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

Yosemite

Have you made your own traduction so you can enlighten people that has no arabic knowings, and that which to read the quran but with no translated bias?

Also, which kind of "islam" are you talking about the one of each sects, or another one i might not know the existance of?

Samia

Who are you to add yourself to the Holy Quran .It has used third person singular verb.
Do you know arabic
No one is named.The verb is "abasa"
Tranlate and pull out" Prophet "out of this verb.
I tell you your efforts to Tamper the Quran will never be successful inshallah.
Islam will remain dominant inspite of your efforts.Allah Himself has promised to Protect it.No matter how much Anti Quran people may try.

Are you OK?

Raj-ah

Zeljeko

Peace,
Z Before giving us your opinion, it would be wise for you to first learn the difference between a rasool and a prophet (nabi).

Peace

Funny isn't it? It would have been better if you taught me but since you can't
OK let us see what is a Rasool and Prophet?

Do you agree with this? offcourse NO! so let us see what you have to say?

Yes, there is a difference between a Nabi and Rasool. Although there is no standard English translation for both these words, the former may be translated as a Prophet and the latter as a Messenger. What must be kept in mind is that while all the representative of Allah were designated Anbiya (plural of Nabi) with the duty to call others to the right path and warn them about the Last Day of Judgment, some of them were raised to a higher cadre of Rusul (plural of Rasool) who in addition to carrying out the job just specified for Anbiya were vested with the right to decide the fate of their addressees in this very world. In other words, the Rusul of the Almighty personified the divine court of justice on this earth.

A study of the Qur?an reveals that a Rasool first elucidates the truth and beseeches his nation to place credence to the message brought by him from Allah. After many years of preaching, when the nation of the Rasool rejects his message in spite of being convinced about its veracity, the Almighty commands him to leave them in their condition. A court of justice is then set up and reward is announced for the believers and punishment is meted out to the disbelievers who knowingly denies the holy message of their Lord. The Qur?an asserts that the Almighty has ordained that He and His Rusul shall always prevail and that the disbelievers shall be humiliated (1413-14, 5820-21).

Surah Noah describes the preaching endeavor of Noah (pbuh) in a fair detail, who was a Rasool (Messenger). As we go through this Surah, we find him ceaselessly call upon his nation; he exhorts them in private and in public; he presents them with different signs to open their eyes. But the more he explains to them, the more they become obstinate and persistent in their rejection. At last, divine court is established Noah and his followers are sifted out while torrential rains and floods annihilate the rejecters altogether. Similar decision was taken as regards the nations of other Rusul.

In summary, Nabi is only a Warner whereas a Rasool, in addition to being a Warner, also personifies the court of justice on this earth.

Muhammad (pbuh) was a Rasool. The Holy Qur?an says that he will definitely prevail in the Arabian Peninsula no matter how the polytheists may detest it.

He it is who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may detest it. (933)

DArgento
Truth Seeker

Quote
GOD and His angels help and support the prophet. O you who believe, you shall help and support him, and regard him as he should be regarded.

Here's the problem, you can't support a DEAD messenger

First Prophet Muhammad is not dead, he has been transfered to another state of living. Heard word "Intiqaal"?
Second when the verses were revealed the Prophet was alive (not yet transfered to another state of living) and was surrounded by those who SUPPORT him and thus obeying Allah's clear message.

In a foot ball match I support France, is France dead or alive? How can I support France?

Please reagrd him as he should be regarded, weather Rasool or Nabi he was appointed by Allah; and donot compare him with an ordinary post man.

hlatif

Salaam all,

Z, If Jonah was not a messenger when he went on the ship, then why was he blameworthy? There is nothing blameworthy for going on a ship. Couple this with 6848 where God warned Muhammad not to be like the "companion of the big fish". Why would God ask him not to be like "the companion of the big fish"? because they had something in common. What was it? They both were messengers and facing tough resistance.

As for my response to analogy, it is perfect and you know it. The messenger obeys God and obeys himself in what he orders. He has to abide by his own rules.

