Why no record of prophets in europe,australasia and america?
-
Peace Ahmed
I did once discuss the same issue with you, as far as I recall.
I already saw the same questions and would not give other answers now.
You also discussed the same questions with the same answers with mquran and others.
You know my answers here and I don?t need to repeat them over and over to you.
This leads to nothing, only that we will start with a not so nice language again.
You know that.Call this running away, if you like. I don?t care. Believe me (assume? have conviction?), this is not the case.
I just simply feel very strong at the moment where this is going.Peace peace peace,
Leyla
Dear sister
please stop assuming, this is going to stay peaceful, i though you care to explain your position, also sister we never discussed this matter whatsoever, we only discussed the Nasaara matter
at least respond to 4136 i posted please
thanks
-
Peace bro
thanks man, so if we will give the haidth of mister Buddah any value, why not giving the haidth of mister Mohammad any value?
cheers
yes, why not?
of course, why not if after processing the hadith of anyone to see if it makes sense or not, then we can learn from it if there is a lesson in there
I don't have anything against gaining wisdom from the hadith.
likewise
What i do have a problem with is when
- people use hadith to fill in what they think are "gaps" in the quran.
it depends how we can classify something to be a gap, then we see if filling it was according to the Quran or not
- when people follow something blindly without questioning.
well, mister bukhari told us in his books that mister Mohammad said to his people to compare any hadith with the Quran to find out if he said it or not, if the Quran does not qualify it then the muslims should not uphold that hadith, again this is not what i said, it was mister bukhari in his books claiming that mister Mohammad said so, and I took that hadith by mister bukhari as a very truthful one indeed, and that is what I do, very simple
We can't be sure if that person, buddha really existed, or if those sayings are really buddha's, but there was someone, or a group of people, who did exist that started this whole "buddhism" thing.
Like Muhammad started Islam.don't ask me that question please, i have no logical answer to it, but you may ask those who like to provide illogical answers
Peace
-
P.S.
Just to answer the most important, but then I?m gone
Yes, I follow qur'?n 4/135 and I believe in Muhammad as he is presented in the qur'?n. But nowhere does the qur'?n tell me that this was a man in 7th century Arabis.
PEACEsorry leyla, i didn't read this comment before i posted my last one for you asking you to answer my question regarding verse 4136
well, yeh the quran didn't tell us that mohammad existed in the 7th century, but does it matter when?
well if he was in 4000 BC would it matter to you?
my question is according to 4136, do you believe Mohammad existed as the messenger of Allah some hundreds or thousands or years ago, i don't really care when?
Salam
-
Salam
I don't understand how someone could 100% believe in the quran and "maybe probably" believe that Prophet Mohamed (3aleih esalat wesalam) existed...And whats up with the whole "transexuals as prophets" deal? Gentle reminder Please don't be so bold as to stop fearing God...
Leyla, you made some good points about the definition of a rusul and nabi, right on Gazaki Allah kheir sis.
I think some folks are mixing using the quran-only for our sharia and way of life, with not believing in history even. That's kinda silly. History is wonderful. Without history we would have no direction in life. Ahadith give a great account of how the culture was at the time, dates, societal norms, the prophet's last name, etc etc. Thats all great. A FEW ahadith even give very good words to live by! Its just when we use ahadith to make up laws that have no basis in the quran that we run into major problems...
SALAM ALL -
well, mister bukhari told us in his books that mister Mohammad said to his people to compare any hadith with the Quran to find out if he said it or not, if the Quran does not qualify it then the muslims should not uphold that hadith, again this is not what i said, it was mister bukhari in his books claiming that mister Mohammad said so, and I took that hadith by mister bukhari as a very truthful one indeed, and that is what I do, very simple
Peace Ahmed,
I didn't mean to say that that's what you said. I was just pointing out something people do in general that i don't like. -
well, mister bukhari told us in his books that mister Mohammad said to his people to compare any hadith with the Quran to find out if he said it or not, if the Quran does not qualify it then the muslims should not uphold that hadith, again this is not what i said, it was mister bukhari in his books claiming that mister Mohammad said so, and I took that hadith by mister bukhari as a very truthful one indeed, and that is what I do, very simple
Peace Ahmed,
I didn't mean to say that that's what you said. I was just pointing out something people do in general that i don't like.I got you from the first time bro
but I also agree with your second comment
Cheers
-
Peace kestrel. I think there are a significant number of 'brits' on this forum...And many of them believe in the quran.....And even recognise some of the hadith....Are these 'hell' creatures?
