Is a prophet just a normal person/human being or is he a 'super-human being' ?
-
Why so evasive talk. Simply attend to five words and say about those as to how are they related to each other to know what they convey, acccording to your "untwisted" understanding.
Brother I have already answered your points many times over. Your translation is a failed attempt to make Muhammad the last messenger of God when this is not the case. Nabi and Rasool are two separate words and two different ideas which is what I have been trying to show to you.
Nabi means prophet NOT MESSENGER.
RASOOL means messenger NOT PROPHET.
Even in some of the sunni translations this is the case!!! Who are you really trying to fool brother??? Do you know that you are only fooling yourself???
If you want to act stubborn and pretend like you don't see it then that is your own business. To you is your way and to me is mine.
Peace,
Kevin
-
As I said before all prophets are messengers, but not every messenger is a prophet. If you exam the Quran more carefully you will find out that the difference between a messenger and a prophet is that a prophet brings scripture(an en-lighting book) whilst a messenger who isn't a prophet brings a message (from which he has authorization from God to do so) but no scripture. That is the difference between a messenger and a prophet.
I believe that this link will explain more http//www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/prophet_and_messenger_(P1161).html
Please note that I do not agree everything that is on this site. However in this topic I agree 100% with what they say.
Peace,
Kevin
Salaam Kevin,
I don't agree completely with you and with the link you gave.
qoute from the link In 1954, Ismail is described with the same words, "Rasoulan Nabyyan".
The reason is that, not every Rasoul (Messenger) is a Nabi (Prophet), but every Prophet (Nabi) is a Messenger (Rasoul), so God defined the word Rasoul by adding to it "Nabyya".The blue part is I believe an illogical assumption. Their logic is like this not every tv is a Sony but every Sony is a tv and that is not correct.
I believe that in "Rasoulan Nabyyan" Rassoulan only says something about Nabie and not that every Nabi is a Rasoul.
They even putted these examples "Basharan Rasoula" (a human messenger) and "Malakan Rasoula" (an angel messenger). Here you already can see that not every rasoul is a Bashar.
Also please read 1917-19 the rasoul there is not a Bashar and not an Malaika but Ruh.
There a a lot more examples in The Quran.Also in a post after this you said that Lot and Jonah are not nabi's, I believe that is not correct, please read 683-89
and for Salih and Hud i'm not 100% sure but I believe that they were also nabi as per 794 (please read the verses before where both Salih and Hud are mentioned)besides this I really enjoy reading your posts
salaam,
Bender -
Salaam Kevin,
I don't agree completely with you and with the link you gave.
qoute from the link In 1954, Ismail is described with the same words, "Rasoulan Nabyyan".
The reason is that, not every Rasoul (Messenger) is a Nabi (Prophet), but every Prophet (Nabi) is a Messenger (Rasoul), so God defined the word Rasoul by adding to it "Nabyya".The blue part is I believe an illogical assumption. Their logic is like this not every tv is a Sony but every Sony is a tv and that is not correct.
I believe that in "Rasoulan Nabyyan" Rassoulan only says something about Nabie and not that every Nabi is a Rasoul.No. Think of it like this. Is every woman a mother??? No of course not. But every mother is woman right? The concept is very simple to grasp. The easiest and most obvious clue in the Quran that Messengers and Prophets have a clear distinction is in Sura 381 and Sura 337
381 God took a covenant from the prophets(Nabis) "For what I have given you of the book and wisdom, then a messenger(Rasoul) will come to you authenticating what is with you. You will acknowledge him and support him." He said, "Do you testify, and agree to this burden?" they said, "We testify." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you bearing witness."
337 When We took from the prophets their covenant. From you, and from Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We took from them a strong covenant.
Since Muhammad took the same covenant as all the prophets he himself was expecting a messenger to appear after his demise. If you disagree with this claim then you also do not agree that Muhammad was a Prophet since Sura 381 clearly say "God took a covenant from the prophets" . Muhammad was also a prophet.
Also in a post after this you said that Lot and Jonah are not nabi's, I believe that is not correct, please read 683-89
and for Salih and Hud i'm not 100% sure but I believe that they were also nabi as per 794 (please read the verses before where both Salih and Hud are mentioned)besides this I really enjoy reading your posts )
salaam,
BenderIt appears you may be right about Jonah.
4163 We have inspired you as We have inspired Noah and the prophets after him. We inspired Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and Jesus, and Job, and Jonah, and Aaron, and Solomon; and We have given David the Psalms.
