Peace Bro. Wakas and Bro Uq and Bro Mazhar and Bro Damon(if you are still participating),

Bro Wakas seems to agree with Uq about the verb "Taba" and who it is referring to based on this

The following may require a little explanation however

ma malak aymanukum (which is also used in 43, and many other places in Quran)

Explanation added

Quote from uq
In 43, is the pronoun pertinent to , and is the coupled verb to that same pronoun. As such, must agree with its pronoun in gender, therefore we read in the Quran " ". However, if the pronoun (i.e. pronoun man, as in HERE) was used in 43, instead of , we would have read in the Quran " " or even " ". (i.e. "taba" has changed to the corresponding feminine)

The rest of the claims and counterclaims, and unanswered questions are fairly easy to follow.

Bro Mazhar has given this explanation and added references

It is common that self acquired stupidity has no ending point, one keeps it stretching. And it not only makes people deaf but also blind that they neither hear anything other than their own orchestra, but also fail to see when portrayed before them. It was portrayed

Quote
(f) The relation which subsists between the part and whole, the species and the genus; [Rem When precedes a definite noun, especially in the plural, it often indicates an indefinite quantity or number. Accordingly "Min" with an indefinite genitive may be subject of a sentence. In such cases of nominal origin of Min we see it clearly a substantive, meaning a part or portion. [Rem After negative particles, and interrogatives put in a negative sense Min prefixed to an indefinite noun means "none at all" and not "not one". [Rem When indicates a part of a whole it is said to be used "lil tabeez" to indicate division into parts; when it indicates the parts of which a whole is composed "lil-tarkeebe" to indicate composition.

Also it was stated that

"Min" is ALWAYS a preposition and acts upon its object rendering it in genitive case. No grammar book suggests anything contrary to it.

And Bro. Daman has left us with his explanation of the Ma.....Min Clause, but whose reference Bro. Mazhar was not able to verify from the link given.

Can Bro. Damon, Wakas, Uq and Mazhar each or whoever is willing, please debate or give points for or against the other person's point of view regarding this element as it seems to not be settled yet for those of us who are not arabic grammarian scholars; although it is a very important element in the discussion.

Quote from mirjamnur on November 13, 2012, 015613 PM
Salam StopS230 AND LO! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels "Behold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it."22 They said "Wilt Thou place on it such as will spread corruption thereon and shed blood -whereas it is we who extol Thy limitless glory, and praise Thee, and hallow Thy name?" answered "Verily, I know that which you do not know."

The quoted bolded part brought to mind a new question for me. Unless evil existed before, how did the "angels" know that he who was being created would spread corruption and shed blood?

In many circles of those around quran, it is generally understood or sometimes stated that satan became evil when he rejected the creation of man and bowing to him, and that this is the first instance of evil in existence. But obviously the "angels" were already aware of such a thing as evil as evidenced by the question above that is quoted in bold. So who, before man was created, was spreading corruption and shedding blood?

Does anyone have any opinion, infomation or reference from quran for this?

Can anyone help with this? If you can't give reference from the quran, can you just give me what your opinion is and/or possibilities?

Thanks,
Salaam

answerseeker
.

first of all, there is no quranic evidence that it was a man named Muhammad who came with the quran.

Secondly, I think the prophet had multiple spouses before he got the quran, and when he got the quran he was ordered not to take any further spouse, as there is a verse in the quran ordering him to stop his polygyny activities.

Peace

Peace Maha,

My apologies, I just assumed that the quran mentioned that the prophet was named Muhammad. If that was wrong, I stand corrected.

Do you have any evidence from the quran that states that the prophet married his wives before he got the quran? Or how many wives he had?

Also, could you point out which verse asks him to stop his polygyny activities? And if so, was he ordered to divorce all his wives except one?

I checked andfound this in his post

But I could not find at page132 of his link anything except that it is about passive voice verbs. I do not know if reference is incorrectly quoted.

Peace Mazhar,

Thank you sincerely for your response.

Bro. Damon, can you please point us again to the reference and grammar information that you are speaking of about the ma....min clause?

I have been following this thread a bit and finally want to comment.

Bro Damon, you said

Hey Idiot, did you even bother to READ my post? Try READING WHAT I SAID!!!

