Verses 4:150 and 4:151 - shocking?
-
Like I said here he looked at "seperate Allah for his messenger" and saw the arguments Sunnis bring that Quranist are seperating the Sunnah from Islam.
This was Al Shafi's logic. Shafi seperated the Quran from the Sunnah by claiming obey God and his messenger is talking about the Quran and the Sunnah as two seperate sources.
It never occurs to Sunnis that if you follow the Quran you are following the prophet's sunnah because they are one.
The actual verse he stated is not talking about that but Sunnis use that.
To me, "We believe in some but reject others" seems to clear up that it's referencing people who claim to believe in God but reject His prophets.
-
on a side note, I get the notion that this verse is also saying that if you disbelieve in a messenger, you disbelieve in Allah. Quite scary to me, since I believe there may be messengers after Muhammad (not prophets).
I've been dealing with this issue since meeting Submitters and learning about Rashad Khalifa. So much of what he said makes complete sense. Preaching Quran alone, chapter 74. Then he goes and says all this nutty stuff outside of Quran. I haven't been able to accept his messengership claim with a clear conscience. But I'm also afraid to bash him. The matter seems so unclear to me. Then there are many Submitters who say he was indeed a messenger but was fallible. Ok, no one is perfect. But could a messenger really be so wrong on so many issues? I don't know. And does it really matter to my salvation whether he was or wasn't a messenger? I don't know. Confusing and stressful!
-
I've been dealing with this issue since meeting Submitters and learning about Rashad Khalifa. So much of what he said makes complete sense. Preaching Qurain alone, chapter 74. Then he goes and says all this nutty stuff outside of Quran. I haven't been able to accept his messengership claim with a clear conscience. But I'm also afraid to bash him. The matter seems so unclear to me. Then there are many Submitters who say he was indeed a messenger but was fallible. Ok, no one is perfect. But could a messenger really be so wrong on so many issues? I don't know. And does it really matter to my salvation whether he was or wasn't a messenger? I don't know. Confusing and stressful!
I know how that feels! Im confused about Rashad Khalifa as well. For some reason I get a bad feeling about him, which is why im not convinced he was a messenger, but I know that not a logical reason. I admire his research but I disagree with a lot of it including the subjectivity Farouk A Peru discussed in his debate with Edip Yuksel.
Who knows, perhaps I am wrong. May Allah guide me. But for now I just cant accept him with a clear consience like you said. -
What to make of these verses?
4150
"Those who deny Allah and His messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His messengers, saying "We believe in some but reject others" And (those who) wish to take a course midway"
4151
"They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment."
There is no need to get shocked. If you understand the verse in this way there is no problem.
"Those who deny Allah and His Rusul, those who believe in the Laws of Allah operating in the outer universe (i.e. Laws of Nature) but do not believe in the Laws given by Him through His Rusul for the guidance of mankind, and those who accept a part of these Laws, rejecting the others and desire to take a course in-between, all of them are truly unbelievers."
http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/expo/expo_004.htm
-
I would like to add a verse to the equation
1047 And for every nation is a messenger; so when their messenger comes, the matter is decreed between them with justice, and they are not wronged.
It's still pretty much the same for me... as the Reminder is preserved and that Prophet Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets (3340) it would indicate that we have had our Messenger and Message.
What are your thoughts? )
-
It's still pretty much the same for me... as the Reminder is preserved and that Prophet Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets (3340) it would indicate that we have had our Messenger and Message.
What are your thoughts? )
Salam
Well actually I think 3340 is the proof that a prophet and messenger may be two different things. The verse states messenger and the seal of prophets, not the seal of messengers and prophets. Please note I write may be two different things.....
But a messenger is someone who confirms what the prophet brought. Prophet Muhammed was a prophet because he was given the Quran, but he was also a messenger to confirm the teachings of Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.
Muhammed was the last prophet, end of story (3340) On the same time there are multiple messengers conveying the one message(1047) We should not separate them from Allah, meaning we should not think they are creating a new prophecy.(4150)
Does this make sense?
-
Salam
Well actually I think 3340 is the proof that a prophet and messenger may be two different things. The verse states messenger and the seal of prophets, not the seal of messengers and prophets. Please note I write may be two different things.....
But a messenger is someone who confirms what the prophet brought. Prophet Muhammed was a prophet because he was given the Quran, but he was also a messenger to confirm the teachings of Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.