As for 3153. Here is the order that that group did not obey

"As you were going up and not paying heed to anyone while the messenger was calling you from behind you. So Allah rewarded you with worry for worry"
They did not respond to the calling of the messenger. When the messenger calls, he is ordering and has to be obeyed. Yet that was an event limited to time and place and group. Not absolute and obligatory to all, as Samia asserted and as you assert.

Nun, Sura 80 starts with Abasa= He frowned. There is no prophet. Who is He? It does not say name nor messenger nor prophet. If you want to assume Muhammad, and that would be correct, then you cannot impose Muhammad prophet or human there. In fact, linguistically, it should apply to all (person, messenger and prophet). The context of sura 80 is addressing him in his role as one conveying the message.

So by your definition Kalam has to be spoken words (even silently) and it should necessarily come out of the mouth and the lips. Do you seriously believe these human attributes about Allah .

Ok, Words are conceptual. KLM as a concept means voiced words by speaker and comprehended by the listener. When speech comes from humans as Zachariah, it always comes from their lips. So, the lip movement can be considered an acceptable exception to voiced speech for humans when and only when indicated by the context as happened clearly with Zachariah.

KLM for entities other than humans share the concept of voiced words and comprehended by the speaker as the general rule. How and why and where that voiced word comes from depends on the nature of the entity. So, when speech is generated electronically by a computer (for weather emergencies and so on), it is KLM but not coming from a mouth and lung. When God KLM then we know that he voiced words that were comprehended by His listeners, (Moses and so on). How God spoke and all the other specifics is not provided in the Qur'an and therefore one should not speculate. What one should accept is what the Qur'an said GOD KALLAMA MOSES= He spoke words to Moses and Qur'an is Kalam Allah= The spoken word of Allah.

In short, just because lip movement is associated with Kalam of man, it does not have to be present nor be associated with God's speech nor the speech of any other entity as the computer. How God's speech comes out is God's business.

Take care all

Hussein

unknownuser

Who are you to add yourself to the Holy Quran .It has used third person singular verb.
Do you know arabic
No one is named.The verb is "abasa"
Tranlate and pull out" Prophet "out of this verb.
I tell you your efforts to Tamper the Quran will never be successful inshallah.
Islam will remain dominant inspite of your efforts.Allah Himself has promised to Protect it.No matter how much Anti Quran people may try.

Are you debating with yourself or are there more trolls out there?

3321
21. Indeed in the Messenger of All?h (Muhammad SAW) you have a good example for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) All?h and the Last Day and remembers All?h much.

In a foot ball match I support France, is France dead or alive? How can I support France?

Please reagrd him as he should be regarded, weather Rasool or Nabi he was appointed by Allah; and donot compare him with an ordinary post man.

France is DEAD! Nationalism is made up ideology which to believe in is a form of idolatry; likewise so is the pretention that DEAD Prophets (3144) can hear you similar to Christianity.

Nun, Sura 80 starts with Abasa= He frowned. There is no prophet. Who is He? It does not say name nor messenger nor prophet. If you want to assume Muhammad, and that would be correct, then you cannot impose Muhammad prophet or human there. In fact, linguistically, it should apply to all (person, messenger and prophet). The context of sura 80 is addressing him in his role as one conveying the message.

hatlif, no need for linguistics for it is obvious who frowned at the blind man; simple common sense...

Surah 80. He Frowned!

(The Prophet) frowned and turned away,
Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-
Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?
As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,
To him dost thou attend;
Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).
But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,
And with fear (in his heart),
Of him wast thou unmindful.

Who was God speaking to above? Who was Qur'an sent to (472)? Who was the last Prophet (3340)?

In addition, verses 11-15 precisely detail what The Message which is to be obeyed/followed is...

Surah 80. He Frowned!
11. By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction
12. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.
13. (It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
14. Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
15. (Written) by the hands of scribes-

CLEARLY -- The Message of instruction is Qur'an alone!

