Blog Home Member's Area  AastanaBlog: AASTANA.COM 

Join AASTANABLOG
Share your Quranic thoughts, research and knowledge with other's.
It's free, easy and only takes a minute.
Sign up Now

TRANSLATION OF QURAN
BY DR. QAMAR ZAMAN
Translation Status
آیات
سورۃ
نمبر
1-7 الفَاتِحَة -1
1-286 البَقَرَة -2
1-200 آل عِمرَان -3
1-176 النِّسَاء -4
1-120 المَائدة -5
1-165 الاٴنعَام -6
1-206 الاٴعرَاف -7
1-75 الاٴنفَال -8
1-129 التّوبَة -9
1-109 یُونس -10
1-123 هُود -11
1-111 یُوسُف -12
1-43 الرّعد -13
1-52 إبراهیم -14
1-99 الحِجر -15
1-128 النّحل -16
1-111 بنیٓ اسرآئیل / الإسرَاء -17
1-110 الکهف -18
1-98 مَریَم -19
1-135 طٰه -20
1-112 الاٴنبیَاء -21
1-78 الحَجّ -22
1-118 المؤمنون -23
1-64 النُّور -24
1-77 الفُرقان -25
1-227 الشُّعَرَاء -26
1-93 النَّمل -27
1-88 القَصَص -28
1-69 العَنکبوت -29
1-60 الرُّوم -30
1-34 لقمَان -31
1-30 السَّجدَة -32
1-73 الاٴحزَاب -33
1-54 سَبَإ -34
1-45 فَاطِر -35
1-83 یسٓ -36
1-182 الصَّافات -37
1-88 صٓ -38
1-75 الزُّمَر -39
1-85 المؤمن / غَافر -40
1-54 حٰمٓ السجدة / فُصّلَت -41
1-54 القَمَر -54
Read Now


»«
QURAN
TRANSLATIONS
Add Your QuestionView More QuestionsEmail this DiscussionPrinter Friendly View
Salam...................Surah-e-furqan ayat 32 ko define krdain.
Add Your Comments  Question by: UMAR HUSSAIN On 15 April 2010
Comments by: Adnan Khan On 20 April 2010Report Abuse
Follwoing is the translation of ayat # 32 of 25 and then the further definition of this ayat in SORA AL-MUZZAMMIL..... this is the espaciality of QURAN that it defines its every word itself. if you go throgh the QURAN in order to find or research something you would be amazed that HOW QURAN defines each and every thing within itself.......  
 
32/25. One of the objections of those who oppose this code of life is to question why the entire Quran was not revealed to the Rasool at one time (so that once and for all we would have known what to accept)?  
O Rasool!  This Quran is being revealed gradually (in planned stages) so that it can be enforced and implemented as it is being revealed to you; and its positive and pleasant results become a source of strength for you.  All its teachings are closely knit and its contents progress in stages in an organized manner.  Such a programme should come in a continuous sequence.  
 
The above ayat has Further been defined in SORA AL-MUZZAMMIL  
 
1/73.O Rasool! After undertaking the most important responsibility of Risalat, the first step is to organize and train your companions so that they have complete uniformity, homogeneity and harmony of vision. (This caravan should then march towards its destination in peace and order. Creating such an organization is the first responsibility of the leader.)  
 
2/73 It is for this purpose that their continuous education and training is very important. (You might not have enough time during the day, therefore) You will also have to work during the night (for furterh definition see 17:79; 76:26).  
 
3/73 This does not mean that you have to stay awake the whole night. Perhaps half of it, or more, or less (as required).  
 
4/73. During these assemblies, explain the Quran to them in a manner that its comprehensiveness and discipline are beautifully highlighted. Then inculcate this in the same order in their practical life. (You should work on its injunctions with harmony; just like how we have tied its various verses.)  
 

Comments by: aurangzaib On 27 April 2010Report Abuse
Dear brother Adnan,  
 
Beautifully explained. Many thanks.  
 
God bless you.

Comments by: UMAR HUSSAIN On 27 April 2010Report Abuse
salam..adab-e-guftugo ka taqaza hota hai k jis zuban me sawal kya jae usi me jawab b diya jae.. me ne urdu me sawal puchha tha, jwab urdu me de diya jae to munasib hoga.....jazakumALLAH.

Comments by: Maniza On 29 April 2010
dear brother umar hussain,  
 
indeed it is correct what you have stated, but there are many people who will recieve benifit if the answers (questions) are in english..

Comments by: UMAR HUSSAIN On 29 April 2010Report Abuse
Musammat Muneeza......Lekin jb sawal puchne wala hi na samjhe to?????????

Comments by: Maniza On 30 April 2010
Salam merey bhai umar,  
 
sub sey asaan toe yeh ho ga k ap kisi sey parha lain, woh ap ko angraizi seh urdu main samjah dain, hamaray lei toe bohot mushkil hay kay ham is ko roman angraizi main jawab dain.. agar koi kar sakta hai toe uski mehar bani ho gi.. hamay ehsas hai ap ki mushkil ka, aur bohot kushi hai k ap Allah swt kay baat aur pegaam ko samjna chahtey hain.  
Allah swt ham sub ki mudud karey jo Quran k asal pegaam ko samjna chahtay hain.

Comments by: UMAR HUSSAIN On 30 April 2010Report Abuse
salam...  
aap ne itna kuch likh diya agar JAWAB hi tehrir kar diya hota to behtar tha..khair.. ALLAH HAFIZ

Comments by: Dr. Samreen Mohsin On 04 May 2010Report Abuse
Brother aap ko jawab chahye tha wo mill gaya, Adnan sb. k jawab me jo notable cheez hai wo ye k QURAN me bohat se muqamat aisey hain jo kahin or BHI DEFINE howey hain is k liye aap ko thorhi mehnat darkar ho gi...  

