Israel a grateful servant : He never was a prophet neither his progeny was
-
Salaam brother,
Note that in the verse also the progeny of Adam is mentioned.
Why didn't you consider Nuh?Salam Bender ,
Because The context of the speech point to Israel not to Nuh/Noah , the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " is pointing to the progeny of the ones who was carried with Nuh/Noah in the ship not to Nuh/Noah him self
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 progeny of those We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.
17-2/3And the word "progeny " can be used for a single person as for a group of people , same as in
3-33 Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imran over the Al-Aalimen
3-34 A progeny some of them from others. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.3-33
Adam , Nuh are single person , the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imran are group of people , we can say to someone that he is a progeny of somebody as we can say to a group of people that they are a progeny of someone.
And Why did you only mark Israel red here and not Bani Israel?
Because the article "Inaho / he " is used for single pronoun not plural pronoun , so it is pointing to a single person ( Israel ) , if it was pointing to all bani Isreal the verse would say " Inahoum / they"
I think there are only 2 possible scenario's for
if is reffering to a group then "thurriyata" is reffering to Bani Israel and Israel is not the name of a person but the collective name of those who where with Nuh.
if is reffering to a single person then "thurriyata" is still reffering to Bani Israel and Israel was a person among those who where saved with Nuh.
Do you have evidence from The Quran for this?There is a "Delay " of the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " , it can be placed in front of the word " Progeny " but doesn't fit for the context of the speech and "the Rhetoric "
The "Delay " is as below
17-2/3 ( ُ
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 (He is ) progeny of those We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.The singular pronoun "Inaho / he " in front of "progeny of those We carried with Noah" was deleted and delayed till the end of the phrases , you can see how the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " in front of "progeny of those We carried with Noah" doesn't fit at all and there is loose repetition , so the delay of the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " is because of the context of the speech and "the Rhetoric " .
Will give inchallah , my understanding to the rest of your question later.
-
salam
i agree with main of this post.
I think that Israel was not a nabi nor a rassol but only elevated to this grade by lies of his progeny.
Bani Israel seems to be even jealous of bani Ibrahim and bani Imran, the true lineage of prophecy.There are many other questions
- Is Israel the only false prophet in old testament ?
- Are bani Israel the lineage of false prophets, claiming prophecy.
- who is mister israel ?
- Where are now, the true bani israel (10 tribes are lost in official jewish history) and where are bani israel mentionned in quran as comtemporary to Muhammed ?
Peace
Salam ,
From a overall Quranic point of view this questions is not that important , the case (ه of Bani Israel is a model for Al-Omyeen ( the community of Muhammed) to reflect upon and to learn how to drive when a scripture come down. Also contain correction and alteration to bani Israel for some of their thoughts , works , and saying.
In my understanding Israel is from the progeny of the people who were before Adam in the earth , for the simple reason as he is not from the progeny of Nuh / Noah , so he is not from the progeny of Adam , Israel is a progeny (a seed ) from the one who was carried on the ship with Nuh/ Noah , the other argument is that the Quran is stating that the progeny of the chosen ones are a progeny one is from the other , so those who was carried with Nuh/Noah are simply not among the progeny of Adam , and among them ( those who was carried on the ship with Nuh) was the ancestor of Israel and his sons.
The other scenario is that the progeny of those who was carried with Nuh still from Adam , but even-though they still not from the chosen ones (ن , but from their progeny will come a Man called Israel , who was a Thinkfull servant , his sons will become a big tribe , and Allah will favorite ( ن them by placing inside them the progeny of the chosen ones and i guess it stared from the family of Ibraheem , the Quran mention Ibraheem and Israel together so most likely they were in the same era. ( probably not)
Back to Israel
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 progeny of who We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.17-2/3
The correct English translation should be like this
He is progeny of who (or the one) we carried with Noah , he is not the progeny that was carried with Noah but he is progeny of who was carried with Noah , there is a big difference in the two expression , the existence of " of Who / /men " is explaining and indicating that there is someone was carried with Noah in the boat , from the progeny of this Man come Israel and his Sons. The " of Who / /man " is a always used for "Al-aa'kel / Wise or intelectual beings " its diffrent to "What / /Ma" look at this
2-196 And complete the Hajj and 'umrah for Allah. But if you are prevented, then what can be obtained with ease of gifts. And do not uncover your heads until the gift has reached its place . And whoever among you is ill or has an hurt of the head a ransom of fasting or charity or Nask (...)
