Biography of Muhammad
-
Salam supportpeacenotwar,
Sorry for intervening, but I think your argumentation is somehow... intimidating? Like "just gulp the whole thing or leave it". In my point of view. the Quran speaks for itself, argues for the correct way, so recognition of it should come from just accepting ist message; and it is the message, the content that makes me accept it as God's message, not any mysterious preserved-ness (how would you know if it has been preserved? this is the argument of the hadith-defenders that the Quran was preserved by the same people as the hadith).Concerning the "Hadith science" the so-called true hadith are the ones that are not obviously false (chain of transmitters that is impossible in reality), but that is no guarantee of its true-ness. Actually, there is some truth in some of them (and if all truth comes from God, then it is Godly truth), but you can't just take the whole bunch.
What is the point about names? Is there any difference if Maryam was called Maryam or Elisabeth or Jennifer? Isn't it the conclusion, the call to ethical behaviour, that counts? So even if Muhammad never existed, even if the Quran was written hundreds if years later, that would not change its message. So what do we have to fear?
-
Salam supportpeacenotwar,
Sorry for intervening, but I think your argumentation is somehow... intimidating? Like "just gulp the whole thing or leave it". In my point of view. the Quran speaks for itself, argues for the correct way, so recognition of it should come from just accepting ist message; and it is the message, the content that makes me accept it as God's message, not any mysterious preserved-ness (how would you know if it has been preserved? this is the argument of the hadith-defenders that the Quran was preserved by the same people as the hadith).Concerning the "Hadith science" the so-called true hadith are the ones that are not obviously false (chain of transmitters that is impossible in reality), but that is no guarantee of its true-ness. Actually, there is some truth in some of them (and if all truth comes from God, then it is Godly truth), but you can't just take the whole bunch.
What is the point about names? Is there any difference if Maryam was called Maryam or Elisabeth or Jennifer? Isn't it the conclusion, the call to ethical behaviour, that counts? So even if Muhammad never existed, even if the Quran was written hundreds if years later, that would not change its message. So what do we have to fear?
Salaam Reee,
I understand your points but I am not sure what you are intervening in. I realise my error and for that I am sorry. In other posts I have really tried to be supportive to other people on here and give them help wherever possible. I think this was lapse and partly because I have been seeing so much rejection of the Quran based on the fact its not historically valid.
If you ever try to debate with some atheists on this matter, it is very difficult indeed and in my experience as you can read from the thread, you can get sworn at etc. So in comparison my post is no where near that level of some responses I have had from non-Muslims or even some Muslims. Having said that, this point most definitely is the same for any group including ourselves, I have also found other people on here to be just the same way as maybe I presented myself here or even more so - so I think a culture can develop which we all should avoid. We are human, we all make mistakes. Just as an additional thought.
I have apologised, so I'm not sure what else you would like me to do?
I never said that I do follow Hadith science and I am not sure why you are telling me this point? It appears you have misunderstood why I mentioned in the first place.
I don't think people should gulp the whole thing at all. I myself still do not know what the Quran means by various things such as Ramadan or shaitan.
In terms of the preservedness - this whole things comes down to how you view the terminology used in the Quran, down to minute details. This is already mentioned on my shahadah thread - so I don't feel any need to reguritate it here.
If I may ask you a question, if the Quran is not preserved - although Allah appears to state in the Quran that the Reminder is preserved (this can mean varying things), then if you actually discuss with any non-Muslim or even Muslim they're going to ask so why the Quran? Why not the Bhagavad Gita? Why do we say that the Torah and Gospel were not what they once were? If the Quran is in the same in this regards, then the fact it had an oral recitation but is not preserved - the implications are really important because oral recitation can be very sketchy.
It would also basically means we believe in a Day of Judgement, afterlife etc that is unlikely to happen. in that case, why not just use the Quran alongside all other books that contain a lot of wisdom in them? Why give it any special status? Why would one God - to the extent that we call define ourselves as Muslims specifically a separate group that is defined based on belief in one God, some type of revealed scripture etc? If you do not believe God has revealed any scriptures, again I would ask why the Quran?
These are actually genuine questions - I'm not just asking for the sake of it.
I also believe in accepting the Quran for both its message but I do believe this is a preservation of that Message in whatever form that Allah has willed. Glory to Him. i never said I did not focus on the fact that it is God's message and that's the reason we should care. So again I don't know why you feel you have to intervene and tell me this.