Comments by: Saeed On 14 October 2011Report Abuse
Dear Moazzam if there is no divine intervention in universe then who appointed messanger/prophets.

Comments by: Saeed On 14 October 2011Report Abuse
Dear Moazzam if there is no divine intervention in universe then who appointed messanger/prophets.

Comments by: Saeed On 14 October 2011Report Abuse
Moazzam:I said time and again in my posts that, there is/will be no direct divine interventions in the universe (especially in the people’s affaires) at all.  
 
Brother Moazzam than who appointed Messangers/prophets as in the case of Moses.

Comments by: moazzam On 15 October 2011
Dear saeed! ! Answer to your question has already replied, let me rearrange it again for your convenience, please read carefully.  
As direct words of Alkitab have their importance, the appropriate sense of the words (as per context) is more important as well.  
Any verse which showing direct divine (Allah's) involvement, in fact means, through the due course of procedure which has been described in Alkitab or as per laws of nature. There are many verses which supports this claim, for example the following, where the procedure required for its existence into being is also described.  
2/7 خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ  
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil;  
4/155  
فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ وَكُفْرِهِم بَآيَاتِ اللّهِ وَقَتْلِهِمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ وَقَوْلِهِمْ قُلُوبُنَا غُلْفٌ بَلْ طَبَعَ اللّهُ عَلَيْهَا بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً  
(They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; We need no more)";- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe.  
How Allah seals the hearts of men directly.  
verse 67/16 Such are men whose hearts Allah has sealed, and who follow their own lusts.  
How Allah took their light to leave them blind by his directly intervention?  
2/17 ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ  
Allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see.  
 
Remember same is the case to appoint the Rasool/Nabi, for example the process of appointing Rasool at Maqaman Mahmooda has been described in verse 17/79  
وَمِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَتَهَجَّدْ بِهِ نَافِلَةً لَّكَ عَسَى أَن يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُودًا.  
As for as bestowing the Prophet hood to Moses is concerns I have already explained the process of his appointment in details at other thread. He also gone through the due course of process to become Rasool/Nabi.  
LET ME QUOTE THE DR. QAMARZAMAN’S INFERANCE IN THIS CASE  
 
Dr. Qamarzaman: whole system of نبوت and رسالت is misunderstood either intentionally or unintentionally. Supernatural aspect with mythological background is attached to the concept of رسالت and نبوت , in simple words رسالت means to convey the message ,and نبوت means the appointment of a person at a position where he has authority to implement the message .  
The proof for that is that we don’t find any terminology in Quran for “ Head of a state “ except نبی .All the orders given to نبی are for the head of the state .  
So he has not to prove his position of نبوہ by miracles as نبوہ has no supernatural or mythological aspect. none of the head of the state in past present or in future has to prove his mythological appointment . It’s the people who decide the best person for that post, and once selected or elected he has all the powers to implement laws.  
As brother Aurangzaib said, I think, he will be a man of unmatched qualities and highest human attributes. He will be the one with unparalleled wisdom, genius and foresight. He will be the best combination of leader of men, diplomat, ruler and general. His role will always be that of the Savior of humanity.  
He will stand up against the hegemonic designs of super powers and against all exploiters and tyrants of the time.  
 
So, I think, it may not be difficult to recognize him, IF he appears in our modern, scientific age.  
 
 
 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 15 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM:  
 
I'm sorry bother, but you did not "fully" answer his question:  
 
***SAEED:Brother Moazzam than who appointed Messangers/prophets as in the case of Moses.***  
 
MOAZZAM:I said time and again in my posts that, there is/will be no direct divine interventions in the universe (especially in the people’s affaires) at all.  
 
Do you consider Jibril to be "direct" or "indirect" intervention?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
.

Comments by: Nargis On 15 October 2011Report Abuse
Do you consider Jibril to be "direct" or "indirect" intervention?

Jibril is the Quran! KAA BOOM, surprised?


Comments by: Mubashir Syed On 16 October 2011Report Abuse
@Nargis, boom shaka la ka la ka boom.....boom i thought Jibbu was busy taking souls out of body of Muslims like Yamraj does for Hindus.  
 
Note: Fabricators really did a good job to twist the terminology and make Islam virtual, invisible,mythology....etc  
 
Thanks,  
Mubashir Syed.

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 16 October 2011Report Abuse
NARGIS,  
 
***KAA BOOM***  
 
LOLx10! You are a funny sister! Thank you for a great belly laugh:D  
 
Anyway, I'll bite, please prove that Jibril is Al-Quran.  
 
Let's see which Category you fall into:  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?MID=3&SID=41&QID=1825  
 
SHA ZAMM! :D  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: moazzam On 16 October 2011
Dear Dhulqarnain and Aastana Members ! See the sense of Quranic term JIBRIL  
 
READ THE VERSES 2/297-99 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBJECT, WHILE KEEPING IN MIND THE SENSE OF THE TERMINOLOGIES USED THE MATTER WILL BE CLEARED TO YOU,WHETHER ALLAH SENT DOWN THE JIBRIL AS A MALIKA OR IT IS ALKITAB(DIVINE MESSAGE).  
 