I checked through some verses again and it appears I was most likely wrong when I said that Jonah was a messenger and not a prophet. From the above verse it is clear that he was probably a prophet who bought scripture to his people.
However Lot in the Sura 683-89 wasn't clearly specified as a Prophet or a Messenger. This will be an assumption on your part and not 100% factual.
Regarding Sura 794, the verses before were for Prophet Shu`aib of Midian and not Saleh or Hud.
785 To Midian, their brother Shuayb, he said, "My people, serve God, you have no god besides Him. Proof has come to you from your Lord, so give full weight and measure, and do not hold back from the people what belongs to them, and do not make mischief on the earth after it has been reformed. That is better for you if you acknowledge."
............ read till Sura 794
Peace,
Kevin
-
Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 031849 PM
Why so evasive talk. Simply attend to five words and say about those as to how are they related to each other to know what they convey, acccording to your "untwisted" understanding.Brother I have already answered your points many times over. Your translation is a failed attempt to make Muhammad the last messenger of God when this is not the case. Nabi and Rasool are two separate words and two different ideas which is what I have been trying to show to you.
Nabi means prophet NOT MESSENGER.
RASOOL means messenger NOT PROPHET.
Even in some of the sunni translations this is the case!!! Who are you really trying to fool brother??? Do you know that you are only fooling yourself???
Why not you confess that you do not understand the relationship of words in an Arabic sentence instead of circling on one theme.
You know only dictionary meanings of individual words and thereby draw all sorts of inferences which are basically of what people on this form call sunni conjectural traditions.Had you known why the words Rasul is in accusative and also the word/active participle Khatama in accusative state, you might have known what the above five words convey.
Unless you describe five words in the sentence, how can you say that I have twisted the sentence in my translation. Why you befool yourself? -
Nabi means prophet NOT MESSENGER.
RASOOL means messenger NOT PROPHET.
Do you even know what is the description of Arabic words "Nabi" and "Rasul"? Are they proper noun, generic noun, adjective, adjective resembling participle, active participle, passive participle, heperbolic noun, comparative noun? Unless you know what type of word is that, how could you perceive the proper meanings and their relationship with each other?
-
No. Think of it like this. Is every woman a mother??? No of course not. But every mother is woman right? The concept is very simple to grasp. The easiest and most obvious clue in the Quran that Messengers and Prophets have a clear distinction is in Sura 381 and Sura 337
Salaam Kevin,
I agree that there is a distinction between a messenger and a prophet but I don?t agree with the evidence that they give that every prophet is a messenger. Their proof is based on their assumption that in constructions like ?Rasoulan Nabyyan? the first word is like some ?proper subset? of the second word and that is simply not correct. I already gave you an example for this which you maybe didn?t see, but I like to give you some other examples from The Quran were this logic doesn?t hold.
First I want to correct my self, I saw that in my previous post I made a mistake. I wrote this I believe that in "Rasoulan Nabyyan" Rassoulan only says something about Nabie and not that every Nabi is a Rasoul.
Sorry, I meant to say this I believe that in "Rasoulan Nabyyan" Nabyyan only says something about Rasoul and not that every Nabi is a Rasoul.To illustrate this please see these examples which have the same construction
1951 Waothkur fee alkitabi moosa innahu kana mukhlasan wakana rasoolan nabiyyan
42 Waatoo alyatama amwalahum wala tatabaddaloo alkhabeetha bialttayyibi wala takuloo amwalahum ila amwalikum innahu kana hooban kabeeran
37101 Fabashsharnahu bighulamin haleemin
351 Inna Allaha rabbee warabbukum faoAAbudoohu hatha siratun mustaqeemunThus if you still think that every nabi is also a rasoul then you must also believe that everything what is big is a sin OR everything what is gentle is a son OR everything what is straight is a path etc etc etc there are really tons of examples.
381 God took a covenant from the prophets(Nabis) "For what I have given you of the book and wisdom, then a messenger(Rasoul) will come to you authenticating what is with you. You will acknowledge him and support him." He said, "Do you testify, and agree to this burden?" they said, "We testify." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you bearing witness."
337 When We took from the prophets their covenant. From you, and from Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We took from them a strong covenant.
Since Muhammad took the same covenant as all the prophets he himself was expecting a messenger to appear after his demise. If you disagree with this claim then you also do not agree that Muhammad was a Prophet since Sura 381 clearly say "God took a covenant from the prophets" . Muhammad was also a prophet.
