Free Minds

Salaamun all,

Whenever I see 14:4 it confirms me that Muhammad was not my Rasool.
I don't have to believe in him. I don't have to follow his teachings.

I don't know why people [who are around me] are not honest to themselves.
They say that they believe in alQuraan fully and also say that they accept each and every word of it, but they simply ignore this aayat.


Please take a look.

14:4  وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ ۖ فَيُضِلُّ اللَّـهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ
14:4 And We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

. Muhammad were not sent in my community / people.
. Muhammad did not speak my language.

So, how he can be my Rasool?
He was sent in Arabs, he was a Rasool for Arabs only and not for others.

These are my personal understandings. Please study and seek Allah's guidance. He is 'the best' Guide.

Salaam,

By that definition, does that then not mean that the Qur'an was also only sent for the Arabs?

Salaam.

Sajda.

"Mohammed is NOT our Rasool but he's our right winger!!"
-- Liverpool FC Fanatics, referring to Mohammed Salah

Quote
. Muhammad were not sent in my community / people.
. Muhammad did not speak my language.

Add: Muhammad were long dead by the time you were born into this world.

Salaam mmkhan

I believe our prophet is Muhammad who was sent for the mankind and not for Arabs only. Following ayats may help us understand it, if we believe that first addressee of the Quran is Muhammad and in following ayats he is addressed.


4:79 مَّآ أَصَابَكَ مِنۡ حَسَنَةٍ۬ فَمِنَ ٱللَّهِ‌ۖ وَمَآ أَصَابَكَ مِن سَيِّئَةٍ۬ فَمِن نَّفۡسِكَ‌ۚ وَأَرۡسَلۡنَـٰكَ لِلنَّاسِ رَسُولاً۬‌ۚ وَكَفَىٰ بِٱللَّهِ شَہِيدً۬ا (٧٩) مَّن يُطِعِ ٱلرَّسُولَ فَقَدۡ أَطَاعَ ٱللَّهَ‌ۖ وَمَن تَوَلَّىٰ فَمَآ أَرۡسَلۡنَـٰكَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ حَفِيظً۬ا

....................and we sent you for the mankind as a rasool................

21:107 وَمَآ أَرۡسَلۡنَـٰكَ إِلَّا رَحۡمَةً۬ لِّلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ

..........and we did not send you except a rehmat to all people.

34:28 وَمَآ أَرۡسَلۡنَـٰكَ إِلَّا ڪَآفَّةً۬ لِّلنَّاسِ بَشِيرً۬ا وَنَذِيرً۬ا وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَڪۡثَرَ ٱلنَّاسِ لَا

And we did not send you except for all mankind........

Regards

Nice and appropriate quotes:

Also there is a very direct proof. Do we read the qur'an? Does it interest us? If it interests as, it my be sent in whatever language or to whatever people, who is going to  prevent us from learning from it, from following it, from believing hat it says and put into a practice?

Salaam
Lev Tolstoy wrote in Rusian, who is going to prevent that his books are liked by any person, by any people?

When has such a thing as a language or a belonging to any "people" kept others from "borrowing" or using anything to thei on advantage, and whay should it?

Salaam

Quote from: mmkhan on September 12, 2018, 04:44:52 PM

. Muhammad were not sent in my community / people.
. Muhammad did not speak my language.

So, how he can be my Rasool?
He was sent in Arabs, he was a Rasool for Arabs only and not for others.

salamun khan bhai, hope you doing Good.

actually you may possibly right becoz he may not b your rasool. but he was the rasool of Allah centuries ago.

thats y God said

muhammad is not the father of any of you men but he is the rasool
of Allah.

after that i have another theory by scientific method lol
at that time me and you (our ansectors) were under the dark ages of ignorance in subcontinent. but we already been sent down couple of rasools by God and after centuries like everything our concepts about God and rasool get changed and we turn some of our rasools into God like krishna ram etc and we also have a monkey God possibly the same type of event what we found in arab culture regarding the camel of salih elsewise the camel turn into camel God ages ago but at this time understanding of humam evolved to better level of understanding nature so coming back to topic again.

every nation recieved/recieving/will revieve different signs of God in shape of whatever mode of communication is acceptable according to the time space of that nation.

but when a new technology come some still wana stick to old tecnology who just want to get the purpose fullfill.

here the labels start with some time forcefully acceptence or the attitude we cant change it so accept it.

nokia 3310 was popular once
.
.
.
now
iphone x

purpose for both of them to talk but with better applications of communication iphone and others takeover the old technolgy people who want to talk with their beloved need to use that technology like whatsapp ( free of cost, video call) once it was a dream. so the iphone label get the supreme label

same thing happen with all religions including islam its just like changing your phone.

when anybody try to see his own religion critically he find out what  people say about
quran/gita/bible/tora is not what the actual arabic/sanskrit/hebrew told us.
so everyone keep changing as soon he discover the truth or a different approach.

its really a complicated thing to see all whats going on from ages.
so i truly understand every nation/religion/ race is perfectly plan by God and they are here with the will of God. also somehwere in quran he was able to make you one nation but he divide you into communities.

from here i ll leave on my brother jaffar to highlight some of his experience.  ;)

I think you've committed an oversight in your interpretation of ayat 14:4.
The verse says: "And We did not send any messenger" which is in the
past tense i.e., before Muhammad.  I agree with Novice.


                                           :peace:

Quote from: imrankhawaja on September 13, 2018, 08:54:02 AM

after that i have another theory by scientific method lol
at that time me and you (our ansectors) were under the dark ages of ignorance in subcontinent. but we already been sent down couple of rasools by God and after centuries like everything our concepts about God and rasool get changed and we turn some of our rasools into God like krishna ram etc and we also have a monkey God possibly the same type of event what we found in arab culture regarding the camel of salih elsewise the camel turn into camel God ages ago but at this time understanding of humam evolved to better level of understanding nature so coming back to topic again.

every nation recieved/recieving/will revieve different signs of God in shape of whatever mode of communication is acceptable according to the time space of that nation.

but when a new technology come some still wana stick to old tecnology who just want to get the purpose fullfill.

here the labels start with some time forcefully acceptence or the attitude we cant change it so accept it.

nokia 3310 was popular once
.
.
.
now
iphone x

purpose for both of them to talk but with better applications of communication iphone and others takeover the old technolgy people who want to talk with their beloved need to use that technology like whatsapp ( free of cost, video call) once it was a dream. so the iphone label get the supreme label

same thing happen with all religions including islam its just like changing your phone.

when anybody try to see his own religion critically he find out what  people say about
quran/gita/bible/tora is not what the actual arabic/sanskrit/hebrew told us.
so everyone keep changing as soon he discover the truth or a different approach.

Lol, a modern version of parable of New Wine into Old Wineskins

"no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ?The old is good.?"
-- Luke 5

God's revelation hasn't ended, it's a continuing process up to the future.

Newer Apps need to be installed on newer phone.
But it's also normal for people who stick to the old phone and think SMS and MMS is much better than WhatsApp.

Quote
its really a complicated thing to see all whats going on from ages.
so i truly understand every nation/religion/ race is perfectly plan by God and they are here with the will of God. also somehwere in quran he was able to make you one nation but he divide you into communities.

from here i ll leave on my brother jaffar to highlight some of his experience.  ;)

Humans are divided into group to ensure check and balance.

The concept was initially introduced by a chinese rasool named Lao Tse.

But it's already commonplace nowadays, literally everywhere.
In the theory of Management  it's called "Governance and Control".

Party in power and party in opposition, to ensure check and balance in government.
Finance department who control the money and Auditor who audit the flow of money to ensure check and balance within a company / enterprise.
The "East" to check the "West".
The Orthodox to check the Catholics.
The Sunnis to check the Shiites.
etc.. etc.. etc..

Because for human: Absolute power corrupt absolutely.

Or in the words of Chinese rasool; When the Yin is not in proper balance with Yang then something will happened which makes the Yin to be back in balance with Yang and vice versa. The best condition is when the Yin is in perfect balance with Yang.

Quote14:4 And We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

What if I read the Quran in mother tongue? Won't it mean the messenger is speaking my language? He was a human just like me. We form race/mankind. In that sense, I can be one of his people right?

Quote from: es on September 12, 2018, 07:33:01 PM
By that definition, does that then not mean that the Qur'an was also only sent for the Arabs?

Salaamun Sajda,

Actually it is, but we can not prevented to read, understand and follow what we like from it.

Who is Muhammad?

Peace All

I am 100% certain that every Rasool/Nabi is a muhammad.


Peace

almarh0m

That is why Muhammad khatam an nabiyin.

Nabis are all one, e should not disociate any of them from the others.

The Qur'an is the document which certifies all prophets and enables us to follo them and the religion (universal) which God gave us all.

Salaam 

Quote from: almarh0m on October 01, 2018, 04:17:56 AM
Peace All

I am 100% certain that every Rasool/Nabi is a muhammad.


Peace

almarh0m

Salam that position will solve a lot of problems and is consistent with what Arabs normally use as a general name. However, then we will have to find a plausible explanation for 33:40  مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَٰكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا
Question is why would Allah stress that Mohammad is not the father/forefather of men. Whats your take on that?

Thanks

Salamun Alayka

Firstly, check 61/6 then read and think about the three other verses that mention the word 'muhammad' other than 33/40.
and secondly, ask yourself " Can an Adjective or certain Characteristics be a Father of anything let alone a father of human being"?

The Qur'an is very clear for those who are sincerely seeking the truth, as the truth is all from Allah. The Qur'an is not only to be read and understood but it is also to be put into practice in our daily lives if we are truly muslims.

Peace

Quote from: mmkhan on September 12, 2018, 04:44:52 PM
Salaamun all,

Whenever I see 14:4 it confirms me that Muhammad was not my Rasool.
I don't have to believe in him. I don't have to follow his teachings.

I don't know why people [who are around me] are not honest to themselves.
They say that they believe in alQuraan fully and also say that they accept each and every word of it, but they simply ignore this aayat.


