Where Was Mohammed?
-
dead and buried ?
Muhammad ibn Abdullah is dead and buried but what of Muhammad in the ayaat? If he is dead, then the ayat would not be true anymore.
salam.
how is 'Muhammad ibn abdullah' different from the Muhammad in the ayat ? i dont understand this .
and 'Muhammad in the ayat' could also die and get killed . how does that make the ayat untrue . -
how is 'Muhammad ibn abdullah' different from the Muhammad in the ayat ? i dont understand this .
He was a historical figure and nothing he did beyond al-quraan has any lasting benefit for humanity. We could learn somethings from his history perhaps but only as stimulus.
and 'Muhammad in the ayat' could also die and get killed . how does that make the ayat untrue .
Muhammad, as the ayat says, IS the messenger of Allah (48/29). Rasulullah has a certain role which he cannot perform when he is dead.
-
salam.
how is 'Muhammad ibn abdullah' different from the Muhammad in the ayat ? i dont understand this .
He was a historical figure and nothing he did beyond al-quraan has any lasting benefit for humanity. We could learn somethings from his history perhaps but only as stimulus.
agreed.
and 'Muhammad in the ayat' could also die and get killed . how does that make the ayat untrue .
Muhammad, as the ayat says, IS the messenger of Allah (48/29). Rasulullah has a certain role which he cannot perform when he is dead.
Muhammad was a messenger because of his message . Muhammad IS still the Messenger of Allah because his message and his speech is with us . Muhammad the messenger still speaks to us . the messenger is with us , in my opinion .
but Muhammad could also die and get killed (3144) , and when Muhammad, the man is dead, we are not supposed not to turn back on our heels . the ayat will not become untrue .
-
Muhammad was a messenger because of his message . Muhammad IS still the Messenger of Allah because his message and his speech is with us . Muhammad the messenger still speaks to us . the messenger is with us , in my opinion .
Except for the messenger in my soul (3/164), Muhammad doesn't yet exist in my life. I hope sometime in the future, I will meet a Muhammad.
but Muhammad could also die and get killed (3144) , and when Muhammad, the man is dead, we are not supposed not to turn back on our heels . the ayat will not become untrue .
If we met a Muhammad and he died, there will be other Muhammadan personalities to replace him. When he dies and is no longer in our afaaq/horizon, he is no longer the Quranic Muhammad.
-
salam.
Muhammad was a messenger because of his message . Muhammad IS still the Messenger of Allah because his message and his speech is with us . Muhammad the messenger still speaks to us . the messenger is with us , in my opinion .
Except for the messenger in my soul (3/164), Muhammad doesn't yet exist in my life. I hope sometime in the future, I will meet a Muhammad.
why do u need to meet a Muhammad ? i mean what will u do ? u already have the speech of the rasool with you . that is what matters .
but Muhammad could also die and get killed (3144) , and when Muhammad, the man is dead, we are not supposed not to turn back on our heels . the ayat will not become untrue .
If we met a Muhammad and he died, there will be other Muhammadan personalities to replace him....
the verse says that Muhammad could die,get killed but doesnt mention replacing him .
-
why do u need to meet a Muhammad ? i mean what will u do ? u already have the speech of the rasool with you . that is what matters .
If I met a Muhammadur Rasulullah, I would follow him. Of course we have the speech of ar-rasool but al-islaam functions beyond the verbal dimension. If you read 48/28, 61/9 and 9/33, you will find that al-islaam is meant to be prevalent over other deens but its not.
the verse says that Muhammad could die,get killed but doesnt mention replacing him .
The ayat of Allah do not end in a linnear fashion. We experience them repeatedly in our lives.
-
Peace brother Layth,
I have managed to use some spare time this past week to rewrite and update the article 'Where Was Mohammed'.
http//free-minds.org/articles/history/moh.htm
Thanks to Ayman for providing the needed ctalyst with his last article.
It is always my pleasure to be a catalyst. You were the original catalyst for me rejecting Mecca as a place of any significance.
I think that a major benefit of such articles are the discussions that they spur. I already explained in the article why Jerusalem cannot be the place where the great reading was originally revealed. At this stage, I had just one comment about the reasons that you gave for excluding a place like Hegra (Median Saleh). I quote
Medien Saleh has 'tombs' carved out of the rock, whereas Scripture tells us they carved 'homes' (774);
Medien Saleh is situated in a 'flat-land' with 'rock-peaks' around it. The Scripture tells us to look for a 'Valley' (8910);
Medien Saleh has no water water source to host crops and gardens, while Petra has an advanced water system used for irrigation (26147-149).By the way, as I am sure you know but for the benefit of others, Hegra's alternate name being Median Saleh doesn't necessarily mean that it has anything to do with Median or Saleh. It could be simply a name later assigned to it.
As for your first point, the people in 774 lived long before those tombs were made. As the culture and people's preferences changed, later generations could have converted the houses into tombs.