I do feel a little disappointed actually, I am for the most part quite calm as least that is something I have learnt from the Quran especially since I came back to Islam.
My point was not about what their actual names are, I was just wondering why someone would say they believe what the Quran reveals but they said they only believe in one or several Prophets. I should have asked in a different way I think. I've already mentioned the point about how the nature of how we take historical evidence and so forth in my last post and how I originally took Maha's post everyone else can read it there, I really don't wish to re-type it and I don't think there is any need to. I am sorry if I caused any offence.
-
Salam supportpeacenotwar,
I didn't mean to attack you personally - actually, I like most of your posts - sorry if I chose the wrong words, maybe "intervene" was not the right word - English is not my mother tonge. So no need to apologize, it is just an exchange of views.so why the Quran? Why not the Bhagavad Gita?
I only have a personal answer to this question, that is, that I believe God guided me to the Quran and wants me to learn from it - I can't tell if one day he will guide me to another book or any other source of wisdom and learning - for the moment I take what I have. And maybe for others, the Bhagavad Gita or ony other source is the right buidance - I am not the one to decide on that. I don't know about Torah and Gospel either - I admit I have not read them besides small parts. If they don't go against the one-ness of God, if they don't propagate humans to be like God, if they don't confuse right and wrong (things I have not checked) then maybe in their case, it is also the probelm of interpretation as with the Quran.Sorry again if I offended you, and sorry to the Ted1205 that we kidnapped this thread from the original question.
-
Salam supportpeacenotwar,
I didn't mean to attack you personally - actually, I like most of your posts - sorry if I chose the wrong words, maybe "intervene" was not the right word - English is not my mother tonge. So no need to apologize, it is just an exchange of views.Salaam Reee,
Alright, no problem and I'm glad at least someone likes them!
I only have a personal answer to this question, that is, that I believe God guided me to the Quran and wants me to learn from it - I can't tell if one day he will guide me to another book or any other source of wisdom and learning - for the moment I take what I have. And maybe for others, the Bhagavad Gita or ony other source is the right buidance - I am not the one to decide on that. I don't know about Torah and Gospel either - I admit I have not read them besides small parts. If they don't go against the one-ness of God, if they don't propagate humans to be like God, if they don't confuse right and wrong (things I have not checked) then maybe in their case, it is also the probelm of interpretation as with the Quran.
Sorry again if I offended you, and sorry to the Ted1205 that we kidnapped this thread from the original question.
Thanks for your response. You view it in a somewhat similar way as I do, as I believe we are all guided by Allah to the Quran, which serves as a reminder of knowledge that God has already bestowed upon creation such as His oneness. I also believe that there are elements of truth in many religious texts. It could just be that some have changed much more than others. Like you said, these are our personal understandings and I do believe God guides us all in a very personal and individual way.
-
you missed the point. I said, that I dont know what the name of the prophet/prophets of quran was or were. Muhammad could also be a title, not a specific name.
The highlight above is from me.
All four verses below clearly tell us that Muhammad, pbuh, was GOD's messenger. I wonder why you do not understand the very down to earth and simple language of the very book you claim believing in?
2144, 3340, 472, and 4829 respectively.
Peace,
Khalil -
Peace Ted,
I have read quite a few biographies(or part of them) and all of them are ridiculous. AFAIK almost all biographies are written by traditionalists and they write unrealistic things to glorify the prophet. Let me know too if you come across a good one.
-
If you want other than Quran, then for reading up this subject, you might consider these
http//www.islam-and-muslims.com/External-References-Islam-Hoyland.pdf
http//books.google.co.uk/books/about/Life_of_Muhammad_Haykal.html?id=fOyO-TSo5nEC&redir_esc=y
http//islam-and-muslims.com/islamic-books-online.html -
The highlight above is from me.
All four verses below clearly tell us that Muhammad, pbuh, was GOD's messenger. I wonder why you do not understand the very down to earth and simple language of the very book you claim believing in?
2144, 3340, 472, and 4829 respectively.
Peace,
KhalilI am sorry Khalil but you dont have any monopoly in understanding the Quran. Quran can be understood in various ways. I said that maybe his name was muhammad and maybe not, furthermore I dont see any quranic reason for adding 'pbuh'.
