An analogy for "obey God and obey the messenger"

[Wakas]

peace all,

"obey God and obey the messenger" is often cited by Traditionalist Muslims in an attempt to convince others this refers to non-Quranic sources, such as Traditional Ahadith etc. This claim is often made by people who simply have not studied this expression in The Quran, nor the terms "hadith/narration", "sunna/way" , "hikma/wisdom/judgement" which are NEVER used the way they claim today, i.e. their association with non-Quranic traditional sources. Also, those making this claim tend to be unfamiliar with the history of their own beliefs, because if this expression clearly meant what they claim it to mean, then the obvious question is why was Al Shafi the first to argue for the legality of Traditional Ahadith linked to authentic Sunna about 200 hundred years after Prophet Muhammad's death? And when he did, he received opposition from various groups across the muslim world. This is well documented. These problems are for Traditionalists to address and resolve. In any case, onto the analogy:

When a term such as "messenger" is used it primarily refers to role, i.e. a person can only be a messenger when they have a message. Who the actual person is, is not as important, because they are defined by them having a message (in this case, The Quran). If they have no message, they are not a messenger.

If we remove our traditional baggage and emotion, we can easily show this with an example:

At a swimming pool or beach, if there is a sign that says "Please obey the lifeguard at all times." then it is directly referring to the person's role as a lifeguard and nothing else. Let's say the lifeguard's name happened to be Fred, imagine the difference in meaning if the sign said "Obey Fred at all times". We can all see that this is a totally different message! It is no coincidence that every swimming pool or beach in the entire world* does not use a sign that refers to the person's name rather than their role, as they know it would be nonsense.

* none that I have seen or heard of at least.



It is also important to note that when addressing an audience of people, some of which may believe in a god/deity, simply saying "obey God" with no reference to a source is open to abuse, hence the clarification. This can easily be proved by going to anyone who believes in God, e.g. Christian, and say to them "obey God" to see how they react, and you will quickly find out why there is a need to clarify a source.


###
Background reading:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Rethinking_Tradition_Modern_Islamic_Thought.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Scripture-Discussions-Authority-Traditions/dp/0230605354/
http://www.fonsvitae.com/shafii.html

[dc2]

At a swimming pool or beach, if there is a sign that says "Please obey the lifeguard at all times." then it is directly referring to the person's role as a lifeguard and nothing else. Let's say the lifeguard's name happened to be Fred, imagine the difference in meaning if the sign said "Obey Fred at all times". We can all see that this is a totally different message! It is no coincidence that every swimming pool or beach in the entire world* does not use a sign that refers to the person's name rather than their role, as they know it would be nonsense.

A very clever analogy Wakas, makes a strong point. I will be using it - Thanks!

[TheJoker]

A very clever analogy Wakas, makes a strong point. I will be using it - Thanks!

Clever indeed. Fits perfectly with 29:14, imo.

[Rev.John]

peace all,

"obey God and obey the messenger" is often cited by Traditionalist Muslims in an attempt to convince others this refers to non-Quranic sources, such as Traditional Ahadith etc. This claim is often made by people who simply have not studied this expression in The Quran, nor the terms "hadith/narration", "sunna/way" , "hikma/wisdom/judgement" which are NEVER used the way they claim today, i.e. their association with non-Quranic traditional sources. Also, those making this claim tend to be unfamiliar with the history of their own beliefs, because if this expression clearly meant what they claim it to mean, then the obvious question is why was Al Shafi the first to argue for the legality of Traditional Ahadith linked to authentic Sunna about 200 hundred years after Prophet Muhammad's death? And when he did, he received opposition from various groups across the muslim world. This is well documented. These problems are for Traditionalists to address and resolve. In any case, onto the analogy:

When a term such as "messenger" is used it primarily refers to role, i.e. a person can only be a messenger when they have a message. Who the actual person is, is not as important, because they are defined by them having a message (in this case, The Quran). If they have no message, they are not a messenger.

If we remove our traditional baggage and emotion, we can easily show this with an example:

At a swimming pool or beach, if there is a sign that says "Please obey the lifeguard at all times." then it is directly referring to the person's role as a lifeguard and nothing else. Let's say the lifeguard's name happened to be Fred, imagine the difference in meaning if the sign said "Obey Fred at all times". We can all see that this is a totally different message! It is no coincidence that every swimming pool or beach in the entire world* does not use a sign that refers to the person's name rather than their role, as they know it would be nonsense.

* none that I have seen or heard of at least.



It is also important to note that when addressing an audience of people, some of which may believe in a god/deity, simply saying "obey God" with no reference to a source is open to abuse, hence the clarification. This can easily be proved by going to anyone who believes in God, e.g. Christian, and say to them "obey God" to see how they react, and you will quickly find out why there is a need to clarify a source.


###
Background reading:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Rethinking_Tradition_Modern_Islamic_Thought.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Scripture-Discussions-Authority-Traditions/dp/0230605354/
http://www.fonsvitae.com/shafii.html

Surely, if the messenger is bringing a message from God, then by obeying that message you are obeying God not the messenger. So the phrase "Obey God" should be sufficient.

