message merely by acquaintance of Arabic. Therefore, without delving deep into the debate spread over thousands of pages, we plainly keep asking the Grand Qur'aan to make us understand whether http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00003.%20Ar%20Rehman/2.gif is the Personal Name of our Sustainer Lord or is His Attributive Name reflecting His infinite mercifulness.
It is our common perception and approach that when we introduce or mention a slave/servant or subject we do not say, "he-so and so is slave or subject of "merciful ", "powerful " etc. On the contrary we refer the Personal Name of his master/Lord. Similarly the relationship between the Person and the thing is that of Creator and the created. Creator is the Lord ............
Continue
Ar'Reh'maan Personal Name of Allah-Part 2
-
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00003.%20Ar%20Rehman/2.gifcontd]
Ar'Reh'maan Personal Name of Allah
b) A slave/servant is referred/introduced/mentioned by the Personal Name of his Master and not by some attribute of Master
In the days of gradual revelation of Grand Qur'aan the rational people paid more attention to the substance and avoided indulging in discourses and discussions about grammar and morphology etc. And moreover such things are of interest and necessity for a non-native/non Arab. And the claim in the Grand Qur'aan is that it has been made easy for comprehension and understanding of humanity irrespective of language barrier. It is thus evident that even without knowing the depth and niceties of language, grammar and morphology etc one can grasp the substance and essence of the message merely by acquaintance of Arabic. Therefore, without delving deep into the debate spread over thousands of pages, we plainly keep asking the Grand Qur'aan to make us understand whether http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00003.%20Ar%20Rehman/2.gif is the Personal Name of our Sustainer Lord or is His Attributive Name reflecting His infinite mercifulness.
It is our common perception and approach that when we introduce or mention a slave/servant or subject we do not say, "he-so and so is slave or subject of "merciful ", "powerful " etc. On the contrary we refer the Personal Name of his master/Lord. Similarly the relationship between the Person and the thing is that of Creator and the created. Creator is the Lord ............
Continue
Ar'Reh'maan Personal Name of Allah-Part 2
Sorry for distorting the subject of your topic
thank you for the Link
I never noticed that servants are associated only to the names Allah or Arrahman and no other name or attribute -
Prince
Allah sent messages in different languages, but the this the LAST one was in Arabic therefore Allah preferred it over other languages.Salaam Raaajah.
Going by your logic - the arabic language is preferred by Allah because his LAST message is in arabic. What about the FIRST messages language.....surely the language chosen by Allah back then wasn't a mistake by Him for which He then chose arabic as his last preferred language. Your not giving Allah due credit....he is faultless which I'm sure you believe but just pointing out mistakes in your thinking.
So did Allah or Al Rahman use the exact name throughout history in different languages?? Very unlikely in my opinion unless there's evidence to the contrary.
PEACE
-
Going by your logic - the arabic language is preferred by Allah because his LAST message is in arabic. What about the FIRST messages language
May I attempt to attend it.
All Messengers, respects and salutations are upon them, but Mohammad , were sent to a particular group of people/nation in the language they people spoke. Since the Last Messenger Mohammad is for the entire humanity, speaking hundreds of different languages, and his language has been selected for universal communication, the obvious conclusion is that of preference and superiority over regional languages.
-
If you follow Alrahman, (thanks to loxbox13 to bring verses in reply #16) you see it connected to Ahl AlKetab specially Christian 1925-26.
Alrahman is a common name for God on that days.Rather to Jews, Bani Israel in fact, since "christianity" had not taken "birth" at that point in time referred in 1925-26.
-
Just to add my 2 cents
Allah/The God whatever you call Him created all languages. I don't see the fascination of using arabic names/attributes when speaking about God especially if your native language isn't arabic.
The God tells us He has sent the message in different languages....it wouldn't make sense for God to favour ONE language over another. Language is a tool to deliver the message to us....He is above and beyond names peace
PEACE
I don't think he favored any language, I believe his name was always Rahman, even egyptians called him AmonRa , it sounds more like Rahman from right to left, they might have Latisised it , so they read it from left to right
I am no sure about this subject, but they call AmonRa the creator of all things. the egyptian history in in the hands of the british and there is no way to access for all the secrets there, history of Islam is there, the statues of Solomon are there, we can see them everyday , in pictures, and they gave us a story that Egyptians were pagans, even Frerao is a single person, they call all egyptians Feraos . weird don't u think so ? why is al the world so afraid for Egypt ? for Israel ? I don't think so . iit's for acheology and history of mankind, they don't call Egypt the mother of the world for nothing. History was made by messengers and not by pagans, most Egyptian kings were the messengers of Allah we read about in the quran, they did the magic, throw us to palestine and jerusalem, so we keep digging and digging , while they kidnapped the true Islamic history, from Abraham to mohamed passed by all messengers. they say, change history, you can change the future, who can say they didn't change the history of mankind ? where are the places that solomon and David built ? solomon had a kingdom that none can has after him, so how come egypt is there and solomon there is not even a single piece of evidence that he existed ?When You think, you come to one conclusion, Or solomon and david and mose and Isa and Abraham, never existed, or it's them who mark history and leave traces behind for they were guided by god to lead mankind to developement and civilisation.
