To your original question. Islam has a very rich history. If you want to read about the contribution of Islam over the centuries I recommend a book by the name of 'Islamic Jurisprudence' by C.G. Weeramantry. It was after reading this book that i started to see religion as a positive force rather than a negative one. It kinda changed my worldview if you know what i mean.
cool, thanks for the recommendation... i will check these books out D
peace handshake
look at the last post of http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596976.45
I asked you for your definition of prophet and messenger.
kk lets move over ther then
laugh
It was until procastinator budged in (and because rashidala and I talked about the Prophet/messenger issue).
I hope that discussion has ended.
am i not allowed to give my two cents? this forum is not exclusive to you.
and if i can recall correctly i did try to move this discussion to this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596976.45
(post 20 i believe)
How many times have you said "bye"? laugh
If you have taken the verses into account, then why are you disagreeing that a Prophet brings scriptures?
Have you read what Meteora wrote in the other thread?
i have not denied it, i have accepted it. why cant you see this? do i have to spell it out for you in huge letters? please go back and focus as hard as you can, and reread what i have posted.
their is sufficient proof to say that messengers bring scripture and law too, could it be that they both can bring scripture and law,
I thought you'rea lready finished..seems as if you're not laugh
You have ignored 381 and 2213, therefore it perfectly applies to you.
I hope this discussion has ended.
Bye
rotfl rotfl
yet again you prove your incapability to read simple sentences. i have not ignored those verses but taken them into account.
you on the other hand readily disregard all the evidence i put out to you.
no need to continue a disscussion with a person who is not willing to approach things with an open mind
bye
Procastinator,
I know it's hard to swallow the truth.
Look at http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596976.45
Bye
progressive
that statement applies more to you more than it does me.
... its frustrating when your having a discussion with someone who cannot read.
GoodBye
procastinator,
I dont know why you are persisting on contuniung this discussion, when your calim has been refuted thoroughly.
brickwall brickwall you have not refuted anything, why do you only accept these verses from the quran but then reject the one i quoted to you? you cant just pick and choose which parts of the quran you want to use because they suit you.
"God took a covenant from the PROPHETS, saying, "I will give you the SCRIPTURE AND WISDOM. Afterwards, a MESSENGER will come to CONFIRM all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him." He said, "Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?" They said, "We agree." He said, "You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you." 381
From this verse alone we can conclude that prophets recieve books and messengers confirm them.
"The people used to be one community when God sent THE PROPHETS as bearers of good news, as well as warners. HE SENT DOWN WITH THEM THE SCRIPTURE, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes" 2213
Again, this proves that prophets recieve scriptures.
Your claim that they are the same or that there is nearly
the same proves your ignorance of my quoted Quranic verses.
brickwall brickwall CAN YOU NOT READ!!!! or do you just choose what you want to see? i have taken into account the verses you have quoted, THIS IS EVIDENT IN MY CONCLUSION!!! please READ CAREFULLY what i said in my earlier post. you cant just take one part of the quraan and ignore another part of it because it doesnt agree with you. please be open minded and know that god does not make contradictions.
I think we can end this discussion here.
yeah i think we should, its quite clear that you are incapable of reading and understanding. You are clearly too stuborn in your set ways that you cant accept the evidence when its in your face.
goodbye
oh come on! When did I say it is not a unique literary work? What I was getting at was that anyone could produce something similar to the Quran from it's literary style, BUT NOT IT'S MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE. Anyone could plagiarize part of the Quran and add a few other things. Why would I be insulting the Quran, etc.? Dont accuse me of false things.
saying something and implying something are two different things!... if someone plagerizes from the quran then that is not proof of that scriptures divinity then, it would be called a fraud, disregarded and would be irrelevent, so how can you say that there would be many other scriptures like it? your claim, that there would be many other scriptures is therefore false.
Absolutely correct. Rashad Khalifa gave enough proof.
Look at these verses and READ CAREFULLY(!!)
"God took a covenant from the PROPHETS, saying, "I will give you the SCRIPTURE AND WISDOM. Afterwards, a MESSENGER will come to CONFIRM all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him." He said, "Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?" They said, "We agree." He said, "You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you." 381
From this verse alone we can conclude that prophets recieve books and messengers confirm them.