Please take a look.

14:4  وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ ۖ فَيُضِلُّ اللَّـهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ
14:4 And We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

. Muhammad were not sent in my community / people.
. Muhammad did not speak my language.

So, how he can be my Rasool?
He was sent in Arabs, he was a Rasool for Arabs only and not for others.

These are my personal understandings. Please study and seek Allah's guidance. He is 'the best' Guide.

As I research the topic I am having a hard time proving you wrong.   
I will continue.  :handshake:

[10:47]
And for every nation a messenger. And when their messenger cometh 
it will be judged between them fairly, and they will not be wronged

[16:36]
And certainly We raised in every nation a messenger saying: Serve Allah and
shun the Shaitan. So there were some of them whom Allah guided and there
were others against whom error was due; therefore travel in the land, then
see what was the end of the rejecters.    :hmm

The more I read aya 14.4 the less I understand how from that aya anybody can come to the conclusion that hte prophet that was given the Qur'an is only meant for Arabs.

Where is the "only"  word in that aya that would forbid anybody who is not an Arab to listen tot he Qur'an or to try to get understanding from the Qur'an.

What are we trying to get from divine guidance: guidance or some nice excuse to not to pay any attention to it because we have been clever enough to extract an excuse from its formulation? And whom do we  hope we to convicne with that: God, other people?

God may send messengers to people in a language but nowhere has He put some barrier forbidding anybody else to benefit from such messenger, in fact we are clearly told in the very Qur'an that all the messengers bring the same message and that they are not in conflict one with another.

I really do not understand the purpose or usefulness of arriving at such purposeless conclusion as "this messenger was not sent to me". So are we are forbidding ourselves to benefit from a messenger of God on such a flimsy excuse? And who loses? The messenger? Certainly not, neither God loses. Does this not remind of things forbidden to certain people because of their faithlessness and not because those things were not good?

What, do we start playing the ethnic garbage and we need each our own this our own that, and we are clubs and we are not joining anybody else's club because I am not mixing with this or that, or I have been slighted, and mine is bigger and better?

So the prophets that were sent to the aztecs, for instance, cannot touch my heart since I do not speak nor understand nahuatl and translators are something who live in another galaxy? Or may be I do not conceive that such people might have something worth knowing?

All messengers are sent to whoever wants to listen to them, no matter that they happen to come in a certain place at a certain time and in a certain language. May God bless them all and bless us all.

Salaam

Quote

[16:36]
And certainly We raised in every nation a messenger saying: Serve Allah and
shun the Shaitan. So there were some of them whom Allah guided and there
were others against whom error was due; therefore travel in the land, then
see what was the end of the rejecters.   

Okay take this verse. Who are these nations where messengers said "Serve Allah and shun the Shaitan" ?

If we stop thinking of Allah and Shaitan as people of old time used to, one being a deity and the other being a maleficent being, and try to understand it as something that has to do with Mind over Body, then yes, this message has been conveyed over and over by different people from different nations.

Otherwise you'll have to tell us what other nations and which messengers said "serve ALLAH..." and specifically ALLAH, because as per classic arabic quran "There is no God but Allah" (La Ilah ila allah), i.e Allah being some sort of personal name of a deity, a deity that commends you to reject all other deities with names different than Allah.

Or else, something is terribly misunderstood about Allah and the "There is no God But Allah".

Remember The names og God, there are many and many are adjetives, ar-rahmaan, ar-rahiim, but other not:

God is Al Haqq, the truth,

If you serve truth you are serving God, no ay around it

As-Salaam, if you serve peace, you are serving God

An Nur, if you try to give light, you are serving God, Allah is God in arabic ofr short, that does not  limit God, God has no limits

And all peace there is it is God, all truth there is it is God, All light the is it is God, All justice there is it is God, Al -'adl, not the Just, but Justice.
It is impossible not to serve God, or orship God, only differnece you ant to do it or you do not want to do it but do it, not knowing you are doing it, or doing it in spite of your distaste for it, because nobody nor anything can do anything but worship God. What one wants, is something, what  God wants is something else, and God wins, has won, from before anything exists or is created God has already won.

Ahamduli-llah

Salaam

If Allah says "to every nation (ummatin), community, group, tribe, a messenger
then it is true!

ummatun: a man's kinsfolk, tribe, party, community, nation, group of living
things having certain characteristics or circumstances in common,
any grouping of human or animal, creation, generation, creatures of God;

My search continues  :pr


                                                :peace:

Quote from: hawk99 on October 05, 2018, 12:05:41 PM
If Allah says "to every nation (ummatin), community, group, tribe, a messenger
then it is true!

ummatun: a man's kinsfolk, tribe, party, community, nation, group of living
things having certain characteristics or circumstances in common,
any grouping of human or animal, creation, generation, creatures of God;

Hmm...if I subsitute ة with Slaviс Ъ it will become Ъام, which can be translated as "true sincerity". Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

There was no such letter as Ta Marbuta, which is used in a fake language to be a substitute for ت, at least before 7-9th centuries when fake letters were added to a fake language, meaning it does not belong to understanding the Quran.

The sound "U" you pronounce as in "ummah" is also wrong, it becomes "U" with a hamzah sign, which never belonged to the language either. This word means "amamah" meaning faith, mother, source, foundation, tranquility, from root Alif-Miim.

Why faith (amen) is related to am (mother) is something I also know, but will disclose only to a few.

The meaning of "ammah rasul" is "bestowed to faithful/conscious" or "faith bestowed", depending on the context. As for"faith", it has a deeper meaning, which goes beyond rituals and pure acknowledgment. Saying someone is "mumiin" i.e. believer, while linguistically correct, still is a castrated version of its true meaning, as most do not understand the function word 'faith' holds.

Rasul means to bestow something to someone, it is not a messenger. The only word for messenger comes from root Lam-Alif-Kaf, from where the term malak, angel is formed.

If you are looking for extrernal rasull, you do not have faith, nor rely on your personal conscience. You are just a flock ready to be whipped and sold to another master.

Peace Makaveli.
I fail to see the reason behind what you say here  Quote:

Why faith (amen) is related to am (mother) is something I also know, but will disclose only to a few.

If knowledge of any sort is supposed to be kept secret, then it is not worth knowing. Then it cannot be judged on its usefulness.
I also wonder why the Arabic language is shrouded in secrecy and complicated according to those who claim expertise in its foundation?
As for Mohammed and those who were with him they were real people. They earned their merits and deeds, are now history and we are earning ours without a Mohammed being here with us.
Mohammed was GOD s rasool to bring Qoran to his people and the generations that followed them. Whoever comes across Qoran ,it has a clear message in it, they then choose what to make of it.
Mohammed was real just like the message that he brought is real. He lived ,passed on GOD s message and died. End of Mohammed. Continuation of the message.
That is all there is to it. At this moment of time and after his death, Mohammed is no more a rasool to anyone. The rasool to all is Qoran, outliving him and all of us.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Peace Makaveli, are you saying the corpus Quran
and the project root list are incorrect?   :& 

Quote from: good logic on October 06, 2018, 09:41:26 AM

I also wonder why the Arabic language is shrouded in secrecy and complicated according to those who claim expertise in its foundation?

:hmm  something to ponder.


                                                        :peace:
                                               

Quote from: good logic on October 06, 2018, 09:41:26 AM
If knowledge of any sort is supposed to be kept secret, then it is not worth knowing.

Quran is sealed therefore is not worth knowing - quote by "good" logic.

Quote from: good logic on October 06, 2018, 09:41:26 AM
Mohammed and those who were with him they were real people.

Who is Mohammed? Aren't you supposed to be skeptical about the mohhamedian traditions? If that is so then quote the Quran where it says:

1. What was his mothers and/or fathers name? I know that about Isa in the Quran;

2. How was he born? I know that about several people mentioned in the Quran;

3. How did he die? I know that about several people mentioned in the Quran;

4. How he attained his prophethood? I know that about at least Musa and Isa according to the Quran;

5. The verse where it says "the book was revealed to you, O Muhammad", quote it.

6. What is the book? There are many books out there, which one does the al-kitaba refer to?

7. Who is Ahmad and how is it related to Isa son of Miryem? Please provide your logical explanation.


Or this, I suppose, is "not worth knowing", right?


This is why nothing is revealed from me to public unless a person who is genuinely interested in actually knowing something has proven himself to be an actual truth seeker and not a covered deluded flock who are limited in their perception and worldview. There is already too much garbage on the Internet, and I do not want a crucial information to be swallowed by someone who thinks in such or alike way:

Quote from: good logic on October 06, 2018, 09:41:26 AM
If knowledge of any sort is supposed to be kept secret, then it is not worth knowing.

Someone who gave up on critical thinking, common sense and basic logic as well as exchanged his potentially limitless worldview with castrated belief he deems as "truth", is on his way to the slaughterhouse and is moved towards it in flocks, is thus not worth revealing anything.

Quote from: hawk99 on October 06, 2018, 12:08:50 PM
Peace Makaveli, are you saying the corpus Quran
and the project root list are incorrect?

Grammatical corpus yes, completely useless and counter productive for it uses a language which did not exist between 6-7th centuries AD, which is an era when Quran is supposed to be written. As for PRL, well, it is not useless since they take all the information from Lane's, but most roots were falsely attributed anyways.

Peace Makaveli, so you agree with brother mmkhan's opening post.

Here it is:

14:4  وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ ۖ فَيُضِلُّ اللَّـهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ
And We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

. Muhammad were not sent in my community / people.
. Muhammad did not speak my language.

So, how he can be my Rasool?
He was sent in Arabs, he was a Rasool for Arabs only and not for others.


                                                 :peace:

Quote from: hawk99 on October 06, 2018, 01:57:30 PM
Peace Makaveli, so you agree with brother mmkhan's opening post.

