To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim

unknownuser

What is the logic in putting the "Prophet" as a subject????
Tell me
Agent is "third person singular"
How are you sure he is "Prophet " not anyone else??????????

Another Tampering .Is this not ?????

Basic logic?

To whom was Qur?an given?

To whom does God speak to directly in Qur?an?

Do a search on "say" or qul and see verses 3340, 472, 806, and others and use your mind to put it all together.

Transitive Property of Equality if a = b and b = c, then a = c

Qur?an is for people of intelligence (1678, etc); a mind is required as a prerequisite.

Lastly, you are never too old to learn (reason you are here, right?) -- also see below...

Nun,381 When Allah made (His) covenant with the Prophets, (He said) Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered We agree. He said Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you.
They help him. that suggests that the later messenger is their leader.

No, "they help him" suggests that the later messenger is their student.

Peace

unknownuser

1781
(1781) And declare, "The Truth has come and falsehood has vanished for falsehood is a thing that must by its nature vanish

414
(414) And he who disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses the bounds set by Him - him shall Allah cause to enter the Fire. There he will abide. A humiliating chastisement awaits him.

Actually, it doesn't, I have to retract that. He had the decency to bracket it off. Unlike a certain advocate of a Holey Profit.

zeljko67

1- It is talking about company of those people and not their state of obeying the messenger or not.

ZUmmm..all those who obey the god and the messenger are in the company of the prophets..etc...since they too (prophets, truthful and martyrs)obeythe god and the messenger.

2- Yes the prophet obeys the messenger. If a prophet is also a messenger then He obeys God. So, the mention of the prophets in the Aya applies in general to the prophets who are not messengers, but not necessarily to the ones who are messengers. Proof This is a rule of Arabic of general rule where exceptions apply if applicable, as in when the messenger is also a prophet. The exception does not apply to you, be assured.

ZAre you making stuff up?

Show me where in the verse(or in the quran for that matter)it states that a prophet is only to obey the god and the messenger if the prophet is not himself a messenger.

hlatif

Salaam all,

Nun,

No, "they help him" suggests that the later messenger is their student.

Incorrect because they were asked to believe in the later messenger. One is asked to believe in the one who is to be followed and not in the one who follows. God never asked messengers to believe in their followers but asked the followers to believe in the messengers.

ZAre you making stuff up?

Show me where in the verse(or in the quran for that matter)it states that a prophet is only to obey the god and the messenger if the prophet is not himself a messenger.

If you search the Qur'an, you will find that all the messengers are prophets, but not all prophets are messengers. This makes the messengers a subset of the prophets and not a totally different group.

Also, when the two words are in the same sentence, you will not find separation between them as in Rasoolan nabiyya= messenger prophet. This means that when the person is designated as Rasool and Nabiyy then he is both at the same time and inseparable.

Combine this with the statement to obey the messenger and if it mentioned that prophets , obey the messenger. Then it is a general statement that says the prophets obey the messengers unless the prophet is actually the messenger. This is all over the Qur'an and in the Arabic language. It called the rule of general and particular where general statements accept particular exceptions. Source books of arabic grammar.

Now, if you want to make prophet and messenger as two different personalities dwelling within the same person who is also at times only human and neither, then prove this from the Qur'an. You cannot because the three are inseparable.

Take care all and have a great day.

Hussein

Leoxyz

Basic logic?

To whom was Qur?an given?

To whom does God speak to directly in Qur?an?

Do a search on "say" or qul and see verses 3340, 472, 806, and others and use your mind to put it all together.

Transitive Property of Equality if a = b and b = c, then a = c

Qur?an is for people of intelligence (1678, etc); a mind is required as a prerequisite.

Lastly, you are never too old to learn (reason you are here, right?) -- also see below...

No, "they help him" suggests that the later messenger is their student.

Peace

Another classical Pearl of Wisdom which must be written in golden words.

