Is " Ahmad " in 61:6 different from Muhammad ?
-
Salaams Almarhom,
Only God is the most praised/ approved, to establish on earth - i think.
but try
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10058.0
Gods Blessing.
-
Salaams Br,
i think the link actualy answered that, still
I think Ahmad in the ayah is (name/attribute of) Allah.
And Mohammad is a discriptive term of a person denoting him a prophet or messenger.
So all messengers, prophets where Mohammad most of the time.
but we are Mohammad very very rare.
But of course this is only what i think , but idol was the first to convey it.
SO MUHAMMAD ISN'T AHMAD UNFORTUNATELY.
Does any Body know of any hadith where the prophet is called AHMAD ?
Gods Blessings.
-
Peace Simple
And your Evidence that Ahmad is attribute of Allah is .........? and not a name , bear in mind the Verse clearly says that Ismuhu Ahmad .
As for Muhammad , I concur with you that it is a Description , But it is also a Proper name . I am not one to parrot other people's opinion and always Try not to Type Faster than I can Think.
Cheers
almarh0m
-
Peace Simple
And your Evidence that Ahmad is attribute of Allah is .........? and not a name , bear in mind the Verse clearly says that Ismuhu Ahmad .
As for Muhammad , I concur with you that it is a Description , But it is also a Proper name . I am not one to parrot other people's opinion and always Try not to Type Faster than I can Think.
Cheers
almarh0m
I think you miss-understood me, i don't parrot anybodies saying, stopped doing that a number of years earlier but will give people the respect they deserve when i agree with their findings but it doesn't mean i am right.
ismuhu may mean a name but not here to my findings though, here is a hadith , don't worry if you don't believe in them
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 419
Narrated Jubair bin MutimI heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'I have several names I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad, and I am Al-Mahi with whom Allah obliterates Kufr (disbelief), and I am Al-Hashir (gatherer) at whose feet (i.e. behind whom) the people will be gathered (on the Day of Resurrection), and I am Al-Aqib (i.e. who succeeds the other prophets in bringing about good)."
So the prophet had five names (ismuhu) or they discriptions or something?
God Bless All.
-
Peace be upon you,
"ahmad" and "muhammad" are both description of the same concept, the state of "hamd" where we must rise to through reprograming our behavior...there is no literal person, it is an image of the God like man or woman.
-
Peace!
I don't know why people on this forum are so allergic to Prophet Muhammed. Sometimes I feel this website is a sister project of faithfreedom.org
-
Peace be upon you,
No, not allergic to "Prophet Muhammad" (whoever that is)..just allergic to blind following of "scholars". You have to realize that you accepted many teaching indescriminately without taking time to ponder the meaning for yourself. Adding the prefix "mu" to "hamd" (basically) gives you "muhammad" or one who manifests "hamd" ...the same way other words are put together. Also, doesnt the statement "his name is ahmad" hold a stronger pull as a name rather that "muhammad"? Neither are a name, but there is no compulsion for you to believe me...just as thier is no compulsion for you to believe the so called scholars.
-
Peace all!
<<You have to realize that you accepted many teaching indescriminately without taking time to ponder the meaning for yourself.>>
True indeed!
<Adding the prefix "mu" to "hamd" (basically) gives you "muhammad" or one who manifests "hamd">
If my name is Abdullah, means servant of Allah, and people would start denying that I was ever existed making the same arguement as yours. I am a bit dumb to understand this, would you please explain.
I appriciate that you are allergic to blind following of scholars, but is it good to follow blindly to your own imaginations. Both are forms of shirk according to Quran, only if you believe in Quran.
Thanks says Hamsa.
-
Peace be upon you,
Imagine if people started to read this book and start translating statements where "abdulullah" was stated and thought it was a name, instead of a description, and started making all inds of stories about Prophet Abdulullah. It doesnt matter if people name themselves "muhammad", thats fine, but we are trying to get at the clear message.
-
peace,
i always thought
mohammad = one who is praised
ahmad = one who praisessame root - but why would that lead u to disbelieve in the fact mohammad was real idolfree? if he wasnt real where did the quran come from? i dont doubt that many many stories have been made up about him - just as they were made up about jesus and other prophets.... but it doesnt mean that they were less real? get me?
-
Peace be upon you,
Imagine if people started to read this book and start translating statements where "abdulullah" was stated and thought it was a name, instead of a description, and started making all inds of stories about Prophet Abdulullah. It doesnt matter if people name themselves "muhammad", thats fine, but we are trying to get at the clear message.