I don?t exactly know what this has to do with what I posted.
But I believe that Muhammed was a prophet and a messenger of Allah as per 3340
I don?t really understand the highlighted part, do you mean after his death there will be a messenger in which he (Muhammed) must believe and support?However Lot in the Sura 683-89 wasn't clearly specified as a Prophet or a Messenger. This will be an assumption on your part and not 100% factual.
689 Those are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophethood. But if these disbelieve therein, then indeed We shall entrust it to a people who will not be disbelievers therein.
I believe that this verse is referring to the people mentioned in 683-88 and one of those people is mentioned in 683-88 is Lot. If you believe that 689 is referring to some other people please share your thoughts.
Regarding Sura 794, the verses before were for Prophet Shu`aib of Midian and not Saleh or Hud.
785 To Midian, their brother Shuayb, he said, "My people, serve God, you have no god besides Him. Proof has come to you from your Lord, so give full weight and measure, and do not hold back from the people what belongs to them, and do not make mischief on the earth after it has been reformed. That is better for you if you acknowledge."
............ read till Sura 794
Peace,
Kevin
Please read from 759
Salaam and may Allah increase us in our knowledge.
Bender -
Salaam Kevin,
I agree that there is a distinction between a messenger and a prophet but I don?t agree with the evidence that they give that every prophet is a messenger. Their proof is based on their assumption that in constructions like ?Rasoulan Nabyyan? the first word is like some ?proper subset? of the second word and that is simply not correct. I already gave you an example for this which you maybe didn?t see, but I like to give you some other examples from The Quran were this logic doesn?t hold.
First I want to correct my self, I saw that in my previous post I made a mistake. I wrote this I believe that in "Rasoulan Nabyyan" Rassoulan only says something about Nabie and not that every Nabi is a Rasoul.
Sorry, I meant to say this I believe that in "Rasoulan Nabyyan" Nabyyan only says something about Rasoul and not that every Nabi is a Rasoul.To illustrate this please see these examples which have the same construction
1951 Waothkur fee alkitabi moosa innahu kana mukhlasan wakana rasoolan nabiyyan
42 Waatoo alyatama amwalahum wala tatabaddaloo alkhabeetha bialttayyibi wala takuloo amwalahum ila amwalikum innahu kana hooban kabeeran
37101 Fabashsharnahu bighulamin haleemin
351 Inna Allaha rabbee warabbukum faoAAbudoohu hatha siratun mustaqeemunThus if you still think that every nabi is also a rasoul then you must also believe that everything what is big is a sin OR everything what is gentle is a son OR everything what is straight is a path etc etc etc there are really tons of examples.
I don't understand your concept. What do you mean that "not every Nabi is a Rasool" ??? To me that doesn't make any sense at all since whether you be a prophet or a messenger you still are delivering a message. Both prophets and messengers deliver a message so both are messengers.
Look at Muhammad for example...
3340 Muhammad was not the father of any man among you, but he was the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. God is fully aware of all things.
Muhammad was describe as the seal (or the last of the prophets) and a messenger of God.
I believe that all prophet-hood have the same trait. You cannot be a prophet and not be a messenger. It doesn't make any sense since all prophets bring messages. This is a fact that is found in the Quran.
I don?t exactly know what this has to do with what I posted.
But I believe that Muhammed was a prophet and a messenger of Allah as per 3340
I don?t really understand the highlighted part, do you mean after his death there will be a messenger in which he (Muhammed) must believe and support?Regarding Sura 381 and Sura 337 These verses are self explanatory.
381 God took a covenant from the prophets "For what I have given you of the book and wisdom, then a messenger will come to you authenticating what is with you. You will acknowledge him and support him." He said, "Do you testify, and agree to this burden?" they said, "We testify." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you bearing witness."
337 When We took from the prophets their covenant. From you, and from Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We took from them a strong covenant.
Isn't Muhammad a prophet??? Didn't Sura 381 say that "God took a covenant from the prophets "???? Also look at Sura 337 " Muhammad took a covenant with the prophets. So obviously by examining the two verses we see that they are similar in nature. It is quite clear that a messenger was suppose to come after Muhammad to authenticate what he brought (the Quran)
689 Those are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophethood. But if these disbelieve therein, then indeed We shall entrust it to a people who will not be disbelievers therein.