[Wakas]

The delivery of the revelation would have been primarily oral, at least to begin with, so it's not like a messenger would make a speech then hand out copies of the message. Thus, in verbal statements, to only say "obey God" with no reference to a source or specifying it would be open to abuse and can be interpreted in several ways by the audience, especially if there are already groups within the audience who believe in god, e.g. jews, christians. As I said, try this in real life and you will quickly realise the need to clarify a source, e.g. if you say "obey God" to a Christian, they will say that is what they have been doing, or that is what they try to do, or that is why they follow The Bible so they can obey God etc.

If you are speaking about when we have an actual book in our hands, and it says "obey God" in it only and in various places says it is from God, then ok, you have a point, there is perhaps no need to add "and obey the messenger" in this case.

[Meteora]

peace all,

"obey God and obey the messenger" is often cited by Traditionalist Muslims in an attempt to convince others this refers to non-Quranic sources, such as Traditional Ahadith etc. This claim is often made by people who simply have not studied this expression in The Quran, nor the terms "hadith/narration", "sunna/way" , "hikma/wisdom/judgement" which are NEVER used the way they claim today, i.e. their association with non-Quranic traditional sources. Also, those making this claim tend to be unfamiliar with the history of their own beliefs, because if this expression clearly meant what they claim it to mean, then the obvious question is why was Al Shafi the first to argue for the legality of Traditional Ahadith linked to authentic Sunna about 200 hundred years after Prophet Muhammad's death? And when he did, he received opposition from various groups across the muslim world. This is well documented. These problems are for Traditionalists to address and resolve. In any case, onto the analogy:

When a term such as "messenger" is used it primarily refers to role, i.e. a person can only be a messenger when they have a message. Who the actual person is, is not as important, because they are defined by them having a message (in this case, The Quran). If they have no message, they are not a messenger.

If we remove our traditional baggage and emotion, we can easily show this with an example:

At a swimming pool or beach, if there is a sign that says "Please obey the lifeguard at all times." then it is directly referring to the person's role as a lifeguard and nothing else. Let's say the lifeguard's name happened to be Fred, imagine the difference in meaning if the sign said "Obey Fred at all times". We can all see that this is a totally different message! It is no coincidence that every swimming pool or beach in the entire world* does not use a sign that refers to the person's name rather than their role, as they know it would be nonsense.

* none that I have seen or heard of at least.



It is also important to note that when addressing an audience of people, some of which may believe in a god/deity, simply saying "obey God" with no reference to a source is open to abuse, hence the clarification. This can easily be proved by going to anyone who believes in God, e.g. Christian, and say to them "obey God" to see how they react, and you will quickly find out why there is a need to clarify a source.


###
Background reading:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Rethinking_Tradition_Modern_Islamic_Thought.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Hadith-Scripture-Discussions-Authority-Traditions/dp/0230605354/
http://www.fonsvitae.com/shafii.html

And I proved the meaning of obey the messenger countless times in the rebuttals to Saleh, and Uthmaan. You (and everyone else) should read them.

[Zees]

Why write obey the messenger then? Do you really think that the prophet's job was simply to deliver the message like a mute witness? The prophet must have taught the people how to live their lives according to the Quran? Like the surah the name of which is "HE FROWNED" a blind companion came to the prophet for understanding a verse of the quran but he was busy proselytizing to the pagan Quraysh and so the surah was revelaed. This interpretative function of the prophet was there. After the order for salat was proclaimed he must have taught people how to pray. People did use to come to the prophet with their problems and he used to decide them according to the Quran. So here is my question, did he have a interpretative function to explain the Quran to the people or not?

[jaythikay99]

Why write obey the messenger then? Do you really think that the prophet's job was simply to deliver the message like a mute witness? The prophet must have taught the people how to live their lives according to the Quran? Like the surah the name of which is "HE FROWNED" a blind companion came to the prophet for understanding a verse of the quran but he was busy proselytizing to the pagan Quraysh and so the surah was revelaed. This interpretative function of the prophet was there. After the order for salat was proclaimed he must have taught people how to pray. People did use to come to the prophet with their problems and he used to decide them according to the Quran. So here is my question, did he have a interpretative function to explain the Quran to the people or not?

prophet delivered the quran that tells us how to live our lives according to God.

[farida]

Why write obey the messenger then? Do you really think that the prophet's job was simply to deliver the message like a mute witness? The prophet must have taught the people how to live their lives according to the Quran? Like the surah the name of which is "HE FROWNED" a blind companion came to the prophet for understanding a verse of the quran but he was busy proselytizing to the pagan Quraysh and so the surah was revelaed. This interpretative function of the prophet was there. After the order for salat was proclaimed he must have taught people how to pray. People did use to come to the prophet with their problems and he used to decide them according to the Quran. So here is my question, did he have a interpretative function to explain the Quran to the people or not?

Salaam
Prophet Mohammad was specially chosen to establish the deen of Islam which he did before he passed away. Basic of this deen have stayed with us though it has been diluted a lot due to hediths, so our duty is to go back to pure deen as established by the honourable massengers. We should ignore all other Tom DIck and Harry who are trying to take the interpretative function to explain the Quran.

[afridi220]

Salaam
Prophet Mohammad was specially chosen to establish the deen of Islam which he did before he passed away. Basic of this deen have stayed with us though it has been diluted a lot due to hediths, so our duty is to go back to pure deen as established by the honourable massengers. We should ignore all other Tom DIck and Harry who are trying to take the interpretative function to explain the Quran.

Hmmm that sounds like Mullah Great