TERMINOLOGIES USED IN VERSES 2/97-99  
JIBREELجِبْرِيلَ = the divine message (Alkitab)  
RUSUL َرُسُلِهِ = those who convey the message (divine message)  
MIKAALمِيكَالَ = who advocates (the divine message)  
MALAIKAمَلآئِكَتِهِ = law enforcement agencies (officials those are responsible to implement the law and orders (Islamic state’s constitution).  
BE IZINALLAH بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ =according to Allah’s law  
2/97  
قُلْ مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
Say: Whoever is an enemy to  
JIBREELجِبْرِيلَ(the quranic message) which He revealed عَلَى قَلْبِكَ(in your mind) according to Allah's law of revelation بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ , a confirmation of what they have in their hands مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ , and guidance and glad tidings for those لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ (who want to live in peace/peace providers)  
2/98  
مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ  
Whoever is an enemy to Allah(the Islamic state) and Hisمَلآئِكَتِهِ law enforcement agencies (officials those are responsible to implement the law and orders) and messengers, toجِبْرِيلَ the divine message(Alkitab) and toَمِيكَالَ those who advocates (the divine message),- Lo! Allah (the Islamic state) is an enemy to those who reject/refuse/deny.  
 
99 وَلَقَدْ أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ ۖ وَمَا يَكْفُرُ بِهَا إِلَّا الْفَاسِقُونَ  
We revealed at you آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ (ALKITAB) and none reject them but those who are perverse.  
66/4  
إِن تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا وَإِن تَظَاهَرَا عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ مَوْلَاهُ وَجِبْرِيلُ وَصَالِحُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ ظَهِيرٌ  
If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, theالْمَلَائِكَةُ will back (him) up  
IN ABOVE VERSE IF JIBRIL WOULD ONE OF MALAIKA THEN WHY الْمَلَائِكَةُ SEPARATLY MENTIONED IN THE SAME VERSE.  
 
PLEASE FIND HERE UNDER THE DESCRIPTION OF DR. QAMARZAMAN.  
۔ مباحث:۔  
جبر ئیل کاذکر قرآن میں کل تین مرتبہ آیا ہے سورہ البقرہ کی آیات ۹۷ اور۹۸ اور سورۃ التحریم کی آیت نمبر ۴ میں۔ پورا قرآن گواہ ہے کہ کفار نے جب کبھی بھی دشمنی کی ہے تو وہ احکامات الہی سے کی ہے۔ اس آیت سے پہلےبھی بنی اسرائیل کی تاریخ بتاتے ہوئے اسی بات کو واضح کیا ہے کہ جب کبھی بھی ان کو وحی الہی کی دعوت دی گئی تو انہوں نےماننے سے انکار کر دیا اور سرکشی پر اتر آئے۔ قرآن میں کہیں بھی جبرئیل سے دشمنی کی بات نہیں کی گئی ہے۔ یہ کہانی روایات کی دین ہے یاد رکھئے قرآن نہ تو کسی فرشتہ نما مخلوق کی بات کرتا ہے اور نہ ہی کسی ایسے فرشتہ کی جس کا نام جبرئیل تھا۔آئیے اس آیت کا لفظ بہ لفظ ترجمع کرتے ہیں، قُلْ کہہ دو مَن جو كَانَ ہے عَدُوًّا دشمن لِّجِبْرِيلَ جبریل کا فَإِنَّهُ تو یقیناً نَزَّلَهُ نازل کیا اس کو عَلَىٰ قَلْبِكَ تمہارے قلب پر بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ اپنے قانون نزول کے مطابق مُصَدِّقًا مصدق ہے لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ اس کی جو ان کے پاس ہے وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ اور ہدایت اور خو شخبری مومنوں کے لئے۔ اس آیت میں دو جگہ ضمیر واحد مذکر غائب کی آئی ہے فانّہ میں ضمیر کا مرجع اللہ ہے او دوسری جگہ نزّلہ میں ضمیر کا مرجع کتاب ہے۔  
 
اس آیت میں لفظ میکال آیا ہے ۔اس کا وزن مِفعَال کا ہےجس کے معنی میں "آلہ" یعنی جس چیز سے کوئی کام لیا جائے۔ میکال کا مادہ " و ک ل " ہے جس کے معنی ہیں کسی کی وکالت کرنا۔ میکال کے معنی ہوں گے وہ دلائل یا وہ لوگ جو احکامات الہی کی وکالت کریں۔  
آیت نمبر ۹۹ قطعی طور پر نہ صرف واضح کر رہی ہے بلکہ تصدیق بھی کر رہی ہے کہ جبرئیل احکامات الہی ہی کا دوسرا نام ہے ۔  
 
 
99 وَلَقَدْ أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ ۖ وَمَا يَكْفُرُ بِهَا إِلَّا الْفَاسِقُونَ  
اور ہم نے تمہارے پاس واضح دلائل ارسال فرمائے ہیں، اور ان سے انکار وہی کرتے ہیں جو قانون شکن ہیں۔  
 
دیکھ لیجئے جبرئیل کون ہے ؟ احکامات الہی یا فرشتہ؟  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 16 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM and NARGIS,  
 
***MOAZZAM: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)  
 
******MOAZZAM: RUSUL = those who convey the message (divine message)***  
 
If Jibril is the divine message/Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, as you proffer and not an intermediary force/ maliaka between Allah and His Prophets, then you contradict yourself when you say:  
 
***MOAZZAM: therefore its Allah’s dicision that there will be no direct divine intervention in any physical formation or in human affairs.***  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1824#COM9628  
 
A. If Jibril was not an intermediary agent between Allah and His Prophets and Messengers, then Allah made direct contact with them by giving them Al-Kitab/Al-Quran (how else would they get Al-Kitab/Al-Quran; from what other source?).  
 
