Salaam all,

If ever in a discussion with a Traditional Muslim, to gauge the mindset, ask them this

On the one hand, it is "Sunnah" or recommended for Muslim men to grow a beard, yet on the other hand, cleanliness is very important for a Muslim... tell me, what will result in less dirt/grime/germs/dust having a beard or not having a beard?

(Now, it is obvious to any man that not having a beard will mean less dirt/dust/grime/germs on one's face/skin, yet apparently this is best practice and contradicts the cleanliness issue. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in which armpit/pubic hair is meant to be cut short, yet not facial hair)

If the poser of the question does not have a shaved head, then he or she is revealing more about himself/herself than the person answering the question. The frame of mind of a self contradicting person.

Hussein

Salaam Nun,

You deduce all that from an introduction?

Wainna ilyasa lamina almursaleena
37123 SO ALSO was Elias among those sent (by Us).

Wainna lootan lamina almursaleena
37133 SO ALSO was Lut among those sent (by Us).

Wainna yoonusa lamina almursaleena
37139 SO ALSO was Jonah among those sent (by Us).

When does one exactly become a messenger; isn't there something about a covenant?

You just beat yourself. It does not matter when they become messengers. Why? because in ALL of them, the recitation deals with them after having become messengers and not before. None of them has a story before his messengership and therefore, Jonah is no exception.

Hussein
Secondly, when God chooses one to be a messenger, this is not voluntary to take or leave, it becomes obligatory. Therefore leaving it is a sin.
Rejecting the role that God gave to them as messengers is a huge sin.

Nun
Are you sure; how do know all this God stuff?

Contemplate on this

Picktal
7175 Recite unto them the tale of him to whom We gave Our revelations, but he sloughed them off, so Satan overtook him and he became of those who lead astray.

7176 And had We willed We could have raised him by their means, but he clung to the earth and followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations. Narrate unto them the history (of the men of old), that haply they may take thought.
The man received the revelation and sloughed off to follow his own desires. It tells you that when a person receives revelation, they have to abide by it as in delivering the message and be honest with it.

As for the last part. God protects his message through means of protection and makes sure that it arrives to the audience. Those means include messengers and other people. A messenger who does not deliver the message has a bigger failure than the one who delivers the message with changes in it, because he did not bring it to where it was intended.

Take care,

Hussein

Salaam Z,

How can someone be a messenger when as you say they rejected the role of being a messenger?

I also see you mention he left his job, fact is, he never left his job beause he never accepted the job.

He was according to 37139-145 and then he fled it. So, he accepted it and then left it. Secondly, when God chooses one to be a messenger, this is not voluntary to take or leave, it becomes obligatory. Therefore leaving it is a sin.

Moroever, how do you equate rejecting the job of being a messenger with sinning-being unjust/oppressive?

Rejecting the role that God gave to them as messengers is a huge sin. The Qur'an is full of Ayat warning the prophet not to leave the message.

Then I'd like for you to show me where in the quran every sin is an act of injustice and oppression...

3133 And vie with one another to attain to your Sustainer's forgiveness and to a paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, which has been readied for the God-conscious
3134 who spend in time of plenty and in time of hardship, and hold in check their anger, and pardon their fellow-men because God loves the doers of good;

3135 and who, when they have committed a shameful deed or have sinned against themselves, remember God and pray that their sins be forgiven - for who but God could forgive sins? - and do not knowingly persist in doing whatever they may have done.

3136 These it is who shall have as their reward forgiveness from their Sustainer, and gardens through which running waters flow, therein to abide and how excellent a reward for those who labour!

In this passage it tells you that the God conscious can Thalamoo anfusahum= trasngress against themselves, yet they were always believers. This tells you that all sin is a transgression and act of injustice. Transgression is not limited to rejection of God.

But more importantly, I would like for you to explain how you equate a messenger attributing something falsely to the god as being the same as someone rejecting the role of messenger, especially in light of the fact, that when Jonah did become a messenger, his message was effective, so effective his people were spared.( to my knowledge that is the only example of a whole people accepting/obeying the message).