If X helps Y ,it means "Y" is a definite student of "X"

If Prophet Haroon PBUH assissted Prophet Moses PBUH ,then it implies that Prophet Moses PBUH was student of prophet Haroon PBUH

If a group of junior lawyers assists some senior lawyer in some case,it means senior lawyer has become "student " of Junior lawyers.

If nurses assisst some specialist doctor in an operation ,it means that FRCS doctor has become student of those nurses .

brickwall brickwall brickwall

zeljko67

If you search the Qur'an, you will find that all the messengers are prophets, but not all prophets are messengers. This makes the messengers a subset of the prophets and not a totally different group.

Z Indeed, I agree with you there, not all prophets are messengers, and as such, not all prophets needed to obey themselves as messengers, yet they still needed to obey messengers, since prophets(gneral aterm implying ALL) obey the messenger and the god as is clearly stated in verse 469.

Also, when the two words are in the same sentence, you will not find separation between them as in Rasoolan nabiyya= messenger prophet. This means that when the person is designated as Rasool and Nabiyy then he is both at the same time and inseparable.

Actually, there is a separation, its alrrasoola alnnabiyya THE MESSENGER, THE PROPHET, not, THE MESSENGER PROPHET, moreover the quran in verse 3340 explicity separates the two roles/concepts.

3340 Mohammed was not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.

Would you like for me to conclude, or do you have something else to add before I finish up?

warner

Salaam All

To me the verse does not make sense with the traditional explanation. I think in the verse 381 nabiyyeena /prophets include all prophets including Muhammad and ?Rasulun musaddiqun/messenger confirming? is the malaika/spirit who brings the message confirming what is already given to the Prophets. Why did God take a covenant from all the prophets except Muhammad? How can the earlier prophets help Muhammad? Also why is minnuna and walatansurunnahu in feminine ? (i.e. If these are in feminine) .

Pease be good enough to say does this thinking contradict the Quran or any aspect of this particular verse.

Samia

minnuna and walatansurunnahu in feminine ? (i.e. If these are in feminine) .

Salaam warner
The verbs are "tu'minunna" and "tansurunna(hu)" not "tu'minna" or "tansurna". The former two are suffixed with the "nuun" of emphasis, the later two are suffixed with the feminine "nuun".

unknownuser

Peace all,

Nun,Incorrect because they were asked to believe in the later messenger. One is asked to believe in the one who is to be followed and not in the one who follows. God never asked messengers to believe in their followers but asked the followers to believe in the messengers.

No, the covenant included ALL PROPHETS from different times/places -- do you agree per verse below?

http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_7.htm
English (Yusuf Ali)
337 And remember We took from the prophets their covenant As (We did) from thee from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary We took from them a solemn covenant

unknownuser

Another classical Pearl of Wisdom which must be written in golden words.

If X helps Y ,it means "Y" is a definite student of "X"

brickwall brickwall brickwall

Leoxyz pounding head into brick wall; you obviously cannot comprehend nor read!

How did you conclude definite from suggest?

SUGGEST
Definition

make a proposal, declare a plan for something
Synonyms propose, advise
imply as a possibility; "The evidence suggests a need for more clarification"

DEFINITE
Definition

precise; explicit and clearly defined; "I want a definite answer"; "a definite statement of the terms of the will"; "a definite amount"; "definite restrictions on the sale of alcohol"; "the wedding date is now definite"; "a definite drop in attendance"
known for certain; "it is definite that they have won"

Also, did you comprehend the answer to your prior question pertaining to 801?

Quote from Leoxyz on Yesterday at 011602 PM
What is the logic in putting the "Prophet" as a subject?Huh?
Tell me
Agent is "third person singular"
How are you sure he is "Prophet " not anyone else?Huh?Huh?Huh?

Another Tampering .Is this not Huh???

Do a search on "say" or qul and see verses 3340, 472, 806, and others and use your mind to put it all together.

Transitive Property of Equality if a = b and b = c, then a = c

Pay attention!

stu?dent (std'nt, styd'-) pronunciation
n.

One who studies something a student of Qur'an is helped by the examples of prior Prophets.