B. If Allah did not make direct contact with His Prophets and Messengers and Jibril is Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and not a malaika/intermediary agency, then the only thing left is that the Prophets studied nature and then conceived and wrote Al-Kitab/Al-Quran/Jibreel, themselves.  
 
So, which is it…A or B?  
 
Are you in category A or B? If it's A, the you've got to give the ayat where Allah calls Jibril Al-Quran/Al-Kitab, otherwise, you're in category B:  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=41&QID=1825  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: moazzam On 17 October 2011
Dear Dhulqarnain!  
Remember there is difference between two types of delivery of knowledge(message)  
1) The eternal divine message given first time to man kind when he became full conscience being which is beyond time and space is called Alkitab/Alquran/Alrooh/Rooh Alqudus this was given through AL AMR we can’t understand it also we don’t know the media).verse 17/85 MA OTITUM MIN AL ILM ILLA QALILAH.This is also present in the universe, the universe have knowledge/principles / laws, which reveals through conceiving in human mind, same is the case with ALKITAB/ALROOH.  
2) The revelation of message of Alkitab to Rasool of the time in any era, while pondering into it and through observation in universe. The human brain is the media (how Allah reveals message) the conceiving of ideas as usually human being thinks(the thinking process).And this is still continued  
 
I have been quoting quranic references in my all posts, the matter under question has also been discussed time and again with Quranic references at this blog,whether you ignored or you intentionally over looked?If you insist to be replied as per you arranged categories, my all answers falls in category A not B  
 
 
 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 17 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM,  
 
***MOAZZAM: Remember there is difference between two types of delivery of knowledge(message)***  
 
1) The eternal divine message given first time to man kind when he became full conscience being which is beyond time and space is called Alkitab/Alquran/Alrooh/Rooh Alqudus this was given through AL AMR we can’t understand it also we don’t know the media).verse 17/85 MA OTITUM MIN AL ILM ILLA QALILAH.This is also present in the universe, the universe have knowledge/principles / laws, which reveals through conceiving in human mind, same is the case with ALKITAB/ALROOH. 2) The revelation of message of Alkitab to Rasool of the time in any era, while pondering into it and through observation in universe. The human brain is the media (how Allah reveals message) the conceiving of ideas as usually human being thinks(the thinking process).And this is still continued . I have been quoting quranic references in my all posts, the matter under question has also been discussed time and again with Quranic references at this blog,whether you ignored or you intentionally over looked?***  
 
Moazz, you didn’t address this statement by you:  
 
***MOAZZAM: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
Your above response did not prove your assertion. Could you please provide the ayat where Allah says Jibreel is Al-Kitab? Until you can your assertion is Category B  
 
CATEGORY B:  
 
I “THINK”: to consider something as a possible action; to have a belief or opinion; to believe to be true of someone or something.  
 
OPINION: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.  
 
CONJECTURE: inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork;  
a statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork; the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.  
 
BELIEF: something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=41&QID=1825  
 
***If you insist to be replied as per you arranged categories, my all answers falls in category A not B***  
 
Well, not this one. :)  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: naeem sheikh On 18 October 2011Report Abuse
Mr Dhulqarnain: Now I am sure, you intentionally ignore the Mozzam's replies furnished with quranic references and quotations.  
If you gone through the already explained answer of Brother moazzam by dated 16th October about GIBRIL = DIVINE MESSAGE WRITTEN IN ALKITAB/ ALROOH ,then you would not bother to repeat the same question.  
I really astonished by reading your following statement ,why you not read the post care fully?  
 
"Moazz, you didn’t address this statement by you"  
 
***MOAZZAM: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
"Your above response did not prove your assertion. Could you please provide the ayat where Allah says Jibreel is Al-Kitab? Until you can your assertion is Category B "  

Comments by: Nargis2 On 18 October 2011Report Abuse

In order to understand Jibreel, focus on the word "enemy",, whoever is an enemy of jibreel....  
 
If Jibreel is an angel, and only the prophet can meet him having tea time etc, then how can ANYONE be an enemy of Jibreel?  
 
If he is an angel, not human being, then how would anyone DARE to be an enemy of Jibreel?  
 
IF he is a force, a special force no other than the prophet can see, then how can other human beings be enemies of him?  
 
If Jibreel is having enemies, where are those enemies ?  
 
What other information is available in the Quran regarding these enemies?  
 
There is only ONE THING, the opposition have been an enemy to,,from Iblees to Pharaoh, from Pharaoh to Abu Jahl and so on...there is only one thing they have opposed....  
 
The message,  
 
as a bonus, they have been enemies to everyone who advocate or deliver this message  
 
To understand it in depth, have a look at the enemy mentioned, and then ponder where those enemies are and if they are mentioned in the Quran separately or not.  
 
JIBREELجِبْرِيلَ(the quranic message) which He revealed عَلَى قَلْبِكَ(in your mind) according to Allah's law of revelation بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ , a confirmation of what they have in their hands مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ , and guidance and glad tidings for those لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ (who want to live in peace/peace providers)  
 
Look, Jibreel is REVEALED on his mind....Only the Quran is revealed on his mind  
 
and that to, according to the law's of Allah, baizn Allah--  
 
Jibreel is not revealed through a supernatural channel, he is directly revealed on the mind through the laws of Allah- Jibreel is not a flying angel who fell on the head of prophet, and THEN he gave a message...  
 
It is clealy saying he was revealed, Jibreel was revealed through the laws of Allah  
 
For example the 3 laws of Newton where revealed to Newton through the laws of Allah,,his effort to observe and hard work to find it....  
 