I do not remember agreeing with anyone. I still do not understand what Mohammed ya'll keep talking about. I've heard about someone whos traditions are reported to justify expansionist wars and bloodshed, but I have no clue which Muhammad you are talking about.

Quote from: Makaveli on October 06, 2018, 02:19:31 PM
I do not remember agreeing with anyone. I still do not understand what Mohammed ya'll keep talking about. I've heard about someone whos traditions are reported to justify expansionist wars and bloodshed, but I have no clue which Muhammad you are talking about.

Who is your someone, do they have a name?

Quote from: Makaveli on October 06, 2018, 02:19:31 PMwhat Mohammed ya'll keep talking about

The prophet Muhammad

Quote from: hawk99 on October 06, 2018, 12:08:50 PM
Peace Makaveli, are you saying the corpus Quran
and the project root list are incorrect ?                                 

interesting discussion guys 😜

intresting thing what i m also thinking from last many months
is it possible that corpus and project root list is incorrect ?

if yes then evidence required
if No then evidence required too

again what is the worth of evidence ?

what is the evidence of evidence ?

truth is this we are a result of something possibly we ll find out when purpose finished lot of things the creator like to hide from human beings like moses and travellor story

i dnt even know all these stories are metaphor or really did happen in true time space ?

Yes Muhammad is not a rasool but a Narcissist

Quote from: hawk99 on October 06, 2018, 03:02:37 PM
The prophet Muhammad

Who is prophet Muhammad?

Quote from: imrankhawaja on October 06, 2018, 03:37:21 PM
interesting discussion guys 😜

True  :)

Quote from: imrankhawaja on October 06, 2018, 03:37:21 PM
I dnt even know all these stories are metaphor or really did happen in true time space ?

While studying Al Quran I noticed 3:7 again:

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or
fundamental they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical.
But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is
allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings,
but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who
are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the
whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except
men of understanding.

This ayat is a lens by which we view the Quran, understand things, gain wisdom,
interact with one another and more.  The allegories are to teach us, not to
split hairs, or argue about, but to learn from.

Quote from: Makaveli on October 06, 2018, 05:58:13 PM
Who is prophet Muhammad?

You can research the subject at your leisure.

Let's not derail the thread but stick to the topic at hand.

                                       :peace:

Quote from: hawk99 on October 06, 2018, 09:08:21 PM

This ayat is a lens by which we view the Quran, understand things, gain wisdom,
interact with one another and more.  The allegories are to teach us, not to
split hairs, or argue about, but to learn from.

That is also what I think. We can enjoy whatever light e find in them but no ground to be dogmatic about anything.

Salaam

Quote from: hawk99 on October 06, 2018, 09:08:21 PM
You can research the subject at your leisure.

You mean a warmonger who called himself 'rasul-allah' and refused to accept "donations" yet was a first one in a row to greedily grab a "gift"? Because that's what I can find from my research. Did you mean him?

Quote from: hawk99 on October 06, 2018, 09:08:21 PM
This ayat is a lens by which we view the Quran, understand things, gain wisdom,
interact with one another and more.  The allegories are to teach us, not to
split hairs, or argue about, but to learn from.

As usual the same cheap excuse of 3:7.

Sunni logic:

Can't explain something > say Allah knows best

Quran alone logic:

Can't explain something > cite 3:7

Iright, let us begin with 3:7.

Useless understanding. محكمات does not mean fundamental nor متشابهات means in any way allegorical. Not to mention, ايات does not mean verses either, its primary meaning is a sign.

Gain wisdom? Tell me the Quran alone methodology on how you differentiate between "fundamental" and "allegorical" verses? Which aspects tell you which of the two categories does the verse belong to? Is the "I do not swear by the city" in 90:1 an allegory or a fundamental/absoluetely clear verse?

Man's word is his bond. You apporached this subject yourself. Now give logical explanation to the above as well as your "prophet muhammad" thing or prove you were just mumbbling non sense all that time without understanding anything. Look at the mirror and confess to yourself, not me, I am irrelevant. Only then you can start a journey to the truth. Or do you want to be among those hypocrites with pans on their head and a veil over their minds? If the latter is that what you want then do never approach me in discussion anymore. Simply read, refuse to believe, and go back to hole up in your quran alone comfortable cave-world.

Peace Makaveli.
The "pills"(about being logical and getting to the truth) you are trying to give to others who disagree with your view,you are forgetting to take them yourself. Here is an example, quoe from you:

You mean a warmonger who called himself 'rasul-allah' and refused to accept "donations" yet was a first one in a row to greedily grab a "gift"? Because that's what I can find from my research. Did you mean him?

If your logic tells you to believe what you read(without  searching and proving what has been said). How do you know there was such a person as you described above?
You seem to know a lot of things that are kept secret from others. It is therefore impossible to discuss with you since we are ignorant of your knowledge.
Catch 22 if you ask me.
I shall remain asleep and with the flock since I cannot guess your secret knowledge of the roots.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Quote from: good logic on October 07, 2018, 01:21:43 PM
The "pills"(about being logical and getting to the truth) you are trying to give to others who disagree with your view,you are forgetting to take them yourself. Here is an example, quoe from you:

What can I say? The problem of a completely straightforward logic which lacks basic intuition and fails to follow the slightest and easiest pieces of information sharing called suggestive questions is that which will prevent anyone from getting to know anything farther than their own nose (outside of their small belief system they so tightly uphold).

QuoteI shall remain asleep and with the flock since I cannot guess your secret knowledge of the roots.

It seems you truely are barred based on the above non-sensical solution to my earlier question. I mean...there is nothing I can respond anymore based on such a reply. It either is a strong case for backward induction with irrational reasoning or perhaps good logic is a genius troll, which is unlikely for no troll lurks for so long at one place.

Peace Makaveli.
What I am saying to you is simple and straightforward.  It is of no use to anyone if they are going to guess where you get the meaning of the roots from!
Also why is your source of knowledge better than the lexicons and the Arabic dictionaries?
Surely Arabic is not that complicated?
And I am not here to troll nor do I have any other motives besides the motif of sincere and amicable discussions with the brothers and sisters in this forum including yourself.
I do not claim to have the truth . I expect others to check everything I say here and challenge it. I respect everyone s freedom of choice to express their view.
I am genuinely asking you to provide some source if you want to share it with others . But of course only if you want to.
I was doing the same with my other  brothers and sisters ,for example if you remember Man Of Faith s discussions with me.

I believe Qoran to be the word of GOD, I have my solid proof. I do not expect others to agree with me.
My main source of most of my posts here is Qoran. I have had discussions with you about Qoran as you know.
So I am asking you for your source to check /study it to see its truthfulness.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
What I am saying to you is simple and straightforward.  It is of no use to anyone if they are going to guess where you get the meaning of the roots from!

I said nothing about where to get the root meanings from. You've mentioned word 'roots' several time already, as it somehow was my point. Root meaning are archetypal for the most part, yet a root combination from where a word meaning is derived itself is cultural for the most part and is induced by higher religious-linguist authorities, which the Project Root List copies from.

What you are saying is profane and your conclusions come from a complete lack of insight and are based on a 100% straightforward/literal way to receive and handle received information, which your previous post shows, which I could not even reply to due to how it completely missed the point.

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
Also why is your source of knowledge better than the lexicons and the Arabic dictionaries?

First reply to my questions on Muhammad. I asked you 7 simpliest questions, do not think you have a right to ask anything until you prove your OWN coherent understanding of the book you claim to be divine.

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
Surely Arabic is not that complicated?

You mean the language forged in 8-9th centuries with 12 additional letters which were never part of original abjad script and loads of loan words and weird grammar rules?

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
I am genuinely asking you to provide some source if you want to share it with others

I genuinely ask you use common sense, otherwise there is no use of explaining anything.

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
I believe Qoran to be the word of GOD

So are the Talmud and the Ancient Greek philosophies from where some stories which have made it into the Quran are based on, right (the story of Ibrahim idol shop and the story of Seven Sleepers respectively)?

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
, I have my solid proof.

The 19 multiplier of the Iinitial Letters?

That is not your "solid proof", it was discovered by someone else you simply eat what you were provided with on your table. Try making a new discovery by first removing a veil which covers your eyes, ears and heart and then start looking for clues.

And what does number 19 mean to you? If you don't know its meaning then it's a worthless knowledge which has not lead you anywhere. What is the meaning of letters themselves? If you do not know the meaning of the letters you calculate, what is the point? 

Peace Makaveli.
All your questions about Mohammed are irrelevant. We have the message ,Qoran make of it what you want.
Fine brother, I will use my common sense which tells me that it will be pointless discussing Qoran with you.
The questions you are asking clearly demonstrate our disagreement on what the book says.

I believe and prove things for me. I have not claimed I have your proof. So I will leave you to make of the book what you wish because I know that you are already familiar with Qoran.

With respect brother, I have seen many turn against Qoran ,go on a goose chase around different philosophies and end up clutching at straws. Like a  mirage.
Or may be I am chasing a mirage?
Best of luck with your truth.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Peace Makaveli.
All your questions about Mohammed are irrelevant.

So you don't know who Mohammed was? Why are you repeating his name if you do not know who he was? Why are you saying he was a prophet if you can't even describe his historical-cultural or religious identity? So you don't understand the Quran not an ounce? Then what is the point of everything you say and mark as "objective" if there is nothing objective behind your religious faith-induced empty talk?

All right, if these quetions are irrelevant, like you said yourself right now, that means that it is irrelevant to me to disclose anything since doing so would basically be a waste of precious knowledge to waste it for someone who gives up common sense altogether. 

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
The questions you are asking clearly demonstrate our disagreement on what the book says.

Really? How do I disagree with it? In fact it became my ultimate guidance and everything written in there has a truth. The difference is, however, I could actually understand it and not mindlessly parrot how "divine" and "sacred", the "ultimate revelation" it is. So? What would be your next guess?

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
I believe and prove things for me. I have not claimed I have your proof. So I will leave you to make of the book what you wish because I know that you are already familiar with Qoran.