The verses you quote are (free minds translation)
2,144 We see the shifting of your face towards the heaven; We will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you "You shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the Book know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.
and 33,40 Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things
Can you explain to me how this verse, 33,40 indicates that muhammad is a name or more importantly, that it was a person with this name who came with the quran. And can you also explain to me that in the case of muhammad being a personal name, what 'muhammad is not the father of any your men' means? I mean, for sure muhammad had some kids, no?
I dont see any proof in the above quoted verses of yours, that muhammad was the person who came with the quran.
47,2 And those who believe and do good works, and believe in what was sent down to Mohammed, for it is the truth from their Lord, He cancels for them their sins, and relieves their concern.
Now if we take your assumption that muhammad is a personal name of the person who came with the quran, than this above verse contradicts other quranic verses which claims that jews and christians can enter paradise, but none of them believe in a person whos name is muhammad, how come?
48,29 Mohammed is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the rejecters, but merciful between themselves. You see them kneeling and prostrating, they seek the blessings and approval of God. Their distinction is in their faces, as a result of prostrating. Such is their example in the Torah. And their example in the Gospel is like a plant which shoots out and becomes strong and thick and it stands straight on its trunk, pleasing to the farmers. That He may enrage the rejecters with them. God promises those among them who believe and do good works a forgiveness and a great reward.
Again if we take your assumption that muhammad is a person who came with the quran, then please explain to me how I in the year 2013 can 'be with a person called muhammad' when I dont even know him?
So no, I do not think that the these four verses clearly tells us that muhammad is a name of a person who came with the Quran. Otherwise, please clearify.
Peace
-
Peace sister supportpeacenotwar (by the way I love your profile name)
You are right, there are some documents which MAY indicate that the quran had a previous version, according to some founds in Yemen. But again, this is a subject with very little research, thus commenting on them would be very difficult. BUT what has been analysed by some academics, is that Quran is properly the result of a christian group which didnt believed in the trinity which I find interesting. But again, this subject need more research.
I?m referring to apparently verifying historical accuracy about accounts of Muhammad. There are plenty of academics/Islamic scholars who will question us as to why we don?t accept hadith. So I am drawing a parallel with the different academics in general.
Of course islamic socalled scholars would disagree not only with me but with almost all academics on the subject of hadith. But I didnt knew that 'plenty of academics' would question me, really? Could you please provide me with some information about these academics who you claim would question me? I have been a student of history for years now, and none of my teachers or fellow students have ever questioned me, so I wonder whose these academics are who according to you would do so.
Perhaps I got the wrong impression. If so, apologies it's the part when you mentioned the archaeology and that you may believe in one or several Prophets. It sounded like you question the Quran in light of the historical evidence available.
No you misunderstood me sister.
If you do think the Quran is preserved, and as a historian, do you know of any academic arguments against the whole idea by many historians that the Quran was formulated long after Muhammad? Which they also say happened after a succession of different Qurans were in circulation, after Muhammad's death, so to speak. This seems to be a key point for rejecting the Quran. That would actually be really great if you could fill in any details on such arguments.
As I explained sister, we do not have any historic proof of the existence of Muhammad. All we have is some people, who claim that other people (socalled sahabas, who we again dont have proof of exsistence) claimed that some muhammad existed. And it is actually the muslim scholars who claim the Quran to be formulated long after Muhammad, please refer to the muslim claim of othman, omar and other of their sahabas.
Your original post stated ?As a quran alone Muslim I do think that one or several prophets existed.?
Could you please clarify what you meant by this statement? I would have thought that accepting the Quran means that you believe that all/many Prophets did exist. I understand you mentioned Muhammad as a title, but I am referring to the other Prophets that I already named in my last post as well the others that God mentions by name in the Quran.
What I ment was that I do not know who came with the Quran. It could be single person, or it could be several persons. I hope I have made myself clear.
Please refer to my previous response in this post. I myself reject hadith and follow the Quran. This wasn't the point I was making. I was referring to how we as individuals implement what academics/Islamic scholars/anyone in that kind of group say, the evidence they find and their assertions as to what is truthful etc.
sister you must distinguish between academics and 'scholars of religion' (mullahs, priests etc) as they are totally different. An academic approach is very different from a religious approach. The Islamic scholars are self proclaimed scholars, who are good for nothing when it comes to academia. The only thing we can get from them is when we want to understand what their religious beliefs are, NOT what the historical truth is. And religions have a very long history of manipulating history to their own benefits, as well as inventing history for their own benefit, for instance the tower in babylon and so on.