Leoxyz

...also, if "words of God" should be eternal because they are "of God", Gabriel also should be eternal because he is the Holy spirit, and referred to as "Ruuhuna/ Ruuhin from Us".

Dear elder sister
Just curious to know where in the Quran it is mentioned that "Ruhul-Qudus" or "Roohona" terms are used for "Gabriel".

Note This query has nothing to do with eternity/non-eternity issue.It is the query of the name only.
Waiting for reply
your younger brother.

hlatif

Salaam all,

Z

Z Indeed, I agree with you there, not all prophets are messengers, and as such, not all prophets needed to obey themselves as messengers, yet they still needed to obey messengers, since prophets(gneral aterm implying ALL) obey the messenger and the god as is clearly stated in verse 469.

Good that you agreed on that point. I will agree that when there are two messengers then the one who came before will need to follow the one who came after as in 381. However, in the Aya that you are pointing to says Al rasool. The Al signifies one messenger who is known to the ones who are being addressed. That messenger is Muhammad who happens to be a prophet at the same time. The conclusion is then all messengers will obey Muhammad the messenger and prophet and that the rule does not apply to muhammad the prophet because he is also Muhammad the messenger and the two roles are indivisible.

Actually, there is a separation, its alrrasoola alnnabiyya
THE MESSENGER, THE PROPHET, not, THE MESSENGER PROPHET, moreover the quran in verse 3340 explicity separates the two roles/concepts.

Incorrect, the fact that it uses the two ALs does not mean separation. The Qur'an is full of examples of Al Aziz Al RAheem= the dominant, the merciful for God. You do not separate them. God is always dominant and always merciful. He does not assume one role one time and another role another time.

Here is an example for you
7157 Allatheena yattabiAAoona alrrasoola alnnabiyya alommiyya= those who follow the messenger, the prophet, the unbooked.

He is all three all the time and not divided by three like a trinity and not assuming one role one day and another another day.

Warner,

To me the verse does not make sense with the traditional explanation. I think in the verse 381 nabiyyeena /prophets include all prophets including Muhammad and ?Rasulun musaddiqun/messenger confirming? is the malaika/spirit who brings the message confirming what is already given to the Prophets.

I would disagree. In the relationship between humans and angels/malaika. Angels always help humans but not the other way around. so, your understanding does not fit.

Nun,

No, the covenant included ALL PROPHETS from different times/places -- do you agree per verse below?

http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_7.htm
English (Yusuf Ali)
337 And remember We took from the prophets their covenant As (We did) from thee from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary We took from them a solemn covenant

Wrong for two reasons
1- Just because 381 and 337 contain the word covenant does not mean that the covenant in the two Ayas are the same.

2- Even if it is the same covenant, then it still applies because Muhammad (PBUH) is the last one of them and they all have to follow him, while he does not follow anyone of them. Remember that it was the earlier prophets who were asked to believe in the later messenger and not the other way around. You are asked to believe in the one you are supposed to follow.

Take care all and have a great day.

Hussein

warner

The conclusion is then all messengers will obey Muhammad the messenger and prophet and that the rule does not apply to muhammad the prophet because he is also Muhammad the messenger and the two roles are indivisible.

Salaam Hussein

I do not understand how and why the Prophets/Messengers who have died before Muhammad help and believe in Muhammad after their deaths? How will this messenger/Muhammad ?come? to the already passed away prophets? After passing away will these Prophets still be having the book and wisdom so Muhammad can come and confirm what they have with them after they are dead? Also the verse 381 does not say anything about Prophets or messengers ?obeying? another Messenger

hlatif

Salaam Warner,

I do not understand how and why the Prophets/Messengers who have died before Muhammad help and believe in Muhammad after their deaths? How will this messenger/Muhammad ?come? to the already passed away prophets? After passing away will these Prophets still be having the book and wisdom so Muhammad can come and confirm what they have with them after they are dead? Also the verse 381 does not say anything about Prophets or messengers ?obeying? another Messenger

Because the Aya states a general rule of God to all the prophets. It applies to them before Muhammad as in John following and helping Jesus and if there were prophets at the time of Muhammad, then it would have applied to them.

