The prefix "MU"
-
the double dummah on the last letter makes it pronounced "Mohammadon" but that double dummah was not there when the quran was revealed
the verse clearly proves that Mohammad was a real man who was a messenger like any other messneger appointed by Allah before him, and Allah is warning us the we should not go astry if that messeneger DIED OR KILLED, dies or killed clealy states that Mohammad was a live human at the time of the Quran, sure he must be because he is the one that brought the Quran, the people then didn't find it in the streets, and the Quran took 23 years to be revealed on that man
It's ?amma(h) (/dhamma(h)) and not dumma. Isn't that something that a claimed native arab speaker should know of?
When it comes to this imaginary prophet Mohammed...has it never struck you that this "muhammad" always appears out of nowhere and vanishes as fast again? Never inside a context of a story or something that has to do with narratives. We get no clue what so ever to who this is. And the thing is that all of the other prophet names are in fact proper names not conjugated words when "muhammad" in fact IS a conjugation thus no proper name.
Peace El aziz, you are a time waster and obvioulsy you don't know what you talking about
it will be a waste of my valued time to reply to you, therefore I will ignore your comment
peace
-
you are a time waster and obvioulsy you don't know what you talking about
As a matter of fact I do...obviously! )
Was I spot on you're not a native arab speaker? Nevermind...it will be a waste of my valued time to reply to you, therefore I will ignore your comment
...but you didn't.
Now you know about the name of the vocalization mark anyway...
/S
-
Peace el-aziz. I found your view on the origin of the quran very interesting. Any more information?
Peace. -
Peace
the verse clearly proves that Mohammad was a real man who was a messenger like any other messneger appointed by Allah before him
I agree and I would add too that muhammad is and can be such a one. Still you've not shown me where the reading says as you say that muhammad is mohmoodan.
Joe
-
you are a time waster and obvioulsy you don't know what you talking about
As a matter of fact I do...obviously!
Was I spot on you're not a native arab speaker? Nevermind...it will be a waste of my valued time to reply to you, therefore I will ignore your comment
...but you didn't.
Now you know about the name of the vocalization mark anyway...
/S
well I decided to reply to you now
what is your point exactly? let me prove to you kid that you have no point
you said the following
It's ?amma(h) (/dhamma(h)) and not dumma. Isn't that something that a claimed native arab speaker should know of?
based on that I called it dumma
lol lol lol lol lol lol
you are so funny mister and as I told ya you are a real time waster, I don't even need to expalin it, but I will do this time due to the very low IQ you have
it is called this mister smart , now you want to call it in english ?amma(h) (/dhamma(h)) , i really donlt give a fluke because you are talking in ENGLISH smart kid, but I rejeect the way you call it and I want to call it Dumma in english, and I careless you mind it or not
now can you please stop wasting my valued time ?
thanks and all the best to you learning arabic
-
...I will do this time due to the very low IQ you have
That's the kind of thing a 15 year old would say. I didn't excpect this from a grown up man.
...I want to call it Dumma in english, and I careless you mind it or not
But obviously you do care. )
There's no "u" in damma/dhamma, so I just didn't see why you replaced it. End of discussion. -
Peace el-aziz. I found your view on the origin of the quran very interesting. Any more information?
Peace.Unfortunately, there's not too much available in litterature. I suggest you search on google for keywords such as
christian, quran, midrash, midrashim, talmud, origin
...and combine them.There are quite alot of christian information available on the matter even if one has to disregard from at least 65 % when reading it for reasons such as "Muhammad misunderstood..." etc...
I will speak to my favorite rabbi tomorrow and ask if there are any fine book titles on the subject that he knows of. 'Cause I know there are.
/S
-
Peace el-aziz. I found your view on the origin of the quran very interesting. Any more information?
Peace.Unfortunately, there's not too much available in litterature. I suggest you search on google for keywords such as
christian, quran, midrash, midrashim, talmud, origin
...and combine them.There are quite alot of christian information available on the matter even if one has to disregard from at least 65 % when reading it for reasons such as "Muhammad misunderstood..." etc...
I will speak to my favorite rabbi tomorrow and ask if there are any fine book titles on the subject that he knows of. 'Cause I know there are.
/S
One thing you should be careful of, and that is a certain logical fallacy you have committed. It is quite clear that there are things in the Koran that were already known at the time of its revelation... such as the existence of the Jewish Prophets and Jesus... That can hardly be questioned. Also, much of what the Koran says in the way of laws can also be found in Jewish scripture. However, you are assuming because one came before the other, the later one must have copied the earlier one.