Peace all. ps;what about the sunni brits...Any news on where they are heading? -
Peace soul2squeeze, peace all
What people fail to see is the difference between a general use of knowledge and a knowledge relevant in the d?n.
This is what Ahmed lacked to see and made him start mocking my position again.
I do use historical knowledge, it has its place.
But it does not change my d?n in any way.
What if history is revised?
That happens all the time.Scienes are just a useful social convention. I do use the convention that the earth travels around the sun.
But I only believe that because clever people told me so. I haven?t done the experiments of Kepler, Galilei, Kopernikus myself. I haven?t travelled to the outer space.
And maybe in some centuries some scientist will claim the opposit again, we don?t know. In the Middle Ages people also thought their social conventions were true, just like we do now.So, one has to make a distinction
A is just a social convention, useful knowledge a times but not relevant to the d?n,
B is al-qur'?n, 100% relevant to the d?n.I refer to social conventions about the man Muhammad when it is not relevant for my conviction and practice in the d?n.
When it is relevant to the d?n I only refer to what is found in al-qur'?n.Regards,
Leyla
-
Peace Leyla Peace Everyone,
Leyla, excellent last post! I think you hit it right on the money D
I do believe that scientific facts are laced in throughout the quran.. but if science changes, that makes science wrong not the quran (i.e. if scientists all of a sudden decided the earth was square LOL). So basically quran is the anchor to which anything else related to it must fit into and not the other way around. Be it science or hadith or the rig veda. Whatever strays from the meaning of the quran is disqualified from being true knowledge, as related to din, like you said before.
If the hadith tells me the Prophet Mohamed (p.b.u.h) liked to eat 3 dates, that's nice. It has nothing to do with din though. What if I'm allergic to dates or I'm a hog and ate 10 by accident -X lol
If the hadith tells me a monkey, a woman, a dog, or a donkey crossing in front of you while you pray nullifies your salat - that's weird and incredibly chauvinistic. I know that Allah gives a noble position to women and wouldn't degrade her as to put her in the same category as animals. I know that Allah provided all the laws in His book and never once did He mention women, monkeys, dogs and donkeys in the same verse. Therefore, the quran isn't all of a sudden incomplete or wrong - its the hadith that's funky.
In fact, if we all agree that the quran is clear, complete, and God does not forget to mention something, then we wouldn't really need to refer to hadith for our way of life to begin with! It doesn't mean we can't read it though. I can read any book in the world! It's the changing of God's words that becomes problematic.
As for the real topic of discussion, God specifically states in the quran that there were many many prophets and a billion stories but He only mentions to us that which is relevant and important to our lives. He also tells us that to every umma (peoples) and to every karyaten (town) God will send a monthir (warner) to be shahid (witness) against what they do. That may or may not equate prophethood. Plus, we're only guessing where the prophets in the quran are from. I read somewhere that Prophet Nuh (p.b.u.h) might have been from sub-Saharan Africa. But your guess is as good as mine.. God only knows.
Salam
-
Enquirer Yes,they are all human,and so have the potential for mistakes,contradictions,incomplete understandings etc...I think we can get ideas off these guys,and then ascertain/verify if the ideas are practically beneficial or not,even if we have to modify,or reject some of their ideas...
That's indeed why I try to do. Besides, it's fun, bashing ideas around.
-
Phoenix we can't include everyone in the Prophet's list.
There are some near greats but the prophet's should be only the few on top.
I won't anyone in the list except those mentioned in al-quraan and 'live' nabiyeen i've met in my life. All rest are heresay.
-
Leyla However, the quranic nab? has a different function. He does indeed also warn of future events but of those of a higher order.