God puts it to let the message be known that the earlier prophets are subservient to the later prophet. This is the message to their followers to follow the later messengers. It says to all If your messenger is alive today, then he would have believed in Muhammad as per this oath and he would have followed him. It means that no one should use the excuse, "but I will follow this or that prophet but not Muhammad" because Muhammad is the one to be followed since he is the last.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

warner

Salaam Warner,

Because the Aya states a general rule of God to all the prophets. It applies to them before Muhammad as in John following and helping Jesus and if there were prophets at the time of Muhammad, then it would have applied to them.

God puts it to let the message be known that the earlier prophets are subservient to the later prophet. This is the message to their followers to follow the later messengers. It says to all If your messenger is alive today, then he would have believed in Muhammad as per this oath and he would have followed him. It means that no one should use the excuse, "but I will follow this or that prophet but not Muhammad" because Muhammad is the one to be followed since he is the last.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

Salaam Hussein

Do you mean to say majority of the time a messenger came to a nation there were already prophets present among them who have been given the Book and Wisdom. I do not understand since the Prophets in 381 are already given the Book and Wisdom why should be a messenger coming to confirm. Most of the time in the Quran when a Messenger came to a nation there were no Prophet present among the people with the book and the wisdom.

381
?.summa ja_'akum rasu_lum musaddiqul
?.And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess

Does the language here imply certainly a Messenger will come confirming what is with the Prophets or ?maybe? a messenger will come confirming?

Does believe and help means subservient? Also the verse does not say follow.

Was Abraham subservient to Lot, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob?
Aaron was after Moses does it mean Moses had to follow Aaron

warner

Salaam Hussein

It says let him hear the word of God. What does the word of God point to? and who is the sender of the messenger?

The verse does not say ?let them hear the Quran? ?
What has sender of the Messenger got to do with this verse or with this discussion?

Inaccurate understanding. It says created Kulli Shayin. Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone. It is not used to point to entities that do not stand alone, such as speech and other attributes. So, the Aya does not apply to God's speech.

Can you please give me reference for ?Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone?? Gods speech or speech of a honored Messenger ?

Speech because God said that He spoke them. However, the words are the entity that does not stand alone and that is not created. When you read the Qur'an on paper or hear it. Your are looking at created ink and created paper and you hear created voices. All of those are created means of communications. However, the words themselves are not created.

Which verse does God say He ?spoke them?? When Muhammad received inspiration and recited or delivered the Quran by way of speech was he speaking the created Quran or uncreated Quran? The people who listened to Muhammads speech were they listening to the created Quran or the uncreated Quran? Words are either written or speech (unless electronic means ). Why do you say the word themselves are not created?

Hadeeth is created because it comes from a created being. It is a product of Wahy but expressed in the words and actions of the messenger.
Quote

What is your criterion in distinguishing between authentic and unauthentic hadeeth?

1- consistency with the Qur'anic message.
2- frequency and variation in the reported issue.
3- the names and status of the different people in the isnad.
4- The seriousness and consequence of the order, in case that was an order.
5- Whether I can understand it correctly or not.

You put this together and then you come up with a certain degree of assuredness or inassuredness about the hadeeth.

hlatif

Salaam Warner,

Thanks for your questions.

Do you mean to say majority of the time a messenger came to a nation there were already prophets present among them who have been given the Book and Wisdom. I do not understand since the Prophets in 381 are already given the Book and Wisdom why should be a messenger coming to confirm. Most of the time in the Quran when a Messenger came to a nation there were no Prophet present among the people with the book and the wisdom.

The Aya talks about rule and oath but not about majority and minority. It suggests that if such situations occurred, then that rule will apply. As any general rule, exceptions can happen according to the situation.

381
?.summa ja_'akum rasu_lum musaddiqul
?.And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess

Does the language here imply certainly a Messenger will come confirming what is with the Prophets or ?maybe? a messenger will come confirming?

