So you have no explanation. Fine.

And saying that it is magic as to what the magicians did is no explanation either. There is also an explanation for magic.

Putting a word for something and closing the question iwht it pretending that you have come further in knowing or understanding is kidding oneself. You have explained nothing, neither the magician's nor the prophet's deeds.

Salaam

I have no scientific explanation because science is too limited to explain it. You fail to comprehend basic English. And I did explain what the magicians did as being an optical illusion because magic is not real another thing you fail to comprehend for whatever reason.

Still that is not what I asked, and you were not there, those who contested with Musa also did the same, how can you explain it. Read carefully those ayas.

I have read it carefully and you are absolutely wrong. The pharaonic magicians did not produce the same feat. Magic is not real, that is the whole lesson of that episode. The Quran simply states that the magicians bewitched the eyes of the people, they did not perform anything paranormal or supernatural, unlike the Sign of Moses.

At any rate, if you do not know of any explanation, as against no explanation at all, because what yous ay does not explain anything, just that God can do, which is not it. God can do anything but that does not mean that there is no explanation for it.

Of course there is an explanation, but you specifically asked for a scientific explanation. So I asked you the perfectly logical question as to why there should be a scientific explanation, because quite simply, there can never be one. No matter how much science radically advances it can never explain how an inanimate rod suddenly transformed into a living snake.

For instance, again how do you explain that the rods of the magicians di the same as the rod of Musa. Miracle?

Once again, you obviously never read the Quran carefully. It never says that the magicians transformed their rods. The Quran says they bewitched the eyes of the people, so they made it appear as though their ropes and sticks were moving, but in reality they remained motionless. It was nothing but a trick, an optical illusion, nothing supernatural or paranormal.

I understand that the Evangel revealed to the Messiah was never preserved as a book. The so-called ?canonical Gospels? may contain traces of the original Evangel. So it was passed down among the Nazarenes orally. They are instructed by Allah Most High to judge by what He revealed therein. It is the previous Ayah which explains what was revealed in that Evangel, i.e., confirmation of the Torah. Hence it is implied that the Nazarenes have to reject the false teachings of the manufactured parts of their religion which contravene the Evangel?s message to believe in the Torah. For example, the Torah teaches unitarianism while the Christian religion teaches a triune godhead. Now Allah is telling the Nazarenes they have to judge by what He revealed to them in the Evangel, i.e., to accept the Torah and its teachings. If they fail to do so and continue upon their manufactured and idolatrous dogma they will be branded al-F?siq?n. Furthermore, it is also a revelation within the original Evangel that the Messiah gave glad-tidings of the coming of an apostle after him, namely, Ahmad . Part of judging by what Allah has revealed in the Evangel means that the Nazarenes must accept Ahmad too.

Any of us knows af a scientific explanation that might have been given or found for Musa's ayaat (signs)? For instance the rod-snakes?

Salaam

Wa alaikum as-salaam

Friend, why should there be a ?scientific explanation?? Those were Signs of God. How can science ever explain how an inanimate rod suddenly became a live snake? This is beyond the realm of empirical, hard sciences.

Dear israfeel, please read my modified post and pay attention to main points I am making eg a)God telling people to follow his messengers and b)God telling people his messengers had made mistakes. Unless we can justify these two types of verses we will see they contradict each other. My explanation removes that contradiction but if you have a better explanation I will accept that. I have stated my reasons for taking the quran alone as the foundation of deen of islam. Please state your reasons for taking the quran, sunnah and hadis together as foundation of deen of islam to help me understand your point of view.

regards and all the best.

You haven?t quoted a single Verse of the Quran in your ?modified post?. Your thesis that God tells people His Messengers made mistakes hasn?t been sufficiently presented to warrant an academic response. I suggest you make your argument more concisely and with citations from the Quran you claim to follow ?alone? and as the foundation of Islam. I have posted the link to an article on my website which absolutely demolish your ideas. Perhaps you can attempt to respond to them so we can get a fruitful discussion started here.