2-197 Hajj is well-known months, so whoever has made Hajj obligatory upon himself therein (....)
-
but from their progeny will come a Man called Israel , who was a Thinkfull servant , his sons will become a big tribe , and Allah will favorite ( ن them by placing inside them the progeny of the chosen ones and i guess it stared from the family of Ibraheem , the Quran mention Ibraheem and Israel together so most likely they were in the same era. ( probably not)
Israel was Abraham's grandson. giveup
-
03035 - Imran's imraat .
11071 - Ibrahim's imraat .
19005 - Zachariyya's imraat .
66010 - Nooh's imraat .
66010 - Loot's imraat .
66011 - Firaun's imraat .04001 - Nafs's zauja .
07019 - Adam's zauja .
33053 - Allah's Rasool's zauja .
33059 - Nabi's zauja .mmKhan
Salam,
The word Imraah / Women is simply the opposite of Imraa / Men , and when the word Imraah / Women is used before a Masculine Men's name , like Imraah Noah or Imraah Imran , simply mean the wife of Noah , wife of Imran , the term Imraah of someone is where people who has scripture background got the culture of naming officially their women by similar term , like Madame Anderson or Ms Anderson ,a married women is not called by her own name in public or in scripture , simply to declare that she is a married women , nowhere in the Quran a women is named by her name , except Meriem the daughter of Imran , simply because she was not married to any men .
A verse to show the term Imraa / Men the opposite of Imraah / Women
19-21 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man ( Imraa ) nor was thy mother unchaste .
The term Imraah of ( the wife of) is only used for Mankind , the term has a social functionality , the term Imraah of ( the wife of) is different then the term zawjah of ( the pair of ) , the second can be used for all creatures ( animals and plants ) , also the term Zawj / Pair can be called for men and women , a women can call her husband my pair (Zawji) , and the men can call his wife my pair ( Zawji) , in the other hand the term Imraah of ( the wife of) can only used for women (womankind) , to highlight her social statue as a married women to the men mentioned after the term Imraah so everybody will know that she is a married women , and her husband is known too , like Imraah Lut , Imraah Firaa'wn etc.
The term Zawj / Pair is used in the Quran for some women only because the speech and the case of the verses is not talking about them , they are not the subject of the speech so the Quran use the term Zawj / Pair , when a women is the subject of the speech then the Quran use the term Imraah of ( the wife of) and he give the name of her husband , like
3-35 when the wife of 'Imran (Imraah 'Imran ) said My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower!
12-51 He Said "What was your condition when you sought to seduce Joseph?" They said, "Perfect is Allah ! We know about him no evil." The wife of al-'Azeez (Imraah Al-'Azeez ) said, "Now the truth has become evident. It was I who sought to seduce him, and indeed, he is of the truthful
In both verse the speech is about the wife of 'Imran and Al-'Azeez , so the term Imraah / wife is used and indicating their husbands , same as in verse 66-10 , 66-11 , 12-30
When the verse is not talking about the women her self but just she is included in the speech , the term Zawjah / pair is used
And We said O Adam! Dwell thou and thy pair ( Zawjok ك in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
33-37 when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your pair ( Zawjak ك and fear Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.
In both verse the speech is not about informing something about the wife of Zayed and Adam , they are not the subject of the speech , so the term Zawjah / pair is used , same as in verse 7-19.
So both term Imraah and Zawj / Pair has nothing to do with is it a single specific person mentioned or not.
-
Salam,
The word Imraah / Women is simply the opposite of Imraa / Men , and when the word Imraah / Women is used before a Masculine Men's name , like Imraah Noah or Imraah Imran , simply mean the wife of Noah , wife of Imran , the term Imraah of someone is where people who has scripture background got the culture of naming officially their women by similar term , like Madame Anderson or Ms Anderson ,a married women is not called by her own name in public or in scripture , simply to declare that she is a married women , nowhere in the Quran a women is named by her name , except Meriem the daughter of Imran , simply because she was not married to any men .
A verse to show the term Imraa / Men the opposite of Imraah / Women
19-21 O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man ( Imraa ) nor was thy mother unchaste .