Just like the mathematical formulas or the laws of Newton would have been the same if it was found by Adam 123456789 thousand years ago, likewise Jibreel is the same no matter when it is revealed  
 
Its all there, they are not invented, they are discovered....  
 
People think im a troll, so they don't even dare to be my enemies,,,and in the case of Jibreel, our translators want us to believe he is having enemies, although he is a force from seven eleven, sorry I mean heaven


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 18 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS and MOAZZAM,  
 
***NARGIS: In order to understand Jibreel, focus on the word "enemy",, whoever is an enemy of jibreel....If Jibreel is an angel, and only the prophet can meet him having tea time etc, then how can ANYONE be an enemy of Jibreel? If he is an angel, not human being, then how would anyone DARE to be an enemy of Jibreel? IF he is a force, a special force no other than the prophet can see, then how can other human beings be enemies of him? If Jibreel is having enemies, where are those enemies ? What other information is available in the Quran regarding these enemies? ***  
 
The above is not material to your assertion that, Jibreel=Al-Quran/Al-Kitab.  
 
***NARGIS: There is only ONE THING, the opposition have been an enemy to,,from Iblees to Pharaoh, from Pharaoh to Abu Jahl and so on...there is only one thing they have opposed....The message, as a bonus, they have been enemies to everyone who advocate or deliver this message***  
 
Ahhh, and now you get it. Jibreel does not equal Al-Quran/Al-Kitab, but he is the enemy of many, because he was the agency which delivered Al-Quran to the Last Prophet by the Command of Allah.  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel — for surely he brought it down to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
As you can see, Al-Quran did not bring itself down. Something brought it to him. If Jibreel is not the intermediary agency between Allah and "Muhammad", but is, as you and Moazzam assert Jibreel=Al-Quran/The Words of Allah, then Allah revealed it directly to the mind of “Muhammad”. If this is the case, then that contradicts yours and Moazzam’s assertion that Allah does not directly intervene in the affairs of humans.  
 
If you cannot produce an ayat where Jibreel=Al-Quran, then your assertion is Category B and must be withdrawn:  
Category B:  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=41&QID=1825  
 
Dhulqaranin-  
 

Comments by: Nargis2 On 18 October 2011Report Abuse

where does it say Jibreel is the agency that delivered the Quran to the prophet?  
 
and where are the enemies of Jibreel described in the Quran?  
 
When did the Quran say people can meet this "agency" and become his enemy?  
 
How is it possible to be an enemy of this "agency"?  
 
Is this "agency" visible to others than the prophet?  
 
And what is this "agency"?


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 18 October 2011Report Abuse
NARGIS and MOAZZAM,  
 
***where does it say Jibreel is the agency that delivered the Quran to the prophet?***  
 
This should be self-explanatory.  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel — for surely he brought it down to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
AGENCY:The means or mode of acting; instrumentality; a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved.  
 
You and Moazzam assert that Jibreel=Al-Quran/Al/Kitab/The Words of Allah. Now, the next question becomes how did Jibreel=Al-Quran/Al/Kitab/The Words of Allah get from Allah to the mind of “Muhammad”? What action/agency made this possible? Following are your choices:  
 
a) From Allah directly.  
 
b) Via Jibreel  
 
So, unless you have third choice, which do you choose, a or b?  
 
Dhulqarnain-.  
 

Comments by: Nargis2 On 18 October 2011Report Abuse
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel — for surely he brought it down to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.

*** 2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel  
 
this is NOT saying Gabriel is an agency  
 
**** 2:97 for surely he brought it down to thy heart by Allah’s command  
 
Not saying he is an agency- fa-innahu nazzalahu alā qalbika  
 
Why are you adding "agency" to this ayah, just to "win" a debate?  
 
Look at the last part of this aya, which is saying "verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers."  
 
Is it Gabriel, the Agency, who is verifying that which is before it and is A GUIDANCE AND GLAD TIDINGS FOR THE BELIEVERS ?  
 
Or is it the Quran, which is not mentioned in this Ayah according to your understanding?  
 
The last part is confirming who or what Gabriel is.....  
it is clearly saying ba izne Allah which is the law of Allah. Gabriel is revealed by ba izne Allah....  
 
Why have you not answered other questions related to the claim, where are these enemies? are not the Quran fully detailed?  
 
These questioins are overlooked by your attempt to smuggle the word "agency" in the book of Allah...  
 
Sounds like category HD, hadith junkey syndrome....:P  
 
where does it say Jibreel is the agency that delivered the Quran to the prophet?  
 
and where are the enemies of Jibreel described in the Quran?  
 
When did the Quran say people can meet this "agency" and become his enemy?  
 
How is it possible to be an enemy of this "agency"?  
 
Is this "agency" visible to others than the prophet?  
 
And what is this "agency"?  
 
I WONDER WHY YOU OVERLOOK THESE QUESTIONS?


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 18 October 2011Report Abuse
NARGIS and MOAZZAM,  
 
***I WONDER WHY YOU OVERLOOK THESE QUESTIONS?***  
 
I am not interested in peripheral questions; you know me. I'm interested in an astounding assertion made by you and Moazzam and the central issue to this discussion: Jibreel-=Al-Quran/Al-Kitab/The Words of Allah. This is my focus. You and Moazzam, repeatedly, have stated that Allah does not interfere directly in the affairs of humans. So, the principle question then is--how did "Muhammad" acquire Al-Quran? Ayat 2:97 answers this question, but you and Moazzam believe otherwise. Again, if Allah didn't directly reveal Al-Quran to the mind of "Muhammad" and Jibril didn't, because you and Moazzam claim that Jibril=Al-Quran/Al-Kitab/The Words of Allah, how did the Words of Allah/Al-Quran get to the mind of "Muhammad"? So, once again, here are your choices:  
 
1. Jibril, per ayat 2:97  
 
2. Allah directly revealed it to the Prophet, because Jibril/Al-Quran are Allah's Words.  
 
These are your only options, Princess. Choose one and defend it.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: Nargis2 On 19 October 2011Report Abuse

Yes we are repeating questions relevant to the overlooked point by your translators, ENEMY.  
 
however, it is you who is adding words to the ayah so it fits into your under preconceived idea of agencies.  
 
why have you added words like agency from yourself?  
 
