Messages

1

Christianity/Judaism/Others / Re: Bible corruption

« on: Today at 03:11:01 AM »

But calling eopple sons and daughters is a very common usage in every (I guess) language. When people are friendly and caring they call other people sons or daughters. So it is nothing out of the usual that we should think of calling people sons of God or that we think of God as colling people his sons or daughters, his children. It is a show of affection, an invitation to trust and intimacy. Nothing genealogical or genetical about that. I use the expression a hundred times a day, even with my mother. I can't see why it should be forbidden to God.

Salaam   

2

General Issues / Questions / Re: Gay Marriage Has Been Legalized in France

« on: Today at 03:04:52 AM »

I was born muslim and I'm muslims my entire life and now some western people who are not muslims at all and have no idea what islam is teaching me about my faith, about islam. Please , GTFO

Your avatar is full of rage and you are full of rage. What is that to do with islam?

No matter how enraged you get, you are not going to be God nor people are going to be impressed with your bad manners and lack of adab. Some might even think that you are a closet gay. But, I do not know, you might even take that as a compliment. Raging people are very hard to guess.

Salaam

3

Prophets and Messengers / Re: :: Was Muhammed name of a Prophet? ::

« on: Today at 02:56:08 AM »

Peace be with you, Bender.



Brother, it is seems like you haven't looked closely into some verses of the Quran which are essential for the discussion of the points that you have raised. The truth is right there, we just need to see clearly. I'll answer your points in three steps, God willing, it should now be clear to you.




STEP 1:



Who is a messenger? A messenger is a person who is entrusted with a message, a message bearer. This definition is sanctioned in the Quran.


So the king said: "Bring him to me." But when the messenger (Arabic: rasulu) came to him, (Joseph) said: "Go back to thy lord, and ask
him, 'What is the state of mind of the ladies who cut their hands'? For my Lord is certainly well aware of their snare." (12:50)


You can see that the message bearer who was sent to the prison to summon Prophet Joseph (pbuh) is referred to as a "Rasul" (messenger).



STEP 2:



Now take a look at the following verse.


O Messengers! (Arabic: rusulu - plural). Eat of the good things and do right. Indeed, I am aware of what ye do (23:51)


You can see that God is saying "messengers - plural", and not "messenger - singular".


This verse is directed to whom?

The messengers!


To whom is God directly talking/referring in this verse?

The messengers!



If you read this verse in context with its following verse, it becomes clear that this verse was directed at the Prophet's community.


And indeed this brotherhood/community (Arabic: ummatukum) of yours is a single brotherhood, and I am your Lord, therefore fear Me (23:52)



Therefore, those that aided the Prophet in spreading the message were also being referred to as "messengers". It is clear, brother. God wouldn't say "messengers - plural" instead of "messenger - singular" if this verse was only directed to one person. God never makes any mistake. So there is NO WAY you can deny this.



STEP 3:



You can now see the same thing, as you probably have already, with respect to Prophet Noah (pbuh) and his supporters of bearing the message, who also by God have been referred to as "messengers - plural".


The people of Noah rejected the messengers. (26:105)



This can be further supported with verse - 25:37



And the people of Noah, when they rejected the messengers, We drowned them and We made them as a Sign for mankind and We have prepared
for (all) wrong-doers a grievous Penalty (25:37)




But you were right on one thing. People who say that the plurality of messenger denotes messengers BEFORE Prophet Noah (pbuh), are completely wrong in their reasoning. Their assertion sounds nonsensical as the verses clearly talk about people who were present during the time of Prophet Noah (pbuh) when they rejected him.



This is the same case with the rest of the messengers of the past:


The Ad (people) rejected the messengers (26:123)


The Thamud (people) rejected the messengers (26:141)


The people of Lut rejected the messengers (26:160)


The Companions of the Wood rejected the messengers (26:176)




Dear Bender, I have provided you evidence directly from the Quran. The signs of Allah are clear and lucid, at least for me, alhamdoulillah, I see no ambiguity and no abstrusity. With utmost respect, even now if you don't get that the names (Nooh, Hud, Loot, Shuaib, Muhammad etc.) are all proper nouns, then I really don't have anything else to say anymore.



No hard feelings intended.



May Allah guide us to His straight path.




God has decreed (Arabic: Kataba l-lahu): "It is I and My messengers (Arabic: Warasuli) who must prevail": For God is One full of strength, able to
enforce His Will (58:21)





Peace.

Thsi is a clear, neat and meaningful message.

You have done like a good messenger, Scribbler.

Thank you. Very entlightening.