Maybe I should ask a question rather than make an assertion in order to clarify your position here. So do you believe any Prophets are named in the Quran? When you say that Muhammad could be a title, what exactly do you mean? This is an interesting perspective, though.
Yes Abraham, Jakob, David, Bibi Mariam and several others are mentioned by name in the Quran. What I ment by Muhammad is, that I dont see anywhere in the quran that a person called muhammad came with the Quran. Neither am I convinced that Muhammad is a name in the Quran, but perhaps a title for respected persons. You see, there are historical evidence of Muhammad been used as a title for Jesus in the Arabian Pennsylvania.
Peace
-
Peace sister supportpeacenotwar (by the way I love your profile name)
Salaam sister,
Thank you! As I told someone else here, I first used this username during the aftermath of Wikileaks and the material that Bradley Manning provided. I generally find it hard to read and find out about the details of those things, some of the things are just so disturbing. So I'm quite passionately anti-war, although I realise there is little I can do about, I also realised that all I need to do is align myself with the will of God, as He wills goodness of his servants and whatever we can achieve here on Earth, it will ultimately be God who provides the final justice.
You are right, there are some documents which MAY indicate that the quran had a previous version, according to some founds in Yemen. But again, this is a subject with very little research, thus commenting on them would be very difficult. BUT what has been analysed by some academics, is that Quran is properly the result of a christian group which didnt believed in the trinity which I find interesting. But again, this subject need more research.
Of course islamic socalled scholars would disagree not only with me but with almost all academics on the subject of hadith. But I didnt knew that 'plenty of academics' would question me, really? Could you please provide me with some information about these academics who you claim would question me? I have been a student of history for years now, and none of my teachers or fellow students have ever questioned me, so I wonder whose these academics are who according to you would do so.
Thanks for clarifying, I think I better understand your position.
I could have worded that better - I meant more that there are academics who write about Muhammad's life for example, drawing upon hadith. Nearly all authors or academics would do this. I don't think they would question Quran alone Muslims but Islamic scholars would. I was also thinking of people like Karen Armstrong - who may not be considered an "academic" although her work is highly acclaimed by some giving her a position of authority. However, I don't think these people would question us. Only those who are already Muslim might. I have no gripes or anything against any type of author or scholar etc, I'm just the type of person who reads perspectives but still comes to the Quran with a fresh outlook. I like to avoid filters, I think a lot of us would feel that way, to allow God to guide us to the reality of the Message - taking the text, recitation etc for what it is.
As I explained sister, we do not have any historic proof of the existence of Muhammad. All we have is some people, who claim that other people (socalled sahabas, who we again dont have proof of exsistence) claimed that some muhammad existed. And it is actually the muslim scholars who claim the Quran to be formulated long after Muhammad, please refer to the muslim claim of othman, omar and other of their sahabas.
What I ment was that I do not know who came with the Quran. It could be single person, or it could be several persons. I hope I have made myself clear.
You've made yourself clear, sister. Thanks again.
sister you must distinguish between academics and 'scholars of religion' (mullahs, priests etc) as they are totally different. An academic approach is very different from a religious approach. The Islamic scholars are self proclaimed scholars, who are good for nothing when it comes to academia. The only thing we can get from them is when we want to understand what their religious beliefs are, NOT what the historical truth is. And religions have a very long history of manipulating history to their own benefits, as well as inventing history for their own benefit, for instance the tower in babylon and so on.
Well - I think this is where I differ. I take it from the view of there is an author or voice in the Quran that gives a Message and essentially presents evidence and a description of reality how it is. i.e. there is one God. For me, when the Quran states that some people took someone else's word and made them a type of Lord above or next to God, such as, in those times, rabbis, religious scholars - there is an implication. The types of higher education and academics we have now did not exist in the same way back then. I'm not saying anyone is taking academics, authors etc as Lord or anything like that. But I do think there is a principle here.
Perhaps it could be viewed as not taking filters from other people to get to the reality of the Message of the Quran. I look at different perspectives but still, as I'm sure most people here do, call upon God to guide me if any of it at all is true or if the reality is something else entirely.
