48:29 a false verse?
-
Peace all,
Today with the help of several converging factors I wanted to put this forward as a point of discussion. For about a year I've been brought back to verse 4829 as being questionable.
Why do I say this? Because the content has an appended feel to it - an add on.
4829 Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, as they seek GOD's blessings and approval. Their marks are on their faces, because of prostrating. This is the same example as in the Torah. Their example in the Gospel is like plants that grow taller and stronger, and please the farmers. He thus enrages the disbelievers. GOD promises those among them who believe, and lead a righteous life, forgiveness and a great recompense.
It follows on from a verse 4828 that for all intents could represent the end of the chapter as others end with similar theme.
4828 He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all other religions. GOD suffices as a witness.
The part about being 'harsh' is somewhat dissonant with the overall message of the Quran. That is followed by an attempted actual description of the ritual of praying - with emphasis on marks on foreheads. That is followed by a taunt at the Christians and Jews and makes a simile that seems very simple and without a real moral lesson. It is a simile of arrogance almost. This is confirmed by the 'enragement' of the unbelievers that this provokes. I found this verse to be very odd in light of everything else.
My initial feeling was then somehow validated while researching the issue of verses 9128-129 and how there were hadiths that indicated or suggested that these verses were false.
While reading on such issues - I got a shock when I read that 4829 also had a hadith pertaining to it and accusing it of being a false verse. I asked a question about such hadiths some weeks ago but no one seemed to be able to point me to the source of this ahadeeth despite the fact I had not been able to re-find this piece of information.
Now I thought hard about it - and thought about the motivation for such an ahadeeth and there certainly could be reasons to fabricate a ahadeeth against a verse like 4829. I dismissed it.
Then the issue of "seal" of the prophets was discussed at length various times by different parties and as a side finding the issue of "Kana" or "was" a messenger became apparent in relation to "Muhammad".
Today someone on 19.org (Bahman Goharzad) pointed out that of the 4 mentions of Muhammad in the Quran that 3 of them are in the PAST TENSE - ie. 3144, 3340, 472 EXCEPT 4829 which is in the present tense!
I therefore put forward that 4829 is a serious candidate for being a false verse. I want to examine all the evidence for this and I'm sure it is of interest to everyone else. Please put forward any reasons why this proposition about 4829 may be true or false.
It is a heavy issue and I have some more thoughts on this but I'll wait till some other and possibly better arguments emerge.
Peace.
-
Peace Truth,
My initial feeling was then somehow validated while researching the issue of verses 9128-129 and how there were hadiths that indicated or suggested that these verses were false.
The apoproach you are suggesting is neither sceintific nor is it enforcable.
To state that a verse or verse may be 'questionable' because our particular taste for what is right or wrong does not agree with them is opening a pandora's box of texual cut and paste.
If the verse are not from the Scripture, then you must prove that this is the case by going back to the oldest surviving manuscripts and looking to see if what you have stated (about the verse being false) is indeed the case.
Removing 9128-129 is not based on any properly done research and does not stand the test of objective scrutiny.
-
Peace Layth,
Peace Truth,
My initial feeling was then somehow validated while researching the issue of verses 9128-129 and how there were hadiths that indicated or suggested that these verses were false.
The apoproach you are suggesting is neither sceintific nor is it enforcable.
I did not suggest that the ahadeeth is the basis for this in case you felt a parallel between this and 9128-129.
To state that a verse or verse may be 'questionable' because our particular taste for what is right or wrong does not agree with them is opening a pandora's box of texual cut and paste.
Agreed. It was not a taste issue - rather that it initially struck me as an odd verse.
The difference in tense in this verse compared to the others, together with the other things led me to discuss this publicly.
If the verse are not from the Scripture, then you must prove that this is the case by going back to the oldest surviving manuscripts and looking to see if what you have stated (about the verse being false) is indeed the case.
Removing 9128-129 is not based on any properly done research and does not stand the test of objective scrutiny.
The earliest ancient mushafs are unreliably dated. Orientalists have always contended that the earliest manuscripts written in kufic script could not date earlier than the late 8th century. This notwithstanding, the mushafs even though they may be from earlier times cannot be 100% reliably be dated to that time.
The Tashkent copy arrived in Samarkand much later; meaning that its historicity ie. being the Koran on which Othman's blood was spilled is based merely on hearsay. The presence of blood stains does not prove that it was Othman's mushaf, or that the blood belonged to Othman for that matter.
