Why no record of prophets in europe,australasia and america?

unknownuser

There is no evidence whatsoever that Buddah existed in the past, all you say guys is hearsay like the hadith exactly, Haha

Peace Ahmed,

Yes, we don't have clear cut proof that somone called the "buddha" existed. There is some evidence though. Like the existence of the religion "Buddhism." And they even have "hadith" of buddha, his sayings in everything.

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

Leyla

Ahmed of course I think the same way regarding The Quran and message since i was a teen

Just wanted to repeat that one. It was too good to leave it unnoticed.
Hope you don?t mind, Ahmed?

The problem is believe can mean two things. It can refer to a conviction and it can refer to an assumption.
My motherlanguage is also different from English so I am not too firm in that use as well.
But I can assure you
Assuming or believing, whatever word I may use, that a Muhammad Ibn Abdullah did exist has no relevance whatsoever in the d?n for me.
And if it was a social convention t call him Muhammad Ibn Yusuf I would just simply call him that way.
Did you get it, Ahmed?
For me it?s just a social convention, while for you it is faith in something outside of qur'?n!

bye,

leyla

phoenix1

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?
I don't have anything against gaining wisdom from the hadith.
What i do have a problem with is when

people use hadith to fill in what they think are "gaps" in the quran.
when people follow something blindly without questioning.

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.

unknownuser

Ahmed of course I think the same way regarding The Quran and message since i was a teen

Just wanted to repeat that one. It was too good to leave it unnoticed.
Hope you don?t mind, Ahmed?

not at all, now hope you don't mind to elaborate?, i like straightwforward people, sop please be as such with me if you don't mind that i may like you

The problem is believe can mean two things. It can refer to a conviction and it can refer to an assumption.

well if it is for a conviction, then it canlt be belief any more, it will be certain

only if it is assumotion, then you believe

i'm not talking emotions here, i'm only talking LOGIC, so please keep it logical

My motherlanguage is also different from English so I am not too firm in that use as well.
But I can assure you
Assuming or believing, whatever word I may use, that a Muhammad Ibn Abdullah did exist has no relevance whatsoever in the d?n for me.

hold on, we have a possible red hand case, let me repeat what you said in breif

?Believing that Mohammad did exist has no relevance WHATSOEVER IN THE DIN FOR YOU, ?

well you need to explain how the following verse apply to you then

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

(136)

-> if you agree that ?Rasoolihi? in 4136 is about Mohammad and according to your belief ?I mean Mohammad ibn Abd Allah?, then please explain would the above verse apply to you or not?, thank you

-> but bear in mind sister, if you believe via conviction or assumption ?whatever you want to call it? in Allah, this means you believe or assume that He exists, now 4136 is telling us ? O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger,?,, would Allah be talking to some group of people that you don?t belong to them?

And if it was a social convention t call him Muhammad Ibn Yusuf I would just simply call him that way.
Did you get it, Ahmed?

No sister I don?t get it, because calling him as such clearly means you agree on it and accept from the sunnah, unless what you say is not entirely accurate

For me it?s just a social convention, while for you it is faith in something outside of qur'?n!

Excuse me, don?t assume or believe about me what I never suggested about myself, did I say I believe that Mohammad was Mohammad Ibn Abd Allah?, no I don?t, all I said I can prove to myself where the name came from, did I say from where I will prove that?, no I didn?t, so please don?t assume as such because you got it wrong twice in one sentence, so I take it that what you say is not entirely accurate?

bye,

leyla

Cheers

Ahmed

Leyla

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

Leyla

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.
PEACE

unknownuser

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

unknownuser

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

unknownuser

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.
PEACE

sorry 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

unknownuser

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

phoenix1

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.

unknownuser

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

unknownuser

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?

Leyla

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

unknownuser

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

mquran

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.

mquran

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.

mquran

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'.

mquran

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.

mquran

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.