Absolute nonsense.

Check out my latest blog entry refuting you

http//islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2018/02/quran-is-not-only-revelation-to-prophet.html

This is Ayat 3351 Here "turji, Tashaa, tuvi, taqarra, yahzanna ..." are all imperfect verbs or . So as per your interpretation all these actions are continuously happening?

My teacher told me never to interpret single ayat of AL-Quran without understanding the context.

Peace.

Certainly your teacher is right. I too subscribe to that view. My original point is that Allah is commanding the Believers to send Salawaat upon the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). Someone objected that what is the point of sending Salawaat upon a deceased person. This question reveals that the questioner is someone who denies the life of the hereafter or Hayaat al-Ukhrawi. That is an atheistic or materialist view that after death a person ceases to exist. But of course Al-Quran teaches that after death a person?s existence does not cease, and the soul goes to Allah.
Furthermore, no one could answer my argument that here Allah is commanding those who Believe to send Salawaat upon the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). Therefore, if someone says that he is not bound by this commandment, it means he is excluding himself from the category of ?those who believe?.

Peace Israfeel.

How are you?

Please explain the term . What does it mean?
How does GOD "Yusalli" upon someone no longer alive ? What does GOD do to fulfil that?
Thank you.
Peace.

Allah sends blessings upon the pious souls of the deceased, especially our beloved Prophet

How do you explain Allah commanding the Believers to send Salawaat upon the Prophet (Sallallahu alahi wasallam)?
If you don?t send Salawaat it means you don?t consider yourself in the category of ?Those who believe?. And that is true, people who hate the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam and refuse to send Salawaat upon him can hardly be considered Believers. And you yourself are excluding yourself from ?Those who believe? who are addressed in Surah 3356.
Also, consider the fact that the word ?Yusalloona? is an imperfect verb, or . It means ?Verily Allah and the Mala?ikah are continuously sending blessings upon the Prophet?.

Prophet Muhammad ( &#1605 is the Last and Final Prophet to come with a Shari?ah. There can come no prophet, new or old, after Prophet Muhammad ( &#1605. However, there can come within the Ummah such saintly figures who are conversant with Allah ( &#1604, known as Muhaddathun and Mukallamun. In Sufi terminology, such individuals who are honored with communication by Allah ( &#1604 are ?prophets? in a figurative sense. They project within themselves the characteristics of the Nubuwwah of Prophet Muhammad ( &#1605. However, they do not possess any independent Nubuwwah, but are only reflecting or are a projection of the Nubuwwah of Prophet Muhammad
That is the true significance of Khatam an-Nubuwwah

Peace israfeeeel

2526True sovereignty, that Day, is for the Most Merciful. And it will be upon the disbelievers a difficult Day.
2530And the Messenger has said, "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an as abandoned."

these verses, of what I understand, are talking about judgment day. and, that, the Quran says, will be an awesome day, in which nobody will speak except whomever the Most Merciful allows. in that day all will be judged, and there is not recording, to what I know, on your actions on that day. therefore the attention is not on the individual, so the individual need to call the attention of the judge. this is my understanding for the moment. I seek refuge in God from being of the ignorant.

regarding the other being you talk about. they are shown to be addressed while they were alive, and if the story tells that they are being addressed by God while death ALLAH does whatever He wills.

my point is that people is using ya ALLAH for anything, even in sinful songs. therefore calling the name of God in vain, which is forbidden in the Torah. And, that people is calling death people as if they were alive.

Believers were advised not to speak to prophet as they spoke to one another. so, if one should not address prophets as one addresses one another, then we should be careful in the way we call The LORD of the worlds.

Any way, If you want to call the name of your Lord, as you call your dog or your neighbor, to you your actions and to me mine.

May Allah increase our knowledge and give us some wisdom.

You changed your position when I refuted you with

Even your friend "Man of Faith" has said that you are wrong in this issue.