The final issue is that some parts of the Tashkent mushaf are said to be missing or lost. I don't have information on which parts are missing but this would be useful information.
Establishing that 4829 occurs in the Tashkent copy would not invalidate these suspicions in a rigorous way either. They would merely point out that the addition if that's indeed what happened must have occurred prior to that mushaf's writing.
The question is then - what is a reliable way of deciding what's definitely in the Quran and always has been? What's your criterion and why?
Peace.
-
Salaams Br's,
Here is a translation which is more accurate - to my knowledge,Thanks.
I hope you see that this ayat does go along with the other ayats surrounding it ,according to their context.
Using lanes and qd.
WUJOOH=Actions/Deeds/Direction (page 603 QD)
SEEMA=Mark/sign/token/badge,by which a thing is known,OR BY WHICH THE GOOD ARE KNOWN FROM THE BAD (page 1476-lanes)
4829
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those who are with him are strong/firm/strict against the disbelievers and Merciful among themselves you see them humbling submitting seeking bounty from Allah and good pleasure .The good are known from the bad by their actions/deeds/directions from traditions/teachings/effects of the submission this is their description in the Torah and their description in the Gospel is like a seed which sends forth its shoot then makes it strong it then becomes thick and it stands straight on its stem e.t.cAnd wern't the desblievers - the lawbreakers,doing non godily acts everytime they had an opurtunity?e.t.c
But may be its just me ,i would sugest people to pay more attention to the translations then the authenticity of the quran,especially the oldest one which no dought would have to be the most authentic,don't you think?
Bye.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
So far in these discussions, no one has quoted a single Quranic verse telling us about authenticity.
Truth, simply because of a tense difference you want to chuck out a verse ? Well, lets also chuck out 61/6 because it gave us a wrong name, Ahmad instead of Muhammad. By that notion, we should chuck out all verses which call Isa simply 'al-masih ibn maryam' because is also doesn't conform to a straightforward name.
We should produce our criteria from THE criterion, rather simple guesswork.
-
Peace Truth,
The earliest ancient mushafs are unreliably dated. Orientalists have always contended that the earliest manuscripts written in kufic script could not date earlier than the late 8th century. This notwithstanding, the mushafs even though they may be from earlier times cannot be 100% reliably be dated to that time.
You are comparing them to a 'fixed date' for which there is no verifiable evidence...How do we know that Mohammed preached in 620 or 640 A.D.?...the only tangible evidence we have of the existence of this Prophet is the Quran itself or any other historic manuscript/document which can be authenticated.
As such, I can make the argument that the oldest surviving copies of the Quran are very close in date to the time of Mohammed's message (discounting the Hadith narration and other such heresay).
The Tashkent copy arrived in Samarkand much later; meaning that its historicity ie. being the Koran on which Othman's blood was spilled is based merely on hearsay. The presence of blood stains does not prove that it was Othman's mushaf, or that the blood belonged to Othman for that matter.
It is not dated by blood staines, but by the style of the text it utilizes (all without dots or vowel marks) as well as any scientific testing of the paper or parchment it is written on (I am not sure if any such test was done).
The final issue is that some parts of the Tashkent mushaf are said to be missing or lost. I don't have information on which parts are missing but this would be useful information.
You have the Topkapi Quran which is supposidly dated from the same period, so a complete Quran can be compiled.
Establishing that 4829 occurs in the Tashkent copy would not invalidate these suspicions in a rigorous way either. They would merely point out that the addition if that's indeed what happened must have occurred prior to that mushaf's writing.
This is where what you have stated becomes heresay (not fact)...We cannot remove one letter of the Quran from the original text simply because we 'feel' it is wrong...Solid proof must be established and presented.
The question is then - what is a reliable way of deciding what's definitely in the Quran and always has been? What's your criterion and why?
I use the criteria of the oldest text being the most original...
So, if someone wanted to convince me that 9128-129 are insertions and they were able to show me the oldest surviving manuscript does not have them, then I would agree 100% with no argument.
On the other hand, if I am to be given numerical counts or textual opinoins on the content, then my answer would be not to change a single letter.
-
Peace Layth,
Peace Truth,
The earliest ancient mushafs are unreliably dated. Orientalists have always contended that the earliest manuscripts written in kufic script could not date earlier than the late 8th century. This notwithstanding, the mushafs even though they may be from earlier times cannot be 100% reliably be dated to that time.
You are comparing them to a 'fixed date' for which there is no verifiable evidence...How do we know that Mohammed preached in 620 or 640 A.D.?...the only tangible evidence we have of the existence of this Prophet is the Quran itself or any other historic manuscript/document which can be authenticated.
