:: Was Muhammed name of a Prophet? ::

[The_Chimp]

Your quote:

Salam,

I am still a little confused - as again you were sparse with your words :-)

Are putting this up against me or for me? As I do not take this to prove that the word "Muhammed" is title.

[The_Chimp]

Salam all,

But the signs Allah showed me are also very clear to me and from what He showed me I know for sure that Mohammed is not a proper name.

If my tone becomes harsher, I apologize in advance. But I am losing patience with statements of Bender. Look at the above comment. Such statements cannot be taken seriously at all. What signs? So, for over thousand years "Muhammad" - has been a name - and now say so of someone are we expected to accept it. Bender has had his chance to give evidence. Failing that, above is just an excuse and a poor one. Personal "signs" cannot be taken with seriousness where the Quran is concerned.

As a Sunni, this kind hogwash and easy acceptance of it really portrays a negative image of "Quran-only". You claim to follow Quran only - yet - repeatedly I find evidence on this board people tend to believe what they want to believe and call it "Allah's signs". There is absolutely no evidence that the word Muhammad is a title. There has been no other person ever claiming to be of this title. Just because someone has thought it up in their mind and are obstinately sticking to it - should these "thoughts" be given an airing in public and have any credence? No. Then everyone will make up whatever their heart wishes.

You reject "Hadith" on the basis of it "weakness" - yet - we Sunni's strongly reject all such interpretations. Here is one very clear reason why Sunnism has an easy and crucial advantage over "Quran only":

Besides over 1,500 years - it is development of Sunni thought and it bounding into coherent law. We have pretty clear principles that have developed over time as to how "law" can be derived. Before rejecting - it would be nice if people knew exactly what they were rejecting. But I seriously doubt 1 person has studied say - Usuls of Sunni thought. 

I think people will find the following book very useful:

"Language and the interpretation of Islamic law" by Dr. Sukrija Husejn Ramic.

It is available freely - as Phd Thesis - if Phd theses are available free in your country. In England - it is available from the British library website.

The book doesn't teach you Hadith. It is about how law from source - whether Quran or Hadith - is derived from language.

[wrkmmn]

Peace:

The book doesn't teach you Hadith. It is about how law from source - whether Quran or Hadith - is derived from language.

Why learning how law was derived from language for people of other times, when you can learn how to derive laws for our time in "The Principles of STATE AND GOVERNMENT IN ISLAM  by Muhammad Assad".

[Man of Faith]

Peace The_Chimp,

There are those who take one step too many in the interpretation of Quran. But you should know that not everyone around here believe in the threads and the statements put forth nor support them.

Apart from that, the only laws you need to know can be found relatively easily in the Quran, no other hadith required. God's religion does not have an excessive amount of laws and restrictions, it is a pretty easy religion unless you follow a lot of man-made inventions.

In fact it is so easy that you could follow only the Bible and be a muslim as long as you follow the underlying Message to worship God alone, believe in the Last Day while being a good person.

There is a reason why God says that people from the Nazarenes and Jews can make it to Heaven too. The very reason is that all are islam (as long as unitarian Christian or other non-idolatrous believers).

I have studied as much as necessary of sunni thought. I study sahih hadith at the moment and there is not much to discover really.

Many people around here came from sunnism and they know what it is about. And most have been wise enough to leave the sect.

Personally, I see little reason in not rejecting hadith. Why would God add extra rules besides the main revelation? Did He "forget" to add them in the Book?

God said: "We did not leave anything out of this book!". Do you claim that God is a liar?

Are you among the Sunni muslims who also do not believe the Quran is preserved?

You may be talking about that it is Muhammad's "Sunnah" that is in hadith. But why follow his sunnah when he followed God's sunnah? Is it not better to live the kind of life God expects out of us in the Quran? Quran is pretty clear on what God likes and dislikes. And I do not want to be a stereotype, do you think God likes that?

Simply following the commands and inspiration from Quran and thus obeying God makes me reject hadith. Would I not then I would not be a Believer.

"Perfectly detailed"

"Easy to remember, want to learn?"

"In what other hadith do they believe?"

Please do not make a joke out of my Master when he says the Quran is sufficient. God does not like it. The Book is my Guide and I am fine with it. The Quran is God's exact wordings where no other book has been, what is better to follow if not God's own choice of words?

And hadith is so unreliable it is barely usable for anything except a good laugh for the amusing things one can read in it. Come on, an average blessed man can write books with better guidelines.

Back to what you wrote, I have no reason to not believe Muhammad was not a Messenger of God. I think most of those who keep coming up with these conspiracy theories are just falling victim to wishful thinking in attempts to nullify the practices of traditional islam completely. I do not believe that everything traditional muslims do and believe is wrong, I am not that arrogant, self-proclaimed. Some people are removing prayers from the map based on conjecture and I think that is rushing to naive conclusions.