First you said that saying Ya Allah is sinful, but then you admit that the Prophet (peace be upon him) shall call upon Allah by saying "Ya Rabbi" (O my Lord) as it states clearly in 2530

You are obviously trying to cover your mistake by changing the issue about calling upon Allah with respect.

Your claim is that saying "Ya Allah" is disrespectful. Then why does the Prophet (peace be upon him) say on Judgment Day "Ya Rabbi"?

If you were sincere you would simply apologize for your mistake and move on. But you insist on claiming that saying "Ya Allah" is sinful without a shred of evidence from Qur'an which you claim to follow.

On what basis is saying "Ya Allah" sinful? I need evidence not more of your nonsense.

Aha, Israfeel. Shaving is mandatory for women according to your sages. We can say your women aren't keeping the law because they don't shave. Pls, respond.

An-Nawawi may Allaah have mercy upon him said,

Ibn Al-Munthir said ?The scholars unanimously agree that women are not required to shave. Rather, they are required simply to shorten. They also said that it is disliked for women to shave for this is an innovation in religion if done by women and it also involves disfigurement. The scholars provided different views regarding the extent that should be shortened. Ibn ?Umar, Ash-Shaafi?i, Ahmad, Is?haaq and Abu Thawr are of the view that she should shorten the length of a fingertip from each part of the head hair.

What you quoted is not a Hadith. Nor does it say that shaving head is mandatory for women. Why did you lie?

The Hadith says

"

Abdullah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) said that the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) prohibited a free woman to cut her hair more than shoulder length (Muj'am al-Saghir of Imam Tabarani)

So this is a clear Hadith of our Prophet (peace be upon him) that is forbidden women to have short hair, let alone shaving their head. A woman must have at least shoulder length hair. The Hanafis forbid a woman to cut any of her hair unless it becomes exceedingly long, meaning beyond her waist.

Regarding shaving the head for women

It is not permitted for a woman to shave her head except in cases of necessity, because of the hadeeth narrated by al-Tirmidhi and al-Nisaa?i from ?Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) according to which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade women to shave their heads. Al-Khallaal reported from Qutaadah from ?Ikrimah who said ?The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade women to shave their heads.? Al-Hasan said ?This is mutilation.? Al-Athram said ?I heard Abu ?Abd-Allaah asking about a woman who was unable to take care of her hair properly and whether she should remove her hair according to the hadeeth of Maymoonah. He asked, ?Why does she want to remove it?? He said, ?She cannot put oil on it or anything else that will make it look better, and she has a bad infestation of lice.? He said, ?If it is the matter of necessity, I hope that there is nothing wrong with doing so.?? And Allaah knows best.

Now let me turn the tables.

Where does the Qur'an say it is forbidden for a woman to shave her head? You (Neptin) already admitted that the Qur'an does not forbid women from shaving her head. Your friend Huruf agreed with you.

Hadith clearly forbids it.

Here's another question which Qur'anists try to avoid. Does the Qur'an forbid men and women from growing out their pubic and armpit hair?

Traditional Sunni Muslims universally remove the hair of armpits and pubic region as it is commanded by Hadith. But there is no such commandment in the Qur'an. Does it mean Qur'anist keep pubic and armpit hair like Western and Hindu people?

You didn't read my post. Pay closer attention to the instruction. If i say, "do not eat untill i leave home". Am i saying you must eat after i leave home?

What this verse bear is a prohibition of shaving before the sacrifice is fulfilled. There is no prescription of shaving the hair here as part of the Hajj ritual.

Whoever wants to shave, man or woman, shouldn't do it till the sacrifice completes.

You're argument doesn't hold water because elsewhere shaving the head has been associated with the Hajj ritual .

Also, can you answer my question Does the Qur'an forbid women from shaving their heads? If a woman prefers to shave her head is she sinful according to the Qur'an?

