:: Was Muhammed name of a Prophet? ::

[Bender]

 

Salaam, Bender,

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

Salaamun alayki,

thx you to for the kind words 
We are all responsible for the way a discussion goes including myself.

I remember in one of the threads that brother mmkhan said that the Arabic word "ism" does nto mean name. I think, after thinking it over myself, that that assumption might have something to do with the difficulty for him to say straight what he has in mind, if he knows it.

I can't speak for MmKhan but I know that I have this problem.
It is very hard for me to express my thoughts in written words, let alone in a language which is not my motherstongue.

"Ism" might not be a 100% equivalent of "name" in English but certainly in a big proportion it is equivalent. He opposed name to attribute if I don't remember wrong. Well, may be that opposition might be made in English but not necessarily in Arabic, and if we think of it, any name is named after attributing something to the named. Persons are named when they are born, but that is just a usage. Usually many things and persons through history have been named after the name they earned, not the name they were given at birth or inception.

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

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

RED: yes that is entirely possible, but his proper name could also be Ahmed or Richard.

I have very great doubts on that and not because I think that it cannot be applied to anybody any time if she or he fulfills de conditions, but because the fact that it might include other people does most certainly not exclude the person then and there who was existant when it was said or revealed for the Qur'an.

No I am not excluding the person then 

But as far as I know The Quran never says that AlQuran was revealed and/or given for the first time to a man named Mohammed, this information did not came to us from The Quran but from sources other then The Quran.

In fact it occurred to me long time ago, that the khatam an-nabiyin, if taken as last prophet, what it would mean would be that for those who believe in that prophet, that khatam, they would not be needing any other prophet, that is, they would have reached adult age as believers and faithful and would themselves emancipate and be for themselves and for their community their prophets, that is a community of universal prophethood. That is one way which I thought could be interpreted, which in itself is full of meaning. Obviously for those who did no benefit from the prophethood of Muhammadun, there might be other prophets, I do not know, but I see it as possible.

Sure it is a possibility. I think we have to think out of our boxes to understand the ayaats of The Quran better. As long as we have preprogrammed information which is not Quran based then it is very hard to grasp the ayaats of The Quran.

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

I understand that some might think this. But that is absolutely not true. The Mohammed mentioned in The Quran is nothing to be ashamed of 
But I can not proof from The Quran that he was  the transmitter of the Quran  And as long as no body can proof this I have every option open.
And 1 of the many options is that there was a man who's proper name was Mohammed and that he was the first person who got The Quran.

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

Salaam

thank you to for your detailed response.

Salaam and may Allah lead us to the truth,
Bender

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

Salaam

Not sure what you meant here, I thought we were discussing the name Mohammed

[kgwithnob]

...Brother if there is something which you can not comprehend it does not mean that I speak of ignorance....

Dear Bender,

1st: By using the word ?ignorance? I did not mean to insult you. I meant, lack of knowledge regarding rules of Arabic language.

Furthermore I want to state that you can study The Quran only in 1 way and that is with the help of Allah.
Grammar books and other sources besides Allah will only confuse you.

2nd: Common sense dictates that, if a particular language is NOT my mother tongue, then for me to understand it and be able to render a correct and valid opinion regarding that language, is to first study and learn the rules and regulations governing the language.

3rd: Arabic language existed long before the revelation of The Qur?aan, and then Allaah, swt, decided to pick Muhammad, pbuh, as His Prophet messenger, giving The Qur?aan to him. Muhammad was an Arab, speaking Arabic. So, The Qur?ann MUST had been revealed in Arabic following its grammatical rules in order for Muhammad and his people to understand it. That is why 26:198,199 inform us that if The Qur?aan was sent down to NONE Arabs and read to them, they wouldn?t believe in it. Why? Because it was not in their tongue.

Anyways, maybe you can look again at one verse before every ayaat you mentioned.
I will give you the first one:
26:105  كَذَّبَتْ قَوْمُ نُوحٍ الْمُرْسَلِينَ
As you can see Almurasleena is plural. How is that possible? So who are those " الْمُرْسَلِينَ " when we know that only Nuh was sent.

Same goes for every ayaat you mentioned, inshaAllah it will be more clear for you.

4th: What does this have to do with the subject of this tread?

I answer it anyway. Those people had rejected the messengers that had come to them BEFORE Noohh, Hood, Saalih, Loot, and Shu?ayb.

Peace,
Khalil     

[The_Chimp]

Salaamun alayka,

Thank you for mentioning those verses and alhamdu to The One who  has showed me those ayaats long time ago 

Brother if there is something which you can not comprehend it does not mean that I speak of ignorance.
Maybe I have have knowledge that has not reached you yet.
And even if I am wrong then it's not because of ignorance but because I am always in learning phase.
Allah never called Ibrahim ignorant when he searched for Him even when he was wrong. No Allah says Ibrahim was not of almushrikeen.

Anyways, maybe you can look again at one verse before every ayaat you mentioned.
I will give you the first one:
26:105  كَذَّبَتْ قَوْمُ نُوحٍ الْمُرْسَلِينَ
As you can see Almurasleena is plural. How is that possible? So who are those " الْمُرْسَلِينَ " when we know that only Nuh was sent.

Same goes for every ayaat you mentioned, inshaAllah it will be more clear for you.

Furthermore I want to state that you can study The Quran only in 1 way and that is with the help of Allah.
Grammar books and other sources besides Allah will only confuse you.

Salaam and may Allah increase our knowledge
Bender

Hi,

Saying that Grammar books are there for confusion is stupidity. It is Allah who has constrained us to language and that is why other sources are necessary. Often when people say this:

" I want to state that you can study The Quran only in 1 way and that is with the help of Allah. " - it tends to be meaningless cop-outs. Everything happens because of the almighty. But when you are ill, you still head for the doctor.