That's a flock of sheep that makes a book what their leaders wish it to be, not me.

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
I have seen many turn against Qoran

So if you can't explain anything in the book you deem as sacred and divine and someone else asks quality questions you can't answer to, does it mean that someone is automatically turning against the Qur'an? Is that which you call objective and fact-checking?

Bloated egos are jealous of a man of the sixth or seventh century who was a prophet and can't stand that he be praised instead of them.

How dare anabody direct praise to others that are not the bloated egos?


If this kind of amusement was on on TV it would make record audiences.


Salaam

Quote from: huruf on October 08, 2018, 08:43:16 AM
Bloated egos

Is this the most potent conclusion you could possibly extract from the above discussion? Are you incapable of seeing a greater picture? Praising someone who was a self-proclaimed deluded imposter and who's name can be translated as "Praised One" is alike of giving up common sense and healthy self-identity altogether. It reminds me of people praising Stalin and crying when he died despite mass killings and deportations during his regime. I reminds me of people praising Hitler.

Quote from: huruf on October 08, 2018, 08:43:16 AMwho was a prophet

A definition of prophet (nabya) please. Does your small limited miserable deluded world of an angry muslim feminist include such definition? If yes, please share it. I want to know who a prophet is. Please enlighten me. Please use your intellectual capacity to its maximum potential, because that is the hint.

Is God a printing press to you?

Or do you want me to present the root definition for you?

Peace Makaveli.
Mohammed and his generation lived, worked for what they will earn and died. We in turn are doing the same. That is why your questions will serve no purpose.
Qoran has reached us intact. Mohammed passed on the message  to us, We have the message, we live, work for what we will earn and die. Mohammed did his job as messenger which is all we really need to know about him.

If you already know the book and understand it your way, why are you asking questions ?
Are you testing people ?
Do you see why it is a waste of time talking to you about a book you seem to understand so well according to you and your secret roots?
If other people ask me, with good intent, I will give them my view adding that it needs checking as per 17:36.
Like I said each one of us searches and proves their own truth.
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace

Quote from: good logic on October 08, 2018, 12:39:36 PM
That is why your questions will serve no purpose.

They do serve a purpose, much more valuable than blind acceptance. Just because you do not see the purpose in it, it does not mean the questions lack purpose. If you could grasp what I am trying to deliver no plain explanation would be needed. But since you do not try I guess it's your choice. 

Quote from: Makaveli on October 08, 2018, 07:27:53 AM
the language forged in 8-9th centuries with 12 additional letters which were never part of original

which 12 did the scribe ibn hadid leave out in perf 558 ~200 years prior early 7th century?

jumada al-ula 30 / apr 25, 643 CE / pharmouthi, 30 the 1st indiction (Perf 558)
http://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/viewer.faces?doc=DOD_%2BZ120228707&order=1&view=SINGLE

likewise which 12 letters are missing in oldest manuscripts dated 568-645 CE?
https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=281

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 08, 2018, 11:00:26 PM
which 12 did the scribe ibn hadid leave out in perf 558 ~200 years prior early 7th century?

You know which 12 letters I am talking about, do not ask silly questions. There are no 12 additional letters in any of these examples. Birmingham manuscript is pure abjad, lacks any dots whatsoever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript#/media/File:Birmingham_Quran_manuscript.jpg

What it says in the beggining of chapter 20? Maa anzalna alqurana litashkah. It should have:

1. A dot over nun - nothing

2. A dot over Zay - nothing

3. Two dots over Ta - nothing

4. Three dots over Shiin - nothing

5. Two dots over Qaf - nothing

These are all letters that are present in abjad nonetheless. But even if they were un-dotted, what is the point of taking the additional 12 letters seriously, which were officially addeted by the end of the first half of the 7th century, whereas Quran was available since at least 6th century. Officially by the end of the first half of the 7th century, however in relity probably later, during 8-9th centuries, when a so called Arabic grammar was being forged.

Anyways, I am tired of presenting the evidence to the profane who hold their castrated beliefs so tightly they will go great lengths justifying them. One evidence everyone with sound mind would agree with is that Arabic is a bad way in understanding the Quran - this is by far the greatest examples how forged language prevents from understanding the text, which most of you do not understand anyway.

Also, in PERF558 the letter Nun looks quite different from modern script, looks more like a dagger pointing backwards. In modern inscriptions nun may often resemble Ba or Ta, but with one dot over it. It proves even the Script was in developement in several stages, and became less effective, since modern Nun can be easily mistaken with Ba or Ta especially in the beggining and the middle of a word.

Additional letters themselves are justified by the need to add more sounds for the loan words. Now here is the question. If you claim the Quran is written in Arabic, what is the point of adding additional sounds for foreign words, such as Greek or Persian?

There is also a contradiction in the history of development of modern Arabic script, which claims to have originated from both the Nabbatean script and the so called Old South Arabic/musnad. So which of these two played a role in development of the modern Arabic script? OSA has 29 letters, whereas Nabbatean is classical ABJAD, meaning 22.

If anything something we call the Quran is unlikely to spring out of the villages and camps of barbarians, Persian mercenaries and bedouins of the South. It is more likely to come out of the culturally richest region of that time, which is Petrea and the Jordan region, the Nabbatean kingdom. Even upon these days there is nothing archeologically interesting in Mecca, unlike Petrea and the overall Northern region where upon these days they find valuable archeological material all over the place.

Not to mention the Al-Lat and Al-Uzza cults were mostly worshipped in the North and seldom in South Arabia. Now let us see how all the so called proponents of the Petra vs Mecca theory will renounce this and go back to the pro-Mecca bandwagon once they hear arguments contradicting their "Arabic" language dogma.

P.S. PERF588 seems in fact to be written in South Arabia, which does not in any way prove anything, since by the 7th century the "Saracenes" were most likely cooperating with Byzantine when the latter was offically at war with the Persian Sassanid Empire. It does not however show anything "Islamic" in relation to the PERF588 as the Basmallah was the formula already established before the emerge of Islam. Saying Basmallah originated with Islam is like saying the AUM originated with Hinduism.

Quote from: Makaveli on October 09, 2018, 07:45:25 AM
There are no 12 additional letters in any of these examples. Birmingham manuscript is pure abjad, lacks any dots whatsoever.

What it says in the beggining of chapter 20?

Also, in PERF558 the letter Nun looks quite different from modern script, looks more like a dagger pointing backwards. 

3:119... قل say موتوا perish ye of بغىظكم in rage yours ان indeed الله the god علىم knower بذات in what الصدور the breasts

kills missionaries to see old manuscripts ن back then written j no need to dot obvious e.g. الرحمن the almighty -- use magnifier see that numerous letters were dotted.

20:0 بسم in name الله the god الرحمن the almighty الرحىم the merciful
20:1-2 طه ta ha ما not انزلنا descends we of علىك upon you القران the recitation لتشقى to thou agonize

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=281

(https://i.postimg.cc/QNv0bDMh/ch19v91-ch20v13.jpg)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=107

(https://i.postimg.cc/fbpkt8wW/ch19v97-ch20v16.jpg)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1/handschrift/163

(https://i.postimg.cc/Hkymh6py/ch19v98-ch20v22.jpg)


Perf 558 dated 643 CE dots on letters ج  خ  ذ  ز  ش  ن destroys missing letters nonsense
muharram 28, 22 AH / 26th december, 642 CE / choiak 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 555)
jumada al-ula 30, 22 AH / april 25, 643 CE / pharmouthi 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 558)

(https://i.postimg.cc/8kyS4tJT/PERF_558.jpg)

Do you sincerely believe these obviously artificial red dots on some pages (most pages do not even have them) which are obviously an addition to the original text as a part of Biblical Hebrew scholarly expertize are convincing evidence? No dots above Shiin, Zay, Ta or Qaf at 20:1-2 and the rest of the page either, not just Nun.

The dots at https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=281 while few in numbers are very blurred, and in majority of the cases look more like a test to see what others will say whether or not these sheets require dots or not. Seems like the language was still developing and these are obviously scholarly copies, which were washed and re-washed as a part of scribe schooling. This is why these copies contain upper and lower texts.

The dots at https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/1?handschrift=107 look more like an addition. Even the commentary below the photo says:

QuoteThe transliteration considers only the oldest layer of the text, ie the consonant signs as they appear in the manuscript, with or without diacritical marks. Vowel notes that are likely to be written by red dots later are not included.

Text in german (original page)

QuoteDie Transliteration ber?cksichtigt nur die ?lteste Schicht des Textes, d.h. die Konsonantenzeichen, so wie sie in der Handschrift erscheinen, mit oder ohne diakritische Zeichen. Vokalzeichen, die wahrscheinlich zu einem sp?teren Zeitpunkt durch rote Punkte geschrieben werden, sind nicht ber?cksichtigt.

Also do you somehow believe that ignoring 90% of my arguments and clinging to just one issue is somehow sufficient to keep your beliefs intact? For yourself, perhaps, for myself that's not enough. I have already expressed my views, backed by commonly accepted evience, about the development of South Arabian script, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. What I have problem with is the lack of innate dots in those Quranic copies. 

Also I have expressed my opinion on PER588 already, I said it probably belongs to the South Arabia region, yet does not in any way relate to the Quran and its script.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 09, 2018, 01:56:12 PM
use magnifier see that numerous letters were dotted.

Majority pages in old copies are either without dots or the dots are so unnaturally small and tentative that it looks more of a schooling copy rather than a complete inscription. Some pages which have dots, have red dots probably as a later addition of the linguistic expertize were probably not a part of original re-writing process.

It does not matter in the end. Please respond to my question

Quote from: Makaveli on October 09, 2018, 07:45:25 AM
Additional letters themselves are justified by the need to add more sounds for the loan words. Now here is the question. If you claim the Quran is written in Arabic, what is the point of adding additional sounds for foreign words, such as Greek or Persian?