"The people used to be one community when God sent THE PROPHETS as bearers of good news, as well as warners. HE SENT DOWN WITH THEM THE SCRIPTURE, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes" 2213
Again, this proves that prophets recieve scriptures.
Your claim has been refuted!
Please also note that a prophet is by default a messenger, but a messenger is not necessarily a prophet.
where is prophet Lot's scripture?
Your claim that there is not much difference between the two is totally ignorant. Please READ the quoted verses CAREFULLY.
PLEASE READ WHAT I SAID CAREFULLY!
hmmm, it would seem that we can both argue over this problem and not get anywhere since their is sufficient proof for both arguments, but then that raises the question "why wouldnt god just use one word instead of prophet and messenger" perhaps the difference between them is small, but still significant enough
"perhaps the difference is small, but significant" this is a valid statement, by evaluating the evidence. i.e. from 5725 and the scriptureless prophets etc.
There is no need in calling me ignorant or insulting me otherwise.
not once have i called you ignorant, i merely stated that you made ignorant claims There is a difference.
Please also realize that I dont want to fight with you. Your last post contains a lot of attackings/insults. This one might also be a bit aggressive. Lets keep it more civilized and lets be more respectful towards each other.
Please meditate on this statement a prophet is by default a messenger, but a messenger is not necessarily a prophet.
Perhaps you will understand. Also take a CAREFULL look at the verses that I quoted. If you still disagree, I think we should just end this discussion, since you will probably not agree with you.
who is attacking who? i have not insulted your miracle, but merely stated that you have made ignorant claims which is evident by your posts, i.e. "Anyone could produce a literay work like it"
i have taken into account all the evidence, you on the other hand seem to be avoiding it.
I hope you won't continue with your rather aggressive/offensive statements.
what is so aggressive/offensive about what i have said?
Not ignorant at all. Dont be rude. It is a fact that anyone could do such a thing. HOWEVER no one could ever produce a book that has such a profound mathematical structure as the Quran has.
you are implying that as a litarary work the quran is not unique! this is a very ignorant claim and i as well as the majority of people here would find that very offensive, think about what your saying before you post. oh and please if you find one then show your proof, i know you wont be able to find one because ive seen many attempts especially on hater websites, to which they have all been refuted and found as frauds.
Look at the simple example I gave you. If messengers would bring new scriptures, then the Quran would not be the ast divine scripture for mankind. Think about it before accusing me of being ignorant.
not true, a messenger requires proof of his messengership refering to 5725, and he brings a scripture according to this verse. please show me where anyone has produced a book like this with the same litarary style after prophet muhammad (saw).
Any proof that Lot didnt bring a new scripture/law? Since he is a prophet, this claim is false anyhow.
the proof lies in that there is no archeological evidence that he brought any new scripture or any evidence in the quran that he brought one. the quran mentions all the books given to its messengers/prophets.
It seems as if you ignored the following
"God took a covenant from the PROPHETS, saying, "I will give you the SCRIPTURE AND WISDOM. Afterwards, a MESSENGER will come to CONFIRM all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him." He said, "Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?" They said, "We agree." He said, "You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you." 381
"The people used to be one community when God sent THE PROPHETS as bearers of good news, as well as warners. HE SENT DOWN WITH THEM THE SCRIPTURE, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes" 2213
This alone destroys your claim.
honestly this is getting frustrating now, please READ!!!!
this is what i said regarding those verses.
their is sufficient proof to say that messengers bring scripture and law too, could it be that they both can bring scripture and law, and that there is no real distinction between the two?
i dont claim to know all the answers and am working to improve my understanding of the quraan. my mind is not closed, hence the reason why i posted the above when you posted those verses. i realise that there is sufficient proof for arguing on both sides.
This claim doesnt make sense - why would they be the same if the terms are clearly seperated in 3340?
Please also check my example again. It is simple to understand.
exactly, which is why i said
hmmm, it would seem that we can both argue over this problem and not get anywhere since their is sufficient proof for both arguments, but then that raises the question "why wouldnt god just use one word instead of prophet and messenger" perhaps the difference between them is small, but still significant enough
realise that god does not make contradictions if he says that messengers brings scripture as in 5725 then it means that messengers brings scripture.