I believe that this verse is referring to the people mentioned in 683-88 and one of those people is mentioned in 683-88 is Lot. If you believe that 689 is referring to some other people please share your thoughts.
Sura 683-89 doesn't specified who was given prophethood and who was given messenger ship only.
689 Those to whom We have given the book, the law, and the prophethood, if they reject it, then We will entrust it to a people who will not reject it.
The law is universal. This law could perhaps be the basics of monotheism which is Worship God and God alone and do not associate beings/partners with him. So basically God can be talking about BOTH MESSENGERS AND PROPHETS. We can't say for sure since no one is highlighted specifically as such.
Regarding the issue with Saleh and Hud. If you read from Sura 759 - 101
7101 These are the towns whose stories We relate to you; their messengers had come to them with proofs, but they would not acknowledge what they had denied before. It is such that God stamps on the hearts of the ingrates.
So basically the entire list of people mentioned, Lot, Noah, Saleh , Hud ,Shuayb among these verses are vaguely described as prophets and then as messengers. But then again the problem arises who is which??? It appears that I was too quick to classify Shuayb as a prophet.
For example if I say "In the crowd of people there are Republicans and Democrats" who can clearly specify who belongs to which party ????Peace,
Kevin
-
Sorry, I meant to say this I believe that in "Rasoulan Nabyyan" Nabyyan only says something about Rasoul and not that every Nabi is a Rasoul.
The Noun of deficient verb is the hidden/built in pronoun referring back to Musa alahissalam. The predicate of Kana is the Adjectival Phrase. is the , the one who is portrayed, is likewise the is accusative, singular, masculine, indefinite, which is his adjectival portrayal-. Even otherwise, when we describe the past, we mention the fact of the near past in time line followed by the fact of distant past.
In time line-his position is a fact of nearer past and his selection, choosing, elevation as is earlier fact than he being appointed as Messenger and sent to pharaoh etc.
The appointment as Messenger towards people happens only when the Nabi has become a grown up man, while he is Nabi since milk sucking infancy.
Only MEN were sent as Messengers of Allah, the Exalted.is Adjective resembling participle which can be used both as active participle and passive participle in a sentence. The Adjective resembling participle or termed as Verbal Adjective is a noun in order to signify the one who establishes an action with the meaning of permanence. A Nabi is the Nabi for ever since his selection by Allah, the Exalted.
Selection and elevation always precedes appointing someone to act as messenger. Just compare it with our own normal system of appointments on higher positions. Selection precedes appointment.
The Messenger of Allah is ONLY he who is Nabi in time line prior to pronouncement/making it public by appointing him as Messenger.
-
Let one risk himself whoever wishes to equate himself with those Elevated and Chosen Ones.
There is something I serisouly dislike about you, and many hadithists. And that is that you are demeaning to other humans, claiming superiority of certain individuals. As if others are just trash compared.
"The Godconscious is the best people". This is stated in various ways in the Quran. Search for "the best" if you will.
You, and these people, need to hammer this statement into your head (If there is a mind there that is being used. The disbelievers, as we know from the quran, has eyes ears and minds they do not use)
Stop putting down believers.
-
And satan is a babbling idiot. Ofcourse that is what i becomes, when he tries to resolve a false faith that cannot be resolved. Your own exaggarated translations looks very much like babble.
-
There is something I serisouly dislike about you, and many hadithists. And that is that you are demeaning to other humans, claiming superiority of certain individuals. As if others are just trash compared.
"The Godconscious is the best people". This is stated in various ways in the Quran. Search for "the best" if you will.
You, and these people, need to hammer this statement into your head (If there is a mind there that is being used. The disbelievers, as we know from the quran, has eyes ears and minds they do not use)
Stop putting down believers.
Quote from Mazhar on December 06, 2011, 093815 AM
Let one risk himself whoever wishes to equate himself with those Elevated and Chosen Ones.What to think of equating with those rather Highly Elevated, distincted ones, people cannot be eqated with many believers of those days
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/057.%20Al%20Hadid/Temp%2001%2057.10b.gif
Any such person does not and will never equal/equate with any one from amongst you, the living people, who had spent before the event of the Conquest and/or anyone who had confronted war.Classification of the Believers
Some translations
057.010
YUSUFALI And what cause have ye why ye should not spend in the cause of Allah?- For to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth. Not equal among you are those who spent (freely) and fought, before the Victory, (with those who did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has Allah promised a goodly (reward). And Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do.