Salaam

4

Prophets and Messengers / Re: :: Was Muhammed name of a Prophet? ::

« on: Today at 12:49:30 AM »

This is partly a reply to Bender's post 170

per my current understanding, the closest definition for "ism" in The Quran is something like "identifier" not an attribute.
see for example 12:78
12:78 They said: "O Al3azeezu, he has an elderly father, so take one of us in his place. Indeed we see you as one of the good doers."
Obviously Al3azeezu is not an attribute of Yusuf, but that is how his brothers identified him.
The same goes for AlAsma AlHusna, they are not attributes of Allah but identifiers of Him. Like "He is Al3azeezu AlHakeemu".
Anyways this is how I understand it at the moment.

I think we are back to splitting hairs. Of course names are identifiers, but they are not numbers. If we identified people by numbers randomly attributed, we could keep to the "identifier" idea without any problem. But names identify not randomly, identify because somebody uses them for a reason. All prophets names in the Qur'an and even non prophet names have a reason. When you say that Al 3adil is an identifier, I agree, but it identifies because it is pointing at something which pertains to the named, it is not a mark without a meaning. So in fact a name is also a title in the Qur'an. We are "perverted" by our present usage of giving names which mean nothing, whereas through history were for a long time given with a meaning. They still are in many places and on many occasions, and those names that are earned, may be called nicknames, alias or whatever, they may not be legal names of a person but they are certainly names by Qur'anic usage. Such a name may be attrributed to more than one person, then those persons would be distinguished by some other addition if the person meant did not get idenfied clearly, like with X the younger or X the older, or things like that.

So really  this thing about Muhammad name or title, we may quietly say that it is both, so what? And, as I said in previous message some pages ago, if there is the prediction by 3isa ibnu Maryam that there will come a messenger whose name is Ahmad, which means the most praised, and then later on there is talk about a Muhammadun which means praised, is it really, really that preposterous to think that that passive participle, muhammadun, praised, is in fact a certification by the Qur'an, that that Ahmad prediction has been fulfilled, that the most praised has indeed been praised, that the prediction is a thing done?

Then there are allusions to the present to how what is said in the Qur'an is nto for the past (only I guess) but for all time, so what? That does not change a thing to the fact that the Qur'an was transmitted at a certain point in history, as to when exactly there are different opinions, but for us certainly in the past rather old past. So now we are all, or we should all strive to be Muhammaduun, fine, so in what that does change a thing to a past Muhammadun? And what is incoherent or surprising to having a praised messenger as khatam annabiyin? does that not stand as a praise to all prophets, as a praise to prophecy, as a praise to the unbreakable flow from God to humanity. Prophecy is living it is not dead, The praised one made it universal under his seal, God made it so. We are all under that seal. All past prophets, all people who received prophecy, in fact all people, all we have to do is to accept it.

This Muhammadun, as far as I am concerned not only does not do away with a Muhammadun person but in fact makes a perfect circle with all creation, because all creation is praised and everybody is praised for as long as we acknowledge that we spring from the divinity, that all we are is a flow from the divinity, prophecy is that, the certification that Divinity is always flowing to us and back, or not? the conscience of being a projection of the divinity, of the divine conscience and will, and as a divine deed wothy of praise because we are not by ourselves, but by the divine will.

I may be wrong, but I perceive in some people, not you Bender, a certain guilty selfconsciousness concerning al Rasul that transmitted the Qur'an, as if he was helplessly tainted by polygamy, cruelty, all the sins that have been piled on him by enemies and "friends" alike.

We should do away with that. Those are mental ghosts, noise. What remains is the khatam and the string of Allah to all of us, which we should not let go of. The khatam entails also a promise from our God, and this "our" is not as opposed to yours or their, but a closer feeling of God, who is not a stranger, but our intimate God. 

This khatam and Muhhamadun thing is greater than our petty personal appreciations of this or that depiction of a man. It is a declaration of essence, of divine essence to humans. We are not tied to minute dos or don'ts and splitting hairs. We are free, free to feel, to think, to love, fee not to put limits to our divine aspirations.

Yes, sorry , this was a long sermon. The catholic church does not know what it lost when it didn't allow women to be priests. I would have made may be not the best, but the longest sermonist around. My excuses.