Peace

Leoxyz

Are you debating with yourself or are there more trolls out there?

France is DEAD! Nationalism is made up ideology which to believe in is a form of idolatry; likewise so is the pretention that DEAD Prophets (3144) can hear you similar to Christianity.

hatlif, no need for linguistics for it is obvious who frowned at the blind man; simple common sense...

Surah 80. He Frowned!

(The Prophet) frowned and turned away,
Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-
Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?
As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,
To him dost thou attend;
Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).
But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,
And with fear (in his heart),
Of him wast thou unmindful.

Who was God speaking to above? Who was Qur'an sent to (472)? Who was the last Prophet (3340)?

In addition, verses 11-15 precisely detail what The Message which is to be obeyed/followed is...

Surah 80. He Frowned!
11. By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction
12. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.
13. (It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour,
14. Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,
15. (Written) by the hands of scribes-

CLEARLY -- The Message of instruction is Qur'an alone!

Peace

What a Brainlessness !!!!!!
Just chracteristics of Anti-Quran Group
No wonder

unknownuser

What a Brainlessness !!!!!!
Just chracteristics of Anti-Quran Group
No wonder

.

http//www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pseudo-intellectual

pseudo-intellectual
One who attempts to flex intellect that does not exist within his or her own mind.
Can probably be found with a thesaurus in hand, while in a chat room, looking up new insults that are synonymous with "stupid" in order to boost his or her own undeserved ego.
Typical cases of pseudo-intellectualism involve pre-pubescent 15 year olds that think they have everything figured out, including, but not limited to life, religion, politics, education, and sex. Ironically, they have never quite experienced either of the aforementioned.
Pretends he or she has an opinion.
Posseses a severe tendency to blindly and wholeheartedly believe any bulls*** they hear, only to subsequently regurgitate the misinformation to anyone they see in an asinine attempt to appear more intelligent than a used, broken condom.
Should the victim of the verbal onslaught happen to have a differing opinion, the pseudo-intellectual will revert to his or her thesaurus and insult the opposition with words he or she never knew existed, and probably cannot even pronounce.
Annoyingly and constantly refers to the word antidisestablishmentarian ism, as if knowledge of said word defined his or her illegitimately high intelligence quotient.
Typically a hypocrite; creates many, many contradictions. Most online grammar/spelling Nazis can relate.
Always ends a bulls*** "argument" with, "I win, so stfu." Win what, dips***s? Your opinions weren't fact in the first place.

<Pseudo-Intellectual&g t; Omg. You are Stupid. You are an idiot for not agreeing with everything I say. I know I'm right, even though I know nothing about the subject, because my friend knows someone that read someone's blog somewhere that mentioned something about it. I win, so stfu, you unintelligent moron. God, your stupid. You're such a stupid idiot.

pseudo-intellectual
the person above me^^^^

hlatif

Nun, show me the word prophet= nabi from sura 80. If you fail then you have no proof of anything. So, stop bringing (prophet) between quotation marks as proofs when you know that it is not in the text. It is not linguistics. It is proof.

Hussein

unknownuser

Nun, show me the word prophet= nabi from sura 80. If you fail then you have no proof of anything. So, stop bringing (prophet) between quotation marks as proofs when you know that it is not in the text. It is not linguistics. It is proof.

Hussein

You are correct. "Prophet" is by inference and deduction and self-reference/explanation of the Quran. Yusuf Ali and others are notorious for this.

Either way, it does not address either nabi or rasool directly in this section of the surah. Cross referencing as he did shows it to be addressed to Muhammad, not "prophet". One thig it certainly does not show is the messenger failing.

Please use your common sense; The evidence is thus

1.) Quran was revealed to Muhammad (472)

2.) Muhammad is the last nabi (3340)

2.) Allah commands us to obey the rasool in many verses (002285, 003032, 003132, 004013, 004059, 004069, 005092, 008001, 008020, 008024, 008046, 009071, 024047, 024051, 024052, 024054, 033033, 047033, 049007, 049014, 058013, 064012)

3.) Muhammad is being reminded of his duty as a messenger in 479. It also makes distinct the words/people/roles of rasool and Muhammad- whatever good comes to Muhammad/us, it is from Allah, wherever he/we fails/fail, it is from himself/ourselves.