You are right, Quran alone may not keep going strong, at least not in the favor of God, if people keep abrogate verses from Quran by crazy interpretations of it. The no prayer approach does not even seem have any support for it as it does not suit the context. And people are coming up with conjecture about fasting while the verses are pretty clear. So in some of your initial criticism you are right, and therefore I agree that this approach to Quran has a negative image, but that is not the fault of the approach bit rather in the minds of people.

Remember, I did not become a Quran only to make the religion Westernized or more slack but rather purify it. I still do regular prayers, fast, pay charity and follow every other guideline within Quran and I will continue to do so.

And hey, do not come with questions such as "Where do you find information on salat in Quran?" because I just frown and make some silly gesture. If you actually study sahih bukhari you will know why. And Quran is pretty clear on what to give to charity too, so do not come about with common silly rhetoric.

The Quran suffices me.

And please I did not mean to insult your belief system. I understand that my stand is pretty certain, but I accept other belief systems (deens). Please go ahead and call me kufr because it is correct in your deen, but then think twice on why you call me that.

Kufr for believing in God alone and following His revelation, is that not a joke?

Had I been of the same caliber, all of that deen of Sunni would be kufr, even mushrik, but I refrain from such statements out of courtesy. In my faith we do not aggress against others and only fight in self defense. And we discuss in the friendliest possible manner. Peace.

And finally, sorry for bringing this all into the inappropriate thread.

God bless you

[Bender]

Salam all,

If my tone becomes harsher, I apologize in advance. But I am losing patience with statements of Bender. Look at the above comment. Such statements cannot be taken seriously at all. What signs? So, for over thousand years "Muhammad" - has been a name - and now say so of someone are we expected to accept it. Bender has had his chance to give evidence. Failing that, above is just an excuse and a poor one. Personal "signs" cannot be taken with seriousness where the Quran is concerned.

As a Sunni, this kind hogwash and easy acceptance of it really portrays a negative image of "Quran-only". You claim to follow Quran only - yet - repeatedly I find evidence on this board people tend to believe what they want to believe and call it "Allah's signs". There is absolutely no evidence that the word Muhammad is a title. There has been no other person ever claiming to be of this title. Just because someone has thought it up in their mind and are obstinately sticking to it - should these "thoughts" be given an airing in public and have any credence? No. Then everyone will make up whatever their heart wishes.

You reject "Hadith" on the basis of it "weakness" - yet - we Sunni's strongly reject all such interpretations. Here is one very clear reason why Sunnism has an easy and crucial advantage over "Quran only":

Besides over 1,500 years - it is development of Sunni thought and it bounding into coherent law. We have pretty clear principles that have developed over time as to how "law" can be derived. Before rejecting - it would be nice if people knew exactly what they were rejecting. But I seriously doubt 1 person has studied say - Usuls of Sunni thought. 

I think people will find the following book very useful:

"Language and the interpretation of Islamic law" by Dr. Sukrija Husejn Ramic.

It is available freely - as Phd Thesis - if Phd theses are available free in your country. In England - it is available from the British library website.

The book doesn't teach you Hadith. It is about how law from source - whether Quran or Hadith - is derived from language.

Salaamun alayka,

No I did not find your tone to be harsh.

About signs, I will give you again the sign Allah showed me, as He is showing it to every one who wants to accept His ayaats as they are.
"  مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّـهِ  "
If you can't read Arabic then there are in here a lot of people who can translate it for you or maybe you know yourself some expert in Arabic language.
Now in what time is this sign written and how it is written?
With "how" I mean, is it telling a story or is it a command or is it statement or maybe something else.
If you can not accept the ayaats of Allah as they are then please don't blame me for your aversion against them.

Same goes for 26:105, if you can't accept it as it is, then I am afraid you have trouble accepting the ayaats of Allah as they are 

Salaam,
Bender

[Bender]

Peace The_Chimp,

There are those who take one step too many in the interpretation of Quran. But you should know that not everyone around here believe in the threads and the statements put forth nor support them.

Salaamun alayka MoF,

Who are the ones who are interpreting?
Did I put some words in ayaats which are not there to make my point?
If so please show me and I will inshaAllah correct myself.

salaam,
Bender

[Man of Faith]

Peace Bender,

Not particularly this topic although it is highly controversial a theory. Sounds very far fetched that people for over 1400 years been roaming the Earth falsely believing their prophet was named Muhammad while he was not.

Although, hadith mainly refers to him as Allah's apostle and not by his name most of the time.

Well, not matter if your reasoning would be true or not it is still viable to refer to him as Muhammad, if but because it is his title as you claim. Just remember many names in the middle-east have another meaning than simply a name, for example, both Hassan and Hussein have other uses as words, so with your reasoning these people cannot be real persons?