Salaam

5

General Issues / Questions / Re: Gay Marriage Has Been Legalized in France

« on: Yesterday at 01:16:02 PM »

Salam Huruf

Sorry for not being clear. Me not being clear plus that I misunderstood your post a little made my response wrong. I was not refuting you at all, I was actually agreeing with you. I was  coming from the view that if a verse or story in the Quran is to be taken literally to the extent it is made into divine law (for example prohibiting homosexuality) there must be absolutely no doubt. You disagreeing with the age of Noah showed me that the story of Noah can be taken literally only until after all questions are answered. Was he really 950 years that at least my Quran claims or is it a mis-interpretation or what? Who knows, let's sort it out. 
Noah was only an example from the top of my head, mostly because of his incredibly high age, something that at least for me is strong evidence that Noahs story holds a message rather than literal translation.........Perhaps it was a bad choice of an allegorical story from the Quran.

In a clumsy way I was trying to say that if the story of Lot is to be used as a reason to forbid homosexuality, the "other" side still has a lot of things to prove. They have yet to prove how they can forbid homosexuality when women are not even mentioned in any of the verses they so far has produced.

Peace bro, sorry for the misunderstanding. If you could see me reading your post you would see this 

That is ok, Emil, you are nice and polite person. And I am a sister, not a brother, as far as I know. The thread being what it is, one never knows.

6

General Issues / Questions / Re: Gay Marriage Has Been Legalized in France

« on: Yesterday at 11:22:35 AM »

Salam Huruf

Your answer is proof that the stories should not be taken literally and be used as evidence to forbid a certain behaviour in mankind. The fact that it could be argued against that Noah was not 950 years old when it says in the Quran

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers

With regards to the female in Lot's story it is exactly what you say, the context is different. If the story of Lot would be taken literally then there would be no differences. To make rules according to Islam on such shaky ground springs 3:7 into mind

I do not think you got the point about the age of Nuh and I don't know either why you refute me saying that from those you cannot make rules. I did not pretend at any moment that any rules hould be derived from that.

What I was pointing out was not that the two women were two different women, but that in fact it could be the same woman but the consideration awarded to her was different because of the context. I think it is the same woman if whe was the only one from the entourage of Lut that did not escape and in one place we are told that the wife of Lut stayed behind then you have to conclude that the only pperson of his entourage who stayed was that person, only one.

That is not allegorical, I do not think. If there is an allegory it would be at the level of the whole of the narration, but what you say is not a proof of it being allegorical neither in the case of Lut, how would the Qur'an use follwoing one another two words signifying the same thing, which they do not. The Qur'an does nto do that. So it si not 950 years, that is just a readingon which many people may agree, but which with good reason can be refuted. It may have been 950 sana, but it was not 950 gaman. If we start that way we can make the Qur'an say anything.

Another thing which you have mixed into what I have said and which I have not even hinted at, is that rules should nbe made on those grounds. Where have I said that?

To start with what I keep saying, but nobody ever takes any notice is that the very concept of heterosexual and homsexual is bullshit. That is labels very comfortable to sppit out brainlessly right or wrong and not to have to think or understand. That is what it is. There is no such thing as heterosexual or homosecual or slesexual or bestialsexual or whatever fancy people make take to camuflage other things.

Vileness is vileness whether with th cat, the opposite sex, the same sex but differnt animal... That is diverting the questión of the individual psychology and it is very disorienting. So you were off target attributing me any derivation of rules from anything. But the two ayas you mention do not have to be necessarily allegorical. May be they may be, but they can also be taken as factual with no trouble. Of course, sana would not be year, but month, jus like with mortgages, 360 months, nothing unusual...

Salaam

7

Prophets and Messengers / Re: :: Was Muhammed name of a Prophet? ::

« on: Yesterday at 05:20:19 AM »

What am I missing here? If there is a reason for the discussion I fail to see it.

Salaam

8

General Issues / Questions / Re: Gay Marriage Has Been Legalized in France

« on: Yesterday at 04:49:21 AM »

Make you a deal? If you tell me why you feel why they are not allegorical I will tell you why I think they are allegorical. I mean that you should not argue against me but just give your reasons.

Sounds fair?

My reasons are this.

One of the first guidances and one of the very few guidances by Allah to us how to interpet the Quran takes up the issue of literal vs. allegorical.

He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding

I am not claiming but I am suggesting that this verse must be kept in mind when reading the Quran and ALL verses should be under scrutiny. A verse like 6:151 where it states Say, "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you......... is quite clear, it is not to be taken allegorically. It also sets the standard of what a literal verse includes.

The story of Lot is always mentioned together with stories that are clearly allegorical. One example I can think of on top of my head is Noah which (if to be taken literally) means that Noah became 950 years old.

There are also contradictions in the Quran about Lot. If it was to be taken literally the story wouldn't have contradictions (compare 11:81 to 37:135 where the female not spared is either his wife or an old woman).