Now, is Allah commanding us to obey one who erred (point 2), or is Allah commanding us to obey the scripture, which rebukes those who err? Give the Quran a chance to explain itself and it does so, very well.

It is rebuking Muhammad, not the rasool, not the nabi. Rasool by its own virtue is a position that has no room for error. Nabi is rebuked in 601. Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger can only mean the message. It does not mean Muhammad who is being rebuked in this surah, nor can it mean the nabi who is being rebuked in surah 60.

Leoxyz

You are correct. "Prophet" is by inference and deduction and self-reference/explanation of the Quran. Yusuf Ali and others are notorious for this.

Either way, it does not address either nabi or rasool directly in this section of the surah. Cross referencing as he did shows it to be addressed to Muhammad, not "prophet". One thig it certainly does not show is the messenger failing.

Please use your common sense; The evidence is thus

1.) Quran was revealed to Muhammad (472)

2.) Muhammad is the last nabi (3340)

2.) Allah commands us to obey the rasool in many verses (002285, 003032, 003132, 004013, 004059, 004069, 005092, 008001, 008020, 008024, 008046, 009071, 024047, 024051, 024052, 024054, 033033, 047033, 049007, 049014, 058013, 064012)

3.) Muhammad is being reminded of his duty as a messenger in 479. It also makes distinct the words/people/roles of rasool and Muhammad- whatever good comes to Muhammad/us, it is from Allah, wherever he/we fails/fail, it is from himself/ourselves.

Now, is Allah commanding us to obey one who erred (point 2), or is Allah commanding us to obey the scripture, which rebukes those who err? Give the Quran a chance to explain itself and it does so, very well.

It is rebuking Muhammad, not the rasool, not the nabi. Rasool by its own virtue is a position that has no room for error. Nabi is rebuked in 601. Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger can only mean the message. It does not mean Muhammad who is being rebuked in this surah, nor can it mean the nabi who is being rebuked in surah 60.

What a brainlessness!!

No matter what you may say or do .Muslims believe whosoever claims to be a "Prophet" or "Rasool" after the Holy Prophet is a KAZZAAB (LIAR) .

unknownuser

What a brainlessness!!

No matter what you may say or do .Muslims believe whosoever claims to be a "Prophet" or "Rasool" after the Holy Prophet is a KAZZAAB (LIAR) .

Unlike you, I presented the evidence, and it's there for all to see, and come to the self-evident conclusion. Zero "brainlessness".

hlatif

Salaam OPF,

I am sorry to tell you that you are playing linguistic acrobatics using fancy words as inferrences and self referrences. Sura 80 is talking to someone who was delivering the message and who forwned when a blind person came to him. Who of the your trinity! Muhammad,, messenger or nabi is charged with delivering the message?

So, to insist that God is talking only to the human is in your dream. Muhammad is all three all the time. If you do want to make your case, then bring clear and unambiguous Aya of the Qur'an that divides Muhammad into those divisible roles clearly. You will not find a single clear Aya supporting you and that is why you will move to your linguistic acrobatics. Is not the Qur'an clear and self explanatory? So bring your elusive proof.

Before you ask me to bring mine. Here it is

Allatheena yattabioona alrrasoola Annabiyya Alummiyya= those who follow the messenger, the prophet, the unbooked. All three are there together with no division nor subtraction nor nothing.

God asks to follow and obey the messenger despite his errors is perfect. God asks to obey the fallible human messenger who erred as proof of his humanity, but whose errors will not prevent us from obeying him.

Hussein.

unknownuser

Salaam OPF,

I am sorry to tell you that you are playing linguistic acrobatics using fancy words as inferrences and self referrences. Sura 80 is talking to someone who was delivering the message and who forwned when a blind person came to him. Who of the your trinity! Muhammad,, messenger or nabi is charged with delivering the message?