Excellent point. Exact dates are notoriously hard to pin down when dealing with history.
As such, I can make the argument that the oldest surviving copies of the Quran are very close in date to the time of Mohammed's message (discounting the Hadith narration and other such heresay).
This requires proof also, but what you say is a given - as long as the dates of Muhammad are not absolute then you may put him as close or far from the action as reasonable history allows.
The Tashkent copy arrived in Samarkand much later; meaning that its historicity ie. being the Koran on which Othman's blood was spilled is based merely on hearsay. The presence of blood stains does not prove that it was Othman's mushaf, or that the blood belonged to Othman for that matter.
It is not dated by blood staines, but by the style of the text it utilizes (all without dots or vowel marks) as well as any scientific testing of the paper or parchment it is written on (I am not sure if any such test was done).
There has been for a long time attacks by orientalists on the issue of the Kufic script and what dates it relates to. The contention is that the Kufic script dates these mushafs to 790 AD or so. Obviously there is a vested interest of orientalists to move the date as far as possible from the dates of Muhammad - but I think the Kufic script issue is a good one.
I don't think any of the ancient mushafs is written in the Hijaz style early scripts - except for perhaps the Sana texts found in Yemen. I'd posted regarding these on the main forum some days ago. The unfortunate thing is that these are not publicly available.
While the dates are unclear for all of these, the existence of an earlier script style is evidence that the Kufic script of the Tashkent/Topkapi mushafs may therefore not represent the earliest texts.
The final issue is that some parts of the Tashkent mushaf are said to be missing or lost. I don't have information on which parts are missing but this would be useful information.
You have the Topkapi Quran which is supposidly dated from the same period, so a complete Quran can be compiled.
The key word is supposedly here. The Topkapi mushaf is the one that was first recorded as being witnessed in Medina in the 11th or 12th century AD and was taken by the Ottomans at a later time after which it went to Berlin for a short time before being returned to Istanbul (supposedly while in transit back to the Hijaz - it never arrived there) after WWI.
Establishing that 4829 occurs in the Tashkent copy would not invalidate these suspicions in a rigorous way either. They would merely point out that the addition if that's indeed what happened must have occurred prior to that mushaf's writing.
This is where what you have stated becomes heresay (not fact)...We cannot remove one letter of the Quran from the original text simply because we 'feel' it is wrong...Solid proof must be established and presented.
I agree. That's why mine is a speculation at this stage. There are only circumstantial reasons for what I have posted. It is far from a theory even - but it was something I felt I had to raise.
If nothing it alerted me to the danger of Quranism - of making it an idol.
The question is then - what is a reliable way of deciding what's definitely in the Quran and always has been? What's your criterion and why?
I use the criteria of the oldest text being the most original...
So, if someone wanted to convince me that 9128-129 are insertions and they were able to show me the oldest surviving manuscript does not have them, then I would agree 100% with no argument.
On the other hand, if I am to be given numerical counts or textual opinoins on the content, then my answer would be not to change a single letter.
This is a very reasonable stance. I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
Peace.
-
Peace Truth,
There has been for a long time attacks by orientalists on the issue of the Kufic script and what dates it relates to. The contention is that the Kufic script dates these mushafs to 790 AD or so. Obviously there is a vested interest of orientalists to move the date as far as possible from the dates of Muhammad - but I think the Kufic script issue is a good one.
I agree with you that the missionary based arguments regarding Arabic script have gone on unchallenged for too long...
They attempt to play historian to the Arabic language while the data they provide is biast towards moving the date as far forward as possible...
I have viewed the text of the Samargand/Tashkent Quran in photocopies and it direcetly relates to the Arabic language used by the Nabatean's until the 7th century A.D.
http//nabataea.net/script.gif
The claim that the text before the 8th century was 'slanted' (Ma'il) has no historic basis...
While the dates are unclear for all of these, the existence of an earlier script style is evidence that the Kufic script of the Tashkent/Topkapi mushafs may therefore not represent the earliest texts.
Not so. We need only compare to other Arabic text inscibed or written on parchment and for which we do have a date (I have some photocopies which I will try to scan and upload to show textual inscriptions dating from the 7th century A.D.).
I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
The 'Zikr' is protected, which is the message of the Quran (rather than the text word for word).