The statement is understood as conditional, basically if he comes, then you do so and so. It is not understood as someone will come while you are present.

Does believe and help means subservient? Also the verse does not say follow.

You generally believe in the one you will need to follow.

Was Abraham subservient to Lot, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob?

Abraham and Lot were contemporaries. They were in two different places and messengers to two different peoples. The following here does not apply because the following is when the messenger comes to the same place. As for the children of Abraham, then there is no mention in the Qur'an about when and whether their father was alive when they became prophets. Ishmael also was far away when he becamse messenger. However, you do have the example of Jacob prostrating to Joseph, his son.

Aaron was after Moses does it mean Moses had to follow Aaron

Aaron became a prophet because Moses asked God specifically for him to help him. That is a special situation.

The verse does not say ?let them hear the Quran? ?
What has sender of the Messenger got to do with this verse or with this discussion?

Ok, the Aya says "untill they hear the words of Allah". Give me your viable alternative understanding. In the absense of that viable alternative, my understanding stands.

Can you please give me reference for ?Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone?? Gods speech or speech of a honored Messenger ?

1- Shayin was never used to point to the Qur'an. It was used to point to God.

2- 199 waqad khalaqtuka min qablu walam taku shayan= And I have created you from before and you were not a Shayan
Zachariah was always in God's knowledge and thought and God's thought and knowledge are eternal. However that did not qualify Zachariah as a Shayin untill he became a stand alone entity at the moment of his creation.

3- Itha Arada shayan fainnama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoon= If he wanted a Shay, he will say to him be and it is.
So, the Shayin does not become a Shayin untill it becomes a stand alone entity. It was not a shay when it was in God's thoughts and plans, only after the "be" that it became a Shayin.

When Muhammad received inspiration and recited or delivered the Quran by way of speech was he speaking the created Quran or uncreated Quran? The people who listened to Muhammads speech were they listening to the created Quran or the uncreated Quran? Words are either written or speech (unless electronic means ). Why do you say the word themselves are not created?

The words are what enters your mind and heart. This is the part that is uncreated. When Muhammad was reciting the Qur'an, his voice was created but the words that entered the hearts of the followers were uncreated. Words are communicated by speech or writing, but the words themselves are not standing alone. What enters your brain is the not the ink nor the voice nor the paper, but the words themselves.

So, the words are never standing alone. They are always in the sender. They can be in the receiver and they can be carried on created means which include voice or writing.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

ayman

Peace Warner,

Can you please give me reference for ?Shayin is used in Arabic to point to entities that stand alone?? Gods speech or speech of a honored Messenger?

Of course, speech/communication is also a thing "shay'a" according to 1988-89. I am baffled that any educated and reasonably rational person in this day and age can still be arguing for this medieval Abbasid-era dogmatic innovation of the "eternal and uncreated Quran". Thus, they will claim that they answered the logical issues brought by their absurd claims but if you look back at the thread, you will see that they only provide superficial and circular answers (i.e., excuses) without any substance. Like their unsubstantiated claim that because the god is eternal and uncreated then his speech is eternal and uncreated. This is an assumption for which they bring ZERO proof. So if you are 40 years old then does this mean that your speech is 40 years old? Of course this is nonsense. The god can decide AT ANYTIME to say something. He can decide AT ANYTIME to create something by saying "be" and it becomes. What those dogmatic Sunnis have essentially been trying to propagate is the false notion that the god cannot say "be" at anytime because that "be" is eternal and uncreated just like him (the god be most exalted above what they describe). Their claims are like the claims of the Jews because it is just another devious way to claim that the god's hands are tied.

They don't even understand the meaning of "communication", which by definition requires a source, a destination and a medium. Without those three things, then it is by definition not communication.