PICKTHAL And what aileth you that ye spend not in the way of Allah when unto Allah belongeth the inheritance of the heavens and the earth? Those who spent and fought before the victory are not upon a level (with the rest of you). Such are greater in rank than those who spent and fought afterwards. Unto each hath Allah promised good. And Allah is Informed of what ye do.
SHAKIR And what reason have you that you should not spend in Allah's way? And Allah's is the inheritance of the heavens and the earth, not alike among you are those who spent before the victory and fought (and those who did not) they are more exalted in rank than those who spent and fought afterwards; and Allah has promised good to all; and Allah is Aware of what you do.Iblees never accepts the exalted status granted by Allah to Adam. These days his brothers do not accept exalted status granted by Allah to some.
-
You are a hypocrite and have no idea what you are talking about. You belong with the lowest of trash in hell.
-
I don't understand your concept. What do you mean that "not every Nabi is a Rasool" ??? To me that doesn't make any sense at all since whether you be a prophet or a messenger you still are delivering a message. Both prophets and messengers deliver a message so both are messengers.
Salaam Kevin,
Sorry, I don?t know how to rephrase it better. But I will give it an other try.
here are the examples of the link you gave
"Rasoulan Nabyyan"
?Siddiqqan Nabyya?
?Basharan Rasoula?Thus according to them every prophet is a messenger, every prophet is a saint and every messenger is a human.
But we know from The Quran that not every messenger is a human, there are also messengers that are not humans. An angel can be a messenger and The Ruh is also a messenger. And an angel and The Ruh are not humans. Thus from my understanding this is not a proof that every prophet is a messenger, there might be some prophets whom are not messengers in the same way that not every messenger is a human.In the link you gave they even mentioned ?Malakan Rasoula? (angel messenger) but in this example they didn?t say that every messenger is an angel hmm
I hope you understand now what I?m trying to say.Just to make it more clear, from my understanding the beginning of verse 1958 is referring to the prophets mentioned from the first verse of chapter 19 till verse 57. Meryem is also mentioned in 191-57 thus I believe she is included in the list of the prophets but she can never be a messenger because there are only male messengers. Another example is Idries, he was a prophet but as far as I know he was not a messenger according to The Quran.
Look at Muhammad for example...
3340 Muhammad was not the father of any man among you, but he was the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. God is fully aware of all things.
Muhammad was describe as the seal (or the last of the prophets) and a messenger of God.
I believe that all prophet-hood have the same trait. You cannot be a prophet and not be a messenger. It doesn't make any sense since all prophets bring messages. This is a fact that is found in the Quran.
I couldn't find this fact in The Quran.
Regarding Sura 381 and Sura 337 These verses are self explanatory.
381 God took a covenant from the prophets "For what I have given you of the book and wisdom, then a messenger will come to you authenticating what is with you. You will acknowledge him and support him." He said, "Do you testify, and agree to this burden?" they said, "We testify." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you bearing witness."
337 When We took from the prophets their covenant. From you, and from Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We took from them a strong covenant.
Isn't Muhammad a prophet??? Didn't Sura 381 say that "God took a covenant from the prophets "???? Also look at Sura 337 " Muhammad took a covenant with the prophets. So obviously by examining the two verses we see that they are similar in nature. It is quite clear that a messenger was suppose to come after Muhammad to authenticate what he brought (the Quran)
I think that I already clearly said that Mohammed was also a prophet so I don?t understand why you still pretend that I didn?t say that. Please see my previous post to you, maybe it?s not the best English but I think I made my self clear that I believe that Mohammed was a prophet and a messenger of Allah.
What I don?t understand is why you say AFTER Mohammed. How can Mohammed believe and support this messenger after his death. My understanding of 381 is that there will come a messenger to every prophet including Mohammed. Mohammed had also to believe and support this messenger. Thus not after Mohammed died but while he was still alive, because how could he ever support such a messenger if he is already dead? This is the thing that I don't understand.
I know that some believe that Mohammed was this messenger who is mentioned in 381 but I don't think that is correct for the same reasons as you already pointed out, because he was also a prophet.
And I know that some believe that Rashad Khalifa (or someone else after Mohammed died) was this messenger, but that is to my understanding also not correct because if Rashad Khalifa was this messenger mentioned in 381 then there must be while Rashad Khalifa was alive some prophet (thus with a book and hikma) who had to believe and support Rashad Khalifa. To my knowledge there was no prophet while Rashad Khalifa was alive.