You keep asking the same questions and overlook the answer, DIRECT REVEAL THE QURAN,,,look at the word be izne Allah...  
 
Look at the last part of 2:97...which is clear,,,,,if you can see  
 
If you don't want to see, no1 can helps you. Not even the Quran,,which is not talking to you right now, coz you have committed the crime of adding words like "agency",,,just like Beemari and co did.... :-O :-O :.P


Comments by: naeem sheikh On 19 October 2011Report Abuse
MR dAWOOD, MR. dHULQARNAIN  
IT IS OBSERVED IN THE BEGINNING, UNTIL UNLESS YOU KEEP ON STICKING WITH ORTHODOX TRANSLATIONS YOU COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THE REAL QURANIC MESSAGE AT ALL.  
HOW COULD IT BE POSSIBLE, EVEN YOU ARE NOT READY TO KNOW THE REAL SENSE OF QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES DEFINED BY LATEST QURANIC RESEARCH AT AASTANA.COM (I E QURAN EXPLAINS ITSELF).THAT BECAME POSSIBLE ONLY BY INTENSIVELY PONDERING INTO QURANIC WORDS,GRAMMATICAL FORMATION, OBSERVING CONTEXT, UNIVERSAL LAWS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE CORE MESSAGE OF QURAN AND BY APPROPRIATE SELECTION OF MEANINGS FROM LEXICON.

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 19 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM and NARGIS,  
 
Please stop playing games again. I thought we had moved past such games.  
 
Both of you know full well that the central issue of this discussion is the following assertion:  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
If Jibril is the divine message/Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, as you proffer and not an intermediary force/ maliaka/agency between Allah and His Prophets, then you contradict yourself when you assert.  
 
***MOAZZAM: therefore its Allah’s dicision that there will be no direct divine intervention in any physical formation or in human affairs.***  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1824#COM9628  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel — for surely he brought it down to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
AGENCY: The means or mode of acting; instrumentality; a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved.  
 
Ayat 2:97 defines Jibreel as an "agency". You and Nargis understand what this term means so please don't act as if you don't.  
 
Following are your options:  
 
a) Allah revealed Al-Quran/His Words directly to "Muhammad".  
 
b) Jibreel was given Al-Quran by Allah and then he (Jibreel) revealed it to the mind of "Muhammad".  
 
c) "Muhammad" studied nature and wrote Al-Quran/ Jibreel/The Words of Allah, on his own.  
 
So, which is it…a, b, or c?  
 
Please don't ask me any other questions. I simply want you to defend the CENTRAL ISSUE YOU BROUGHT UP:  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)  
 
Please choose option a, b, or c.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 

Comments by: moazzam On 19 October 2011
Dear Dhulqarnain! Remember "WAHY" means conceiving of ideas in mind. Rasool take this wahy by pondering into Alkitab and in the universe.  
AS FAR AS ALQURAN IS CONCERNS ASK TIS QUESTION FROM ALQAUAN.  
THEY ASK ABOUT ALROOH(Alkitab/Alquran/Rooh alqudus)?  
REPLY THEM; THIS IS MIN AMR RABBI; you have given very little knowledge 17/85.  
 
 
a) Allah revealed Al-Quran/His Words directly to "Muhammad".  
 
b) Jibreel was given Al-Quran by Allah and then he (Jibreel) revealed it to the mind of "Muhammad".  
 
c) "Muhammad" studied nature and wrote Al-Quran/ Jibreel/The Words of Allah, on his own.  
 
So, which is it…a, b, or c?  
 
Please don't ask me any other questions. I simply want you to defend the CENTRAL ISSUE YOU BROUGHT UP:  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)  
 
Please choose option a, b, or c.  
Answer; none of them  
Dhulqarnain  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 19 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM and NARGIS,  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
***MOAZZAM: Remember "WAHY" means conceiving of ideas in mind. Rasool take this wahy by pondering into Alkitab and in the universe. ***  
 
Oh, I see, he got some wahy from pondering Al-Kitab/Al-Quran/Jibreel (as you asssert) and some from pondring the universe, is this really your position?!  
 
How then did Prophet "Muhammad", the Messenger of Allah, get the Al-Kitab/Al-Quran/Jibreel. part?  
 
a) Allah revealed Al-Quran/His Words directly to "Muhammad".  
 
b) Jibreel was given Al-Quran by Allah and then he (Jibreel) revealed it to the mind of "Muhammad".  
 
c) "Muhammad" studied nature and wrote Al-Quran/ Jibreel/The Words of Allah, on his own.  
 
Saying none of them is just inexplicable.  
 
Dhulqarnain-.  
 
 
 

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 19 October 2011Report Abuse
If you may allow to step in.  
 
Jibril is based upon root of Jeem-Ba-Ra and has the basic meaning of applying external force to something to keep it straight. This can be applying to the railings along a road that would stop the outgoing car from leaving the road. The word Jibreel is mentioned thee times and the context in all cases is talking about the abilty of Quranic laws to keep its followers on the straight path with the neccessary force (for their own good) This Quality of Quran is Jibreel.  
 