Quote from: Makaveli on October 09, 2018, 02:09:34 PM
Also I have expressed my opinion on PER588 already, I said it probably belongs to the South Arabia region, yet does not in any way relate to the Quran and its script.

yes it relates contains same words style of script already shown...

بسم bis'mi الله l-lahi الرحمن l-raḥmāni الرحىم l-raḥīmi
شهر shahru
الاولى l-ula/the first
من min سنه sanatin اثنىن ithnayni
وكتبه wakutubihi/and written his (i.e. author) ابن ib'na

receipt for sheep in Egypt in year 643 CE which is obvious reading perf 555, 556, 558

muharram 28, 22 AH / 26th december, 642 CE / choiak 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 555)
safar, 22 AH / 6th january, 643 CE / tybi 13, the 1st indiction (Perf 556)
jumada al-ula 30, 22 AH / april 25, 643 CE / pharmouthi 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 558)

Quote from: Makaveli on October 09, 2018, 02:09:34 PM
Majority pages in old copies are either without dots or the dots are so unnaturally small ...

It does not matter in the end.

yes it matters that you lied! 12 missing letters, wrong century, no dots etc.
now you admit there are dots -- grey/red dots, small dots, all sorts of dots.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 09, 2018, 04:54:42 PM
yes it relates contains same words style of script already shown...
بسم bis'mi الله l-lahi الرحمن l-raḥmāni الرحىم l-raḥīmi

Yes and if you read my post you will see that I've addressed the basmallah issue. Basmallah did not originate as a religious formula in 600 A.D., is probably earlier.   

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 09, 2018, 04:54:42 PM
شهر shahru
الاولى l-ula/the first
من min سنه sanatin اثنىن ithnayni
وكتبه wakutubihi/and written his (i.e. author) ابن ib'na

receipt for sheep in Egypt in year 643 CE which is obvious reading perf 555, 556, 558

muharram 28, 22 AH / 26th december, 642 CE / choiak 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 555)
safar, 22 AH / 6th january, 643 CE / tybi 13, the 1st indiction (Perf 556)
jumada al-ula 30, 22 AH / april 25, 643 CE / pharmouthi 30, the 1st indiction (Perf 558)

Please elaborate on your reasoning. So they did not have words for son or did not use lunar calendar before 650 A.D.? Shahr is btw a semantic loan from Aramaic סהרא

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 09, 2018, 04:54:42 PM
yes it matters that you lied! 12 missing letters, wrong century, no dots etc.
now you admit there are dots -- grey/red dots, small dots, all sorts of dots.

I lied? Are you accusing me of a lie? If that is the case, then please explain what was the point of me pointing out:

1. The scholarly hypothesis of the bad/horrible copy, which which is acknowledge not by myself alone but by several scholars who hypothesized on the issue of washing down the lower text and writing down a new text?

2. The red dot issue, which is acknowledge not by myself alone but by the commission working on the palimpsest as quoted in English and German?

3. The scholarly hypothesis which is also consistent with a lack of dots whatsoever on many pages OR the dots which look more likely tentative so as to show to the scholar and conclude whether or not the word requires a vowel?

I do not see any of the twelve additional letters of the modern Arabic script in Quranic palimpsest, I do see vowels for some common ABJD letters, I never denied it, but I see them either as red dots, which were probably added letter or I do not see them on a lot of pages, or I see but a small tentative dots barely seen by the eye, which look more like as if someone was trying to understand the text and was slightly pressing the pen over palimpsest.

And yes, I doo see letter Dhal for instance in PERF558, so what? A.D. 650 is about the time they've added them in the script according to official linguistic version.

Who's slandering now?

Quote from: Makaveli on October 09, 2018, 05:07:23 PM
I lied? Are you accusing me of a lie?

yes, yes knowingly!

1. was practice some new skins others reused skins
2. they used red dots end 10 verses marker as well
3. numerous black dots too, no need to dot obvious

Quote from: Makaveli on October 09, 2018, 05:07:23 PM
And yes, I doo see letter Dhal for instance in PERF558, so what?

Who's slandering now?

you knowingly and/or blind and/or ignorant possibly all three!
perf 558 also has dots on the letters ج خ ذ ز ش ن in year 643 CE!

likewise ش in شهر is enough to destroy the whole "hypothesis".

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 09, 2018, 07:47:10 PM

perf 558 also has dots on the letters ج خ ذ ز ش ن in year 643 CE!

likewise ش in شهر is enough to destroy the whole "hypothesis".

peace Noon,

i just want to ask something,
what i understand from your post you said "dots" were always there ?

so is it a false claim by people who said dots were added later same like vocal marks ?

Quote from: imrankhawaja on October 09, 2018, 09:01:32 PM
peace Noon,

i just want to ask something,
what i understand from your post you said "dots" were always there ?

so is it a false claim by people who said dots were added later same like vocal marks ?

Peace, depends on the time-frame since all scripts evolve with basic dots then vocal marks, etc.

The issue is below ignorant claim that "the language" was forged sometime from 701 to 900 CE.

Quote from: Makaveli
the language forged in 8-9th centuries with 12 additional letters which were never part of original

The language was always there obvious history script with some dots time of perf 558 643 CE.

thanks brother noon exactly thats what i had in my mind .. thanks for confirmation  :handshake:

Seems logical that with time any written text would become less distinct, just as it happens with any material with time. And the smaller the mark the easier it is that it goes away earlier or becomes less noticiable.

In this case some people do not cling to straws but cling to less than straws to uphold their Qur'an hate. How dare anybody believe the Qur'an and not those clever know-alls that tell you that if you  believe in Qur'an instead of believing in them you have blind faith?

The pages of Qur'an, by the way, depict that kind of know-all attitude and narcissistic personality to the dot. Thus, dots or no dots, shows that the Qur'an knows people much better than people know themselves, as they were thousands of years ago and as they still are, some of them a bunch of deluded ignorants who, like the flies, enjoy their instant under the sun, to die in heaps when the season is past. The Qur'an nails them in their vanity and pride. fir3auna, all of them. Away with those who do not believe in the knowitalls, they have blind faith!


Salaam
 

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 09, 2018, 07:47:10 PM

1. was practice some new skins others reused skins
2. they used red dots end 10 verses marker as well
3. numerous black dots too, no need to dot obvious

1. If you could re-connect your brain and unplug it out of the place it currently is connected to and then re-read my posts, you would see that I have already explained why the text was washed off and written again. Because it is a bad schooling copy and was used when the language was not even developed, that is why not all pages have dots and the language itself they could not decide at the time, which tradition does it refer to, the North or the South.
2. So?
3. Oh really? There are none in 20:1-2, but you can deny all you want.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 09, 2018, 07:47:10 PM
you knowingly and/or blind and/or ignorant possibly all three!
perf 558 also has dots on the letters ج خ ذ ز ش ن in year 643 CE!

likewise ش in شهر is enough to destroy the whole "hypothesis".

Do you have problems with basic logic and reason? I am not gonna repeat about PERF558, it has no use and is already written by the end of the first half of 7th century, which I said numerous time, already is believed was time when additional letters were introduced. How is it related to the Quran which has none of them except the "later added red dots"? 

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 10, 2018, 12:08:15 AM
Peace, depends on the time-frame since all scripts evolve with basic dots then vocal marks, etc.

1. The grammar and diacritics were added by :

Ibn Abi Ishaq - died AD 735 / AH 117 - how many years after the supposed revelation of the Quran?

This means early Quranic palimsets were not even diacritized in accordance with modern grammar rules, which emerged in 8th century. but were simply vowelized as they saw fit by that time.

2. Birmingham and Saan'a manuscripts were radiocarbonnaly dated to 585-633, which is a high probabily Quran was available LONG before any Arabic language even existed.

3. PERF588 has nothing to do with the Qur'an and belongs to the end of the first half of the 7th century, when according to common history these letters were added in the so called Arabic calligraphy, taken from Old South Arabic, in which PERF588 takes its written tradition.

4. There is no indication and instead quite a varity of factors which tell Quran originated in Petrea region, where Nabbatean language was dominating, i..e pure abjad with 22 letters;

5. Again, The schools of Basra and Kufa further developed grammatical rules in the late 8th century with the rapid rise of Islam.

6. There are no dots in the Bigmingham copy. Black dots are seen unnaturally small, which looks more like a scholarly test, rather than a decicive vowelization, and red dots were obviously added later, something both me and people stuyding the palimset agree with;

7. Quran mentions Allat and AlUzza, the goddesses which were worshipped in Assyria and Petrea, but not the Southern Arabia;

8. Quran itself is a vast body of religious literature which is unlikely to pop out of the bedouin hellhole called South Arabia;

9. 6 additional letters were added to modern Arabic calligraphy as far as the first half of the 7th century, yet they were available before in Old South Arabic, however,

10. Arabic alphabet evolved either from the Nabataean,[1][2] or (less widely believed) directly from the Syriac. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet#Origins

That means that the 22 letters of the ABJAD order did not include 6-7 additional of the Old South Arabic, and were added as close as the first half of the 7th century, which is already past the point when Quran was available.

Peace huruf.
Many have taken on the "sword( In the name of Science, false history and  doctrined research -What I want to find out_)" to fight Qoran.  Like here:
http://www.apologetics-central.com/leaderjaysmith.htm
The Missionaries and the Christian Zionists have set up an agenda fuelled by hadiths nonsense that they can easily tear Qoran apart by their so called analysis of history and the false translations of Qoran verses.

They have set up many theories claiming it is proper Scientific research . Like Mosques were facing Petra, Qoran dates back to the 1 st/2nd Century, original language of Qoran was not Arabic, Stories of Qoran have been copied from various old sources...etc

Not realising that GOD has already beaten their argument by setting up a "counter attack" in Qoran:
1- To warn the sincere believers of such plot.
2- To lead them on so they can be humiliated and humbled by future revelations /real meanings of what Qoran verses really say about them and their plot.
3- Qoran contains the truth that is hitting their falsehood slowly but surely as its verses are being manifested to new generation with the increase of technology and knowledge.