So, to insist that God is talking only to the human is in your dream. Muhammad is all three all the time. If you do want to make your case, then bring clear and unambiguous Aya of the Qur'an that divides Muhammad into those divisible roles clearly. You will not find a single clear Aya supporting you and that is why you will move to your linguistic acrobatics. Is not the Qur'an clear and self explanatory? So bring your elusive proof.

Before you ask me to bring mine. Here it is

Allatheena yattabioona alrrasoola Annabiyya Alummiyya= those who follow the messenger, the prophet, the unbooked. All three are there together with no division nor subtraction nor nothing.

God asks to follow and obey the messenger despite his errors is perfect. God asks to obey the fallible human messenger who erred as proof of his humanity, but whose errors will not prevent us from obeying him.

Hussein.

There is zero linguistic acrobatics. Maybe I should have opened up my dictionary of Arabic, found the appropriate equivalents, then placed them in italics as Sunnis love to do.

There are very clear ayat there. Look at the citations. There is only one correct path of logic, simple as that. If God advocates good, and advocates obeying the messenger, then rebukes someone who is messenger, nabi, and human, then he can only be addressing the nabi/human, not the messenger. Simple as that. The trinity analogy is completely fallacious. What about a person who is a) father b) policeman c) human - Will you say "policeman" is a 24 hour role as here? Is the man policing 24/7? When he is on the toilet, we can still call him a policeman. But IS HE POLICING? No. Simple. Some just do not get it...

hlatif

There is no analogy between policeman and messenger. Messenger is all the time. Policeman is for sometime. In Sura 80, the person that was reprimanded was messengering.

Hussein

unknownuser

There is no analogy between policeman and messenger. Messenger is all the time. Policeman is for sometime. In Sura 80, the person that was reprimanded was messengering.

Hussein

You already stated that the verse has zero indication as to who it is addressed to. If you cannot see the very simple analogy, it is your loss. The psyche of people who refuse to accept clear arguments is well-detailed in the Quran. Your argument is circular - "A person is a messenger because there is no comparison between policeman and messenger because a person is a messenger all the time". A policeman is a policeman all the time. He is NOT policing all the time. Was Muhammad bringing the message in that verse, or was he shying away from it and getting rebuked for it? Likewise, if a policeman beats someone up out of pure brutality, are they policing or are they being themselves?

In any case, Allah asks us to obey the messenger so we will be guided, and also states good, and guidance, is from God alone, and misguidance/bad is from yourselves and the shaitan, so the reference can only be acting in his capacity as Muhammad, or the nabi, but NOT as the rasool who Allah enjoins obedience of. This is my last post on this matter, I believe it is very, very clear for all to see.

hlatif

Salaam OPF,

I asked you for clear unambiguous evidence of separation between the messenger, Muhammad, the person Muhammad and the prophet Muhammad and you failed to bring it. You resort to your logic which has no credibility in my view. Not because logic does not have credibility, but I have not been impressed with yours. This is not to put you down, but you have to prove something to me with text, not with your logic. The text is where we are debating and is the criterion. The text is not questioned, while logic, yours or mine, is. In any case, here is Translation of Muhammad Assad of the beginning of the Sura

801 HE FROWNED and turned away

802 because the blind man approached him!

803 Yet for all thou didst know, he might perhaps have grown in purity,

804 or have been reminded , and helped by this reminder.

805 Now as for him who believes himself to be self-sufficient

806 to him didst thou give thy whole attention,

807 although thou art not accountable for his failure to attain to purity;

808 but as for him who came unto thee full of eagerness

809 and in awe

8010 him didst thou disregard!

8011 NAY, VERILY, these are but a reminder

8012 and so, whoever is willing may remember Him

If this passage is not speaking to someone in his capacity as messenger, then there are no messengers. Paying attention to particular person in the messaging and ignoring another is a description of a messenger at work.