Before I expose the fallacy of the hair-shaving ritual, (in a separate thread), I would like you to try to answer the following question

You claim that the shaving of the hair is a ritual that must be performed as an indication that the so-called manasik have been completed? Am I getting this right?

So based on this understanding, when the Muslim man finishes all his manasik, and slaughters the animal, only then can he shave his head?

If that's true, then pray explain to me, using your Hadith logic, the following passage. Read it very carefully, and note that I used the FM translation, which in fact committed several gross errors. I kept it as it is, for the sake of argument.

First of all I am not claiming anything on our behalf. I am simply stating that based on the Qur'an-only ideology, your women should be shaving their heads as part of the Hajj ritual as mentioned in 2196. My central point is that 2196, including the verses that precede it, make no distinction between males and females. Furthermore, the Qur'an nowhere stipulates that women are forbidden from shaving their head.

Our position is not at all the issue here. Nor the subject concerning when to shave the head. If you want to know about our position, you can easily research it on the net. I will just say that according to us there are three different types of Hajj, known as Tamattu', Ifraad, and Qiraan. The timing for shaving the head will differ according to the type of Hajj being offered, for example, the shaving for the head in Tamattu' is before, and therefore the verse of the vision you quoted is referring to that specific type of Hajj, while the other verse is referring to the other type of Hajj known as Qiraan.

As for the verse of the vision, this is coincidentally a proof that the Qur'an is not the only form of revelation or inspiration that was given to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) apparently had visions which are a type of divine inspiration apart from the text of the Qur'an. This fact itself is a nail in the coffin for the Qur'anist ideology whose entire edifice rests on the argument that the Qur'an is the only Tanzil (revelation) received by the Prophet (Peace be upon him).

Israfeel should be banned. He is going to far with this wahhabi sh**.

Of course when you cannot answer my arguments, then you clamor for a ban LOL

How do you know she is what you claim she is? Evidence please.

You seem to make the illogical and baseless extrapolation that if you read something in a "Quranist" translation that means everyone who follows a Quran based islam has this view.

I don't have that view. And for a list of the major problems of the traditional view regarding 2196, you might find this helpful
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-2196-critical-thinking.html

Of course, your words demonstrate perfectly how no two Qur'anists can ever agree on a single translation or interpretation of verse in the Qur'an. I have quoted from Mr. Yuksel's translation because at least his translation has been published, it's in the market. He is a known person and advocate of the Qur'anist ideology.

You on the other hand are anonymous, so whose views should I give credence to in this respect?

And if you know of another Qur'anist translation that has been published and is available in the market, I would be glad to consult it as well.

So why don't you at least address the verse in question 2196. Do you deny the fact that there is no apparent distinction between male or female in the verse?

And forget about the photograph, I have only used it by way of illustration.

The million dollar question is where exactly is this region or location called Al-Feel?

After you have pointed out the geographic location of Al-Feel, your next job is to produce any historical, documented, or archaeological evidence that such a place was destroyed in the manner described in Surah al-Feel. You say this place was destroyed by "volcanic cloud that rained down rocks of cooked clay". Therefore, any historical evidence you present must describe the destruction of a place called al-Feel accordingly.

It is clear to anyone who has read all the verses I cite.

For example, assuming we believe Quran is the truth, then in it God has talked about life after death, stories from the past, judgement etc etc i.e. the unseen. For explicit confirmation of this, see 12102 which I cited.
Thus, can we then say we KNOW the unseen? Or is it more accurate to say we have been TOLD about the unseen? It is clearly the latter. We can then choose to believe in what we have been told.

We are reliant upon the source/author for this knowledge. Of our own selves we know not the unseen.

You have conveniently and subtly changed your position after I cornered you.

The title of your thread is "Did prophet Muhammed know the future?"

Now you are arguing that the Qur'an says that the Unseen lies exclusively in the knowledge of Allah.

The question is, why have you equated future with unseen?