There is no need for history or Mohammed s sayings or anybody else s sayings since we have Qoran intact( I say that with the highest confidence). Qoran s words are judging them already. Qoran s words will take all the criticism thrown at them. Qoran will stand the test of time of all generations.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  -Qoran s words cannot be "Kawlu Al-Bashar" words of a human, impossible!!!_
They will eat their words.
Watch, the future belongs to GOD. We are waiting sister.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Peace Noon waalqalami, could you give your translations/interpretations
of ayats 10:47, 16:36, 57:21 I would appreciate you taking time to do so.

                                    :handshake:

Quote from: good logic on October 10, 2018, 07:09:11 AM
They have set up many theories claiming it is proper Scientific research . Like Mosques were facing Petra, Qoran dates back to the 1 st/2nd Century, original language of Qoran was not Arabic, Stories of Qoran have been copied from various old sources...etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_and_the_Idol_Shop - Talmud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sleepers - Ancient Greece, Jacob of Serugh (c. 450 ? 521),

And countless of other examples.

You argument, besides "everything is already "explained" in the Quran, no need to find out anything"?

Also, what is Arabic? The product of the 8th century based on Old South "Arabic" (Ephiopian) script/alphabet? Why in such a case is word jinn meaning "invisible, spirit", of Persian origin, or Injeel is a calque from Ancient Greek eu'angelos?

Quote from: good logic on October 10, 2018, 07:09:11 AM
There is no need for history or Mohammed s sayings or anybody else s saying

I see, there is no need for anything useful of a study or sound analysis. And that person who for some reason calls himself good logic told me about "fact checking".

If you could even undestand what muhammad stands for...but you won't with a veil over your face, because there is no need for you to understand.

Peace Makaveli.
You need to know why Qoran tells you stories then you will see that "copied the stories" comes nowhere near.
You will also see that the Qoran s stories and the so called "original copies" differ for a good reason.
You will also deduce that GOD s story is the true version. Simply because GOD does not do lying or errors.

GOD has got there before you and is telling you who the liars are:

Quran stories are not copied from other sources:

16:103
We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.
وَلَقَد نَعلَمُ أَنَّهُم يَقولونَ إِنَّما يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِسانُ الَّذى يُلحِدونَ إِلَيهِ أَعجَمِىٌّ وَهٰذا لِسانٌ عَرَبِىٌّ مُبينٌ
16:104
Surely, those who do not believe in God's revelations, God does not guide them. They have incurred a painful retribution.
إِنَّ الَّذينَ لا يُؤمِنونَ بِـٔايٰتِ اللَّهِ لا يَهديهِمُ اللَّهُ وَلَهُم عَذابٌ أَليمٌ
16:105
The only ones who fabricate false doctrines/false stories are those who do not believe in God's revelations; they are the real liars.
إِنَّما يَفتَرِى الكَذِبَ الَّذينَ لا يُؤمِنونَ بِـٔايٰتِ اللَّهِ وَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الكٰذِبونَ

Anyway brother, you will probably think I have got a double layer of veils over my face since I do not really understand what the above verses are saying?
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Quote from: good logic on October 10, 2018, 08:18:38 AM
Peace Makaveli.
You need to know why Qoran tells you stories then you will see that "copied the stories" comes nowhere near.
You will also see that the Qoran s stories and the so called "original copies" differ for a good reason.
You will also deduce that GOD s story is the true version. Simply because GOD does not do lying or errors.

Present the difference and how Ibrahim idol shop or the Seven sleepers are exactly different from their historical counterparts?


Why would someone even bother replying when he has nothing constructive to say in response?

I underestimated you, good logic, your problem is way more severe than I have originally predicted.

Quote16:103
We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.
وَلَقَد نَعلَمُ أَنَّهُم يَقولونَ إِنَّما يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِسانُ الَّذى يُلحِدونَ إِلَيهِ أَعجَمِىٌّ وَهٰذا لِسانٌ عَرَبِىٌّ مُبينٌ

اعجمي - imprecise speech in general, not related to Arabic or any other language, root ayn-jiim-miim

مبين - disunion, two halves disunified and deluded in dualism, root ba-ya-nun, why it becomes "clear" or "understanding" is because originally this root comes from word, which symbolised a tent and a tent was divided into two halves, masculine and feminine, so each gender could "understand" where her or his tent is.

عربي - mixed, exchanging, merchandize, is not related to Modern Standard Arabic. Arabian Peninsula was named by Greek and Roman travellers, and not the "arabs" themselves, who originally, living in South Arabia, constituted a wide range of different Semitic-speaking tribes.

Again, jinn, en-geel, and more than 700 words are not of Arabic origin in the Qur'an.

Quote from: good logic on October 10, 2018, 08:18:38 AM
The only ones who fabricate false doctrines/false stories are those who do not believe in God's revelations; they are the real liars.

Yes, and you should really be cautious over what you say, do, or think. As of now I see a load of compost coming from your thoughts, which you genuinely believe to be true and sinsere understanding.

And what the Quran القران‎ means I am not disclosing, earn such disclosure for yourself.

I am not responding to good logic anymore. I feel that this is counterproductive and leads myself into useless argument, something I try to avoid.

Feel free to work at Ministry of Truth where they juggle notes and verses and newspaper fronts as their every day practice.

Quote from: good logic on October 10, 2018, 08:18:38 AM
Peace Makaveli.
You need to know why Qoran tells you stories then you will see that "copied the stories" comes nowhere near.
You will also see that the Qoran s stories and the so called "original copies" differ for a good reason.
You will also deduce that GOD s story is the true version. Simply because GOD does not do lying or errors.

GOD has got there before you and is telling you who the liars are:

Quran stories are not copied from other sources:

16:103
We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.
وَلَقَد نَعلَمُ أَنَّهُم يَقولونَ إِنَّما يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِسانُ الَّذى يُلحِدونَ إِلَيهِ أَعجَمِىٌّ وَهٰذا لِسانٌ عَرَبِىٌّ مُبينٌ
16:104
Surely, those who do not believe in God's revelations, God does not guide them. They have incurred a painful retribution.
إِنَّ الَّذينَ لا يُؤمِنونَ بِـٔايٰتِ اللَّهِ لا يَهديهِمُ اللَّهُ وَلَهُم عَذابٌ أَليمٌ
16:105
The only ones who fabricate false doctrines/false stories are those who do not believe in God's revelations; they are the real liars.
إِنَّما يَفتَرِى الكَذِبَ الَّذينَ لا يُؤمِنونَ بِـٔايٰتِ اللَّهِ وَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الكٰذِبونَ

Anyway brother, you will probably think I have got a double layer of veils over my face since I do not really understand what the above verses are saying?
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Smile, good logic, some things are too funny to get angry or even mildly disappointed. That, I feel is the part we "blind faithers" can enjoy. Reminds of the old joke which a can never get right, of the ant climbing up the elephantess leg with raping intentions.

Salaam 

Quote from: huruf on October 10, 2018, 09:25:46 AM
Smile, good logic, some things are too funny to get angry or even mildly disappointed. That, I feel is the part we "blind faithers" can enjoy. Reminds of the old joke which a can never get right, of the ant climbing up the elephantess leg with raping intentions.

This basically summarizes what Mazhar and many other here are all about. Seeking refuge in their small harem, where women are captives and sex-slaves (who are incapable of making their own decisions and are deprieved of their feminine wisdom and intuition, seeking protection from their lords) and men are eunuchs (who are deprieved of their masculine characteristics, such as logic and willpower). The harem itself is a veil which covers their mind with age old dogmas and blind faith and their underage sarcasm is a defensive mechanism of their psyche, which is a fortress of their on-going delusion.

Peace Makaveli.
I reciprocate your comment back to you since you gave me the words. So you could say I "copied from you" like you claim Qoran has copied other sources. I therefore say the same to you, quote:

Yes, and you should really be cautious over what you say, do, or think. As of now I see a load of compost coming from your thoughts, which you genuinely believe to be true and sinsere understanding.

And since you wish to stop our conversation, I will stop as well.
Thank you for the conversation.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Quote from: Makaveli on October 10, 2018, 06:57:26 AM
Birmingham and Saan'a manuscripts were radiocarbonnaly dated to 585-633

There are no dots in the Bigmingham copy.

That means that the 22 letters of the ABJAD order did not include 6-7 additional

ok since you messed up now it's 6-7 missing instead of 12 missing.  :tempt:

1.   1   أ   ʾalif
2.   2   ب   bāʾ
3.   3   ج   jīm
4.   4   د   dāl
5.   5   ه   hāʾ
6.   6   و   wāw
7.   7   ز   zāy
8.   8   ح   ḥāʾ
9.   9   ط   ṭāʾ
10.   10   ي   yāʾ
11.   20   ك   kāf
12.   30   ل   lām
13.   40   م   mīm
14.   50   ن   nūn
15.   60   س   sīn
16.   70   ع   ʿayn
17.   80   ف   fāʾ
18.   90   ص   ṣād
19.   100   ق   q̈āf
20.   200   ر   rāʾ
21.   300   ش   shīn
22.   400   ت   tāʾ
23.   500   ث   thāʾ
24.   600   خ   khāʾ
25.   700   ذ   dhāl
26.   800   ض   ḍād
27.   900   ظ   ẓāʾ
28.   1000   غ   ghayn

they didn't stop counting at 400 knew their language no need to dot some letters in script e.g.
900 ظ ẓā  which is a completely different sound from 9   ط ṭā

4:11 للذكر to the male (i.e. gender) مثل similitude حظ ḥaẓẓi/apportion الانثىىن the two (females)

Makes no sense to read in context as حط  and dots added later in scripts to teach the ignorant.
Likewise clearly visible in Birmingham manuscript dated 568-645 CE numerous dot examples.