A messenger who tampers with the message may distort part of the message but it will still be there. A messenger who leaves the message makes the message not arrive to it's intended audience. The second crime is bigger because it is total while the first one is partial.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

Every sin is an act of injustice and that is how the Qur'an describes them. Jonah was a messenger who fled his mission to the ship to travel away, as per that passage. His sin is leaving his job. That is why God reminds Muhammad in another passage not to be like the companion of the whale. He was telling him not to abandon the job as happened with Jonah.

Take care

Hussein

What is obvious to you is not that obvious. Here is 37 139-40

130 Jonah was of the messengers
140 When he fled to the ship

The Qur'an is very precise. It would not use "when" for someone who was not at that time, "messenger"

As for the rest of your post. It has no grounds on the business of the divisible trinity of person, prophet and messenger.

That is why you and your friends are dreaming with no proof from the Qur'an to support you.

Take care

Hussein

prove it. What was he doing in the other Ayat 80 3-7? running his mouth I guess.

Z 2187, try again. It starts with He went angry. His saying La ilaha ill anta is not a proof that was the point of believing in God. Many people say that in the Qur'an when they repent from sins. Also, how can you prove that tho nun was Jonah?

Hussein

Before Jonah was a messenger, he was from the unjust and oppressive, and in my book, that equates to a rejecter.

That is your dream.

1- You cannot assert that his sin was before he was messenger.
3- You deduce what his sin was, without support in the Qur'an. People in the Qur'an have said the above statement for many things other than rejection. Adam said it when he ate from the tree. He was not a rejecter, but he made a sin. So, when Jonah said the above, then you need to find his sin only from the Qur'an, and not from your "logic" which seems to have many leaps and blind spots. The only thing associated with this statement is being messenger at the beginning of the passage and fleeing on the ship. If he fled his message to the ship, then that is a sin. If he went on the ship without being a messenger, then there is no sin, so what was the sin?

Not answering his sin makes false all your theory that you are trying to jab on our throats.

Hussein

Salaam all,

Pazuzu, thanks for your rant. I do not have a Mulla, but If I had one, I will deliver your regards to him/her.

To answer your question, I will go and explain the patterns of addresses in the Qur'an.

When God has an intimate relationship and communication with a person, God designates that person as Nabi= prophet in the Qur'an. So, prophet is about the personal connection between that person and God.

When a person with that close personal relationship with God is charged with a public message, then that person is messenger, Rasool. So, one cannot be a messenger if he did not have that close personal connection with God.

A person who is designated as both Nabi and messenger is also human and is all three all the time. So, at all times and despite everything, the human tendency to err will always be there, but that personal connection with God will prevent most of them, or make the ones that occurr minimal and non persistent.

When that person commits an error on a personal level, then he will be addressed as himself or prophet and this is what happened in 661. However, when that person commits an error in his charge of delivering the message, then he is mentioned as messenger, as in Jonah's case in 37139-142. Or in case of sura 80, he is mentioned indirectly and through third person addresses, but it was still pointing to error in the messengering.

By the way none of you answered my inquiries about the error of Jonah, the messenger? Now, I gave you my answer. Give yours.

Warner, I want to go back again to Aya 4251, here it is again
Wama kana libasharin an yukallimahu Allahu illa wahyan aw min warai hijabin aw yursila rasoolan fayoohiya biithnihi ma yashao innahu AAaliyyun hakeemun
It is not for human that Allah will speak to him except inspiration or behind a screen or He sends a messenger, so he inspires by His leave what He wills, He is most high, wise.

I mentioned the second group for Moses. The third group is God sending a messenger, who is non human to the human. This means that God did not speak to the Human, but spoke to the non human messenger. So, again, the third group, God spoke with voiced words but he was heard by the non human messenger who was charged with delivering to the human. That is the example of the Qur'an as KLM of Allah.