I hope I made myself clear now.
Sura 683-89 doesn't specified who was given prophethood and who was given messenger ship only.
689 Those to whom We have given the book, the law, and the prophethood, if they reject it, then We will entrust it to a people who will not reject it.
hmm Where do you see messengership in 689? I only see prophethood.
Regarding the issue with Saleh and Hud. If you read from Sura 759 - 101
7101 These are the towns whose stories We relate to you; their messengers had come to them with proofs, but they would not acknowledge what they had denied before. It is such that God stamps on the hearts of the ingrates.
So basically the entire list of people mentioned, Lot, Noah, Saleh , Hud ,Shuayb among these verses are vaguely described as prophets and then as messengers. But then again the problem arises who is which??? It appears that I was too quick to classify Shuayb as a prophet.
For example if I say "In the crowd of people there are Republicans and Democrats" who can clearly specify who belongs to which party ????Why vague?
Al those messengers you named where send to a town and from 794 we learn that ?And We sent no prophet unto any township but We did afflict its folk with tribulation and adversity that haply they might grow humble.?Peace,
Kevin
salaam and may Allah increase us in our knowledge
Bender -
The Noun of deficient verb is the hidden/built in pronoun referring back to Musa alahissalam. The predicate of Kana is the Adjectival Phrase. is the , the one who is portrayed, is likewise the is accusative, singular, masculine, indefinite, which is his adjectival portrayal-. Even otherwise, when we describe the past, we mention the fact of the near past in time line followed by the fact of distant past.
In time line-his position is a fact of nearer past and his selection, choosing, elevation as is earlier fact than he being appointed as Messenger and sent to pharaoh etc.
The appointment as Messenger towards people happens only when the Nabi has become a grown up man, while he is Nabi since milk sucking infancy.
Only MEN were sent as Messengers of Allah, the Exalted.is Adjective resembling participle which can be used both as active participle and passive participle in a sentence. The Adjective resembling participle or termed as Verbal Adjective is a noun in order to signify the one who establishes an action with the meaning of permanence. A Nabi is the Nabi for ever since his selection by Allah, the Exalted.
Selection and elevation always precedes appointing someone to act as messenger. Just compare it with our own normal system of appointments on higher positions. Selection precedes appointment.
Salaam Mazhar,
Thank you for this lesson in Arabic grammar. It took me half an hour to understand a little bit what you are saying. I have zero knowledge of Arabic grammar and my English is very poor so I had to translate this first into Dutch to understand a little bit.From what I understand from your post is that both rasoolan and nabiyan are both adjectives which are referring both to Musa while nabiyan in itself is an adjective of rasoolan. The order of these 2 words are chosen in such a matter that the first word ?rasoolan? is in nearer past then ?nabiyan?. Is this understanding correct brother?
If I understood this correctly lets take this example
416It looks to me that this is the same construction as 1951
thus both tawwaban and raheeman are adjectives who are referring to Allah, while raheeman is an adjective of tawwaban and in a timeline Allah was first raheeman and later (thus in nearer past) he also became tawwaban. Is this correct?
Or is this according to Arabic grammar different. If this case is different, can you please explain to me in simple words what the difference is with 1951.The Messenger of Allah is ONLY he who is Nabi in time line prior to pronouncement/making it public by appointing him as Messenger.
Thus you believe that The Ruh send to Meryem was also a Nabi?
Thank you for your time brother and may Allah icrease us in our knowledge
Bender -
Greetings and Peace, all group
@Mazhar Although I don't come to the same conclusions as you (in all things), I appreciate that you are polite and present your positions with evidence.
Humans are in no position to judge each other as to position/rank. This is a task for ALLAH. Do you believe in caste? <not a serious question> Prophets and messengers are to be treated with respect, obviously. Can't say that I know of any still living...
In 495, who does the preferring? Are we equal to this task???
495 Not equal are those who stayed behind from the believers; except those disabled; with those who strived in the cause of GOD with their money and lives. GOD has preferred those who strive with their money and lives over those who stayed behind by a grade; and to both GOD has promised goodness; and GOD has preferred those who strived over those who stayed behind by a great reward.
2253 Such messengers, We have preferred some over others; some of them talked to GOD, and He raised some of them in rank, and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, the clear proofs and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. And had GOD wished, the people after them would not have fought after the proofs had come to them, but they disputed, some of them believed and some of them rejected. If GOD had wished they would not have fought, but GOD does what He pleases.