Please read verse 3340.
Muhammad = final prophet
Muhammad = final messenger
Quran = final divine book for mankind
ergo
Prophets bring scriptures
did you not read the verse i quoted to you?
That is your opinion. What would a Christian say without proof?
Please read http//www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26b9.htm
zabur/psalms was given to the messenger dawud, (david)...
Anyone could produce a literay work like it, but not a methamitacally structured book like it.
a very ignorant claim, this is no different than do traditional hadithists who say that the quraan is sufficient proof. the quraan is proof of its own divinity and does not need any hadith or numerology to strengthen it.
What do you mean with "proof fo messengership"? RK brought his proof. BTW, as we have seen by my simple explanation above, Prophets bring scriptures.
im not even going to get into this again
Also, please read
"God took a covenant from the PROPHETS, saying, "I will give you the SCRIPTURE AND WISDOM. Afterwards, a MESSENGER will come to CONFIRM all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him." He said, "Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?" They said, "We agree." He said, "You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you." 381
"The people used to be one community when God sent THE PROPHETS as bearers of good news, as well as warners. HE SENT DOWN WITH THEM THE SCRIPTURE, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes" 2213
their is sufficient proof to say that messengers bring scripture and law too, could it be that they both can bring scripture and law, and that there is no real distinction between the two?
951 Recall in the book Moses; he was loyal, and he was a messenger prophet.
NOT "prophet messenger".
whats your point?
" . . . we would have sent to them from the sky an angel messenger (Malakan Rasoula)" 1795
Notice, "an angle messenger" and NOT "a messenger angel (Rasoulan Malaka). The reason is that not every angel is a messenger but every messenger FROM God's soldiers is an angel.
that statement could be true either way round.
Perhaps one of the strongest indications in the Quran that the words prophet and messenger do not have the same meaning, is found in the following verse
"We did not send before you any MESSENGER NOR A PROPHET, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. GOD then nullifies what the devil has done. GOD perfects His revelations. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise." 2252
Also
In the case of a prophet, he delivers the scripture that contains God's law. In the case of the messenger, he is sent to confirm the existing scripture and warn all those who have strayed away from God's law.
this seems to be the case both ways... for example with the prophet Lut, who did not bring any new scripture with him but warned his people and reinforced the old scripture
However, we are told in all the scripture that the role of the Law-Maker is one exclusively retained by God Almighty.
When God gave Moses a complete and detailed law (7145), God commanded Moses and the people of Israel to adhere closely to the Law of God and never to follow any other Law (see Leviticus 181-5).
i never said that a prophet/messenger makes the law, i said that a messenger brings new law. theres a difference
Similarly, when God revealed the Quran to Muhammad, God commanded Muhammad and all his followers to follow the Law of God in the Quran and no other source
"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6114
see above comment
hmmm hmm, it would seem that we can both argue over this problem and not get anywhere since their is sufficient proof for both arguments, but then that raises the question "why wouldnt god just use one word instead of prophet and messenger" perhaps the difference between them is small, but still significant enough ???
peace
If we take your definition, then the Quran would not be the final divine scripture for mankind, which is, needless to say, completely false.
its not my definition its what the quran says, please read the verse again.
secondly there has not been any other scripture that resembles the beuty of the quran, hence the reason why it is called a miracle. the quran itself is clear proof of its divinity, show me any other book like it. you cant, in fact it is the reason why the quran challenges anyone to produce a book like it as proof of their messengership.
I did a quick search on the internet for articles clearing the difference between Messengers and Prophets.
I admit my error and thank you for your patience.
However, it still complicates matters for me. I am a 'free/open' mind to a point, but I am very much a fan of defined roles, rules and expectations in a religion.
Muhammad, pbuh, is Allah's last Prophet then.
Is a messenger then simply anyone who says "worship God alone and forsake evil" ? Seems we are all messengers if that is so.
If you do not mind furthering this with me, I would appreciate it.