-
Peace Layth,
I have viewed the text of the Samargand/Tashkent Quran in photocopies and it direcetly relates to the Arabic language used by the Nabatean's until the 7th century A.D.
http//nabataea.net/script.gif
I can't remember if you ever saw a link I'd posted a long while ago about your Nabatean - northerly location of Muhammad theory (which I am in agreement with) from a non-muslim source that is quite detailed and like yourself places Bacca in the north (they locate it specifically around Nablus).
I've changed computer since then and lost my bookmarks - but I'll endeavour to find it again as some of the research was good regardless of its source. They were using the northerly location of Muhammad theory as a way of refuting Islam - little did they realise that they were merely finding out what is probably the truth of the matter.
While the dates are unclear for all of these, the existence of an earlier script style is evidence that the Kufic script of the Tashkent/Topkapi mushafs may therefore not represent the earliest texts.
Not so. We need only compare to other Arabic text inscibed or written on parchment and for which we do have a date (I have some photocopies which I will try to scan and upload to show textual inscriptions dating from the 7th century A.D.).
Excellent. It's sure to have broad interest but I for one would be especially interested in this.
I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
The 'Zikr' is protected, which is the message of the Quran (rather than the text word for word).
Yes, I agree. I think that what you had raised in relation to textual variants etc. (missing "Allah") on the main forum is the sort of thing orientalists use to 'discredit' the preservation of the Quran.
I understand that human copying errors or variations may have crept into the history of the mushaf but in my opinion these are altogether minor and do not change the essence of the reminder or 'zhikr' as 159 points out.
Peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
15/9 says IN(NA) -NAA NAH.NU NAZZALNAA ADH- DHIKR WA- 'IN(NA) -NAA LA- -HU LA- H.AAFIZ.ON
So we know 'az-zikr' is protected. , I would like to comment the following regarding the claim that this protection is only to the overall message and not to the word-for-word text
-
If we consider Al-Quraan to be irreproducible (see 17/88 ), then with a missing word or a replaced word, can it still retain its overall power and irreproducibility ?
-
What does it mean that the overall message is preserved ? Does this mean that ANY part of al-quraan is superflous to the message ?
-
38/1 says .S.AAD WA- AL- QUR'AAN DHE ADH- DHIKR (saad, by al-quraan, posessor of az-zikr). If az-zikr is protected and al-quraan posesses az-zikr, should that not mean that al-quraan is also protected ? If not, how can az-zikr be protected if its posessor is not.
-
'the message' is contained in words, (kalamullah). We do not get the message via non-verbal signals. This being the case , if any of kalamullah is changed (6/115 denies this), then surely the message will be changed as well.
I present these arguments in the spirit of a healthy discourse. Everyone has a right to believe in what they will.
shukran wa salam.
-
-
Peace mquran,
I understand what you are saying however an analogy may help. I do not know Arabic - but I know English and some other languages.
Now when I read the Koran in these translated languages I am not receiving every single letter and word of the Koran - that's for certain - but am I not receiving the reminder or the message nevertheless?
Is the Koran therefore inffectual in a translated language (when it loses much of the qualities of the original) ?
The message is monotheism - and that comes through and through and is what the reminder has always been about - men being reminded about the unity of the God and thereby accountability to the God.
Regards.
-
Salaamun alaikum truth,
Now when I read the Koran in these translated languages I am not receiving every single letter and word of the Koran - that's for certain - but am I not receiving the reminder or the message nevertheless?
Is the Koran therefore inffectual in a translated language (when it loses much of the qualities of the original) ?
All of us are in your position, whether Arab or non-Arab. I have Arab friends who, because of thier backgrounds, still see quranic words the way sunnis do. The key to overcoming this is to keep going back to Al-Quraan itself to keep on evolving one's views.
Now we come to the problem. How do you return to the source when you don't know which bit comes from Allah and which bit doesn't ? All you'll end up doing is floundering in guesswork. And Allah says of guesswork
But most of them follow nothing but fancy truly fancy can be of no avail against THE truth. Verily God is well aware of all that they do (10/36)
The message is monotheism - and that comes through and through and is what the reminder has always been about - men being reminded about the unity of the God and thereby accountability to the God.
If that's the case, all we'll need is sura 1. But Allah has chosen to give us 114 suras with over 600 verses because that's how He completes the message.
thanks and peace
-
Peace again mquran,
The way I see it - as long as one is aware of the God (ie. has spiritually awakened to the existence of the God) - then it is that which keeps them on the way of straightness.
Recall that Abraham found the God by intellect and inspiration combined. He did not have the Koran which did not arrive for thousands of years.