Salaam all and have a peaceful evening.

Hussein

Salaam Warner,

You have a big hole in your argument. You based it on taking Zachariah's use of the lip language to make Kalam mean not necessarily voiced speech. However, you forgot that the Qur'an indicated clearly that lip movement is the exception in KLM and not the rule. Now you want to switch over and make the exception into the rule without any Aya indicating that it is an exception. Linguistically, you have no support.

As for NTQ, it can mean speech but is reserved to entities that do not usually speak.

As for Aya 4251, it indicates big exception at the beginning ILLA. It also does not negate speech as in spoken words. for example, it gives one of the ways God speaks to people is "min warai hijab= From behind a screan". This means that He can speak to people without being seen by them. This is what happened to Moses. He spoke to God but could not be seen by Him. If Moses did not speak to God directly, then there is nothing to make him any different from any other prophet/messenger. However, the Qur'an clearly gives him the distinction of speaking to God and of God speaking to him.

Yes, the Qur'an is a great literary work. Unforunately, many of you guys want to make that literary miracle less so by playing with the language according to your biases.

I do not mind Lisan Al Arab being corrupted. I have a better alternative to understand the Qur'an. As for you, the moment you make dictionaries corrupted, then your whole Qur'an alone argument fails miserably. You will end up depending on your pure bias in understanding the Qur'an. There are many examples of that here.

Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Salaam all,

Hlatif
If you are truthful, then you will need to go ahead and climb somewhere "because the order of the messenger is absolute" according to your theory.

Samia
No. This is what I will follow "not to sorrow either for that which ye missed or for that which befell you. Allah is Informed of what ye do."

That would be partially obeying and partially obeying is rejecting the other part which included climbing upwards. Where is the absolute business that you claimed before? Also, the fact that the order clearly was limited to that particular time and group (without needing to know further) also removes your absolutely "obeying the messenger" myth, which you have invented to support the false prophet vs messenger business.

Warner, La tukallima annasa illa ramza does not have to mean sign language only. It can also mean speaking with your lips but not making sounds. It is still spoken words but without sound and the spoken words are then seen but not heard. This same phrase means that spoken words are supposed to be heard unless indicated as in this Aya.

Zidane thanks again for your kindness.

Take care all and have a good night.

Hussein

Salaam all,

There is no trinity analogy. A person can wake up, eat, sleep, and go to the toilet as a policeman. That does NOT mean that while they are doing those acts, they are policing. Very important distinction to be made. Likewise, when Jonah erred, it does not mean he was acting in his capacity as a messenger.

Wrong analogy. The policeman has a job that is limited by time and place. The messenger's job is 24/7 and for life. There is no where in the Qur'an where God gives a vacation or releases the messenger from his job. The messenger is messaging all the time. Jonah left his job. He walked out on it. That is his error in his own capacity as messenger and a grave error at that.

Your point is moot, he was a "messenger" when he delivered the god's message, and this happened after his rejection. Nowi If at that time, he had transmitted a message contrary to what he was ordered, then we can expect that his "lifeline" would be cut.

Here are the words again
37139 And lo! Jonah verily was of the messengers

37140 When he fled unto the laden ship,

37141 And then drew lots and was of those rejected;

37142 And the fish swallowed him while be was blameworthy;
The messenger Jonah ran away from his job while on his job. What other proof do you guys need that the man erred in his capacity as messenger of God?! Oh, I forgot, running away from the job is allowed because he did not say anything else about God. Nonsense.

How about...Mike, the messnger of the King, and Mike a subject/citizen of the king.

Now ask yourself

Is Mike being a subject/citizen of the king, obliged to obey the messages he transmits to the citizens for the king?

Thus does mike the citizen/subject obey the king and the messenger?

Yes he does. This is how
1- Mike obeys the rules of the king.
2- Any rules that fall within "obey the messenger" but not necessarily "obey the king", then he will also abide by them as well as impose them on others. This is actually what the messenger Muhammad (pbuh) did exactly. He never imposed his rules on others. He imposed them on himself first.