In any case, you guys never proved that messengers do not err. Some went to a convoluted explanation of Jonah's error. However, I have not seen the response to my question If Jonah did not leave his messengership when he went on the ship, then what is sinful about going on the ship? and why was Muhammad warned not to be like him in error in 6948?

Take care and have a good evening.

Hussein

zeljko67

Peace Husse

Z, If Jonah was not a messenger when he went on the ship, then why was he blameworthy? There is nothing blameworthy for going on a ship. Couple this with 6848 where God warned Muhammad not to be like the "companion of the big fish". Why would God ask him not to be like "the companion of the big fish"? because they had something in common. What was it? They both were messengers and facing tough resistance.

ZAGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN Hussein,first what in the world would lead you to conclude that Jonah can only be blameworthy if he is a "messenger"? (geez..) anyways..Jonah had rejected god's call in BEING a messenger to the people of Ninveh..it was Jonah the person who REJECTED the god, thus it was JONAH the person who was blameworthy. Thereafter, JOnah repented and then BECAME a Messenger to the people of Ninveh.

But this is ALL MOOT /IRRELVANT, for the FACT is, even if (hypothetically) JONAH was a messenger(before being swallowed by the whale), his abandoning the message is in noway comprarable to attributing something falsely to the god while being the god's messenger..

With regards to verse 6848, NON SEQUITER, the god instructing muhammad to be patient for his judgement in now way makes Jonah a messenger at the time of his being swallowed by a fish...

AND AGAIN..

But this is ALL MOOT /IRRELVANT, for the FACT is, even if (hypothetically) JONAH was a messenger(before being swallowed by the whale), his abandoning the message is in noway comprarable to attributing something falsely to the god while being the god's messenger..

As for my response to analogy, it is perfect and you know it. The messenger obeys God and obeys himself in what he orders. He has to abide by his own rules.

Z SIGH..If you are unable to see the obvious flaws in your trinity arguement, then let me be the first to say, I am wasting my time..

They did not respond to the calling of the messenger. When the messenger calls, he is ordering and has to be obeyed. Yet that was an event limited to time and place and group. Not absolute and obligatory to all, as Samia asserted and as you assert.

Z oy caramba!!! You totally ignored my points..

Good day

Raj-ah

Nun

France is DEAD! Nationalism is made up ideology which to believe in is a form of idolatry; likewise so is the pretention that DEAD Prophets (3144) can hear you similar to Christianity.

France is dead voodoo Yeah!
But we still Support France, therefore we can support DEAD. ;D

Johny-k

Quote
Peace "Rajah",
The point your missing is that theres a difference between Muhammad the man and Muhammad the messenger. Muhammad wasnt a messenger 24 hrs a day. ONLY AT SPECIFIC TIMES WHILST HE DELIVERS THE PURE MESSAGE OF GOD WAS HE A MESSENGER AND IN THAT RELATION HES TO BE OBEYED BECAUSE AT THAT MOMENT HIS HUMAN ACTIVITY IS SHUT OFF AND GOD IS DIRECTLY COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIM.

Rajah

Well, well, well what do you say..... A part time Messanger of God
Please please my dear friends just to justify your thoughts don't try to make fun out of Islam.
A messanger is messanger throughout! The Ayats you have quoted have nothing to do with part time or full time messanger ship

Rajah

Now coming back to part time Messanger ship I am sorry to say but this is the most funny thing I ever read regarding the messanger ship of Muhammad.

When a messanger is only a messanger when Allah is communicating with him, then how was it possible to understand Quran for the people of that time.
I mean to say for example when the word "Rehman" was first revealed who told the people of that time about Rehman?? and when the word Rehman was expalined communication was Shut (as you put it).
Allah says in Quran
Progressive Muslims"
Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for you for he who seeks God and the last day and thinks constantly about God
In messanger of God a good example has been set; definitly this is about his Chracter through which, he was able to gain companions those who offered their lives for him.
If he would have been a part time messanger then during his communication with Allah he would had obeyed, but after that he would be free as a ordinary human, for example to lie, to drink exessive wine, etc.