we only get pictures of bedouins from them on TV, from Abraham to Mohamed, even their favorite one Jesus, they give him an image of an Imam mystique and not a leader civilised
look at the history of prophet emohamed , al we have is a tomb, with no proof at all, he didn't leave even a single house, like he didn't do nothing, all what we read in the quran , all that debates with the children of Israel, and all that battles, and creating a parliement and all, and we don't even see a masjid built by him? we see a modern mosque in Medina and they say it was originally his house and they expant it. weirdwedon't know god's real name through history is ecause we can't see , it's in front of us in the quran, and no one knows for a 1000 years, so who say that nations before didn't call him Rahman, no matter what language they spoke ?
-
Prince
Salaam Raaajah.
Going by your logic - the arabic language is preferred by Allah because his LAST message is in arabic. What about the FIRST messages language.....surely the language chosen by Allah back then wasn't a mistake by Him for which He then chose arabic as his last preferred language. Your not giving Allah due credit....he is faultless which I'm sure you believe but just pointing out mistakes in your thinking.
Salaam to you too
I think Mazhar sahib has already explained it
May I attempt to attend it.
All Messengers, respects and salutations are upon them, but Mohammad , were sent to a particular group of people/nation in the language they people spoke. Since the Last Messenger Mohammad is for the entire humanity, speaking hundreds of different languages, and his language has been selected for universal communication, the obvious conclusion is that of preference and superiority over regional languages.I don't find my self able to add any thing to what MAzhar says most of the time, but I would like to quote the following Ayat
"Say "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support. (178"This Challenge of Allah says it all! but we should have an eye guided by mind for that.
-
Peace all,
In my opinion, "khalaqa" in the language of the scripture does not mean "to create", although this word is mostly tranlated this way. I believe that the meaning is more related to the "change in physiognomy, form or the framework" not the act of "creation".
"khalaqa" is used in the context of "making something from another thing", while "creation" carry a meaning of "making something from nothing" which is solely in the power of the god the creator, "be and it is becoming". Thus, the creator in the language of the scripture is "ar-rahma'ne", and this attribute never refers to anyone but the god.
2314
--
This is from http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10045.msg48489#msg48489 on the difference between al-kitab and alquran.
-
Peace all,
In my opinion, "khalaqa" in the language of the scripture does not mean "to create", although this word is mostly tranlated this way. I believe that the meaning is more related to the "change in physiognomy, form or the framework" not the act of "creation".
"khalaqa" is used in the context of "making something from another thing", while "creation" carry a meaning of "making something from nothing" which is solely in the power of the god the creator, "be and it is becoming". Thus, the creator in the language of the scripture is "ar-rahma'ne", and this attribute never refers to anyone but the god.
2314
--
This is from http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10045.msg48489#msg48489 on the difference between al-kitab and alquran.
Many translators , translate khalaqa to Fashioned
they say Create is Badii'a or FatirThe Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is 2117
Say Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. (14) Say I fear, if I rebel against my Lord, the retribution of an Awful Day 615
= Badii'a
= FatirNotice and , looks different words in arabic but translate to the same word, I odon't know if the translation is 100% correct, but because they give to Khaliq = creator, so they gave to these words that sounds like create from neothing = Badii or Fatir
They trnslated a proper name, Rahman, how to trust them that they know what they doing when translating ? influence of zoroastrians covered everythjing
Allah knows best.
-
It's kind of hard to pin down the argument in this thread. It looks like some are saying that Ar-Rahman is the greatest name while all other names are merely attributes/descriptions.
Some are saying two names are the greatest Allah and Ar-Rahman, and then others are saying that all His names are beautiful and so are equally great.
I think we may rightly form a metaphysical hierarchy of names.
- Allah - the absolute, beyond relativity, transcendent
- Ar-Rahman - first descent into manifestation, creative being, projection of grace/power
- Ar-Rabb - primary relationship to the cosmos, sustainer, commander and judge
- all the other 96 or so divine attributes/characteristics which may also be used as names
Lets keep in mind how important and powerful sura #112 is doctrinally, and it never mentions Ar-Rahman.
Say He is Allah alone. (i.e. not He is Ar-Rahman alone)
So I will hold to the belief that Allah is the greatest name, while Ar-Rahman is the greatest attribute, greatest because closest to His fundamental nature infinitely, continuously, the Most Gracious.
Allahu Akbar!
aside Christians are so fond of quoting their scripture that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and it makes me sick. http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+29-11&version=NIV
-
It's kind of hard to pin down the argument in this thread. It looks like some are saying that Ar-Rahman is the greatest name while all other names are merely attributes/descriptions.
Some are saying two names are the greatest Allah and Ar-Rahman, and then others are saying that all His names are beautiful and so are equally great.
I think we may rightly form a metaphysical hierarchy of names.