There is no mention of Jibreel being an angel or messenger, but is rather the ability of the message itself.  

Comments by: Iqbal kay shaheen On 20 October 2011Report Abuse
Salaam Dr. Shiraz.  
 
Excellent deliberations on Jibreel, please indulge more with your knowledge, I have personally always enjoyed your contributions. Al-gebra, Jabbaar, all deravitives of JBR, meanings by absolute force.  
 
Thank you.

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 20 October 2011Report Abuse
Thank you for this "Iqbal ke Shaheen"  
 
If you study surah 66, for example, with a proper dictionary at hand, you will see that the surah is not talking about wives, but rather companions or groups who are asking to make some amendments in the quranic laws. This so it may suit them better.  
 
It is even mention of some group that took the wisdom from Nabi but when it was time to educate their own people of it, they told them a part and left a part. In other words, they tried to hide the parts of the law that they did not see to benefit then personally. They were hence kafirs (hiders). When the correct effect did not visualize in their society as a result of this neglect, it got very apparent to the nabi that these people were not following the given instructions to the point.  
 
The surah is then telling them that they do not have to make any change to this law in order to draw benefit of it. This law works as a package and by removing some part or adding some part, you may not get the same result as wanted.  
 
In this context the word jibreel is mentioned. Here the ability of Quran Law is defined. It is said that this law has the restrictive force to not produce the positive result if tempered with. So in order to get the proper result, you may have to follow the proper path. This is a restriction on you that is for your own good. The ability of Quranic laws to not allow the flexibility to do something wrong by changing the law and then get away with it, is Jibreel.

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 24 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE, MOAZZAM, NARGIS, DR. SHIRAZ,  
 
Ha! Moazzam and Nargis, just when you thought it was safe to continue to pursue your conjecture-fest with abandon here I am, once again, to attempt to save you from yourselves. :D  
 
***DR. SHIRAZ :If you may allow to step in. Jibril is based upon root of Jeem-Ba-Ra and has the basic meaning of applying external force to something to keep it straight. This can be applying to the railings along a road that would stop the outgoing car from leaving the road. The word Jibreel is mentioned thee times and the context in all cases is talking about the abilty of Quranic laws to keep its followers on the straight path with the neccessary force (for their own good) This Quality of Quran is Jibreel. There is no mention of Jibreel being an angel or messenger, but is rather the ability of the message itself.***  
 
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him, except by revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases. Surely He is High, Wise.  
 
According to Al-Quran, Jibreel is a messenger and not the Message/Al-Quran/Al-Kitab as you claim.  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
Ayat 2:97 is making it known that Jibreel, an agency of some type (remember now, according to the grammar, Jibreel is a proper name/noun), who brought something from his Creator, Allah, to the mind of “Muhammad”.  
 
16:102 Say: The Holy Spirit has revealed it from thy Lord with truth, that it may establish those who believe, and as a guidance and good news for those who submit.  
 
Ayat 16:102 is making it known that Holy Spirit is Jibreel, an agency of some type, who brought something from his Creator, Allah, to the mind of “Muhammad”.  
 
26:192-196 And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds./The Faithful Spirit has brought it,/On thy heart that thou mayest be a warner,/In plain Arabic language./And surely the same is in the Scriptures of the ancients.  
 
Again, as with the aforementioned ayats, ayats 26:192196 are making it known that the Faithful Spirit is Jibreel, an agency of some type, who brought something from his Creator, Allah, to the mind of “Muhammad”.  
 
81:19-22 Surely it is the word of a bountiful Messenger, /The possessor of strength, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, /One to be obeyed, and Faithful. /81:22 and your companion is not mad. /And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon.  
 
Ayats 81:19 and 21 refer to a messenger who is faithful (Jibreel is referred to as the faithful spirit). This messenger cannot be “Muhammad” or any other wordly messenger, because this messenger is established in the presence of Allah Himself. Also, “Muhammad” saw this messenger on the horizon, hence, “Muhammad” was not seeing himself on the horizon.  
 
Conclusion: Jibreel, while not being angel, was a messenger from Allah.  
 
Moazzam and Nargis, you did not address the following, yet?  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
***MOAZZAM: Remember "WAHY" means conceiving of ideas in mind. Rasool take this wahy by pondering into Alkitab and in the universe. ***  
 
If “Muhammad” got some wahy from pondering Al-Kitab/Al-Quran/Jibreel (as you asssert) and some from pondering the universe, how then did Prophet "Muhammad", the Messenger of Allah, get the Al-Kitab/Al-Quran/Jibreel. part?  
 
a) Allah revealed Al-Quran/His Words directly to "Muhammad".  
 
b) Jibreel was given Al-Quran by Allah and then he (Jibreel) revealed it to the mind of "Muhammad".  
 
c) "Muhammad" studied nature and wrote Al-Quran/ Jibreel/The Words of Allah, on his own.  
 
Saying none of them is none answer.  
 
***MOAZZAM: therefore its Allah’s dicision that there will be no direct divine intervention in any physical formation or in human affairs.***  
 
If there was no direct intervention from Allah to “Muhammad”, then Jibreel cannot be Al-Kitab/Al-Quran/divine message, as you claim, because how did “Muhammad” get the divine message, then?  
 
If Jibreel is an agency from Allah, as Al-Quran supports, then there is no direct intervention from Allah.  
 
Which position are you going take? It’s one or the other, because they contradict.  
 
Remember, the message is divine, then it can only come from Allah--not man or nature.  
 