Rajah

Quote
Progressive Muslims"
And We have not sent you except as a mercy to the worlds.

This command is continous and does not limits to the time of Communication, How can be a part time messanger be mercy to the worlds???
then again in verse 1779
"
Quote
Progressive Muslims"
And from the night you shall mediate upon it as you please, perhaps your Lord would grant you to a high rank
.

This is a continous command and not only for time of communication, We can go on and on but to make it short it is very clear that there is no such a thing as PART TIME MESSANGER. Messanger is messanger for all times and he has to implement upon his life what is revealed unto him and set an example for those who follow.

Progressive Muslims"
So that you may believe in God and His messenger, and that you may support Him, honour Him, and glorify Him, morning and night. verse 489

No believing man or believing woman, if GOD and His messenger issue any command, has any choice regarding that command. Anyone who disobeys GOD and His messenger has gone far astray

Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, "Keep your wife and reverence GOD," and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zeid was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD's commands shall be done

Quote from Rajah
Muhammad Feared some of the people and that is very natrual, a Human fears humans on different basis on different occassions, even though his fear was not for himself but for ISlam to be defamed, but Still Allah did not like it and issued a warning to messenger, This clearly indicates that Prophet was a Human and Humans commit mistakes. But does it says any thing regarding the respect or disrespect for the Prophet, or you think basing on this warning from Allah to the Prophet we can assume that he is "Just" a human.
Actually you are basing your whole argument of part time messenger on these verses and that is not likely be to true. You think that when a Prophet commits an error or mistake at that particular time he is not a messenger, that is due to your assumption that a Prophet or Messenger is Error Free and that not is the case, No Human is Error free not even messengers. I think it is very simple there are other verses too when Allah has warned his messengers for commiting mistakes but that certainly does not means that they were Part time messengers

hlatif

Salaam Z,

ZAGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN Hussein,first what in the world would lead you to conclude that Jonah can only be blameworthy if he is a "messenger"? (geez..) anyways..Jonah had rejected god's call in BEING a messenger to the people of Ninveh..it was Jonah the person who REJECTED the god, thus it was JONAH the person who was blameworthy. Thereafter, JOnah repented and then BECAME a Messenger to the people of Ninveh.

To answer your question. I will give you the synopsis fom the passage in sura 37139-. The passage goes like this
139 Jonah one of the messengers.
140 ITH= as/ when he fled on the loaded ship
142 so the whale/big fish swollowed him in a state of blameworthines.

You put them together. My version He was a messenger and fled his mission to the ship so he was blameworthy when he was swallowed. It is based solely on the passage.

Your version He became messenger after that.

My question then what was blameworthy? since the going on the ship is not blameworthy.

Your version he was a rejector.

My challenge where did you get that? there is nowhere in the Qur'an that mentions him as a rejector and definitely not here. You are adding to the Qur'an and that is inappropriate. Don't you think that the Qur'an is self explanatory? So, bring your proof from the Qur'an. A proof that eludes you.

Another challenge If you want to prove my assessment wrong, then bring a suitable alternative, not something you dream of. Suitable alternative does not add "logic" nor "extra quranic dreams". It has to explain why he was blameworthy when he was swallowed.

As for this statement

But this is ALL MOOT /IRRELVANT, for the FACT is, even if (hypothetically) JONAH was a messenger(before being swallowed by the whale), his abandoning the message is in noway comprarable to attributing something falsely to the god while being the god's messenger..

Wrong. A messenger who attributes falsely something to God damages some of the message. A messenger who abandons his whole mission, damages the whole message.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

warner

Hussein Ok, Words are conceptual. KLM as a concept means voiced words by speaker and comprehended by the listener. When speech comes from humans as Zachariah, it always comes from their lips. So, the lip movement can be considered an acceptable exception to voiced speech for humans when and only when indicated by the context as happened clearly with Zachariah.