Imagine three people, lets call them Andy, Brad, and Charlie who all know each other. Imagine Andy has some kind of information that neither Brad nor Charlie know about. One day, he tells Brad about it, and tells him to write it down. Over the years Brad adds of his own thoughts to this information he had gotten from Andy, even talking about what kind of person Andy was etc. Then a few years later Andy tells the same thing to Charlie and tells him to write it down, but Charlie makes sure not to add anything to this document. So now you've got two documents which say "Andy said that....", one that is longer than the other. Decades or centuries down the road a historian comes across these two documents. He knows that Brad and Charlie knew each other, so he makes the conclusion that because Charlie's document was written years after Brad's, and has no information that is not of Brad's document, it must simply be a copy of some parts of the document. But it truth Charlie's document is not a copy, but actually relates the original information from the original source, and is actually the only version that hasn't been altered.
That is much like the history behind the Bible and the Koran. The Bible came first... God gave the revelations to the Jewish Prophets. Because the tradition was oral for such a long time, there were unfortunate additions and alterations made to it (especially as far as historical tales in the Old Testament/Torah), or even destructive changes in the New Testament by the likes of "Saint" Paul. The Koran's information came from the same source as the Jewish Prophet's information, the only difference being that it was set into writing very quickly, and writing it down meant that we can verify old copies to make sure the Koran hasn't been changed (which, btw, it has, ever so slightly, so sometimes we do need to refer back to the Tashkent copy for a better picture). So, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (at the very least) have gotten their information from the same source (God) though the same mediums (Prophets) but the latest information, the Koran, is the one that is closest to us in time, and was written down very soon after its revelation, which is not the case with the older texts, which were generally passed on orally for generations before being written down.
-
Salaam all,
I enjoy the discussion. If I may, I want to ask something.
If Muhammad is not a human name but a concept, then what makes other "names" such as Musa, 'Isa, Luth, Ibrahim, etc to be human names and not concepts as well?
I was reading Lane's Lexicon and this is what I found about Musa (Mim-Waw-Sin)
Mim-Waw-Sin = Lane's Lexicon, Vol 7, page 272.
shaved;
a certain precious stone, reckoned among jewels, which is very rare;
a certain instrument of iron (with which one shaves);Well, how about that? D Does it fit to other ayats? I haven't gotten into other names. But what do you think?
=adley=
-
Hello
a good note is this
prophet Solaiman name root is S L M,
now when prophet Solaiman sent the bird to the queen of sheba, it carried with it a very strong threat from Solaiman to invade her country and make them slaves
where peace fits here in the name of Solaiman?
cheers
-
Salaam Ahmed,
Good question which I don't have any answers for. Sorry. D
However Ahmed, can Sin-Lam-Mim also means submission? Correct me if I'm wrong please. I understand it to be that based on 4914.
If Sin-Lam-Mim means submission, could it be that Sulaiman was the messenger who carried the order from Allah to make the din of submission a reality? Still, this is just my "what if" question, so there is a lot of holes there. D
=adley=
-
Salaam Ahmed,
Good question which I don't have any answers for. Sorry.
However Ahmed, can Sin-Lam-Mim also means submission? Correct me if I'm wrong please. I understand it to be that based on 4914.
If Sin-Lam-Mim means submission, could it be that Sulaiman was the messenger who carried the order from Allah to make the din of submission a reality? Still, this is just my "what if" question, so there is a lot of holes there.
=adley=
Peace Adley
yes bro it also means to surrender or to submit, as well it means to deliever in addition to mean to greet,
for Solaiman, if we use this root methd to try to fgind what his name means then it can mean three things as we can see
in reality, names mean nothing but entities
peace be with you mate
Take care mate
-
Salaam all,
I enjoy the discussion. If I may, I want to ask something.
If Muhammad is not a human name but a concept, then what makes other "names" such as Musa, 'Isa, Luth, Ibrahim, etc to be human names and not concepts as well?
I was reading Lane's Lexicon and this is what I found about Musa (Mim-Waw-Sin)
Mim-Waw-Sin = Lane's Lexicon, Vol 7, page 272.
shaved;
a certain precious stone, reckoned among jewels, which is very rare;
a certain instrument of iron (with which one shaves);Well, how about that? Does it fit to other ayats? I haven't gotten into other names. But what do you think?
=adley=
The root of Musa's name is not an Arab one but an Arabic transcribation of a Hebrew name - Mosh? - most likely derrived from an Egyptian one - mes meaning son and in Hebrew possibly deliver is the meaning of Mosh?.