The occurrence of the Day of Judgment is an event that shall occur in the future. The fact that it shall occur some time in the future excludes it from being something that is Ghayb (Unseen).

The fact that in the future you, me and all living human beings shall experience death proves that we ourselves have some knowledge of what will occur in the future.

However, based on the title of your thread, you are arguing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) has no knowledge of the future. You have not qualified your absurd and ridiculous assertion by saying "The Prophet (peace be upon him) has only partial knowledge of what shall occur in the future".

Had you substituted the word "future" with "unseen" or "unknown" there would be no objection.

But you deceptively used the word "Future" because your evil intention is to deny the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

By definition a Prophet is someone who has knowledge of the future revealed to him on the basis of which he makes prophecies.

If you say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) has no knowledge of the future, effectively you have impugned his status of Prophet and denied the fundamental pillar upon which the entire edifice of Religion and Divine Revelation is resting.

Only God knows the future and this knowledge can be attained only through divine revelations/signs (344, 3179, 1149, 12102, 302, 7226-2.

What you wrote makes no sense at all.

On the one hand you say only God knows the future.

Then in the same sentence you say knowledge of the future can be attained (through revelation, signs).

Therefore you have opened the possibility of attaining knowledge of the future.

So your statement "only God knows the future" is against the basic rules of logic.

Or do Qur'anists have their own brand of logic?

The 'Jinn' is a human and lacking that extra touch of Allah in him meaning he can only think as far as his eyes go, so to say.

What is the evidence of this your assertion?

From my ability to decipher the Arabic words the word 'Jinn' has nothing to do with something invisible per meaning.

Jinn, which is derived from the root J-N-N, has the connotation "to shield, to cover, to engulf, shield, enclosure, place of hiding; the world of jinn, the hidden people; night; grave; heart, inside, foetus; garden, verdant, madness; snake" (Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur'anic Usage, P. 175)

The same dictionary defines Jinn as "hidden beings generally including the jinn and angels" (p. 176)

Angels are referred to as Jinnatun in Sura 7158

The Qur'an refers to fetuses as aljinnatun/janin in Sura 5332

So this is quite established from the Arabic language that Jinn carries a connotation of something that is hidden from plain view.

And like I wrote above, linguistically 'Jinn' has no relation to something hidden.

The Arabic dictionary proves you wrong. Jaan also means snake, as proven from Sura 2710. The staff of Moses turned into a Snake, and the word used in the Qur'an is Jaan.

And you also contradict your statement about "concealed from plain sight" that you mentioned in your post. This are your mainstream 'Jews' as you said yourself here. Is "elite" an excuse for making an exception for these 'Jinns' from your invisible 'Jinns"? Your statement does not make sense. Even if they live in seclusion they are still visible people? And it is not like you have the Arabic with you either in terms of the meaning.

You've misunderstood me. By hidden or invisible I do not mean it in a literal sense. I gave you the example of the snake. Snakes are clearly physical, visible creatures that many of us have seen with our own eyes.
But snakes are a type of Jinn because they tend to be concealed by their nature. They hide in the grass and holes in the ground. It's difficult to perceive a snake. Likewise, fetuses are also referred to as Jinn, because they are concealed in the womb. Angels have also been referred to as a kind of Jinn because they are invisible.

So first off, we have to establish and understand that there are several types of Jinn based on the Arabic language and even different examples of the Quran I already gave.

However, the common type of Jinn that most people think about when the word Jinn is mentioned are a type of people who remain aloof from the ordinary people. They are the elite. They are not literally invisible as if they were ghosts or spirits. I am not claiming that at all. I am saying they are referred to as Jinn because they remain aloof and hidden in their own world, but at times they emerge, as mentioned in Sura 4629 and Sura 721

Finally, there are the Jinn which are popularly known as demons, devils, Iblis, evil spirits etc. That is a difficult subject and presently I do not have enough knowledge to discuss about their reality, nor do I think it is necessary to do so.

