Loving The Messsenger
-
Peace be upon you,
excellent analogy!
-
Salaam
This is an extract of the excellent book of Dr Mansur
"...
? ( 40).
? . . . . ( 19 23).
? ( 80). ( 37).
? " " .. ( 50).
? .. .
( 101) . ..
( 100).
. - - .
"" . ( 9)
"" . "" " ". . .
( 62)
" " .
..."Many more can be found while reading it and it changed dramatically my "strategy" in analysing and understanding the verses.
All his publications may be consulted on http//www.arabtimes.com ( click on then . )
Although there is much to say and many points that are not very, er... , well argumented, it is worth reading and you won't get out of it the same person!
NB. I am NOT one of hie followers lol lol lol
-
Decepticus, shnouwa ma'ana hada? Ma nifhimsh. ( Ma nitkallamsh fosha. Merci et peut Dieu vous b?nir.
peace
I read it quickly and it is full of flawed ideas, I will respond to it later and I will try to email a copy to them inshallah
peace
-
-
Salaam )
Thank you bro, I do appreciate the info you posted, despite the flawed info included in it by this man called Dr Mansur, what I have noticed that he lack the proper knowledge of the Arabic language, you have to be assured that even many native Arabic speakers may lack the proper knowledge of the Arabic language, I kow plenty myself, this is mostly grammar/balagha wise but for some to come and totally manipulate the clear meaning of some crystal clear Arabic words is way beyond ignorance as we will see by breaking up the following extract from Dr Mansur web site
This is an extract of the excellent book of Dr Mansur
not sure if it is excellent bro, just from the following extract it seems to me that it is no way near that, I think the title is grammatically wrong as well, as I believe it should be like this
, can you spot the difference?, if you can't just have a look at the following couple of verses out of 21 examples from the Quran using the word ? ?(70)
(45)
you will always see that Kafa "menaing enough" requires a Ba straight after it, like ?Kafa Be Allah Shahida?
therefore his excellent book title is grammatically wrong and should be ?Kafa Be Al Quran Masdaran Le Al Tashrie Al Islami?, i.e. ?It is enough that the Quran is the source of Islamic laws?
this tells me as a start that this Doctor lack the proper knowledge of the Arabic language like many native Arabs do, the rule is simple, if you are going to use the word ?Kafa? to mean ?Enough? then the noun that follows it must be preceded with a Ba
"...
? ( 40).He said above that Rasool means Nabi as per 3340, which actually the majority of the sunni belief, I also tend to believe as such due to the many clues the Quran gave us regarding these two words, I already started my researches regarding this matter a few weeks back but it is a big one as I have to extract all the verses where these words or any forms of it appear. It will be finished soon inshaallah, but what he said above does not raise my eye brow
? . . . . ( 19 23).
Here, he totally got it wrong, He said above that Rasool means the Arch Angel ?Jebril?, well what can I say, the word Rasool in 2319 clearly means Mohammad as a messenger sent by Allah, please read the verse again and see for yourself
It appears to me that his problem is coming from that he thinks the word means the people identity, for example whenever the word is used for someone then it should means that one, i.e. it should mean that dude during prophet Joseph time who was sent as a messenger ?Rasool? to bring Joseph out of jail to see Al Aziz,
? ( 80). ( 37).
LOL, here we go, a confirmation to what I said above, he said that Rasool means Malaika, this is indeed funny, let me tell you why
Firstly the words used in the above Arabic verses is ?Rusl? and it is plural of ?Rassol? and it refers to the Angels, however Rusl does not mean Angels doctor mansur ignorantly suggested, the verses only mean that the Angels are Rusl, i.e. they were assigned a task of being Rusl ?messengers?
His ignorance is clear in this Arabic sentence by him ? ?, it means ?Rasool means Angels?, he used a singular to say it means plural, LOL, man this doctor absolutely knows nothing, yet to describe his grammatically wrong titled book as excellent.
? " " .. ( 50).
Now he started to get it right and describe the meaning of Rasool as someone who is taking an action to deliver or say something to others, this is the verse from the story of Joseph I mentioned earlier, what doctor Mansur sais above that Rasool means someone who carry a message from someone to another, while it sound ok for me, I still see it not entirely accurate because Rasool describe the action of delivery not the person himself, i.e. Rasool means someone who was assigned a task to do something, but it does not mean the person his/her self, and this is whare Dr Manusr is getting it wrong
? .. .
Now it is getting ridiculous by him in here, he says the following ? ?, i.e ?Rasool means Al Quran or The Message?, now this is damn wrong, misleading and deceitful, there is no way on earth that the Arabic word ?Rasool? means the Arabic word ?Risalah?, the first means Messenger the second means Message, how come this can make any sense to any one who knows Arabic, forget even a solid knowledge, it just does not make any sense
But let?s look at the supporting verse he brought in
( 101) . ..
He says verse 3101 is a compelling evidence to support that Rasool means Quran, well the verse can be speculated anyway, is it talking about an incident at the time of the prophet? Or is it talking metaphorically that he is virtually with us because what he delivered is with us and what he delivered talks about him a lot?, I bet no conclusive answer can be concluded, therefore to use the above verse to support his silly claim is total n on sense and a clear cut case of severe word manipulation
The Quran told us ?Wa Ma Mohammad Ila Rasool?, then the verse said, if he is dead or murdered we turned around astray?, so what prevent Dr Mansur to interpret this verse as if the Quran is dead or killed, how about if the angels is dead or killed as he claims that the singular word Rasool also means the plural word Angels?