Muhammed was the last prophet, end of story (3340) On the same time there are multiple messengers conveying the one message(1047) We should not separate them from Allah, meaning we should not think they are creating a new prophecy.(4150)
Does this make sense?
I think it makes a lot of sense actually. But does that fit the context of 4150 specifically? I dont know.
Btw did you notice that 1047 is written in present continuos tense? (Forgive me if wrong). Very interesting.. it doesnt use a past tense. But that could serve another purpose. Who knows?
-
I think it makes a lot of sense actually. But does that fit the context of 4150 specifically? I dont know.
Btw did you notice that 1047 is written in present continuos tense? (Forgive me if wrong). Very interesting.. it doesnt use a past tense. But that could serve another purpose. Who knows?
Debate Jews about these issues. Ask them what they think of Jesus and the Quran. Mostly ask them about Jesus and the Gospel and Paul. You will understand those verses well. The Quran comments on many of the debates and confrontation the prophet had with pagans and Jews.
-
First of all point out that what has been translated as unbelievers in 4.151 is the arabic "kafirun". And what has been translated as deny is the verb kafara of the same import and both are very strong term, very, very, very strong expression. To translate it by a mere unbelievers, when we do not even know what the disbelief concerns, because it may be a mere image in the mind that we have come to distrust because it has come to us as a lie or mingled with lies. We disbelieve things may be as a knee jerk reacctionh and tha may indicate any understanding of what we pretend that we disbelieve when seen through other peopl'e eyes.
Kafara is to hide the truth, which is something very different from not believing that something is true. If you don't believe something, you cannot help it, but if you hide the truth deliberately you are indeed a wicked person.
So those who hide the truth deliberately and those who disociate Allah from his messengers and those who kid themselves that they can take a middle course between truth and hiding the truth, are in fact hiding the truth. And what happens to those who hide the truth is that they do not need anybody's help to get in trouble and humiliation, they are getting themselves into it, because the consequence of hiding the truth the truth of themselves or any truth is that when you keep it under, when it comes out it will wreck havoc on those it catches umprepared for its coming to light.
SalaamAgreed
Also disbelief can be a consequence of ignorance (jahiliya) or not knowing any
better or a state of unawareness, but kufr is a conspiracy against the truth and
in the case of ayat of 4150, picking and choosing what to honor is an act of the kfirun.My arabic is a work in progress please correct where necessary.
Peace
-
Salam
Well actually I think 3340 is the proof that a prophet and messenger may be two different things. The verse states messenger and the seal of prophets, not the seal of messengers and prophets. Please note I write may be two different things.....
But a messenger is someone who confirms what the prophet brought. Prophet Muhammed was a prophet because he was given the Quran, but he was also a messenger to confirm the teachings of Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.
Muhammed was the last prophet, end of story (3340) On the same time there are multiple messengers conveying the one message(1047) We should not separate them from Allah, meaning we should not think they are creating a new prophecy.(4150)
Does this make sense?
It makes sense, I can understand why you have arrived at your conclusions. I have to look into these terms further but the Messenger role could be a separate term as it encompasses Angels, and other beings including humans? Whereas, the term Prophet is far more specific but being a Messenger is also part of Prophethood.
I suppose my question would be how do you define Messenger in terms of the Quran? Would you view any human being who is confirming the Reminder contained in the Quran as a Messenger of sorts?
-
I suppose my question would be how do you define Messenger in terms of the Quran? Would you view any human being who is confirming the Reminder contained in the Quran as a Messenger of sorts?
The short answer my friend is that once the messenger arrives there will be no doubt (s)he is nothing but a messenger from Allah. I am afraid I would lose myself in self-argumentation if I even tried to give a proper answer...
In the same category as Rashad Khalifas infamous "we are all temporary gods" I guess "we all bring a message". Just by finding a way to follow Islam that does not include suppression and hatred is an entirely new way to look at the prophecy of Muhammed...... Only Allah knows....And no, I am not a 19 follower.
I just had a similar conversation with my wife in the car. It says in the Quran we are made into different nations and tribes so we may recognise eachother and on the same time it says there will be a messenger for each nation.
We are different nations and we have different messengers..................So is absolutely wrong to imply that the role of MESSENGER Muhammed was to convey the PROPHECY of the Quran to the ARAB nation at the TIME of 600AD?
fftopic I know.......