400   ت tāʾ كتب kitābi/book (two dots ت tā)
500   ث thāʾ ثلث thalātha/three (three dots ث thā)

(https://i.postimg.cc/3w9xjZhv/Birmingham_ch18v23-31.jpg)

Quote from: hawk99 on October 10, 2018, 07:16:34 AM
Peace Noon waalqalami, could you give your translations/interpretations
of ayats 10:47, 16:36, 57:21 I would appreciate you taking time to do so.

                                    :handshake:

peace, yes back to topic...

10:47 ولكل and to each امه community رسول messenger فاذا so when جا came رسولهم messenger theirs قضى decree بىنهم between them بالقسط in the justice وهم and they لا not ىظلمون wronged being

16:37 ان if تحرص thou desire على on هداهم guidance theirs فان so indeed الله the god لا not ىهدى guided من who ىضل misguided وما and not لهم for them من from/any ناصرىن helpers

51:27 فقربه so offered it الىهم to them قال said الا that/why not تاكلون thou eating

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 10, 2018, 07:26:59 PM
peace, yes back to topic...

10:47 ولكل and to each امه community رسول messenger فاذا so when جا came رسولهم messenger theirs قضى decree بىنهم between them بالقسط in the justice وهم and they لا not ىظلمون wronged being

16:37 ان if تحرص thou desire على on هداهم guidance theirs فان so indeed الله the god لا not ىهدى guided من who ىضل misguided وما and not لهم for them من from/any ناصرىن helpers

51:27 فقربه so offered it الىهم to them قال said الا that/why not تاكلون thou eating

Thank you Noon waalqalami, I asked for 57:21 if you don't mind.

According to your translation does 10:47 refer to past, present, and
future messengers or to only messengers prior to Muhammad?

Thanx in advance

Quote from: hawk99 on October 10, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
Thank you Noon waalqalami, I asked for 57:21 if you don't mind.

you're welcome hawk99, garden is immeasurable كعرض like width universe 57:21 (sing) and universes 3:133 (pl) ?

57:21 سبقوا race ye of الى to مغفره forgiveness من from ربكم lord yours وجنه and garden عرضها width its كعرض like width السما the heaven/sky والارض and the land/earth اعدت prepared للذىن for the ones امنوا believes they of بالله in the god ورسله and messengers his ذلك such فضل bounty الله the god ىوتىه granted he من whom ىشا willed والله and the god ذو owner الفضل the bounty العظىم the major

3:133 وسرعوا and hasten ye of الى to مغفره forgiveness من from ربكم lord yours وجنه and garden عرضها width its السموت the heavens/skies والارض and the land/earth اعدت prepared للمتقىن for the righteous

Quote from: hawk99 on October 10, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
According to your translation does 10:47 refer to past, present, and
future messengers or to only messengers prior to Muhammad?

see context past/present/future and past messengers cannot be messengers to the present.

10:47-49 ولكل and to each امه community رسول messenger فاذا so when جا came رسولهم messenger theirs قضى decree بىنهم between them بالقسط in the justice وهم and they لا not ىظلمون wronged being وىقولون and speaketh being/asking متى when هذا this الوعد the promise ان if كنتم be you صدقىن sincere? قل say لا not املك controls/has sovereignty لنفسى to soul mine/myself ضرا hurt of ولا and not نفعا benefit of الا except ما what شا wills الله the god لكل to each امه community اجل term اذا when جا came اجلهم term theirs فلا so not ىستاخرون delaying ساعه hour ولا and not ىستقدمون advancing

we only have the message and messenger/s can be anyone who relays/teaches the message.

peace!

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 10, 2018, 07:09:01 PM
ok since you messed up now it's 6-7 missing instead of 12 missing.  :tempt:

What did I mess up? There are 6 additional letters added to the caligraphy from the South Arabian script, as well as six more letters which are not officially part of the modern alphabet, but are nonetheless used as if they were a part of the Quran, such as Ta Marbuta, or Aleph Maksura:

In addition to six ADDITIONAL SOUNDS there are :

1. Hamzah - was not available until 8-9th century;

2. Ta Marbuta ة - likewise;

and several more, albeit I do not remember to see Vah ﭪ for example in the Qur'an, but hamza and marbuta are frequent.

Even six additional sounds were not a part of Nabathean script, from which the Quran stems, not to mention six more additional letters.

Don't make silly conclusions if you do not understand what I am talking about in the first place.

Besides I am still waiting for a response to my previous question. If it is written in Arabic as you claim, why is it there are hundreds of foreign words which require special sounds? It's a third time I am asking this.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 10, 2018, 07:09:01 PM
they didn't stop counting at 400 knew their language no need to dot some letters in script e.g.
900 ظ ẓā  which is a completely different sound from 9   ط ṭā

Do you sinserely believe that is a convincing explanation? I guess this explanation helps you sleep well at night with your "translation".

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 10, 2018, 07:09:01 PM
Likewise clearly visible in Birmingham manuscript dated 568-645 CE numerous dot examples.

Occasional constonants added, in the context of what I said previously it does not matter. Occasional vowelizing in those horrible copies clearly looks as if they did not know what to do OR it was a schooling copy, which was meant to be washed over and over again.

In fact, ختم for instance, does not require خ and can be simply written as حتم with the same meaning of seal, mark, limit in most Semitic dialects, such as Hebrew חתם.

Quote from: Noon waalqalami on October 11, 2018, 02:24:54 AM


see context past/present/future and past messengers cannot be messengers to the present.

10:47-49 ولكل and to each امه community رسول messenger فاذا so when جا came رسولهم messenger theirs قضى decree بىنهم between them بالقسط in the justice وهم and they لا not ىظلمون wronged being وىقولون and speaketh being/asking متى when هذا this الوعد the promise ان if كنتم be you صدقىن sincere? قل say لا not املك controls/has sovereignty لنفسى to soul mine/myself ضرا hurt of ولا and not نفعا benefit of الا except ما what شا wills الله the god لكل to each امه community اجل term اذا when جا came اجلهم term theirs فلا so not ىستاخرون delaying ساعه hour ولا and not ىستقدمون advancing

we only have the message and messenger/s can be anyone who relays/teaches the message.

peace!

Peace Noon waalqalami

Can 10:47 be translated thusly:

To each community, a messenger. After their messenger comes, they are
judged equitably, without the least injustice.

or:

And for every nation is a messenger. So when their messenger comes,
it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged

Thanx in Advance

MMKhan
Late reply... Just seen it.. . But still feel it's not gone off topic... 😉

If you feel you are right why you seem worried in your speech.. Follow what you feel right after verification...

14:4 If you feel that it is meant for Mohamed... It's fine.. But I don't see Mohamed's name inscribed in this verse...  In case if you didn't take this verse as example and still claimed that Mohamed or anyone was not your messenger.. I do agree with you... In fact as per QURAN No-one is your messenger who is not living and not giving messages.. Mohamed or any messenger was not sent to anyone in this world as Messenger but for those to whom they preached in their own language.. That's why they call O messenger of God.. Can we call O messenger of God... No... And no point calling a dead person by "O"... That's why they were asked to follow the messenger or even follow him... Once Mohamed the messenger of God passed away there is no messenger for the people who were born after his death... That's why in one verse Arabs were saying other two groups among us received messengers and if we receive we will be better than them.... They all were living close-by though... Sending a prophet or Messenger to a nation should be considered the greatest Mercy of God... Coz its a direct speech of God.. People ask questions and answers  coming from God through His Messenger..  Isn't it mercy... But we are not that fortunate... Okay as I always says guidance is not only from books.. Messengers cannot make one into guidance.. They can only preach in which has guidance with what is revealed but getting guided is from God not coz they had a messenger with them. If Mohamed is not our Messenger what to look for, for guidance.. Yes.. It is QURAN.. How can I say that so simply... Prophet Ibrahim was looking everything what God created for guidance till he gets convinced and guided.. So the approach towards guidance is instigated by God.. If one is born to a family where quran is given respect his approach was made thus ... But if someone is born to a family where quran has no place of respect then if still he approaches somehow means that's his guidance... Afteralll God drags those who are meant to be guided towards his straight path whatever the hindrances he or she has to face with... When God sealed Prophets with Mohamed...  Thats a question mark.. Why if they needed a prophet why we don't need?.. Are we not people? Are we not destined for hell or paradise.. Won't we be questioned? It's absolutely clear that God's mercy were with those who were given prophets and favored ..how unfortunate those who still didn't believe them by having a messenger day and night calling for right path.. .. Coz God knows how to take His balance few minority of people with His guidance... For that not required a prophet but preserving His last book will be enough...one could easily argue.. How much is population Now compared to yester years.. Still why not send a prophet? Don't we have questions to ask from a messenger... Yes we do.. No need to come this forum and ask doubts then... That God has decided not deserve.. Am I wrong.. No.. Other wise He won't seal His prophets with Mohamed...
36:28 And We sent not down against his People, after him, any hosts from heaven, nor was it needful for Us so to do.
The above verse is so crucial for me... In my understanding God stopped sending His angel messengers with hosts to that nation with messages... And was not required any more..
In the same way God has sealed His prophets with Mohamed.. So if anyone get guided after that is extremely fortunate and favored and instilled by God...