Whenever the story of Lot is mentioned it never has a verse beforehand telling prophet Muhammed to preach to the people. Instead it is always a beforehand verse where Allah is giving prophet Muhammed personal advice or there is no mention at all. In other words, there is no direct command from Allah to preach word-for-word that particular surah or verse.

Even if we would take the story of Lot literally it still does not hold enough evidence to forbid homosexuality. It is CLEARLY written that the transgression in question is MEN approaching MEN. It makes absolutely no sense to only forbid male homosexuality and not female. So 50% of the population can be homosexuals?

When comparing the story of Lot to other verses it is clear that Allah could not have destroyed the entire community because 50% of the population is transgressing the boundaries. I do not have the energy to look up the verses but I am sure that you agree with me that Allah would not kill our children for the wrong-doings of their fathers, right?

I think there is no reason not to think that the old woman who is alluded to in 37.135 is the same woman that the messengers, when addressing Lut himself call his wife. The context is different. in the caso of the messengers addressing Lut, they are telling him about somebody who he knows well is close to him. Whereas en 37.135 we are being tol of a whole lot of prophets and their experiences and we are told thaxt all the adherents of Lut left with him except an old woman who was of those who stayed behind. Why would it make any difference that it was Lut's wife? We do not know her, she was no exemplary being to be made history of. I do not see contradiction between what is said en both ayas. Your exppectations might be that God makes a fuxx of her being the wife of Lut, but why should He indeed. He is not putting her either as a pinacle of wickedness, simply one of those who stayed. She was an old woman. God is not prying her apart and is giving more information. She was not a younf beautiful woman who did not go with Lut because she was living her life, she was old and may be she didn't want to leave behind her home or city in her old age. She might not have had the strength. Nowhere it is said that she was of the wicked. She chose for whatever reason. The Qur'an does not say that she stayed out of wickedness. She got the warning and she chose to stay.



As to the allegory of Noah, I read not long ago a text provided by a contributor to a Spansih forum which derserves to be taken into account. in the aya where it is spoken about Noah after reading what this colleague put I do not think is talking about anybody's age approaching 1000 years. It says in 29.14 he was among his people  alfa sanatin il-la khamsin 3aman.

Why should two completely different words, one very close to the other and for the same purpose be used to say years? It says first he tarried among his people one thousand sana less fifty 3aman. Two different words and two different meanings.   3am is properly a year with 12 regular months. Sana is somethign else, it is not a fixed period but a periods of time which leaves its mark in the things and people.

The person who explained that takes it that in fact it is talking about 950 months which made him into a wheathered man. So the age is nothing fantastic, 950 months less 50 years would be 350 monts, plus the fifty years it comes to nearly 80 years, which is old but nothing miraculous.

Salaam 

9

Prophets and Messengers / Re: :: Was Muhammed name of a Prophet? ::

« on: Yesterday at 12:37:28 AM »

Salaamun alayki,

I do not understand why this discussion is so heated up. We are just discussing ideas.

Anyways imo 48:29 says "Mohammed is the messenger of Allah..."
first this is a statement, second the statement was there 1000 years ago and is still here at present time and will be in the future.
Does this Mohammed not die if it was a person? So if it dies then it can for sure not be the Mohammed of The Quran, because the Mohammed of 48:29 in The Quran is always in present time. Note also that it is written as MohammedUN, thus a not specified Mohammed.
it is written in the same way as "Allahu rabbu Al3alameena" only difference is that it is not Al-LahUN as Allah is always specified and present.
Anyways this is how Allah showed me.

Also I like to say that there is nothing to feel cheated about, we are just discussing.
And there is no ban Mohammed campain.
As I already told, I have no answers yet for the questions.
The only thing I know at the moment is that from my study and with what Allah showed me, Mohammed of 48:29 can never be a name of a person, probably it is something like a title.
That's all I know.
And I also do not agree with MmKhan that it was Musa.

Anyways lets try not to get in  mood  I think this is a interesting subject and at the end of the day we will all learn more inshaAllah.

Salaam,
Bender

Salaam, Bender,

Thanks for your politeness saying that the discussion is heated up instead of saying that I was being too sharp or worse. I heated it up because I saw it going nowhere. I was trying to get the thing out with forceps, not even so I got it, but you at least answered what you could answer. Thank you. It was a deliberate but
not an illwilled of hostile heating. I appreciate brother mmkhan and you.