-
Emil,
I don't believe the Quran was meant only for the Arabs of Prophet Muhammads time. I believe it was intended to reach many people and it continues to do so 1400 years later.Say "Which is the greatest testimony?" Say "God is witness between me and you, and He has inspired to me this Reading that I may warn you with it and whoever it reaches, that you are bearing witness that with God are other gods!" Say "I do not bear witness!" Say "He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you have set up!"
-
Emil,
I don't believe the Quran was meant only for the Arabs of Prophet Muhammads time. I believe it was intended to reach many people and it continues to do so 1400 years later.Say "Which is the greatest testimony?" Say "God is witness between me and you, and He has inspired to me this Reading that I may warn you with it and whoever it reaches, that you are bearing witness that with God are other gods!" Say "I do not bear witness!" Say "He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you have set up!"
No, not the Quran. The Quran is the prophecy given to Muhammed. He used the Quran to convey the message to his tribe and nation. Allah will send messengers to every nation bringing the same prophecy (the Quran). We are divided into nations so we may recognise eachother, but do not think the messengers to every nation brings a new prophecy
-
The short answer my friend is that once the messenger arrives there will be no doubt (s)he is nothing but a messenger from Allah. I am afraid I would lose myself in self-argumentation if I even tried to give a proper answer...
In the same category as Rashad Khalifas infamous "we are all temporary gods" I guess "we all bring a message". Just by finding a way to follow Islam that does not include suppression and hatred is an entirely new way to look at the prophecy of Muhammed...... Only Allah knows....And no, I am not a 19 follower.
I just had a similar conversation with my wife in the car. It says in the Quran we are made into different nations and tribes so we may recognise eachother and on the same time it says there will be a messenger for each nation.
We are different nations and we have different messengers..................So is absolutely wrong to imply that the role of MESSENGER Muhammed was to convey the PROPHECY of the Quran to the ARAB nation at the TIME of 600AD?
fftopic I know.......
Apologies for the late reply, brother! I too think we all have a message that we can relate to people based on our experience - people can take it and leave it as they wish and as it right for them. I completely agree with the idea that Islam has to be removed from the idea of suppression which are not just from the past but an attitude that humans beings can take on in any time. We still see suppression now - in terms of modern warfare etc.
Hmm, the point about being a nation and tribe, we are distinct and meant to leave peacefully together. Whether this means we are separate nations in terms of receiving a message? I have to look into it.
I wouldn't say that it is necessarily absolutely wrong, brother. I think there could be aspects to the Quran that were meant from Prophet Muhammad's time only - such as the idea of war gains and taking what the Messenger takes and what he leaves. I also considered that maybe even jizya is for a specific time period because of the context it is revealed in i.e. when it is discussed previous verse refers to the Sacred Mosque.
-
Hmm, the point about being a nation and tribe, we are distinct and meant to leave peacefully together. Whether this means we are separate nations in terms of receiving a message? I have to look into it.
I wouldn't say that it is necessarily absolutely wrong, brother. I think there could be aspects to the Quran that were meant from Prophet Muhammad's time only - such as the idea of war gains and taking what the Messenger takes and what he leaves. I also considered that maybe even jizya is for a specific time period because of the context it is revealed in i.e. when it is discussed previous verse refers to the Sacred Mosque.
Salam
Please do look into it. I am only on the brainstorming stage of this.......Comparing notes would be interesting
I must however point out that I never meant that the Quran should in any way be directed to one nation only or that the Quran is only valid in one specific time period. This is the reason why christianity never appealed to me, they must disregard parts of the bible just to function in society....It is the message that will differ from nations and times
Prophet Muhammed was basically the only by Allah sent that was both. He was a prophet and a messenger. Prophet Jesus was what? Prophet Moses? To my knowledge prophet Muhammed was the first that actually brought a scripture to the people while he was alive.
It makes sense.......The thing that has gone wrong in Islam is that they continue to follow a message sent to one nation 1400 years ago. By refusing to recognise that nations are different (and times change) they have successfully done what 4150 warns us against doing.
Maybe Rashad Khalifa was a messenger......Maybe he brought a new way and a new way of thinking that was meant to be. The islamic community failed to see his message because they were too busy hanging on to the old one......So they separated him from God and eventually murdered him.......Me thinking out loud, I am not a fan of 19.