The term Imraah of ( the wife of) is only used for Mankind , the term has a social functionality , the term Imraah of ( the wife of) is different then the term zawjah of ( the pair of ) , the second can be used for all creatures ( animals and plants ) , also the term Zawj / Pair can be called for men and women , a women can call her husband my pair (Zawji) , and the men can call his wife my pair ( Zawji) , in the other hand the term Imraah of ( the wife of) can only used for women (womankind) , to highlight her social statue as a married women to the men mentioned after the term Imraah so everybody will know that she is a married women , and her husband is known too , like Imraah Lut , Imraah Firaa'wn etc.
The term Zawj / Pair is used in the Quran for some women only because the speech and the case of the verses is not talking about them , they are not the subject of the speech so the Quran use the term Zawj / Pair , when a women is the subject of the speech then the Quran use the term Imraah of ( the wife of) and he give the name of her husband , like
3-35 when the wife of 'Imran (Imraah 'Imran ) said My Lord! I have vowed unto Thee that which is in my belly as a consecrated (offering). Accept it from me. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower!
12-51 He Said "What was your condition when you sought to seduce Joseph?" They said, "Perfect is Allah ! We know about him no evil." The wife of al-'Azeez (Imraah Al-'Azeez ) said, "Now the truth has become evident. It was I who sought to seduce him, and indeed, he is of the truthful
In both verse the speech is about the wife of 'Imran and Al-'Azeez , so the term Imraah / wife is used and indicating their husbands , same as in verse 66-10 , 66-11 , 12-30
When the verse is not talking about the women her self but just she is included in the speech , the term Zawjah / pair is used
And We said O Adam! Dwell thou and thy pair ( Zawjok ك in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
33-37 when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your pair ( Zawjak ك and fear Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.
In both verse the speech is not about informing something about the wife of Zayed and Adam , they are not the subject of the speech , so the term Zawjah / pair is used , same as in verse 7-19.
So both term Imraah and Zawj / Pair has nothing to do with is it a single specific person mentioned or not.
could imraatu at any point be the same as 'a female descendant of'? would it always have to mean 'wife of'? Thinking in the terms of 'children of Israel' are not the actual sons and daughters of the man Israel but rather the descendants of...
Reason for asking is this is something that has been bugging me about chapter 19 and 3. Follow my thinking here..........
Amram (Imran) was the father of Moses Aaron and Mariam and 'some' verses, not all, point to/could imply this Mariam being the mother of Jesus making Moses his uncle........the timing historically is 1500 years out.
Zakariya matches up with being around at the time of Jesus as he was the father of John. The biblical and Quranic accounts of Zakariya, Mariam, Jesus, John match spot on.
Zachariya the bible describes as a priest 'of the courses of Abia'. Abi was the daughter of (another) Zachariah (as Quranic Zakariya is Zacharias the father of John and Zachariah and Zacharias are 2 different characters in the bible)........stay with me here....... Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariya and mother of John is described as 'of the daughters of Imran' (Amram - the father of Moses, Aaron and Mariam) which to me means 'descendants of' as the bible is talking 'the family of, children of, etc' meaning 'of the family of' like the family of David etc, children of Israel etc..........am I making sense?
I have lost track now but I knew what I was saying brickwall brickwall
-
Salam AlKitab,
nice post but I have a question for you
There is a "Delay " of the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " , it can be placed in front of the word " Progeny " but doesn't fit for the context of the speech and "the Rhetoric "
The "Delay " is as below
17-2/3 ( ُ
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 (He is ) progeny of those We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.The singular pronoun "Inaho / he " in front of "progeny of those We carried with Noah" was deleted and delayed till the end of the phrases , you can see how the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " in front of "progeny of those We carried with Noah" doesn't fit at all and there is loose repetition , so the delay of the singular pronoun "Inaho / he " is because of the context of the speech and "the Rhetoric " .
when I read the quranic texte in 173 I understand that the "HE" refers to Noah and not Israel!!!!!
Please comment/answer.
thanks
-
The problem here is all this is disputing the Old Testament and New testament and I see the argument going in circles. Its trying to understand the verses of the Quran beyond what the verses were designed for.
I'm trying to match it all up. There are verses in Quran talking about something and then again in other chapters so likely the old books will be the same, just trying to find those references in the old books and beginning to see they are similar to Quran in that it all didn't necessarily happen as written........by that I mean in the order it was written/said......if that makes sense.
I'm not trying to dispute, I'm trying to get straight who was who and when, because I am sure it will match up.