- Allah - the absolute, beyond relativity, transcendent
- Ar-Rahman - first descent into manifestation, creative being, projection of grace/power
- Ar-Rabb - primary relationship to the cosmos, sustainer, commander and judge
- all the other 96 or so divine attributes/characteristics which may also be used as names
Lets keep in mind how important and powerful sura #112 is doctrinally, and it never mentions Ar-Rahman.
Say He is Allah alone. (i.e. not He is Ar-Rahman alone)
So I will hold to the belief that Allah is the greatest name, while Ar-Rahman is the greatest attribute, greatest because closest to His fundamental nature infinitely, continuously, the Most Gracious.
Allahu Akbar!
aside Christians are so fond of quoting their scripture that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and it makes me sick. http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+29-11&version=NIV
Say He is Allah alone. (i.e. not He is Ar-Rahman alone)
who's the He that is allah alone? the He is personel , define a beign or a person . why wasn't it say Allah is Allah alone ?
that is beaucase the He is the one who has a special name that we shall know.
allah knows best -
Salaam all,
Many translators , translate khalaqa to Fashioned
they say Create is Badii'a or FatirThe Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is 2117
Say Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. (14) Say I fear, if I rebel against my Lord, the retribution of an Awful Day 615
= Badii'a
= FatirNotice and , looks different words in arabic but translate to the same word, I odon't know if the translation is 100% correct, but because they give to Khaliq = creator, so they gave to these words that sounds like create from neothing = Badii or Fatir
They trnslated a proper name, Rahman, how to trust them that they know what they doing when translating ? influence of zoroastrians covered everythjing
Allah knows best.
I believe
Badi = Start
Fatir = Construction
Khalaq = BirthPlease correct me if you find me wrong.
May Allah guide us all towards the truth pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
I believe
Badi = Start
Fatir = Construction
Khalaq = BirthPlease correct me if you find me wrong.
This is correct only when the word "birth" is used with the perception of origin, beginning or formation of something.
The process of "creation" has a beginning and actualization, i.e. surfacing of the thing in tangible form.
-
The servants of Ar Rahman
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
The servants of the AlRahman are they who walk upon the earth modestly, and when the foolish ones address them answer Peace; (63) And who spend the night before their Lord, prostrate and standing, (64) And who say Our Lord! Avert from us the doom of hell; lo! the doom thereof is anguish; (65) Lo! it is wretched as abode and station; (66) And those who, when they spend, are neither prodigal nor grudging; and there is ever a firm station between the two; (67) And those who cry not unto any other god along with Allah, nor take the life which Allah hath forbidden save in (course of) justice, nor commit adultery - and whoso doeth this shall pay the penalty; (6 The doom will be doubled for him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein disdained for ever; (69) Save him who repenteth and believeth and doth righteous work; as for such, Allah will change their evil deeds to good deeds. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (70) And whosoever repenteth and doeth good, he verily repenteth toward Allah with true repentance - (71) And those who will not witness vanity, but when they pass near senseless play, pass by with dignity. (72) And those who, when they are reminded of the revelations of their Lord, fall not deaf and blind thereat. (73) And who say Our Lord! Vouchsafe us comfort of our wives and of our offspring, and make us patterns for (all) those who ward off (evil). (74) They will be awarded the high place forasmuch as they were steadfast, and they will meet therein with welcome and the ward of peace, (75) Abiding there for ever. Happy is it as abode and station! (76) Say (O Muhammad, unto the disbelievers) My Lord would not concern Himself with you but for your prayer. But now ye have denied (the Truth), therefor there will be judgment. (77) sourah25
When read all this, AlRahman is the personel name and the major attribute
-
Peace be upon you
If "Al Rahman" is the personal name of Allah , then why did every prophet and messenger mentioned in AQ addressed Allah in their prayers as either Our Lord or My Lord ? Could that be that all those chosen messengers were ignorant of this new revelation ? From my reading of AQ , every prophet/messenger addressed/called Allah with the words Rabbana or Rabbi which I understand to mean "our lord" and "my lord" respectively .
Peace
almarh0m
-
Peace be upon you
If "Al Rahman" is the personal name of Allah , then why did every prophet and messenger mentioned in AQ addressed Allah in their prayers as either Our Lord or My Lord ? Could that be that all those chosen messengers were ignorant of this new revelation ? From my reading of AQ , every prophet/messenger addressed/called Allah with the words Rabbana or Rabbi which I understand to mean "our lord" and "my lord" respectively .
Peace
almarh0m
-
Assigning for God such personal names is not a good thing. Only creatures can be assigned by personal names, because of there are many many of them. We need for personal names due to pointing an exact creature rather than other one. But Creator is not like that. If you confirm that if there is no god besides The God, assigning such names makes no sense at all. This is very basic logical rule.
Human races were call Him similar names like "The God", "The Creator" "My Lord", "Almighty", etc. with corresponding ones in their languages and cultures. Existence of God is independent from all phonetics, languages and cultures.
Peace.