I am sure the prophet of Quran is named in the scripture. Maybe his name was Ahmad and changed to Muhammad like Ibrahim was only called Ibram before messengership.

You tend to get it wrong though with my and other's tendency to want to stick with the name or nickname Muhammad, that it is due to remnants of idolatry and we want to stubbornly defend this posture until the end. I could not care less about the name of the prophet of Quran, but it is natural that one uses a name to refer to something if but as a codename.  We, humans, tend to give names to all sorts of things for easier reference and "prophet of Quran" is an awkward solution.

Give me the true name of the prophet and I will gladly change my usage. You said earlier that the true name might be right in front of our eyes so keep looking and later try to convince me about your discovery. Until then I will use Muhammad if not because this is the way God refers to him (and as you seem to claim, other apostles).

Philosophies are always appreciated, brother Bender, but until your theory gains foothold and other evidential backup it is still too controversial to believe. It is like a conspiracy theory. Many people believe you just do everything to nullify the religion of traditional muslims, just like the people around here who cut in the practices of praying, fasting and the likes. I am sure this may not be your intent but you are wary that the Quran is 1400 years old and not correctly understood like the ants of the valley that brother noshirk solved the riddle and meant something else.

Keep looking and I am open to further philosophies, but until then Muhammad is Muhammad.

God bless you

[huruf]

Salaamun alayka,

No I did not find your tone to be harsh.

About signs, I will give you again the sign Allah showed me, as He is showing it to every one who wants to accept His ayaats as they are.
"  مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّـهِ  "
If you can't read Arabic then there are in here a lot of people who can translate it for you or maybe you know yourself some expert in Arabic language.
Now in what time is this sign written and how it is written?
With "how" I mean, is it telling a story or is it a command or is it statement or maybe something else.
If you can not accept the ayaats of Allah as they are then please don't blame me for your aversion against them.

Same goes for 26:105, if you can't accept it as it is, then I am afraid you have trouble accepting the ayaats of Allah as they are 

Salaam,
Bender

Salaam, Bender

So why not lift the veil of the mystery and just give a clear simple explanation yourself:

Just give your translation of of that aya, say exactly what muhammad(un) means in each of the ayas in which it appears, your translation of those ayas. So may be we will know what eah is talkign about, because this thread in a way looks like we are trying to hold water between our fingers and of course, we don't catch it.

Salaam

[The_Chimp]

Peace:

Why learning how law was derived from language for people of other times, when you can learn how to derive laws for our time in "The Principles of STATE AND GOVERNMENT IN ISLAM  by Muhammad Assad".

Salam brother,

Try not to answer for the sake of answering. I don't really think you know what you are talking about.

The book I mentioned simply shows how law/value is derived from text, in other words how language can be interpreted. These are principles - irrespective of time.

Muhammad Assad's book is about governance, a totally different subject.

Thank you.

[The_Chimp]

Salaamun alayka,

No I did not find your tone to be harsh.

About signs, I will give you again the sign Allah showed me, as He is showing it to every one who wants to accept His ayaats as they are.
"  مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّـهِ  "
If you can't read Arabic then there are in here a lot of people who can translate it for you or maybe you know yourself some expert in Arabic language.
Now in what time is this sign written and how it is written?
With "how" I mean, is it telling a story or is it a command or is it statement or maybe something else.
If you can not accept the ayaats of Allah as they are then please don't blame me for your aversion against them.

Same goes for 26:105, if you can't accept it as it is, then I am afraid you have trouble accepting the ayaats of Allah as they are 

Salaam,
Bender

I know Classical Arabic very well. Although a non-Native, I have studied to Masters level.

As to this:

"Now in what time is this sign written and how it is written?
With "how" I mean, is it telling a story or is it a command or is it statement or maybe something else.
If you can not accept the ayaats of Allah as they are then please don't blame me for your aversion against them."

I find it to be meaningless. What "sign" are you talking about?

That is beginning of verse verse 48:29. All it says is Muhammad is Messenger of Allah. There is ABSOLUTELY no indication that the word Muhammad is a title of some kind.

"If you can not accept the ayaats of Allah as they are then please don't blame me for your aversion against them."

So which verse am I not taking as it is? Please do not make petty accusations! In conclusion, you have no evidence for your "signs" and that is very clear. And you have not been able to present any.

As for the verse 26:105 that is simple and very clear

"The people of Noah denied the messengers"

Noah was the ONLY messenger sent to his people. A messenger point not only to Allah but to the messengers sent before him. Hence, his people denied him and those before him.

This is evidenced in the next verse:

"When their brother Noah said to them, "Will you not fear Allah ?"

You will not find a verse where any more messengers are mentioned addressing tribes OTHER THAN Noah. What does that tell you? Noah was the only messenger sent to his people

Might I be so bold to suggest, it is you that lacks expertise in Arabic.