This implication, for myself, maybe not others but this is personal to me, is that any position or argument derived from man has to be looked at very critically. If we believe the Quran is from God, we're saying we clearly view this knowledge as apart and distinct from all others. People of course will take this to differing degrees. This means that we view the knowledge we derive from the Quran differently from other types of knowledge we may garner from the world around us, at least that's how I view it. Believers have ascertained as individuals from the straightforward evidence that the Quran is a Message from God/inspired by God and that this knowledge and understanding has been bestowed on all of us, as individuals, by Him. We didn't need to go through anyone else to get it. Because I believe even through translation, we can completely understand the Quran as God intends for us. So, other sources can be helpful but the Quran is this way is the "first port of call" so to speak.
This is my personal approach, I understand that you may disagree.Yes Abraham, Jakob, David, Bibi Mariam and several others are mentioned by name in the Quran. What I ment by Muhammad is, that I dont see anywhere in the quran that a person called muhammad came with the Quran. Neither am I convinced that Muhammad is a name in the Quran, but perhaps a title for respected persons. You see, there are historical evidence of Muhammad been used as a title for Jesus in the Arabian Pennsylvania.
Peace
That's very interesting. Right now, I would say I wouldn't agree but I can't say I entirely dismiss it either. I am open to the possibility this could be case, I would need to look further into the Quran/arguments for it.
Peace and blessings.
-
I am sorry Khalil but you dont have any monopoly in understanding the Quran. Quran can be understood in various ways. I said that maybe his name was muhammad and maybe not, furthermore I dont see any quranic reason for adding 'pbuh'.
The verses you quote are (free minds translation)
2,144 We see the shifting of your face towards the heaven; We will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you "You shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the Book know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.
and 33,40 Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things
Can you explain to me how this verse, 33,40 indicates that muhammad is a name or more importantly, that it was a person with this name who came with the quran. And can you also explain to me that in the case of muhammad being a personal name, what 'muhammad is not the father of any your men' means? I mean, for sure muhammad had some kids, no??
I dont see any proof in the above quoted verses of yours, that muhammad was the person who came with the quran.
47,2 And those who believe and do good works, and believe in what was sent down to Mohammed, for it is the truth from their Lord, He cancels for them their sins, and relieves their concern.
Now if we take your assumption that muhammad is a personal name of the person who came with the quran, than this above verse contradicts other quranic verses which claims that jews and christians can enter paradise, but none of them believe in a person whos name is muhammad, how come?
48,29 Mohammed is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the rejecters, but merciful between themselves. You see them kneeling and prostrating, they seek the blessings and approval of God. Their distinction is in their faces, as a result of prostrating. Such is their example in the Torah. And their example in the Gospel is like a plant which shoots out and becomes strong and thick and it stands straight on its trunk, pleasing to the farmers. That He may enrage the rejecters with them. God promises those among them who believe and do good works a forgiveness and a great reward.
Again if we take your assumption that muhammad is a person who came with the quran, then please explain to me how I in the year 2013 can 'be with a person called muhammad' when I dont even know him?
Peace
All red highlights above are from me.
Salaam dear Maha,
1st I do not claim to have monopoly on understanding The Qur?aan. I am claiming that you do not know much about The Qur?aan. The expression ?peace be upon?/?pbuh? is exactly a Qur?aanic expression, and that is why I used it. See surah 37 through which the same expression has been used several times, regarding Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, and Elias, and at the end it?s been used for all of the messengers. See 37181 bellows.
2nd I believe you need to set aside a good amount of time to start studying The Qur?aan from cover to cover, and in its own language, i.e. Arabic, to be able to render a better judgment and understanding about it.
3rd Muhammad had no MALE offspring.
4th Jews, Christians, or... as long as you believe in GOD, the hereafter, and lead a righteous life, you go to paradise. See 262, 569.
5th Follow the ever lasting MESSAGE, the messenger is dead.
By the way, I meant 3144, not 2144 in my previous post.
Peace,
Khalil -
Peace brother kgwithnob
I do not claim to have monopoly on understanding The Qur?aan. I am claiming that you do not know much about The Qur?aan.
Here again we have a classical example of someone who thinks that everyone who disagree with his interpretation of Quran doesn't know much about the Quran. In fact, you have just confirmed my claim, that you claim to have monopoly on understanding the Quran.
The expression ?peace be upon?/?pbuh? is exactly a Qur?aanic expression, and that is why I used it. See surah 37 through which the same expression has been used several times, regarding Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, and Elias, and at the end it?s been used for all of the messengers. See 37181 bellows.