Also, if I communicate to you that "roses are red". If this communication is eternal and uncreated then past and future do not matter anymore. I can't be telling you about roses that I saw in the past because there is no "past" beyond "eternal" and "uncreated". Therefore, this requires roses and the red color to be "eternal" and "uncreated" too. So when the god said that he "created" the earth, if this sentence is eternal and uncreated then the earth is also eternal and uncreated since there is no past experience compared to "eternal" and "uncreated". Of course this is nonsense.

One can go on and write a whole book about all the logical absurdities created by their nonsense but there is no way to change the minds of dogmatic people who are pushing a medieval anti-rational idea.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Wrong for two reasons
1- Just because 381 and 337 contain the word covenant does not mean that the covenant in the two Ayas are the same.

2- Even if it is the same covenant, then it still applies because Muhammad (PBUH) is the last one of them and they all have to follow him, while he does not follow anyone of them. Remember that it was the earlier prophets who were asked to believe in the later messenger and not the other way around. You are asked to believe in the one you are supposed to follow.

Illogical ? ALL Prophets from different times/places made a covenant including?

http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_40.htm

The messenger in 381 is unnamed -- how did you come to your conclusion?

Simple logic tells us the messenger in 381 cannot be a Prophet; they all made a covenant.

381
?.summa ja_'akum rasu_lum musaddiqul
?.And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess

The statement is understood as conditional, basically if he comes, then you do so and so. It is not understood as someone will come while you are present.

IF TRUE THEN 381 is void according to you contradicting your 2. above with earlier Prophets unless backward time-travel happened.

Covenant was made by ALL Prophets in all times/places and 382 tells us what would happen if they broke their covenant?

http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/3/3_82.htm

337 also states ALL Prophets made a covenant and 338 gives the reason?

http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_7.htm
http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/33/33_8.htm

Because the Aya states a general rule of God to all the prophets. It applies to them before Muhammad as in John following and helping Jesus and if there were prophets at the time of Muhammad, then it would have applied to them.

God puts it to let the message be known that the earlier prophets are subservient to the later prophet. This is the message to their followers to follow the later messengers. It says to all If your messenger is alive today, then he would have believed in Muhammad as per this oath and he would have followed him. It means that no one should use the excuse, "but I will follow this or that prophet but not Muhammad" because Muhammad is the one to be followed since he is the last.

Prophets are to follow and be subservient (i.e. servants) to a future Prophet?

The analogy of prior following the later thus making the later greater and Prophets thousand years apart being servants following a future Prophet sounds like Christian Trinity ? it makes no sense and contradicts Qur?an.

This is setting partners with God with dire consequences ? think before you write.

Peace

zeljko67

Good that you agreed on that point. I will agree that when there are two messengers then the one who came before will need to follow the one who came after as in 381. However, in the Aya that you are pointing to says Al rasool. The Al signifies one messenger who is known to the ones who are being addressed. That messenger is Muhammad who happens to be a prophet at the same time. The conclusion is then all messengers will obey Muhammad the messenger and prophet and that the rule does not apply to muhammad the prophet because he is also Muhammad the messenger and the two roles are indivisible.

Z You're not making any sense here and you are equivocating terms once again..381 speaks of prophets supporting and belieiving in a messenger that comes after, not messengers obeying the messenger that comes after.

Furthermore, you yourself claim that prophets are not messengers, yet here you now claim the two roles as being indivisble(one in the same).

Please take your time when responding..

Incorrect, the fact that it uses the two ALs does not mean separation. The Qur'an is full of examples of Al Aziz Al RAheem= the dominant, the merciful for God. You do not separate them. God is always dominant and always merciful. He does not assume one role one time and another role another time.

Here is an example for you
7157 Allatheena yattabiAAoona alrrasoola alnnabiyya alommiyya= those who follow the messenger, the prophet, the unbooked.

He is all three all the time and not divided by three like a trinity and not assuming one role one day and another another day.

Z Oh dear, hussein, do you understand the concept of "roles"?

If by chance you do, then let me help you understand 469, basically it states, one of the functional responsibilites in "playing" the prophet role is to obey the role of the messenger.

Now, ask yourself

What is the role of the messenger and how can the prophet obey this messenger role?