2285 The messenger believes in what was sent down to him from his Lord; and the believers, all who believe in GOD, and His angels, and His Books, and His messengers "We do not make a distinction between any of His messengers;" and they said "We hear and obey, forgive us our Lord, and to you is our destiny."
There is no contradiction between 2253 and 2285 because it is ALLAH that does the preferring/ranking in 2253 but believers instructed to not make distinctions in 2285.
1671 And GOD has preferred some of you over others in provision. So it is not for those who have been preferred to relinquish their provision to those who are maintained by their oaths, that they may become equal in it. Would they deny the favor of GOD?
5710 And why do you not spend in the cause of GOD, when GOD possesses all wealth in the heavens and the earth? Not equal among you are those who spent before the victory and fought. They attained a greater rank than those who spent after the victory and fought. And for each, GOD promises goodness. And GOD is Expert in everything you do.
The passage could be understood to mean that this battle divides believers for all time (those that spent before the victory and fought are greater than any EVER after)--or it could be understood to mean that among those present, the ones who strived hardest and with the most risk and hardship are offered a greater reward. I believe, especially in light of other passages, that the second case makes the most sense.
In your previous post, you posted "Any such person does not and will never equal/equate with any one from amongst you, the living people,", and this supports the second case as well.ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Mohammed (pbuh) was of exemplary behaviour. The godconscious are the best of people. This is about the same. Islam leads to worship of God, and that is what Mohammed did, and what the godconscious do. And God is the arranger of all affairs.
-
Ahh now I get who Mazhar is. He is a fagott who claims to be better than the best. That is why he exaggarates so much with his translations. And thats what the dmt guy is too. Every nutrient shall serve God! (the multiverse in his case). That
s what satan looks like when he tries to be muslim. He shall out-muslim the muslim. But he cant be better than the best, so he just ends up looking stupid.Which again might be the source of the 5-prayer hadith and repetitions, which look like obsessive-compulsive syndrome. Somebody tried to outmuslim the muslim.
-
Assalamo Alaikum
If I understood this correctly lets take this example
416It looks to me that this is the same construction as 1951
thus both tawwaban and raheeman are adjectives who are referring to Allah, while raheeman is an adjective of tawwaban and in a timeline Allah was first raheeman and later (thus in nearer past) he also became tawwaban. Is this correct?
Or is this according to Arabic grammar different. If this case is different, can you please explain to me in simple words what the difference is with 1951.The last three words are a complete sentence and is the predicate of First word Inna "Inna" which is a Verb Like Particle. The subject/topic of sentence is Allah, accusative state indicated by last vowel.
The Verb is a deficient verb. It must have one Noun of Kana and the Predicate . The First Word is Hyperbolic Noun/Intensive active participle. This is the predicae of Kana. The next word can be considered as second predicate as well as both words can be taken as Adjectival Phrase. Reheeman is also Hyperbolic Noun/Intensive active participle.
This combination of two words, if you wish to see with reference to time line, the First Trait in the First Ayah is Ar Raheem. Allah, the Exalted says He prescribed it for Himself. The Absolute/Infinite Power was put under the unmberala of Mercy for the purpose of meaningful/purposeful creation of all that exists. This is farthest in time line.
The trait of Tawabba, to pay attention to the people precedes forgiving them and showering mercy upon them. I hope this might clear the point. -
Quote
The Messenger of Allah is ONLY he who is Nabi in time line prior to pronouncement/making it public by appointing him as Messenger.Thus you believe that The Ruh send to Meryem was also a Nabi?
None amongst the species of Angels is elevated to the rank/status=position of Nabi. They all collectively paid obesaince to Human Being. Thus they cannot have a higher position and stature which is inherent in and reflected by the word Nabi.
Nabi were selected only from amongst human beings. Nabi is the personal qualitative trait of person, messengership is job assignment.Messengers are also selected from amongst Angels to convey messages to the Nabi when he was appoined Messenger for nations in time and space, and finally for the solitary Last Messenger for the humanity till its end.
Messengers selected from Angels are also sent in appearance of human men to individuals for conveying messages which are meant only for their personal consumption, not communication to others. Messenger to Syeda Maryam, Wahi to the honourable mother of Musa alahissalam, Wahi to Yusuf alahissalam in his childhood when he was laid down in the dry well by his brothers who were overwhelmed by passion of attracting father's attention .