Okay let's get back to the point Mohamed is not our Messenger...
Let's look 67:8 and 39:71 what do those verses say...
Sahih International: And those who disbelieved will be driven to Hell in groups until, when they reach it, its gates are opened and its keepers will say, "Did there not come to you messengers from yourselves, reciting to you the verses of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?" They will say, "Yes, but the word of punishment has come into effect upon the disbelievers
    .......
above verses are very interesting...  Disbelievers are in hell or approaching it and Angels were asking... "Didn't a messenger come to you and recite the verses or warn?...  Question is... Did a messenger come to the current people who are alive or atleast to disbelievers?  That's beyond answer for many... ... But interestingly the verses didn't say like "Didn't Prophets come and recite and warn you.... "..thats a big difference...sealing prophets with Mohamed and how to ask Prophet didn't come and warn?...further,  we don't see a reply from those who are in hell saying No... No messenger came to us.. But strangely they say they messengers came and we were heedless....
Now we know No Prophet after Mohamed though he is not our Messenger... THEN WHO ARE THESE MESSENGERS THESE DISBELIVERS TALKING OF? or current Day disbelievers won't go to hell... Hmm.. That's not fair... Right... Mr. Khan.... Isn't the Quran  a messenger  to us? Do you think all those who are guided approached quran in Arabic?...  I got to agree that I didn't reach quran in Arabic coz I don't know what is written in it initially ..  But I kept reading in a language I know.... Guidance started to flow....  Later slowly wanted to verify with what is actually  written in Quran... But originally door opened to me in my own language... Do the verses 67:8 and 39:71 matches to me... If angels asks in case I am in hell.. Didn't the messengers come and recite?...  Can I say No?..in 17:15 it is said we don't punish without a messenger being sent.  So for example Tsunami which devastated in 2004... Is it from God?  Yes... Is it a punishment... Yes... Those who destroyed doing wrong?  Yes... Coz God doesn't punish with destruction good people.. That's clear with Quran... So.. Who was the messenger/s to those nations destroyed?...is it Quran?  One option... But have they all heard quran? That's doubtful... Then who were their messengers?...  Messengers can only be a human or everything that God has created... With creation only Ibrahim got his initial guidance... God says to some people in hell in Quran  35:37" Therein they shall shout, 'Our Lord, bring us forth, and we will do righteousness, other than what we have done.' 'What, did We not give you long life, enough to remember in for him who would remember? To you the warner came; taste you now! The evildoers shall have no helper.'
Here it is not mentioned as Messenger came but warmer (Nazeer) same as 67:8.. All Warners won't simply God assigned messengers... If you warn me with one of the Quranic verses.. Are you not a Warner... If one of the signs of God's creations warns me.. Isn't it a Warner... If a destruction of a society does warn you of some super natural power..doesnt it mean destruction is a Warner...in a long life one not gets all his her experiences as warning then he lived a selfish life doomed by satan...
34:28 and other relevant verses in which words like naas or alamin cannot be taken always as all the people of the world.. If you take all words of naas and alamin you will find they befit according to the context of the verses...

In my understanding  of Quran no one including Mohamed was your or our Messenger... But they were messengers and we should believe in them all equally... And no distinction among them...

1. First of all the word 'Muhammad' does not appear in the Quran.  Even when we are asked to say Shahada we say, "muhammadun rasool allah". The word Muhammadun is an adjective hence not a proper name. ?Muhammadun? in the verses 3:144, 33:40 and 48:29, and ?Muhammadin? in the verse 47:2. (Nunation (tanween) at the end of the word never comes after a name or proper noun in Arabic)
2. Rasool does not mean 'messenger', it means the message.  Out of about 300 places where rasool appears, many places it just cannot be translated as 'messenger'  (See 19:51 etc)
3. In 48:29 'muhammadun rasool allah' cannot be translated as "muhammad  IS  rasool of allah". If this is what God wanted to say, it would have been 'muhammad huwa rasool allah'. As it appears in the Quran, all translators translate it erroneously.
But the way it is in the Quran, it can only be translated as 'muhammadun of rasool of allah' or praiseworthy of the message of al-lah

Pease

Quote from: mmkhan on September 12, 2018, 04:44:52 PM
Salaamun all,

Whenever I see 14:4 it confirms me that Muhammad was not my Rasool.
I don't have to believe in him. I don't have to follow his teachings.

I don't know why people [who are around me] are not honest to themselves.
They say that they believe in alQuraan fully and also say that they accept each and every word of it, but they simply ignore this aayat.


Please take a look.

14:4  وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ ۖ فَيُضِلُّ اللَّـهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ
14:4 And We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

. Muhammad were not sent in my community / people.
. Muhammad did not speak my language.

So, how he can be my Rasool?
He was sent in Arabs, he was a Rasool for Arabs only and not for others.

These are my personal understandings. Please study and seek Allah's guidance. He is 'the best' Guide.

Is it necessary your own language to understand God's order?

Salaamun brother,

Quote from: frbnsn on December 05, 2018, 06:21:23 AM
Is it necessary your own language to understand God's order?

Topic is not about understanding Allah's message or order.
No need of a book or a rasool or a nabi to understand Allah's message and to follow it.

Quote from: mmkhan on December 16, 2018, 06:29:36 AM
Salaamun brother,

Topic is not about understanding Allah's message or order.
No need of a book or a rasool or a nabi to understand Allah's message and to follow it.

And which is that message? Can you quote it for us here?


Salaam

Salaamun,

Quote from: huruf on December 16, 2018, 10:15:49 AM
And which is that message? Can you quote it for us here?


Salaam

Message depends upon an individual.
It defers from person to person.

It delivers to every individual directly from Allah.
In other words it is called Atiu-Allaha.

Quote from: mmkhan on December 16, 2018, 01:03:00 PM
Salaamun,



Message depends upon an individual.
It defers from person to person.

It delivers to every individual directly from Allah.
In other words it is called Atiu-Allaha.

I understand Allahu I do not understand Atiu ?what do you meen by that?

As to being personal, nothing against that, but
apart from that

Do you mean that God must not send any message to, a common message to some people or to all people?

You said:

"No need of a book or a rasool or a nabi to understand Allah's message and to follow it."

The term "need" is too tricky. For that matter, we do not need to live nor to be born, nor even if we care too much for ourselves nd feel like we might indeed need to live, what about washing our clothes or ourselves, do we need that, and how often would be the need to be  real need...


Saying we do not need is not saying much by my reckonning. We also do not need to have children, particularly since it such an aful cruelty to women to bear them most of the time, and we should not be cruel.

But let us say that fine we do not need it. But even if we do not need it why should we not prefer to have it. To make people it seems quite helpful. Should we waive everything that is not abolutely necessary (whateve that means?
On the other hand you do know the Qur'an, so you may not need it now but you have had it. Would you be sure if you had never had it you would feel the same as to its need. Of course that you cannot know because you cannot experience that.

What would our life be if we only had only, nly, those things that are necessary (again whatever "necessary" means)?

Salaam 

Salamun Alaikum

For those who say that we do not need a guidance from Allah or a Rasool that brought that message of guidance, I refer you to Al Qur'an 3/164.

Peace

Quote from: shad The Melink=topic=9610333.msg419912#msg419912 date=1543045233
1. First of all the word 'Muhammad' does not appear in the Quran.  Even when we are asked to say Shahada we say, "muhammadun rasool allah". The word Muhammadun is an adjective hence not a proper name. ?Muhammadun? in the verses 3:144, 33:40 and 48:29, and ?Muhammadin? in the verse 47:2. (Nunation (tanween) at the end of the word never comes after a name or proper noun in Arabic)
2. Rasool does not mean 'messenger', it means the message.  Out of about 300 places where rasool appears, many places it just cannot be translated as 'messenger'  (See 19:51 etc)
3. In 48:29 'muhammadun rasool allah' cannot be translated as "muhammad  IS  rasool of allah". If this is what God wanted to say, it would have been 'muhammad huwa rasool allah'. As it appears in the Quran, all translators translate it erroneously.
But the way it is in the Quran, it can only be translated as 'muhammadun of rasool of allah' or praiseworthy of the message of al-lah

Pease

So "a praiseworthy of God's message", and those with him (the message) strong against the disbelievers and  compassionate amongst themselves..."
would be a correct translation of the beginning of that aya?

What about this?:
""O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."


This very similar to the sentence in 48.29
Would also this be 'isaa is just a message of God...?

Salaam

يَـٰٓأَهْلَ Yaaa Ahla (o people) ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ al Kitaabi (of the book) لَا laa (do not) تَغْلُواْ taghloo (exaggerate) فِى fee (in ) دِينِكُمْ deenikum (your obligations), وَلَ wa laa (and do not) تَقُولُواْ taqooloo (say) عَلَى aala (upon/over) ٱللَّهِ Allahi (the creator/God) إِلَّا illa (save) ٱلْحَقَّ‌ۚ alhaqq (the truth), إِنَّمَا innama (that what) ٱلْمَسِيحُ al Maseehu (the anointed) عِيسَى Eesa (Iisa) ٱبْنُ abnu (retrieval/constitute/build) مَرْيَمَ Maryamma (of Mariam) رَسُولُ Rasoolu (message/sending) ٱللَّهِ Allahi (of the creator/God) وَكَلِمَتُهُۥٓ wa Kalimatuhooo (and His words) أَلْقَـٰهَآ alqaahaaa (of the Brilliance of Hers) إِلَىٰ ilaa (unto) مَرْيَمَ Maryamma (Mariam) وَرُوحٌ wa roohun (and an inspiration) مِّنْهُ‌ۖ minhu (from Him), فَـَٔـامِنُواْ fa aaminoo (must comply) بِٱللَّهِ billaahi (with the creator/God) وَ wa (and) رُسُلِهِ Rusulihee (with his message/sending) وَ wa (and) لَا laa (do not) تَقُولُواْ taqooloo (say) ثَلَـٰثَةٌ‌ۚ salaasah (three/trinity), ٱنتَهُواْ antahoo (desisting/stopping) خَيْرًا khairan (is better/good) لَّكُمْ‌ۚ lakum (for you). 4:171

Quote from: huruf on December 17, 2018, 03:43:19 AM
So "a praiseworthy of God's message", and those with him (the message) strong against the disbelievers and  compassionate amongst themselves..."
would be a correct translation of the beginning of that aya?

What about this?:
"

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّـهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّـهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ ۖ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّـهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ ۚ انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا اللَّـهُ إِلَـٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّـهِ وَكِيلًا ﴿١٧١﴾ "

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."


This very similar to the sentence in 48.29
Would also this be 'isaa is just a message of God...?

Salaam