The Koran codifies into a guidebook what I see as common sense in many ways. If the Koran was suddenly taken away from us - or you were stranded on a deserted island without a Koran and access to every letter and word - would you suddenly become lost?
When the Koran says "Is God not sufficient?" it means exactly that.
God alone is sufficient to the person who has attained certainty. May the God guide us all further towards this state.
Peace.
-
Salaamun alaikum again Truth,
Recall that Abraham found the God by intellect and inspiration combined. He did not have the Koran which did not arrive for thousands of years
I agree with you that Al-Quraan isn't a must for guidance but I don't think that's the point I'm arguing at all.
The Koran codifies into a guidebook what I see as common sense in many ways. If the Koran was suddenly taken away from us - or you were stranded on a deserted island without a Koran and access to every letter and word - would you suddenly become lost?
Agreed.
Now we come to the problem, because I do not live on a desert island alone. I live in a community. This problem is encompassed by al-quraan itself. Al-Quraan acknowledges 3 kinds of ayaat/signs
- fil afaaq (in the horizons)
- fil anfus (in the souls)
- fil kitaab (in the book itself)
What you call 'common sense' are simply signs in urself as my common sense would be signs in my self. However, how do we reach an objective conclusion as to what is the ultimate truth ?
Soon will We show them our Signs in the horizons, and in their own souls, until it becomes CLEAR to them that this is the Truth. (41/53)
Clarity is what we're looking for here. Sure, go ahead and use your common sense. But like your intention to expunge 48/29, that's based on your common sense which some people may find objectionable. Al-Quraan contains 'clarifying signs'
But when Our Clear Signs (ayatun BAYYINATUN) are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say "Bring us a QURAAN other than this, or change this," Say "It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it I follow naught but what is revealed unto me if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (10/15)
Further, al-quraan calls itself 'bayyinat min alhudaa' (clarifyer from the guidance)...2/185
So in summary, sure we have common sense and we don't need al-quraan to be saved, but if we are to settle the difference and live harmoniously with humankind, then al-quraan is the clarifyer on how to do that. Therefore, we need a word for word protected book because if the criteria itself is iffy (as the sunnis would have us believe), its no criteria at all.
thanks and peace.
-
I wish salvation peace and all the well being to you Truth, all
There is nothing contradicting in 4829 to the rest of the reading... you simply havent took into consideration all of the reading and because of it you have found it contradicting....
Being harsh toward disbelievers is not dissonant with the rest of the book...there are many messages similar to this ...if needed i will quote but the fact that you can not remember yourself these verses is an alarming sign that you should study the book more
Remember the story of Abraham and those with him when they have said to their people that they denounce them and that hatred and animosity will be between them until they left idolatry( cant recall verses number now)
The marks on foreheads would be better understood as marks or qualitative characteristics on their personalities or behaviour resulting from compliance to the god`s instructions ...and this is linguistically and lexicographically valid meaning....and not to speak that this is more in line with the rest of the book...
Mentioning of the example/simile how the messenger and the believers are described in the previous scriptures also make sense and is consistent with the book`s often referencing to previous scriptures.
As to the objection that simile seems very simple...
Well all of the book is very simple and this is a consistency more ....
In regards of it being without real moral lesson ....well, one of the lessons is that the coming of the mesenger was announced in previous scriptures....and if i am to spend an hour thinking of its lessons i am sure i could find a whole lot of it.. try yourself...whatever ... i think you didnt think enough.. or enough hard about it....
This is only more of consistency since many of the great reading`s stories are seemingly without lessons and require deep pondering and cross referencing...and only later, probably after we do our homework( more study or obeying to the god) we find it briliantly insightfull...
Besides your faith in the code 19 may be a seal on your heart and thus you are prevented from witnessing the moral of the story...be aware, the god wont guide you if you turn your head from His signs or take it partially...and you did take it partially if you accept the code...
About it being almost a simile of arrogance that is an insightful message in itself!!!
The same seeming arrogance may be experienced when the great reading narates about other messengers who called their people ignorants and inventors!!!....were they arrogant or simply honest about how they view their people?
The same attitude and seeming arrogance we may witness at this very forum... when the faithfull call or denounce some code 19 believers as ignorants and disbelievers many found it arogant, although it is not...