You failed to provide any Quranic evidence of 'pbuh' be used in regard to a person called Muhammad.
2nd I believe you need to set aside a good amount of time to start studying The Qur?aan from cover to cover, and in its own language, i.e. Arabic, to be able to render a better judgment and understanding about it.
You know next to nothing about me or my skills, still you cannot stop yourself from judging my abilities. That says a lot about you. In fact, I do understand Arabic, and I have read the Quran several times. So please brother, at least ask me about my abilities before guessing.
3rd Muhammad had no MALE offspring.
Please provide some evidences that Muhammad no MALE offspring.
4th Jews, Christians, or... as long as you believe in GOD, the hereafter, and lead a righteous life, you go to paradise. See 262, 569
Yes. But Jews and Christians dont believe in any particular person whos personal name was Muhammad. So that means, that you don't have to believe in a person named muhammad, no?
5th Follow the ever lasting MESSAGE, the messenger is dead.
I would suggest you to provide some evidences for your above claim, thanks.
Peace
-
Can you explain to me how this verse, 33,40 indicates that muhammad is a name or more importantly, that it was a person with this name who came with the quran. And can you also explain to me that in the case of muhammad being a personal name, what 'muhammad is not the father of any your men' means? I mean, for sure muhammad had some kids, no?
I dont see any proof in the above quoted verses of yours, that muhammad was the person who came with the quran.
Peace -- use simple cross-reference; daughters only and Qur'an descended unto...
3340 not he is Muhammad father one from rijlikum/gentlemen (i.e. more formal address) yours and however messenger the god and seal the prophets and he is the god in every thing knowing
3359 O dear/you the prophet say to spouses yours and girls/daughters yours and women the believers draw onto them from garments theirs (f/p) that lowest that they are known so not disturbed/harmed and he is the god forgiving merciful
297 say who he is enemy they to Gabriel so indeed he descended it on heart yours by permission the god confirming of to what between hands his (i.e. between hands is directly from) and guidance and glad tidings for the believers
31 alif lam meem
32 the god not deity except he the living the sustainer of all
33 descended to you the book in the truth confirming of to what between hands his and descended the taurat and the injeel472 and the ones believe they and do they the righteous works and believe they in what descended on Muhammad and it the truth from lord theirs kfr/rids from them evil deeds theirs and correct condition theirs
-
sister supportpeacenotwar
I could have worded that better - I meant more that there are academics who write about Muhammad's life for example, drawing upon hadith. Nearly all authors or academics would do this. I don't think they would question Quran alone Muslims but Islamic scholars would. I was also thinking of people like Karen Armstrong - who may not be considered an "academic" although her work is highly acclaimed by some giving her a position of authority. However, I don't think these people would question us. Only those who are already Muslim might. I have no gripes or anything against any type of author or scholar etc, I'm just the type of person who reads perspectives but still comes to the Quran with a fresh outlook. I like to avoid filters, I think a lot of us would feel that way, to allow God to guide us to the reality of the Message - taking the text, recitation etc for what it is.
You indeed have a point. You see, academics who write about Muhammads life are just copying hadith as hadith is the only source of information about him. That is not the same as to say that he has existed, as Hadith are NOT scientific nor archaeological or historical proofs. That is just to explain the muslim belief. Its like academics writing about Krishna or an alien - it would be just a reproduction of the claimers claim/the adherents belief.
But when we talk about a well documented historical figure, like the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, on whom we have plenty of plenty archaeological and historical proof of not only their existence but also on their lifestyles, works, deeds, death and so on, then the academics would stick to the scientific evidences and the existence of the Pharaohs cannot be disputed scientifically. The alternative would be to reproduce the bibles story of the Pharaoh, but that would not be a scientific evidence.The rest, I feel the same about it as you.
Well - I think this is where I differ. I take it from the view of there is an author or voice in the Quran that gives a Message and essentially presents evidence and a description of reality how it is. i.e. there is one God. For me, when the Quran states that some people took someone else's word and made them a type of Lord above or next to God, such as, in those times, rabbis, religious scholars - there is an implication. The types of higher education and academics we have now did not exist in the same way back then. I'm not saying anyone is taking academics, authors etc as Lord or anything like that. But I do think there is a principle here.
I definitely think that too.