If you browse through the Koran you will find that that the name of Moses is in fact not tracable to no Arabic root or any conjugation of the same origin.
-
One thing you should be careful of, and that is a certain logical fallacy you have committed. It is quite clear that there are things in the Koran that were already known at the time of its revelation... such as the existence of the Jewish Prophets and Jesus... That can hardly be questioned. Also, much of what the Koran says in the way of laws can also be found in Jewish scripture. However, you are assuming because one came before the other, the later one must have copied the earlier one.
Imagine three people, lets call them Andy, Brad, and Charlie who all know each other. Imagine Andy has some kind of information that neither Brad nor Charlie know about. One day, he tells Brad about it, and tells him to write it down. Over the years Brad adds of his own thoughts to this information he had gotten from Andy, even talking about what kind of person Andy was etc. Then a few years later Andy tells the same thing to Charlie and tells him to write it down, but Charlie makes sure not to add anything to this document. So now you've got two documents which say "Andy said that....", one that is longer than the other. Decades or centuries down the road a historian comes across these two documents. He knows that Brad and Charlie knew each other, so he makes the conclusion that because Charlie's document was written years after Brad's, and has no information that is not of Brad's document, it must simply be a copy of some parts of the document. But it truth Charlie's document is not a copy, but actually relates the original information from the original source, and is actually the only version that hasn't been altered.
That is much like the history behind the Bible and the Koran. The Bible came first... God gave the revelations to the Jewish Prophets. Because the tradition was oral for such a long time, there were unfortunate additions and alterations made to it (especially as far as historical tales in the Old Testament/Torah), or even destructive changes in the New Testament by the likes of "Saint" Paul. The Koran's information came from the same source as the Jewish Prophet's information, the only difference being that it was set into writing very quickly, and writing it down meant that we can verify old copies to make sure the Koran hasn't been changed (which, btw, it has, ever so slightly, so sometimes we do need to refer back to the Tashkent copy for a better picture). So, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (at the very least) have gotten their information from the same source (God) though the same mediums (Prophets) but the latest information, the Koran, is the one that is closest to us in time, and was written down very soon after its revelation, which is not the case with the older texts, which were generally passed on orally for generations before being written down.
Thanks a lot for your input. I'm not ready to agree with you on the matter of information given by G-d to a prophet compared to Andy letting Charlie in on a secret. The reason is the following G-d does not speak. It is only for the one that seeks G-d that will hear his voice, and that is nothing but an impact on one's inner voice and not an actual voice, agree? As far as I know, at least none of the old "semitic prophets" has ever been able to distinguish any features on G-d's voice like it would be soft, harsh, slowly-spoken etc...
So if the material of the Koran is overall consistent with other sources, is it then not safe to assume that the previous sources (of at least the ones that match) actually the ones copied?
Think about it, it's nothing but an assumption or matter of religious taste - that the Koran would have been recited by or from G-d, isn't it?
Last, the Torah (the five books of Moses) and the Old testament (Torah, Prophets' books and the writings) is not the same thing.
Thanks for a serious post!
/S
-
Thanks a lot for your input. I'm not ready to agree with you on the matter of information given by G-d to a prophet compared to Andy letting Charlie in on a secret. The reason is the following G-d does not speak. It is only for the one that seeks G-d that will hear his voice, and that is nothing but an impact on one's inner voice and not an actual voice, agree? As far as I know, at least none of the old "semitic prophets" has ever been able to distinguish any features on G-d's voice like it would be soft, harsh, slowly-spoken etc...
So if the material of the Koran is overall consistent with other sources, is it then not safe to assume that the previous sources (of at least the ones that match) actually the ones copied?
Think about it, it's nothing but an assumption or matter of religious taste - that the Koran would have been recited by or from G-d, isn't it?
Last, the Torah (the five books of Moses) and the Old testament (Torah, Prophets' books and the writings) is not the same thing.
Thanks for a serious post!
/S
Well, for the purposes of my example, I don't think it really matters how God communicated the scriptures to humans... obviously there are intermediary hands at work (angels?). What I am saying is that more likely than not, the original information given to all the religions ultimately came from the same otherworldly source (call is angels or God or what you may), and because it came from the same source, we can be quite safe in saying that if some kind of basic religious beliefs can be found throughout the world, most likely those beliefs originated in the otherworldly, whereas the differences that have arisen are mostly worldly, and hence human, creations.
As for the Koranic revelation that we still have, I would argue that given it's history, it is one of the most reliable sources (if not the most reliable) of this otherworldly information.