( 100).
. - - .
His ignorance comes in masses here, he brought in another verse to support his silly claim the Rasool means Al Quran
Verse 4100 never even inclined the slightest to that silly meaning, it means the following
He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah, finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide and spacious Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and His Messenger, His reward becomes due and sure with Allah And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
so his argument is, how come we migrate for the sake of the dead prophet? It must be for the sake of the Quran then, come Dr Manusr, this is very laughable mate, sorry
I guess this guy is a clear cut idol worshipper who is trying hard to make the non human Quran a human, isn?t that funny?
Well if he made the Quran a Rasool ?A Messenger? why not migrating to it then, yeh that make sense for sure
I wonder how he took meaning of the word migrate in this verse
It clearly means that anyone who leaves his house to call for Allah and how we can do that by using the Quran and the Quran was delivered by whom?, by Mohammad and the Quran told us that believers must belive in the messengers then we are logically calling for Mohammad as well and logically speaking we will be considered calling for all the other messengers as well as Mohammad message compiles all in one
"" . ( 9)
"" . "" " ". . .
( 62)
" " .A clear cut ignorance with the Arabic Balagha, ?The highest level of elegant Arabic?, the Arabic grammar says if the nouns are double then the verb used must express the doubling in the noun, and because in the two examples he posted 489 and 962 the double in the noun (Allah and His prophet) was followed by singular verbs. Then the word Rasool must mean ?The Quran Alone?, firstly he got it totally wrong in here, this guy is professional misleaders as REGARDLESS THE WORDS RASOOL MEANS MOHAMMAD OR THE QURAN, THE DOUBLING STAYS AS EITHER (ALLAH AND THE MOHAMMAD) OR (ALLAH AND THE QURAN), therefore he has no bloody point whatsoever
Secondly this guy does not know Balagha at all, the Arabic Balagha will overwrite the Arabic grammar if a compelling and logical reason is in place and what we have in place is the fact that if the double entities can not be the same entity then the verb has to be used in singular form and refers to the higher entity, and in the above verse while the noun is double (Allah and His Prophet), the action must be for Allah alone if therefore the singular verb was used to refer the action to Allah alone i.e. Monotheism
for example me and any human can be used in double form to perform a double verb, but me and a pen can not do that because me is not like a pen, so if a carry a pen it will be stupid to say Me and the pen ?Zahabana? to the school, Zahabana means verb went in double form, this will make people laugh at me because the pen can go on its own to the school, therefore I must say it like this ?me and the pen ?Zahabtu? to the school, Zahabtu is the verb went in singular form and refers tro me alone, not me and the pen, the general rule is to double a noun they must be from the same type to double the verb with them, I can provide links to Arabic web sites that will support what I said
Many more can be found while reading it and it changed dramatically my "strategy" in analysing and understanding the verses.
All his publications may be consulted on http//www.arabtimes.com ( click on then . )
I encourage you to keep reading and keep asking, Allah will surely out you in the right path of understanding His Arabic Quran, I will try to send Dr Salim a copy of this comment, I will let you know if he responds, I hope he does not take my refute as hostility though
Although there is much to say and many points that are not very, er... , well argumented, it is worth reading and you won't get out of it the same person,
NB. I am NOT one of hie followers lol lol lolI?m glad to hear that you are not one of his followers, as most of his argument lack evidences and very poorly argumented to be honest, Dr Mansur can be proven wrong easy using the Quran
Peace be with you mate
-
Peace be upon you Elke,
and thanks idolfree - just when i 'submitted" i said to myself - why do u post this BS
lol No it was very accurate in my opinion.
but i always try to find practical applications of theories - in the end it all comes down to everyday life.
Exactly, thats why your response was not BS.
idol, is this the ying part again ?
Not sure what you were referring to in regards to Yin so I cant answer.
-
brother decepticus
i read my comment and there is a few typos and missing Nots etc etc, i hope you can make sense of it, i will try to fix it tomorrow as I have to go to bed it is almost 2 am
good night
-
Peace be upon you Elke,
just that's it's very feminine to always see the practical "living" side
Okay, now I understand and agree. We ALL need to develop more of that feminine within us More of that "water", too much "fire" going on.
-
brother decepticus
i read my comment and there is a few typos and missing Nots etc etc, i hope you can make sense of it, i will try to fix it tomorrow as I have to go to bed it is almost 2 am
good night
Salaam and thank you very much for your interesting argumentation. Don't worry crystal clear P ! I am going to print it right now (it is 11 pm here in Tunisia roll ) and to re-read it along with the text of Dr Mansur. Nevertheless, there's something telling me that truth is somewhere between you both P
I just found that his book is published on free-minds!
Just a question before going to sleep is it wise to apply grammatical, syntax, "balagha" etc. rules on a text that existed long before these rules were invented? I still did not get a convincing answer from whoever I asked!
For DCS123 J'allais entreprendre une petite traduction mais gr?ce ? Dieu, AhmedBahgat s'en est charg? ? merveille et s'est m?me pay? le luxe de d?cortiquer, critiquer, confondre Dr Mansur! Y est-il arriv?? Je ne crois pas mais son argumentation est tr?s valable. Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait une traduction du livre de Dr Mansur (