As for men from among the Jinn, the Rijaal min al Jinn (726) it is about them that I have been discussing all along so don't be confused.

Jinn basically mean those things or people which are concealed from plain sight. Hence, snakes are called Jinn because they are hidden in the grass.

Another kind of Jinn are those elite people who are hidden from the general public, preferring to remain aloof from ordinary people.

I do not consider 'Jinn' to be anything paranormal at all. A 'Jinn' is simply an individual who is your standard person without faith who does not really believe in anything.

I do not agree with your assertion that Jinn are people who have no faith. There may be some Jinn who are faithless, in fact, most of them are described as devils, but this does not mean the definition of Jinn are those people who are "standard without faith".

On the contrary, Jinn are not standard, people, they are elite class of people who are concealed from the general public. Some of them believe in the Qur'an, as it is mentioned in Sura 4629-30

And when We directed to you a few of the Jinn, listening to the Qur'an. And when they attended it, they said, "Listen quietly." And when it was concluded, they went back to their people as warners.
They said, "O our people, indeed we have heard a Book revealed after Moses confirming what was before it which guides to the truth and to a straight path"

So from this passage, you can see that when a party of Jinn listened to the Qur'an, it effected them and they went back to their people as Warners, giving them the message of the Qur'an.

The next verse indicates to us that they already had faith in Prophet Moses and the Torah. This shows us that this party of Jinn were actually Jews.

If you look to the Hadith, this will become clear to you. The Hadith and Islamic books of history have reported this incident in detail. The Jinn mentioned here were actually Jewish men from a place called Nasibin. (I think it is either in Syria or in Nakhlah, Yemen)

The Qur'an has referred to these elite Jews of Nasibin as "Jinn". Abdullah b. Mas'ud (R.A.) himself saw them, and described them as men who were wearing white clothes. According to a report, they were about seven men, and even their names have been preserved, for example, one of them was Ibn Alazab (the Son of Alazab).

So in the light of Hadith explanation, it is clear that the Jinn are not necessarily some kind of supernatural ghosts or spirits, but are men who are concealed from general public.

1. First off, THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS ALLEGORY IN THE QURAN.

That is just plain wrong. The Qur'an itself says it contains two kinds of Verses, Muhkamaat (Clear and foundational) as well as Mutashabbihaat (allegorical or ambiguous in meaning).

So the Qur'an says to hold on to the "Rope of Allah". Is there a literal Rope dangling from the sky that all of us must find and hold on to?

Obviously it is a metaphor. The Rope of Allah is the Qur'an. It is not a literal rope!

Now as for the story about Moses and the "Wise Man". Actually, the "Wise Man" was a Prophet, and his name was Khidr.

Another possibility is that Khidr was an Angel, but Allah knows best.

The story itself as mentioned in the Qur'an contains much allegory. For example, Moses was trying to reach the junction of two seas. A sea represents vastness of knowledge. This is one of the meanings of the root B-H-R "Ocean, sea, great river, great expanse of water, lake; generous person; great knowledge" (Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur'anic Usage, P. 77)

The junction of two seas therefore symbolizes Khidr, a man who combines in him abundance of two kinds of knowledge. One of those seas of knowledge is the knowledge of interpretation, the esoteric or mystic knowledge.

Now if you are a Sunni Muslim and follow the Hadith as I do, this is no problem. A Hadith says that every verse of the Qur'an has both a literal and a hidden meaning. So the literal meaning is a place where two seas of water meet, while the inner meaning is a generous person who combines in himself two types of great knowledge.

So the point is, in order to truly understand and penetrate the hidden knowledge of the Qur'an, you have to learn about the Sunnah, or the Hikmah (Wisdom) which is necessary to explain the allegories of the Qur'an.

If you reject the Sunnah and Hadith, as well as the traditional knowledge of Islamic dream interpretation, mysticism and Sufism, you will be confused and end up denying verses of the Qur'an, as the OP has done!