I already established that Min is a word which consists of parts from a whole. I already beat you to that when I made This Post. I also pointed out that it is NOT used as a preposition of place or location because An-Nisaa is NOT a place or location!! I asked you to establish that "min" is a PREPOSITION OF PLACE in 4/3. The ONLY way you can do that is if you can somehow establish that An-Nisaa is a PLACE or LOCATION!!!!!! Did you get it that time???? Do you not know how to read??? And neither YOU nor WAKAS made an attempt to either disprove the Ma..Min Clause or that MA taaba lakum MIN An-Nisaa is written in the Ma...Min Clause.

If you can't do either one of those three things, I'm wasting my time with you. A COMPLETE waste of time.

I'm letting you know ahead of time, if you don't bring some sort of evidence that An-Nisaa' is a PLACE or LOCATION or GEOGRAPHICAL DIRECTION and somehow disprove the Ma...Min Clause I pointed out in your next post, I will not bother to reply. That's it. You are now in the same basket that I had placed Wakas in. I have better things to do than to keep tossing a stick and telling you to go fetch it.

First, you seem to have a good bit to offer to the forum, but honestly a lot of what you have to say is getting lost to me because you seem to be angry or some other emotion that I don't understand about how you are approaching it. I understand from reading your comments that you have history with Wakas, but if you want your studies and conclusions to benefit others, you should also think of how you deliver your message to all of us since we are reading everything that you say here. Maybe a little less personal attacks and just more focus on the subject matter of the ayat and it's understanding would help in doing that, just my 2 cents.

In regards to the subject matter, are you saying that "min" can ONLY be a "preposition of place or location"? and that no other form of preposition exists as Mazhar stated in letter "f" of his explanation?

And bro Mazhar, can you please address directly the issue of the Ma...Min clause that bro Damon is making reference to and why you think it does or does not apply in this ayat of discussion?

On another note regarding this topic in general, I have a few simple questions that hopefully anyone would be kind enough to answer in an unbiased way

1. Does the quran clearly state or indicate the Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time during his life?
2. If yes, does the quran state or give any indication as to why Muhammad was allowed to have more than one wife at the same time during his life and what the rules for that were?
3. Does the quran forbid or indicated in any way that men or women can not have more than one spouse at the same time, directly or indirectly?

Whether or not 43 gives permission to men or women to marry more than one is one issue, but I have heard "muslims" clearly agree that Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time and yet still fight over this issue of whether other men/women can do so.

I am curious if the translations are wrong and if the quran never proves that Muhammad had more than one wife at the same time at all?

Peace.

I don't see the "problem of evil" as having a genuine solution, which is why the concept of God is often philosophically debunked. The only effective determination that can be manifested, on behalf of this, is the conclusion that (1) God is not completely good, (2) God is not all-knowing, or (3) God is not all-powerful. If he's not completely good, then the idea of him also creating evil is warranted. If he's not omniscient, then it can be determined that he doesn't necessarily know all of the causes of evil and is, therefore, unable to prevent it. If he's not omnipotent, then, even if he is omnibenevolent and omniscient, he may not have the power to effectively stop evil. From a logical perspective, those are the only alternatives. It doesn't make rational sense for an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful god to create or allow evil within his design, at least not from how I understand things.

Peace,

Ahmad

Very interesting. If the understanding that we all and everything ultimately returns to "God", which some understand as to mean is a part of "God", i.e. "God" is closer to you than your own jugular vein, then is "God" creating or allowing evil as a means to purify parts of "God"? I mean is hell or heaven different stages of development for the parts of "God", i.e. us, our souls, etc.; that "God" wants to live out through this existence?

Salam StopS230 AND LO! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels "Behold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it."22 They said "Wilt Thou place on it such as will spread corruption thereon and shed blood -whereas it is we who extol Thy limitless glory, and praise Thee, and hallow Thy name?" answered "Verily, I know that which you do not know."

The quoted bolded part brought to mind a new question for me. Unless evil existed before, how did the "angels" know that he who was being created would spread corruption and shed blood?

In many circles of those around quran, it is generally understood or sometimes stated that satan became evil when he rejected the creation of man and bowing to him, and that this is the first instance of evil in existence. But obviously the "angels" were already aware of such a thing as evil as evidenced by the question above that is quoted in bold. So who, before man was created, was spreading corruption and shedding blood?

Does anyone have any opinion, infomation or reference from quran for this?