KLM for entities other than humans share the concept of voiced words and comprehended by the speaker as the general rule. How and why and where that voiced word comes from depends on the nature of the entity. So, when speech is generated electronically by a computer (for weather emergencies and so on), it is KLM but not coming from a mouth and lung. When God KLM then we know that he voiced words that were comprehended by His listeners, (Moses and so on). How God spoke and all the other specifics is not provided in the Qur'an and therefore one should not speculate. What one should accept is what the Qur'an said GOD KALLAMA MOSES= He spoke words to Moses and Qur'an is Kalam Allah= The spoken word of Allah.

In short, just because lip movement is associated with Kalam of man, it does not have to be present nor be associated with God's speech nor the speech of any other entity as the computer. How God's speech comes out is God's business.

Salaam Hussein

The use and the choice of words in the Quran is powerful evidence that it is not from a human being. I am glad that we agree that God does not have a mouth and lips like humans so as to make His communications ?spoken words?. If ?How God's speech comes out is God's business? how did it became the business of some people to claim it is the ?spoken words of Allah? since even silent lip movement is necessary for sign language to be Kalam according to your explanation of 341. It maybe very well ?unspoken words? for instance like a wireless data transfer. Which leads us to wahy/inspiration.

The following is another verse from the same incident of Zakariya mentioned in 341 and here the word used is awha/wahy/inspired.

1911
Pickthall Then he came forth unto his people from the sanctuary, and signified to them Glorify your Lord at break of day and fall of night.

Transliteration Fakhraja 'ala_ qaumihi minal mihra_bi fa auha_ ilaihim an sab bihu_ bukrataw wa asyiy ya_

So if Zakariya tukalliman with silently moving his lips and his people were inspired then can there be not a million possibilities how God can yukalliman and inspire His message. How much do we know about how He speaks ?

Also again on Zakariya. What is the meaning of ramza_(n) , in 341 according to Lisan ?

For the definition of Kalam you give much importance to ?voiced speech? and to ?mouth and lip movement? which does not apply to Allah. Same goes for the sprit or the dead. .I think you were influenced by the Lisan. Let me quote you here.

The other one is 96 because Kalam which is the word in the Aya, can only be a spoken word according to Lisan Al Arab volume 13 page 39.

Maybe the Arabic word for speech is antaqa(N Tay Q) and not Kalam as in the following verse. Also remember the speech of birds with Sulaiman.

41 21

Yusuf Ali They will say to their skins "Why bear ye witness against us?" They will say "Allah hath given us speech (He) Who giveth speech to everything He created you for the first time and unto Him were ye to return.

Transliteration Wa qa_lu_ li julu_dihim lima sahidtum alaina_ qa_lu_ antaqanal la_hul lazi antaqa kul la sai iw wa huwa khalaqkum aw wala mar ratiw wa ilaihi turjau_n

Also God informs us how He communicates.

42 51

It is not fitting for a man that Allah should communicate to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal with Allah's permission what Allah wills for He is Most High Most Wise.

Wa ma_ ka_na libasarin ay yukal limahul la_hu wahyan au miw wara_i hija_bin au yursila rasu_lan fayu_hiya bi iznihi ma_ yasya_ inahu_ aliy yun hakim

The above has 3 modes God communicates with man and not three modes of how Allah speaks.

Also look at this verse

36 65

Yusuf Ali That Day shall We set a seal on their mouths. But their hands will speak to Us and their feet bear witness to all that they did.

Transliteration Alyauma nakhtimu ala_ afwa_hihim wa tukal limuna_ aidihim wa tashadu arjuluhum bima_ ka_nu_ yaksibu_n

It is a better translation to say ?hands will communicate to us?. When we see the many verses with kalam I think it is a word laden with meaning such as communicate rather than speech.

I find the meaning of ?Kalam? as spoken words (also sometimes unspoken words with lip movements) and therefore ?Kalamallah? as spoken words of Allah is a later manipulation to prove that the Quran is ?spoken words? of God and thereby eternal and uncreated.