I was thinking last night, the whole thing, all the books, it's like a huge jigsaw puzzle that will make 3 small ones or one large one and the pieces can fit in more than one way so far........but then you have to juggle as you can get one part done and then it won't fit with another part as those pieces have more than one way of fitting, but it will fit into a whole correctly.
brickwall
-
What bothers me is in 17.3 the first word "dhurriyatA" it is acusative, so what is the nominative and the verb that go with it? In Yusuf's Ali translation he inserts a vocative "Oh dhurriyata" but that is his insertion, I do not see a reason for except to make sense in one way or other, be it justified or not.
Any ideas?
Salaam
-
Peace all.
" Dhurriyatta man hamalna maa Nuh" in 173 to me are " the descendants of noah"?
Peace.
-
could imraatu at any point be the same as 'a female descendant of'? would it always have to mean 'wife of'? Thinking in the terms of 'children of Israel' are not the actual sons and daughters of the man Israel but rather the descendants of...
Reason for asking is this is something that has been bugging me about chapter 19 and 3. Follow my thinking here..........
Amram (Imran) was the father of Moses Aaron and Mariam and 'some' verses, not all, point to/could imply this Mariam being the mother of Jesus making Moses his uncle........the timing historically is 1500 years out.
Zakariya matches up with being around at the time of Jesus as he was the father of John. The biblical and Quranic accounts of Zakariya, Mariam, Jesus, John match spot on.
Zachariya the bible describes as a priest 'of the courses of Abia'. Abi was the daughter of (another) Zachariah (as Quranic Zakariya is Zacharias the father of John and Zachariah and Zacharias are 2 different characters in the bible)........stay with me here....... Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariya and mother of John is described as 'of the daughters of Imran' (Amram - the father of Moses, Aaron and Mariam) which to me means 'descendants of' as the bible is talking 'the family of, children of, etc' meaning 'of the family of' like the family of David etc, children of Israel etc..........am I making sense?
I have lost track now but I knew what I was saying brickwall brickwall
Aisha I kindly recommend you use the Quran as reference while studying , judging , correcting or rejecting what you read / learn from other book and not the opposite , studying other scripture is recommended as per 6-156 , but you have to take the Quran as last reference as per 5-48 and 27-76 , and if turns out that you didn't find what you are looking for in the Quran then simply because its not a important subject in the eyes of the recent book.
-
Salam AlKitab,
nice post but I have a question for you
when I read the quranic texte in 173 I understand that the "HE" refers to Noah and not Israel!!!!!
Please comment/answer.
thanks
Salam member Herbman and welcome ,
They key to understand this is to read not only the wording but examine the context of the speech accordingly .
The verse 173 is talking about the progeny , and the verse said its a progeny of who was carried with Noah , ( notice who is referring to somebody) the verse here still talk about the progeny , and when the verse said he was a grateful servant it is still talking about the progeny and by using the article HE the verse is referring to Israel because he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah in the ship , it can't be referring to his sons because the article he is singular and it can't be referring to Noah because Noah is not the subject of the speech in 17-3 , the subject of the sentence in 17-3 is the word progeny so the HE in he was a grateful servant is referring to the subject ( progeny) so "he" is referring to Israel as he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah .
The other key to understand this is The relative pronoun " Who / / man " used in
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 progeny of who We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant."Who" is pronoun referring to who ? It is referring to the one that was with Noah in the ship , so Israel is a progeny ( a branch ) from the one ( the source ) who was in the ship with Noah.
The context of the speech in 17-3 is not talking neither about the sons of Israel nor about Noah , it's about Israel as he is the progeny mentioned in there as being from the one who was carried in the ship.
If Israel was in the ship the verse should be like this
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 The progeny that We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.17-2/3
But the verse is simply not saying that
-
Aisha I kindly recommend you use the Quran as reference while studying , judging , correcting or rejecting what you read / learn from other book and not the opposite , studying other scripture is recommended as per 6-156 , but you have to take the Quran as last reference as per 5-48 and 27-76 , and if turns out that you didn't find what you are looking for in the Quran then simply because its not a important subject in the eyes of the recent book.
I was studying, not judging, correcting or rejecting and I was using Quran and Torah and Gospel as God says He sent these with the same message so I would expect them to match up, which is what I was studying........nothing to do with correcting judging or rejecting any and nothing to do with 'finding what I'm looking for', just to match things up.