5725
We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may observe right measure; and He revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and (many) uses for mankind, and that Allah may know him who helpeth Him and His messengers, though unseen. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.
messengers bring new law with them, prophets reinforce old scripture
I agree with you 100% in regards to Muhammad having been the final PROPHET, but NOT the final MESSENGER. Please read the verse very carefully. Perhaps you will see what I am getting at.
I think your misunderstanding occured/is due to your confusing/equating "prophet" and "messenger", while they CLAERLY are NOT THE SAME THING as evidenced by that verse.
I hope you understand this. Please read the verse again.
BTW what do you mean with "like..."?
this is already being discussed here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596976.0
Peace
My take on it is you get what you put in. Children soak up EVERYTHING we do.
i agree
We leave a huge impression on them even at a very very young age. This can be seen when kids dress up in their parent's clothes or play mommy with their dolls or pretend to make business phone calls. We see it all the time and it's their way of reminding us "I want to be just like you when I grow up." When we use physical force of any kind, light or hard, to get our message across to them to do something or not to do something, we send the message that the only way to really send a message to someone is to use force.
the only fight ive gotten into was when i was 6 years old, it wasnt my fault (really it wasnt ) but when i got home my dad gave me a good whoopin', and told me and said the next time that happens id be out of the house. He then explained to me why i was being punished. ive had about 3 other conflicts after to this date, and ive sorted them all out without violence because what my dad told me that day stuck with me (and its not because i cant defend myself, i am a bjj practioner). i would never hit him my dad back even to this date, even if he beat me within an inch of my life i would hit him back.
That child can then grow up with a less than adequate level of communication skills and not be able to control their negative emotions properly.
theres a difference between child abuse and disciplining your child. i know what your talking about though, but it this only happens when the parent goes overboard, and its no good if the child doesnt know/understand what he is being punished for.
i would definately take the approach my parents did,
little things= naughty corner
big things= a good ass kicking
peace,
I said they were simultaneous because the video seemed to imply the stationary person on the platform was equidistant between the strikes and he saw them the same time.
Actually, I think the video does not give the full story of the train passenger, there is a difference between
which strike did you perceive first?
taking all the information into account (e.g. train speed), which strike occurred first?
Interestingly, that video seems to show that only the person who has all the info knows the truth. Read in conjunction with 37, in this case, that would be God.
aah, i see your point now D
i dont believe anthony is a messenger, but lets not be so rude guys...
anyways @ anthony
what is your message?
what is your proof of messengership?
when did you become a messenger? how?
crap i meant to modify my earlier comment because of spelling mistakes and i accidently posted a new comment P sorry
I watched that video, and I understood it to mean that in each person's own frame of reference each is correct, which I agree with. However, if they were to compare and weigh the evidence, there is only one truth, and that is it was a simultaneous double lightning strike. This would be worked out if the train passenger took into account the speed of the train heading towards the front strike, and away from the back strike, resulting in seeing the front strike first.
Or at least, that is my understanding.
but how do you know that both lighting bolts struck simultaneously, it depends on context...
it would only be a simultaneous double lightning strike if a person was standing equidistant to both lightning strikes. lets say the man was standing an foot to the other side he would then notice that the lightning bolts were in quick succession to each other, and the lady in the train would also come to this same conclusion, if they compared and weighed the evidence they would agree that one lightning bolt came first and then followed by another. (where they would disagree is the timing between the lightning bolts)
i agree with you though wakas...
this and the quran are two different things, the video is based on visual perception and what your eyes see, so depending on context two people can be correct. the quran however is not based on visual perseption, and depending upon context only one conclusion can truly be made. a persons interpretation of the quran is also dependent on his intentions. If a person reads the quran with bias to his own beleifs and schema then he will only find what he wants to find for example a friend of mine justified eating pork and smoking drugs ( wow) saying "things arent haram but it is the way how you do it makes it haram" and qouting verses that were clearly out of context, or a better example are the suicide bombers murdering innocent people. hence the reason why the quran states that ones intentions must be pure when reading the quran.
There's not even a single "sahih" hadith that states this. Some sunnis conclude that because Muhammad advised adolescents to fast when they're horny,
lol laugh
By gaurding your private part from yourself you'd have one dirty penis.
LOOOOOOL rotfl
They didnt
The current Ramadan is the correct one.
yh i agree