I remember in one of the threads that brother mmkhan said that the Arabic word "ism" does nto mean name. I think, after thinking it over myself, that that assumption might have something to do with the difficulty for him to say straight what he has in mind, if he knows it. "Ism" might not be a 100% equivalent of "name" in English but certainly in a big proportion it is equivalent. He opposed name to attribute if I don't remember wrong. Well, may be that opposition might be made in English but not necessarily in Arabic, and if we think of it, any name is named after attributing something to the named. Persons are named when they are born, but that is just a usage. Usually many things and persons through history have been named after the name they earned, not the name they were given at birth or inception.

I thank those of you who have cleared the question about the tanwin in names. I sort of had an idea that that did not make a name into a non-name, but as I did not recall axactly the rule, I did not say anything. In fact, again, it all comes from separating atributes from names. Al 3adil is a name of God, but, like names should be, it is not a void name, it is a name full of significance. So, seen from the point of view of the faithful, what is the reason for Muhammadun not being a name besides beeing an attribute since in Arabic, Quranic Arabic, both things go hand in hand? Anybody respoding to that denomination would be Muhammadun and could be named Mhammadun. Which Muhammadun? Obviously the Muhammadun at hand for the purpose that is being dealt with.

You say_

Anyways imo 48:29 says "Mohammed is the messenger of Allah..."
first this is a statement, second the statement was there 1000 years ago and is still here at present time and will be in the future.
Does this Mohammed not die if it was a person? So if it dies then it can for sure not be the Mohammed of The Quran, because the Mohammed of 48:29 in The Quran is always in present time. Note also that it is written as MohammedUN, thus a not specified Mohammed.

I have very great doubts on that and not because I think that it cannot be applied to anybody any time if she or he fulfills de conditions, but because the fact that it might include other people does most certainly not exclude the person then and there who was existant when it was said or revealed for the Qur'an. In fact it occurred to me long time ago, that the khatam an-nabiyin, if taken as last prophet, what it would mean would be that for those who believe in that prophet, that khatam, they would not be needing any other prophet, that is, they would have reached adult age as believers and faithful and would themselves emancipate and be for themselves and for their community their prophets, that is a community of universal prophethood. That is one way which I thought could be interpreted, which in itself is full of meaning. Obviously for those who did no benefit from the prophethood of Muhammadun, there might be other prophets, I do not know, but I see it as possible.

But then, even assuming that as a verified fact, what I do not get is why the need of keeping all the prophets previous to the transmitter of the Qur'an, and then do away with the transmitter fo the Qur'an as if it was a blot o something to be ashamed of. There is something very wrong there, unless a good explanation is given. So please if there is such explanation, once more, I request it for the purpose of understanding the whole thing and if there is something to it. If there was ever a prophet, then the khatam annabiyin certifies it, it would ridiculous that somebody who does not existe does any certifying.

So, Bender, thanks for your answer and let us see if brother mmkhan can and will explain further or not.

Salaam

10

Prophets and Messengers / Re: :: Was Muhammed name of a Prophet? ::

« on: May 22, 2013, 10:45:29 AM »

So, please then, give a translation of 48.29


On the other hand, it is very logic if a messenger was to come whose name will be Ahmad, which means the most praiseworthy, that later on the fullfilment of 3isa's rediction be stressed by stating that indeed, the most preaisale is indeed praised, which is Muhammadun, one that was to be the most praisedworthy surpisingly turns out also to be praised.

So what is shocking about that and why so much mistery on the part of the "there is no messenger muhammad to come and give in plain words and without riddles what their notion is, because as yet I have not seen that they have given any explanation of anything that should clear anything at all. All we get is "that can't be.

No reason why that cannot be and no idea of what can be either. So we are left with a batallion of prophets whose ,essages are not guranteed and the one message which is guranteed, is forbidden to have a transmitter from God to the rest of the mortals, because it si a sin to speak of such a prophet. I find it too much of a joke. Not that I am shocked. I am not, I feel cheated, because of much ado about nothing and what looks like a big promise of some way the Qur'an was transmitted, but there is nothing, so according to that notion what we should believe, ignorant as we are, is that the Qur'an is there but forbidden to discuss or imagine how it came to be there. If that is not what is being said, then please be clearer, because I am starting to feel the whole thing as a practical joke. So people are lectured if they speak about Muhammad, but then they are asked to believe in what, in speontaneous generation? so it seems.

If those who put forward the ban Muhammad campaign cannot answer what they are asked, then I am out of this thread because it is a cheat.  I know that nobody is going to cry for that, for sure I am not, Huruf can leave any time she wants, but I want to say that: that nothing is being spoken clearly and all I have seen is a parade of offers which are not followed by any delivery. Bluff is called, isn't it.

Salaam

Salaam