As to the Mursileen being plural, then those are the Prophets before Noah.

[The_Chimp]

Salaamun alayka,

And what exactly does this proof?

Salaam,
Bender

It disproves this:

"The only thing I know at the moment is that from my study and with what Allah showed me, Mohammed of 48:29 can never be a name of a person, probably it is something like a title."

[The_Chimp]

I understand that some might think this. But that is absolutely not true. The Mohammed mentioned in The Quran is nothing to be ashamed of 
But I can not proof from The Quran that he was  the transmitter of the Quran  And as long as no body can proof this I have every option open.
And 1 of the many options is that there was a man who's proper name was Mohammed and that he was the first person who got The Quran.

Quran does prove [it is not 'proof'] that a person named Muhammad received the Quran. I am sorry to say, your whole basis is illogical. As a Sunni, I am thinking how blessed I am. About 1500 years history doesn't disappear like that. Your dilemma is evidence as to why the "Quran only" position is so illogical and leads to chaos.

I have given you two verse that are pretty explicit:


Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful.

Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing.

There is no confusion.

[The_Chimp]

Salaamun alayka,

I can only find ayaats like this:
12:02 Inna anzalnahu quranan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona
I never saw ayaats like this:
- Inna anzalnahu quranan AAarabiyyan illa ismu Ibrahim laAAallakum taAAqiloona

Salaam,
Bender

Hi,

Please learn basics of Arabic and have some humility to ask if unsure rather than dictate to people.

Ibrahim is name of Hebrew origin and not of Arabic. However the name is Arabicised.  For example the name Benjamin is Anglicised version of the Hebrew name Ben Yamin - which in Arabic is Binyameen.

In Arabic foreign names are classed as Ghayr Munsarrif [ Mamnu al-Sarf] - which means they do not have Tanween.

[Bender]

Dear Bender,

1st: By using the word ?ignorance? I did not mean to insult you. I meant, lack of knowledge regarding rules of Arabic language.

Salaamun alayka,

2nd: Common sense dictates that, if a particular language is NOT my mother tongue, then for me to understand it and be able to render a correct and valid opinion regarding that language, is to first study and learn the rules and regulations governing the language.

Ok that is for you 

3rd: Arabic language existed long before the revelation of The Qur?aan, and then Allaah, swt, decided to pick Muhammad, pbuh, as His Prophet messenger, giving The Qur?aan to him. Muhammad was an Arab, speaking Arabic. So, The Qur?ann MUST had been revealed in Arabic following its grammatical rules in order for Muhammad and his people to understand it. That is why 26:198,199 inform us that if The Qur?aan was sent down to NONE Arabs and read to them, they wouldn?t believe in it. Why? Because it was not in their tongue.

I will give you again  not because I agree with you but because you say a lot of things which are not from The Quran and only if you read a couple of verses before and after 26:198,99 then you will come inshaAllah to new understandings.

4th: What does this have to do with the subject of this tread?

everything

I answer it anyway. Those people had rejected the messengers that had come to them BEFORE Noohh, Hood, Saalih, Loot, and Shu?ayb.

Peace,
Khalil     

Brother, making a word in capitals and bold does not make it part of The Quran 
Maybe you wish there was a BEFORE but I am sorry.

Here is a verse were BEFORE is used.
22:42 وَإِن يُكَذِّبُوكَ فَقَدْ كَذَّبَتْ قَبْلَهُمْ قَوْمُ نُوحٍ وَعَادٌ وَثَمُودُ
Here is a verse were AFTER is used.
7:68 أَوَعَجِبْتُمْ أَن جَاءَكُمْ ذِكْرٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَلَىٰ رَجُلٍ مِّنكُمْ لِيُنذِرَكُمْ ۚ وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ جَعَلَكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ مِن بَعْدِ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ وَزَادَكُمْ فِي الْخَلْقِ بَسْطَةً ۖ فَاذْكُرُوا آلَاءَ اللَّـهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

in 26:105 it would be something like this: Kaththabat qablahum qawmu noohin almursaleena

Salaam,
Bender

[Bender]

Hi,

Saying that Grammar books are there for confusion is stupidity. It is Allah who has constrained us to language and that is why other sources are necessary. Often when people say this:

" I want to state that you can study The Quran only in 1 way and that is with the help of Allah. " - it tends to be meaningless cop-outs. Everything happens because of the almighty. But when you are ill, you still head for the doctor.

Salaamun alayka,

As to the Mursileen being plural, then those are the Prophets before Noah.

read the last paragraph in the reply above.

Salaam,
Bender

[Bender]

It disproves this:

"The only thing I know at the moment is that from my study and with what Allah showed me, Mohammed of 48:29 can never be a name of a person, probably it is something like a title."

Salaamun alayka,

You forgot on what you were replying 

I will remind you inshaAllah:
Because we acknowledge that the Quran was delivered by a man called Muhammad


Please go back in the thread to make sure on what you are replying.

Salaam,
Bender

[Bender]

Quran does prove [it is not 'proof'] that a person named Muhammad received the Quran.

Salaamun alayka,

RED: thank you 
BLUE: prove please

I am sorry to say, your whole basis is illogical. As a Sunni, I am thinking how blessed I am. About 1500 years history doesn't disappear like that. Your dilemma is evidence as to why the "Quran only" position is so illogical and leads to chaos.

Allah never named you sunni 

I have given you two verse that are pretty explicit:


Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful.

Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing.

There is no confusion.

And what do they proof?

Salaam,
Bender