As for your second and third point, it seems that you visited the tourist areas (the elaborately carved tombs) but not the town. Now keeping in mind that tombs are usually located outside the main town and ancient people (being supersticious) rarely lived near tombs, you should look for water and a valley outside the tourist area (the area of the tombs). The following picture looking away from the tombs' area and showing water and vegetation speaks for itself
http//nabataea.net/MDShigh%20place.jpg
Now I am not saying that Hegra is the place where the great reading was originally revealed. However, I am saying that your reasons for excluding it are not very convincing.
Also, why do you exclude places such as Domat, Tabuk, Hira, etc. without explanation? Here is another interesting quote from your article
In fulfillment of God?s promise, and in confirming the truth of the prophecy, the Muslim army once again set out to battle mighty Rome. This event fits the description of the historic 'Battle of Tabuk' that has been reported as the Prophet Mohammed's final military campaign before his death.
From the scripture, we don't hear of any other battle after the one in chapters 48 and 110. So if you say that the battle of Tabuk was the last one then Tabuk is the place.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Perhaps I missed something here because I did skim parts of the article, but Aramaic was spoken in the Jerusalem area, not Arabic. If the Quran was talking to people in that area as "seeing the ruins of Lot night and day", then why would it be in Arabic.
Also, why would Muhamma have been prevented from entering the temple by the Romans?
-
Simply put, "ibn abdullah" is not part of "Muhammad in the ayat".
Anwar Azim
dead and buried ?
Muhammad ibn Abdullah is dead and buried but what of Muhammad in the ayaat? If he is dead, then the ayat would not be true anymore.
salam.
how is 'Muhammad ibn abdullah' different from the Muhammad in the ayat ? i dont understand this .
and 'Muhammad in the ayat' could also die and get killed . how does that make the ayat untrue . -
Anwarul Simply put, "ibn abdullah" is not part of "Muhammad in the ayat".
I woudln't even say that. Ibn Abdullah must have experienced the ayaat concerning Muhammad but he has now left the stage, as it were. Now, we must have a living person living a living ayat.
-
Peace "mquran".
How do you know this "Ibn Abdullah must have experienced the ayaat concerning Muhammad"? From hadithist history/Sirah?
Anwar Azim
PS It is "Anwar" not "Anwarul".Anwarul Simply put, "ibn abdullah" is not part of "Muhammad in the ayat".
I woudln't even say that. Ibn Abdullah must have experienced the ayaat concerning Muhammad but he has now left the stage, as it were. Now, we must have a living person living a living ayat.
-
Mehdi this statement appears to come from a point of view which in it's opposition of traditionalism...
Appearances can be decieving.
has gone to the same extent in being extreme
Define please what 'extreme' is and what al-quraan says about it.
learning the life of even one's own grand parents, a certain teacher, or etc.. can have lasting benefits for any individual... to say "nothing he did beyond al-quraan" is a bit of a extremist point of view it seems....
'nothing he did beyond al-quraan' isnt even a coherent sentence. Do quote in context nothing he did beyond al-quraan has any lasting benefit for humanity
And I stand by this statement. What is 'lasting benefit to humanity' is al-haqq (see 13/17). Al-haqq comes from al-haqq Himself, Allah. Ibn Abdullah was a human being and anything he did beyond al-haqq cannot be al-haqq.
also please post what in your opionon is the 'certain role' of Rasulullah ...
An example would be 33/21, to be an 'uswatun hasanah'.
Anwar How do you know this "Ibn Abdullah must have experienced the ayaat concerning Muhammad"? From hadithist history/Sirah?
If you match Ibn Abdullah to the role of the reciever of al-quraan, then the ayat must match the role.
PS It is "Anwar" not "Anwarul".
My apologies. Are you the same Anwar from Rope list, years ago?
-
Peace "mquran",
Anwar How do you know this "Ibn Abdullah must have experienced the ayaat concerning Muhammad"? From hadithist history/Sirah?
If you match Ibn Abdullah to the role of the reciever of al-quraan, then the ayat must match the role.
Could you give an example? The narrations about Ibn Abdullah are very confusing. If you do give an example, according to whom?
PS It is "Anwar" not "Anwarul".
My apologies. Are you the same Anwar from Rope list, years ago?
No need for apologies. ) Yes, I was in Rope list but I don't know if I was the only one "Anwar". Anyway, I changed my name couple of years ago. Now as you can see, it is very short.
Anwar Azim
-
I guess the statemnet by Mquran, to have a live person living the Quran representing the Rasool is not much different from the Sunni who take the dead Rasool as an Idol,
Peace
-
I guess the statemnet by Mquran, to have a live person living the Quran representing the Rasool is not much different from the Sunni who take the dead Rasool as an Idol,
You guessed wrong. Ar-rasool when he actualises in the world
- commands by al-quraan (69/40)
- judges by al-quraan (5/4
So unless you're saying that the sahaba of Muhammad ibn Abdullah were musyrikeen themselves (because they had a 'live' messenger too), its false to connect having a living ar-rasool with taking ar-rasool as an idol. There's no need to idolise any rasool. We're simply to obey, follow and emulate him.