He is one who has news (naba) of al-akhirat and who warns and brings good news to humans, if I recall the relevant verses right.
At the same time, even the word ras?l is quite often translated as "prophet".
Ras?l, though, is just simply one who brings the ris?lah of God, no matter how, I?d say.
He is the one who practices tilaw?t-ul-qur'?n, close following of al-qur'?n.
There are also other related terms, like e.g. mursal.Further, 'AR-rasool' are certainly different from mere 'rusul'.
-
Kestrel If britons were believers then we would have to go on putting up with them in the nextworld, but they are hell creatures... Thank God!
If you're not joking, then I must consider you an ignoramous. I know several Britons who outclass most 'muslims' i've known in terms of belief and goodness. How sad for you if you think this.
-
Ahmednice one sister, no development here, i'm using the Quran aloners flawed logic, you and Mquran call him Moahammad Ibn Abd Allah, now I can prove to myself where this name came from, i want you to enlighten me in how you managed to call him Mohammad Ibn Abd Allah using the Quran alone please?
if you resorted to the hadith then sorry this is double standards, confusion and non sensible by you
if you believed the sunni when they called him Mohammad Ibn Abd allah, then how come you did that?, it still sounds double standards, confusion and non sensible by you
I used 'mohamed ibn Abdullah' for ease of discussion. Mohamed ibn Abdullah is simply the person who is historically known to recieve al-quraan. I could call him 'bob', 'joe', 'mr x' or whatever you like when im discussing with you. Don't get so hooked up on it, AB.
-
Salaams all,
a prophet to every nation/all peoples is what it says so there are dozens who we havn't been able to recognise as such.
Has anybody done or has a list of the features or qualities of the Lords messenger ?
God Bless.
-
Further, 'AR-rasool' are certainly different from mere 'rusul'.
Two question Mquran
- Why you write it "AR-rasool" and not "Al-rasool"?
- what is the difference between Al-rasool and rusl?
thanks
-
I used 'mohamed ibn Abdullah' for ease of discussion.
bro, this is not going to make it easy because if you will call him mohammad ibn Abduallh, you have to tell me how you verified it to call him as such
Mohamed ibn Abdullah is simply the person who is historically known to recieve al-quraan.
so you acceot the history records?, well, can you please tell me how the history proved that Mohammad father is named Abd Allah
I could call him 'bob', 'joe', 'mr x' or whatever you like when im discussing with you.
thanks, i prefer Mohammad then
Don't get so hooked up on it, AB.
bro, there is no hooking here, my question to you and leyla stands, how did you verify that Mohammad father is named Abd Allah?
thanks
-
Peace all,
I believe there's a fine line between a prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasool). With respect to Allah=Reality (as rightfully prophessed by enquirer) is THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. A prophet can be anyone who initiates, propagates and adjudicates a message conforming to reality (the truth of events/circumstances as witnessed at any given time to be accurate, be that of past, present or present-continuous participle form). All those who agree with the prophet's (nabi's) message and expounds to further expanding/conveying the very message where it first originated from (i.e. the nabi) become messengers (rasool), keeping in mind that "THE GOD" IS REALITY.
Anyone knowing who or what GOD is 100% in CERTAINTY must come out and claim so??? Else don't make a FOOL out of yourselves and others at the same time. Once anyone knows who or what GOD IS, then let me know what Quran is all about?
-
I used 'mohamed ibn Abdullah' for ease of discussion.
bro, this is not going to make it easy because if you will call him mohammad ibn Abduallh, you have to tell me how you verified it to call him as such
Mohamed ibn Abdullah is simply the person who is historically known to recieve al-quraan.
so you acceot the history records?, well, can you please tell me how the history proved that Mohammad father is named Abd Allah
I could call him 'bob', 'joe', 'mr x' or whatever you like when im discussing with you.
thanks, i prefer Mohammad then
Don't get so hooked up on it, AB.
bro, there is no hooking here, my question to you and leyla stands, how did you verify that Mohammad father is named Abd Allah?
thanks
The Leyla/Majnu relentless orthodoxical corroborations continues. A failed and debased partnership.