Eventhough there are parts in the Quran that speaks of a certain time, just like you said about war and what the messenger takes and gives, there is still a very good guidance for today?s warfare. I think if you would compare the Quran to the Geneva convention you would find a lot of similarities.
So that is what the Quran does. It is a timeless prophecy given by Allah to a human. We can all read and basically integrate this prophecy into our societies eventhough our societies may vary to quite a large extent. But if I was to integrate the understanding of the Prophecy from a society that differs from mine, the prophecy would not make sense anymore........ Hence the different messengers but same prophecy idea.....
What I am basically saying is Prophet Muhammed=Quran.......Messenger Muhammed=Hadith.......Again, brainstorming
Some parts must however be stretched a little so it will function in every society......or rather I think they must be stretched.......like cutting off a hand on thieves......there are attempts at interpreting this as "take the ability to steal away from the thief". It is a good attempt but still maybe not entirely 100% sound and I am not too comfortable with it.....but the Quran takes time to understand fully.
-
Salam
Please do look into it. I am only on the brainstorming stage of this.......Comparing notes would be interesting
I must however point out that I never meant that the Quran should in any way be directed to one nation only or that the Quran is only valid in one specific time period. This is the reason why christianity never appealed to me, they must disregard parts of the bible just to function in society....It is the message that will differ from nations and times
Prophet Muhammed was basically the only by Allah sent that was both. He was a prophet and a messenger. Prophet Jesus was what? Prophet Moses? To my knowledge prophet Muhammed was the first that actually brought a scripture to the people while he was alive.
Salaam. Not sure I follow. What do you mean by Prophet Muhammad was the first to bring a scripture to the people while he was alive? I guess I'm thinking of the scrolls of Abraham here. And it mentions that some had books and other didn't...
It makes sense.......The thing that has gone wrong in Islam is that they continue to follow a message sent to one nation 1400 years ago. By refusing to recognise that nations are different (and times change) they have successfully done what 4150 warns us against doing.
Again, I'll have to ask... who is it that follows a message sent to a nation 1400 years ago and what message is that?
Maybe Rashad Khalifa was a messenger......Maybe he brought a new way and a new way of thinking that was meant to be. The islamic community failed to see his message because they were too busy hanging on to the old one......So they separated him from God and eventually murdered him.......Me thinking out loud, I am not a fan of 19.
I haven't looked much into code 19. Do you think the current Quran and Reminder we have now is fully preserved? If so, then taking out the two verses would seem as though it goes against the Quran.
Eventhough there are parts in the Quran that speaks of a certain time, just like you said about war and what the messenger takes and gives, there is still a very good guidance for today?s warfare. I think if you would compare the Quran to the Geneva convention you would find a lot of similarities.
So that is what the Quran does. It is a timeless prophecy given by Allah to a human. We can all read and basically integrate this prophecy into our societies eventhough our societies may vary to quite a large extent. But if I was to integrate the understanding of the Prophecy from a society that differs from mine, the prophecy would not make sense anymore........ Hence the different messengers but same prophecy idea.....
I definitely think that there is a lot of guidance in there. As well as an example of what Prophet Muhammad and believers at the time had to go through. That's an interesting point about different messengers. Are these distinct messengers as such or simply believers applying what they know? - I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong just putting some additional thoughts out there.
What I am basically saying is Prophet Muhammed=Quran.......Messenger Muhammed=Hadith.......Again, brainstorming
The Quran still does say that it is the only Hadith. It says that for the people of the time and beyond. The Quran also has the Shahadah but the second shahadah is found in hadith which goes against 631. So there could have been some things Prophet Muhammad was told to tell his people at the time that were not recorded inthe Quran - I don't know. But the way hadith are, I would say that there is falsehood as well as some truth maybe in the hadith we have now.
Some parts must however be stretched a little so it will function in every society......or rather I think they must be stretched.......like cutting off a hand on thieves......there are attempts at interpreting this as "take the ability to steal away from the thief". It is a good attempt but still maybe not entirely 100% sound and I am not too comfortable with it.....but the Quran takes time to understand fully.
We need to be careful if we are going to do that. The idea of that punishment does seem to fit in the Quran. Some of the other crimes do not require any part of the body to be cut off, my question would be are we sure that stealing requires that? I think the Quran does take time to understand. Maybe its to help us really appreciate it.