This implication, for myself, maybe not others but this is personal to me, is that any position or argument derived from man has to be looked at very critically. If we believe the Quran is from God, we're saying we clearly view this knowledge as apart and distinct from all others. People of course will take this to differing degrees. This means that we view the knowledge we derive from the Quran differently from other types of knowledge we may garner from the world around us, at least that's how I view it. Believers have ascertained as individuals from the straightforward evidence that the Quran is a Message from God/inspired by God and that this knowledge and understanding has been bestowed on all of us, as individuals, by Him. We didn't need to go through anyone else to get it. Because I believe even through translation, we can completely understand the Quran as God intends for us. So, other sources can be helpful but the Quran is this way is the "first port of call" so to speak.
This is my personal approach, I understand that you may disagree.No I do actually have somehow the same position as you do. I do also approach the Quran with the intention of getting guidance from My Lord, but of course we all have different prerequisites as well as different expectations, experiences and so on which inevitably would color our understanding of the Quran.
Peace
-
Peace -- use simple cross-reference; daughters only and Qur'an descended unto...
3340 not he is Muhammad father one from rijlikum/gentlemen (i.e. more formal address) yours and however messenger the god and seal the prophets and he is the god in every thing knowing
3359 O dear/you the prophet say to spouses yours and girls/daughters yours and women the believers draw onto them from garments theirs (f/p) that lowest that they are known so not disturbed/harmed and he is the god forgiving merciful
297 say who he is enemy they to Gabriel so indeed he descended it on heart yours by permission the god confirming of to what between hands his (i.e. between hands is directly from) and guidance and glad tidings for the believers
31 alif lam meem
32 the god not deity except he the living the sustainer of all
33 descended to you the book in the truth confirming of to what between hands his and descended the taurat and the injeel472 and the ones believe they and do they the righteous works and believe they in what descended on Muhammad and it the truth from lord theirs kfr/rids from them evil deeds theirs and correct condition theirs
Peace brother.
I fail to see your point. Please make yourself more clear.
Peace
-
You failed to provide any Quranic evidence of 'pbuh' be used in regard to a person called Muhammad.
Dear Maha,
"pbuh" stands for "peace be upon him" is the English translation for the Arabic transliteration of "salaamun 'alayh", and when 37181 says, "And peace be upon all the messenger", and if we believe that Muhammad was one of the GOD's messengers (3144, 3340, 472, and 4829), then common sense dictates that we should use "pbuh" for Muhammad too.
I'm not sure if the above very simple logic can convince you that Muhammad was a person.
Peace,
Khalil -
Peace be with you.
I have been wanting to read a biography on Muhammad for quite some time now, but I'm unsure of where to go. I know of one biography called 'Muhammad A Prophet for our Time' but I don't know how trustworthy it is. Does anyone here have any recommendations?
Peace Ted1205,
Just curious, but "why" do you want to read a biography about Muhammad
when the Quran tells us who exactly who he was, or is it for the purpose of fact finding
or simply casual reading. As you may be aware historical figures are sometimes
only approximated by secondhand sources (his-story).ONE GOD is all we need
peace
-
Dear Maha,
"pbuh" stands for "peace be upon him" is the English translation for the Arabic transliteration of "salaamun 'alayh", and when 37181 says, "And peace be upon all the messenger", and if we believe that Muhammad was one of the GOD's messengers (3144, 3340, 472, and 4829), then common sense dictates that we should use "pbuh" for Muhammad too.
I'm not sure if the above very simple logic can convince you that Muhammad was a person.
Peace,
KhalilWell I understand your argument, brother and that could be one interpretation. But personally when I look at your above quoted verses
37 181 And peace be upon the messengers.
37182 And praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.I fail to see where the verse ask ME to say 'pbuh' (peace be upon him) whenever I say a messengers name.
Peace
-
I fail to see where the verse ask ME to say 'pbuh' (peace be upon him) whenever I say a messengers name.
You are quite right. I do not think that we are obligated to say "pbuh" every time we here the prophet's name. I believe if we want to be respectful towards the messengers of GOD, swt, we must treat them all just the same, and make no differentiation between any one of them.
Peace,
Khalil -
You are quite right. I do not think that we are obligated to say "pbuh" every time we here the prophet's name. I believe if we want to be respectful towards the messengers of GOD, swt, we must treat them all just the same, and m
ake no differentiation between any one of them.Peace,
KhalilAnd here we totally agree )