I think the importance of Moses sister being Mary mother of Jesus is pretty important and is in the recent book and I was studying what the Torah and bible did with the 1500 years historical difference, not to mention spreading that little gem of a secret across 2 different books, Torah and Gospel, and of course 2 different bunches of followers as the Jews rejected Jesus, which they wouldn't have if uncle Moses was around as well - and by taking Mariam as the mother of Jesus didn't really give the Jews long enough to mess up before God sends the nephew of Moses to sort it out?? To me these 2 Mariams are different women altogether which is why I asked the question I asked you and you didn't answer. peace
It was my personal question and my personal 'place' of study at this time, no way am I saying anyone else needs bother with it, but it interests me and that's again why I asked the question I did peace
-
Salam member Herbman and welcome ,
They key to understand this is to read not only the wording but examine the context of the speech accordingly .
The verse 173 is talking about the progeny , and the verse said its a progeny of who was carried with Noah , ( notice who is referring to somebody) the verse here still talk about the progeny , and when the verse said he was a grateful servant it is still talking about the progeny and by using the article HE the verse is referring to Israel because he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah in the ship , it can't be referring to his sons because the article he is singular and it can't be referring to Noah because Noah is not the subject of the speech in 17-3 , the subject of the sentence in 17-3 is the word progeny so the HE in he was a grateful servant is referring to the subject ( progeny) so "he" is referring to Israel as he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah .
The other key to understand this is The relative pronoun " Who / / man " used in
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 progeny of who We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant."Who" is pronoun referring to who ? It is referring to the one that was with Noah in the ship , so Israel is a progeny ( a branch ) from the one ( the source ) who was in the ship with Noah.
The context of the speech in 17-3 is not talking neither about the sons of Israel nor about Noah , it's about Israel as he is the progeny mentioned in there as being from the one who was carried in the ship.
If Israel was in the ship the verse should be like this
17-2 And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs,
17-3 The progeny that We carried with Noah. Indeed, he was a grateful servant.17-2/3
But the verse is simply not saying that
In my understanding the exsamination of the verse point to Isreal not Mussa/ Moses , simply because Mussa/ Moses is directly from the progeny of Nuh/Noah not from the ones that was carried with him in the ship .
The ONLY people carried on the ark were Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.
-
Peace all.
" Dhurriyatta man hamalna maa Nuh" in 173 to me are " the descendants of noah"?
Peace.
Salaam, good logic,
Thank you for your answer, still I am not sure, because the action mentioned is hamalna, God is the actor and dhurriya is not the object but to me looks like a subject described with the action performed with the object from whom the dhurriyat derives. So I am looking for something that would justify the accusative, but the hamalna, as far as I can understand it now, does not fit , it refers to "man". I must be lacking some element of the grammar or soemthing else. As it is it seems, to try to decide as to each element of the ayas to me is problematic.
Thanks again
Salaam
-
The verse 173 is talking about the progeny , and the verse said its a progeny of who was carried with Noah , ( notice who is referring to somebody) the verse here still talk about the progeny , and when the verse said he was a grateful servant it is still talking about the progeny and by using the article HE the verse is referring to Israel because he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah in the ship , it can't be referring to his sons because the article he is singular and it can't be referring to Noah because Noah is not the subject of the speech in 17-3 , the subject of the sentence in 17-3 is the word progeny so the HE in he was a grateful servant is referring to the subject ( progeny) so "he" is referring to Israel as he is the progeny of who was carried with Noah .
Salaam, Alkitab,
I may be tempted to think it talks about Noah, but as I wrote answering good logic, the whole grammar with the accusative dhurriyata is still confusing me. At any rate, since dhurriyatA is accusative how can you make it the subject of the sentence. It should be the object of a sentence, but which sentence?
Salaam
-
The ONLY people carried on the ark were Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.
I Kindly appreciate , next time , if it doesn't bother you ,if you can provide proof from the Quran about what you are Saying / Claiming .
There were other people with Noah in the ship , the proof is
11-40 Until when Our command came and Fara Al-tannour , We said, "Load upon the ship of each two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and whoever has believed." But none had believed with him, except a few.
So on the ship there was Noah his family and those who believed
-
Peace all.
" Dhurriyatta man hamalna maa Nuh" in 173 to me are " the descendants of noah"?
Peace.
Salam Gd logic ,
Durreayh in the verse 17-3 is singular not plural , so if you translated it to descendant it should be translated to singular form too not plural , so it won't be pointing to a group of people but to a single person , but this is not the main proof that its about a single person ( Isreal) the main proof is the singular article HE in front of He was a grateful servant .