As for the enragement on the side of disbelievers... there
s nothing in it that is contradictory with the rest of the book.. the true believers enrages the true unbelievers... and this is of the gods laws and IS described throughout the great reading....best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace
I wonder what your feelings are on 159? What is actually protected in your opinion?
imho , what is protected in 159 is the messenger (from craziness or jinns)not the reminder...see the context....159 is an answer to allegations from the initial verse of the passage (156) that messenger is crazy or possesed by jinns....
claims that 15/9 speak of the god`s alleged promise of preservation of the reminder contextually doesnt make sense....its would be a claim totaly out of blue, purposeless and it wouldnt make much sense in context.....imho its only that we are used to that meaning/reading that make us see it in that sense.....
in the best case this is a promise that whatever the messenger will say(claiming it from the god- of course) will be sound and correct, that is, divinely inspired...theres nothing in it guaranting that no one will add up a letter, word or verse into the scripture after he has delivered it...
I do not find in the whole book any direct promise of the preservation, at least not in the way people often think it should be preserved(e.i. no one will be able to add or write a word or a letter into any copy of the scripture or into prevailing number of copies of the scripture)
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
-
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
Truth, you are playing very dangerous game...you are waiting for the hadith which makes the book of the god suspect?!.... you count(numerical hadith)...?!
This is almost enough of pieces to solve the puzzle....these are signs that you are infatuated or heavily influenced with man-made sources...be it neo or old Hadith and you are making them criterion over The Criterion....and it should be vice versa!
please do study the book more and stick to its precepts...
As for rhm being attributed to other than the god only in these two instances, its simply not true...remember the messenger was sent AS BUT A MERCY toward mankind...I think Jesus(and his mother?) are described in the same way...
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)This is just like the simile of obedience to the messenger....its not the obedience to the person but to the god of whome the messenger is representative that is needed....why is that so hard to understand to one who has the hadith story behind him?
I have a feeling that many people have rejected Hadith irationaly, based solely on the authority of the numbers and a wish for modernity?
Was this case with you or you have really studied it and have found it inconsistent?
If the answer to the later is yes, then why not applie the same methodology here?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Dear Zlatan,
Peace,
I should mention also that verse 4829 is another verse that uses the word "rahiman" which is one of God's attributes towards humans.
There are 116 instances of "rahim" in the Quran. 114 refer to God and 2 are found in 9128 and 4829 which attribute this term to humans.
Another piece of the puzzle?
I'm still looking for the hadith which mentions the suspect nature of this verse. If anyone has a heads up on this then I would appreciate it. I clearly remember reading about it some time ago but did not reference it unfortunately not thinking too much about it.
Regards.
Truth, you are playing very dangerous game...you are waiting for the hadith which makes the book of the god suspect?!.... you count(numerical hadith)...?!
The hadith is not a criterion in this matter - I indicated that there may be motivations for such hadith to be fabricated - but again like 9128-129 they may provide evidence of a smoking gun. Nothing more or less.
This is almost enough of pieces to solve the puzzle....these are signs that you are infatuated or heavily influenced with man-made sources...be it neo or old Hadith and you are making them criterion over The Criterion....and it should be vice versa!
please do study the book more and stick to its precepts...
As for rhm being attributed to other than the god only in these two instances, its simply not true...remember the messenger was sent AS BUT A MERCY toward mankind...I think Jesus(and his mother?) are described in the same way...
Zlatan you are distorting the words severely here. Muhammad is a 'rahmat' - a mercy to the world - FROM GOD. The mercy does not belong to Muhammad but to God who sends him out of His Mercy.
Only God is Merciful (in terms of 'rahim') towards things he creates - and the word 'rahim' is not used in relation to humans possessing this quality except for 9128 and 4829.
21107 which desribes Muhammad as a mercy - is not saying that Muhammad possesses mercy - but that God has sent him out of His Mercy.
I hope this is clear.
Their mercy is not separated from the god
s, that is, it results/emanates from their sticking to the gods instructions...(the mercy is a mark on their personalities as traces of sujood)The verse is clear in that it says 'faces' and that it is a 'mark' resulting from 'prostrations'. Your stretching of the words to come up with 'personality' is forced.
This is just like the simile of obedience to the messenger....its not the obedience to the person but to the god of whome the messenger is representative that is needed....why is that so hard to understand to one who has the hadith story behind him?
I have a feeling that many people have rejected Hadith irationaly, based solely on the authority of the numbers and a wish for modernity?
Was this case with you or you have really studied it and have found it inconsistent?
If the answer to the later is yes, then why not applie the same methodology here?
I've never owned a book of ahadeeth - and have never 'really studied it' and nor do I care to or need to. If you feel otherwise then please tell me why you think I should be studying ahadeeth.
Regards.