Z There is no mention of "Hill" at all in the verse. Secondly, the verse is describing a situation which had occured with a particular group, specifically a group that had ignored the god/the messenger's(messages) promise of victory, both in this life and the afterlife. BEing such, the order still stands.

You just proved Samia wrong. This is what she wrote before

because somewhere else in the qur'aan the obedience to the messenger is obligatory and absolute

this was her point that when an order is given by the prophet then it is not obligatory nor absolute, but when it is given by the messenger it has to be obligatory and absolute to all people and at all times. Here is a messenger giving order to a particular group limited by time and space. This alleged point of distinction between prophet and messenger as presented by Samia, is then false and incorrect.

Take care all.

Hussein

Yes it is. You do not want to miss anything or do something that was not in the book. It is also part of the self preservation of the book. You do not need to have a Rashad Khalifa system. But you need to have some sort of coherent system. If you make an argument on 100% authenticity, then you should not leave any holes in it. If it is otherwise as we Sunnis do, then that is a different formula. Our formula is in safety and trust and not the mathematics or 100% business that you guys claim but can never prove.

Hussein

Salaam all,

All I have to say is wow.

1- Jonah was mentioned as messenger in that same passage and he failed as a messenger and in the role of the messenger. The man ran away from his mission. Jonah was a messenger when he failed as the passage indicated. Now, it is limited to lying on God. I would say that no you are backtracking into "the messenger can err but should not lie". Interesting.

2- Roles. If God gave a person a role as a messenger, then it is his role all the time. If that same person has the role of prophethood then his role is both all the time. God is always creator and always controllor of all. He does not change from role to another.

3- Hadeeth Qudsi is speech in the words of the prophet related to God. Very much as the Qur'an speaks God's related to Moses and whoever, even Satan.

4- Intercession. There is nothing in the Qur'an that says that no one will intercede. The Qur'an always makes it conditional. That is all.

5- As for 3153, you changed hill to high ground. Then you forgot to remember that it was all in the past tense. It is not talking for all time as you are trying to make it. The order of the messenger that was disobeyed happened in the past. The order is not valid anymore. 3152 confirms that it was something limited in the past. Something that happened and is gone. The order of the messenger then was not absolute nor obligatory to all, just those who were addressed by it at that time and place.

Warner,

19 26

Yusuf Ali "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man say `I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being.' "

Transliteration Fakuli was rabi wa qar ri aina_ fa im ma_ tarayin na minal basyari ahadan faqu_li in ni nadzartu lir rahma_ni shauman falan ukal limal yauma insiy ya_

In the above verse if the fast is about speak/saying to others the messenger Job can not say when he meets someone ?I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being. " . Because if he says that he would break the fast. What he is prohibited from doing is kalam/ukallimal which is ?converse? with any man.

I would disagree. This is Mary and not Job. This Aya explains the difference between the two. The order is QOOLI= say (but not necessarily in words). So, QWL is communicate or say in spoken words or otherwise. And then she says lan ukallima= I will never speak words. So, KLM can be communication but only in spoken words. QWL means that you can communicate without speaking, while KLM is only spoken words form of communication.

19 29

Yusuf Ali But she pointed to the babe. They said "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

Transliteration Fa asa_rat ilaihi qa_lu_ kaifa nukal limu man ka_na fil mahdi shabiy ya_

The people did not say they can not speak to the child. Sure they can speak but they do not expect the child to understand or reply. So what they are saying here is how can we converse or communicate with a child.

Again, they are talking about spoken words. Why? because they communicate with the baby but without words. Everyone does from very early, but they cannot speak words to them and they do not expect him to speak back.

Take care all and have a great day.

Hussein

Correct Dargento. The Qur'an proves itself as a book that is slef consistent. How do you prove that nothing was added to it or subtracted from it?

Nurd, we all need tools of one sort or another to help us understand something else, whether Qur'an or anything else.

Take care all

Hussein