Salaam all,
It seems you only want to think what suits your desires. Otherwise you would have said that we could translate it both way. Anyways I would love to understand it from you. As i remain truthful to myself so I can independently think about your point of view. Please explain it in detail.
Thanks in advance says Hamsa
-
Peace almarh0m, all,
Not being the father of any men does not mean he did not have any OFFSPRINGS. It means he did not have any sons but does not exclude him from having any daughters, who will also be his offsprings.
Brother Hamsa,
Idolfree's views are not those of all the members of free-minds forum.
The following discussion conclusively proves that "Muhammad" is a proper name as used in al-qur'aan, and not a common noun, especially in 472
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11105.msg106251#msg106251
-
Peace be upon you,
same root - but why would that lead u to disbelieve in the fact mohammad was real idolfree?
We are told not to go after that which we have no knowledge...the literal "Muhammad" can never be proven...however the one who manifests "hamd"....who follows the example of Ibraheem...can be verified. These stories have been told from the beginning of time and the characters were understood to be symbolic, it is the taking of these examples as literal that has helped to weaken the message, making man a passive worshipper rather than an active servant.
if he wasnt real where did the quran come from?
From the wise human or humans who wrote it, doesnt really matter who it comes from, what only matters is useful information that can be verified as truth. The God says we will know if it is from God if it does not contradict life expericence.
i dont doubt that many many stories have been made up about him - just as they were made up about jesus and other prophets.... but it doesnt mean that they were less real? get me?
Yes, I understand you clearly, there is no proof that he did not exist, but I could come up with any name and say "well you cant prove that he doesnt exist". I could say there really was a Santa Claus back in the 1700's, who used to fly around with reindeer, but he died. Can I prove there never was a Santa Claus? No I cant, however, I am not going to go after that which I have no knowledge, I was not a witness. Therefore I must ponder the meaning of "muhammad" and look at what is really being said to the reader to transform them, not to teach the the history of some "superhero" whom we bow down to.
-
Peace Hamsa
I don't know why people on this forum are so allergic to Prophet Muhammed. Sometimes I feel this website is a sister project of faithfreedom.org
I think when I start to think like this that I become not only close-minded to a degree but tyrannical and a sort of usurper to God's authority. God clearly gives the leeway for one to believe as s/he will . I do not always except a literally based understanding such as the characters in the book/alkitab being wholly exact individuals, but I think I am best off giving others the chance to hold to those beliefs. Besides I started off that way and still think it best to go with the simple interpretations before digging deeper.
Joe
-
Yeah, i've always thought about this before. God mentioned 'Muhammad' 4 times and 'Ahmad' once. Why would He refer to Muhammad as Ahmad? What's the significance of this? Are they one and the same or two separate person?
And I am inclined to disagree to the notion that 'Muhammad' is not a literal person, because the Quran (The Message) must be given to someone (The Messenger) so that he can convey it, just like the previous messages were given to Jesus, Moses .etc
-
Peace "idolfree",
The literal Muhammad can be proven through archeological evidences just like caesar, alexander the great, pharaoh, etc. GOD Bless!The problem is where to even begin to look. So many theories... The members of this forum can't even agree among themselves where the historical bearer of the Quran (wether his name was indeed Muhamad or not), was born.
Do we look for archeological evidence in the present-day Mecca? Medina (where his tomb is believed to lie)? Or do we look in the Jordan/Palestine area? Or do we look in Iraq?
Can we believe that the Quran is a product of the 7th Century? Or does it come from an even earlier time?
The Islamic traditions tell us that the Prophet Muhamad sent two letters to each of the Sassanid Emperor "Khosrau" (Kissra) and the Byzantine Ruler Heraclios, inviting them to submit. Can this be confirmed? Is there any record of them having received such letters in the histories of both the Persian and Roman Empires?
The prospect is mind-boggling to say the least.
I personally believe that the Quran was the product of a single divinely inspired man, who lived somewhere in Arabia. If this not so, then all the verses which talk about the Prophet and his wives/daughters/houses, and how the faithful should not raise their voices against him, and should support and respect him, would not make any sense. God did not throw down printed copies of the Quran from the sky for people to read them. Sp I believe teh Quran was indeed revealed through one man.
However, I don't think we should waste our energies trying to prove his existence from an archeological point of view, since it is likely we don't even know where to begin to look.
Let's focus on his message, and not his person.