You see, it really doesn't make sense that there are some fundamental truths that God/the angels want us to know about, and then just give it to the semites (Jews and Arabs)... makes a lot more sense to send a Messenger to all the people of the world (something which btw. is confirmed in the Koran). Some of these messengers have been forgotten by history, others have had their message corrupted by the same. The advantage we have now is that in the information age we have access to most of the scriptures from around the world right at our fingertips, so we don't have to rely on just one source, but can compare and contrast, and with that come up with our own conclusions... a dangerous task if one brings too many prejudices into the process. -
Claurianta,
Well, for the purposes of my example, I don't think it really matters how God communicated the scriptures to humans... obviously there are intermediary hands at work (angels?). What I am saying is that more likely than not, the original information given to all the religions ultimately came from the same otherworldly source (call is angels or God or what you may), and because it came from the same source, we can be quite safe in saying that if some kind of basic religious beliefs can be found throughout the world, most likely those beliefs originated in the otherworldly, whereas the differences that have arisen are mostly worldly, and hence human, creations.
As for the Koranic revelation that we still have, I would argue that given it's history, it is one of the most reliable sources (if not the most reliable) of this otherworldly information.
You see, it really doesn't make sense that there are some fundamental truths that God/the angels want us to know about, and then just give it to the semites (Jews and Arabs)... makes a lot more sense to send a Messenger to all the people of the world (something which btw. is confirmed in the Koran). Some of these messengers have been forgotten by history, others have had their message corrupted by the same. The advantage we have now is that in the information age we have access to most of the scriptures from around the world right at our fingertips, so we don't have to rely on just one source, but can compare and contrast, and with that come up with our own conclusions... a dangerous task if one brings too many prejudices into the process.The way the information is given is indeed - in contrary to what you just said - a very critical point when validating the origin of something as for in this case, The Koran. The Koran was written by man. Saying that it was actually sent down/revealed to man is nothing but an assumption since a source of human origin (such as the language or a piece of paper with ink on it - no matter the substance of it) cannot by itself verify that it is of G-d given. Never has it been confirmed that a typewriter has started typing all by itself, ending the whatever sacred text signed "G-d" and the common muslim claim that The Koran was actually given from G-d to Mohammad is no different than any other religion's dito.
I'm not trying to mock you - but just make sense to what you're saying (and hoping not to misunderstand you) - as I say if you feel that latest prophets are the most accurate ones, then the information revealed to the ten gurus of Sikhism (16th and 17th century) or Bah?'u'll?h by G-d (year 1844) might be even more accurate than The Koran.The revelation of the Koran and that process seems to me like one of the less reliable tall tales I have ever heard of, seriously. I can't find anything about it that seems somewhat "reliable", can you please fill me in?
One more thing, The Koran does not verify anything but it's own claims in terms of prophets.
/S
-
Salaam El-Aziz,
The root of Musa's name is not an Arab one but an Arabic transcribation of a Hebrew name - Mosh? - most likely derrived from an Egyptian one - mes meaning son and in Hebrew possibly deliver is the meaning of Mosh?.
If you browse through the Koran you will find that that the name of Moses is in fact not tracable to no Arabic root or any conjugation of the same origin.
Thanks for this input. I didn't know. I used OpenBurhan to trace the occurences of Musa, and it showed me Mim-Waw-Sin. Thus, my post earlier.
=adley=
-
Claurianta,
I'm not trying to mock you - but just make sense to what you're saying (and hoping not to misunderstand you) - as I say if you feel that latest prophets are the most accurate ones, then the information revealed to the ten gurus of Sikhism (16th and 17th century) or Bah?'u'll?h by G-d (year 1844) might be even more accurate than The Koran.
To clarify this point, I did not mean to say that a later revelation automatically makes something more accurate. I would say that in their time, all the revelations were equally accurate. However, the revelations have not maintained their original forms 100% (at least the ones I am acquinted with), with certain revelations (such as the New Testament) being the subject of very considerable rewrites by humans.
Now, as for your assertion that the Koran, and other revelations I suppose (?) are the work of man, I do realize that we are at a problematic point. I cannot scientifically prove beyond all doubt that it is revelation, whereas the same goes for you... you cannot scientifically prove beyond all doubt that it is manmade. We both have good evidence on our sides, but no conclusive proof. Where does this leave us? We can continue our quest in searching for the truth, or we can just stick to our beliefs and not budge. I'm choosing the first path, fully realizing that the task is rather impossible.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - Andre Gide.