Dhulqarnain-.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 25 October 2011Report Abuse
Dear Dhulqarnain.  
 
You are refering to the commonly accepted translations of verses and jumping to conclusions.  
 
Just take the first vers you mentioned. 42:51.  
 
Why are you translating the word bashar to mortal? What is the link between being a bashar and being a mortal? Are you refering to the human body when you say mortal? But the revelation does not come to the human body, or does it? Is it so that when mortals die and become imortals in hereafter, God do not speak to them anymore?  
 
So accoring to your understand, there are 2 ways to "listen to God".  
1. Revelation behind a veil.  
2. Sending a messenger who reveales what God permits.  
 
Please note that Jibreel is not mentioned here. The word rasool is written as common and not specific. Furthermore, the word rusool has nothing to do with messaging. Why would a messanger be sent to a messanger?  
 
How many times is there a mention of revelation from behind a veil? Was the veil not appropriate during cases where a messenger had to be sent?  
 
Such questions and other are something that common translations do not satisfy and hence they are cracks in the wall of understanding. You cant put them forth as evidence in any case.  

Comments by: Nargis On 25 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE, MOAZZAM, NARGIS  
 
Ha! Moazzam and Nargis, just when you thought it was safe to continue to pursue your conjecture-fest with abandon here I am, once again, to attempt to save you from yourselves. :D

PEACE OF CAKE 2 U 2,DHULQARNAIN :-D  
 
Welcome back from camp obese , you didn't really need it though, your being too shallow these days argghh:-D ...Ill reply later, have an assignment to finish. this time ill send you to camp rehab :-D :-D


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 25 October 2011Report Abuse
LOL!!...camp obese! How did you know! :D  
 
Looking forward to your reply...as always.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 25 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE DR. SHIRAZ, MOAZZAM, and NARGIS,  
 
***You are refering to the commonly accepted translations of verses and jumping to conclusions.***  
 
Just take the first vers you mentioned. 42:51.  
 
***Why are you translating the word bashar to mortal? What is the link between being a bashar and being a mortal? Are you refering to the human body when you say mortal? But the revelation does not come to the human body, or does it? Is it so that when mortals die and become imortals in hereafter, God do not speak to them anymore?***  
 
18:110 Say: I am only a mortal like you — it is revealed to me that your God is one God. So whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and join no one in the service of his Lord.  
Bashar=mortal=human being=bashar. You should know this.  
 
***So accoring to your understand, there are 2 ways to "listen to God". 1. Revelation behind a veil.  
2. Sending a messenger who reveales what God permits.***  
 
I’m not certain of what—“from behind a veil” means so I won’t address the issue, however, messenger, I am prepared to discuss.  
 
***Please note that Jibreel is not mentioned here.***  
 
That doesn’t matter. What’s important is the Al-Quran defines him as a messenger, and, the messenger who brought Al-Quran to “Muhammad”. Please review my Oct. 24 post on this thread.  
 
***The word rasool is written as common and not specific. Furthermore, the word rusool has nothing to do with messaging. ***  
 
Messenger is messenger is messenger. Any messenger, by definition, brings a message. How do you have a messenger, of any type, who has no message?  
 
***Why would a messanger be sent to a messanger?***  
 
In this case, a messenger, Jibril, came not to a messenger, but to a—prophet. Once the prophet was given the message by Jibril, he is then a messenger-prophet.  
 
***How many times is there a mention of revelation from behind a veil? Was the veil not appropriate during cases where a messenger had to be sent? Such questions and other are something that common translations do not satisfy and hence they are cracks in the wall of understanding. You cant put them forth as evidence in any case.***  
 
Who knows?  
 
Anyway, the central issue in this discussion is as follows:  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
***MOAZZAM: Remember "WAHY" means conceiving of ideas in mind. Rasool take this wahy by pondering into Alkitab and in the universe. ***  
 
If Jibreel isn’t a messenger, as Moazzam and Nargis claim, then Allah would have had to deliver the message directly. If this be the case, then they contradict their other position that Allah does not directly intervene in human affairs:  
 
***MOAZZAM: therefore its Allah’s dicision that there will be no direct divine intervention in any physical formation or in human affairs.***  
 
Moazzam and Nargis have yet to prove their assertion that: “JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)/Al-Quran”…can you help them…?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 26 October 2011Report Abuse
Dhulqarnain  
 
Please see all verses were the word Jibrail is mentioned. See how the root meaning of jabar fits in the context. Also note that 2 of these 3 places, malaika are mentioned in addition to Jibrail. If Jibrail is one of the malaika (regardless what malaika is) then the mention of Jibreel should not be in addition but the verbal form should have been "including". That is not the case.  
 
Bashar does not mean mortal, since in that case all animals and other living thing would be bashar. (mortal = finite = has to die some day).  
 
Note that it says that 42:51 says something about Allah giving His Kalima to bashar. This does not directly mean "speaking" because sending a message via a messenger is not the definition of speaking to someone.  
 
As it is described, this kalima can be presented either via Wahi, from behind Hijaab, or via a messenger.  
 
As I said, the verse is also not specifying if this messenger is a specific one. You say that it does not have to, but why should Quran make such a gramatical error then? If I would send you a message by any messenger, then I would say "I will send you a messenger". This form is general. But if that messenger is a specific one, then I would say "I will send you the messenger" In this case I would not need to specify in this sentence whom this messenger is, because that would have been defined somewhere else in the context, or through our some previous conversation.  
 
The form of 42:51 is not specific but general, and either this is mention of Jibraeel or a grammatical error. What would you prefer?  
 
Getting back to bashar. Let us suppose that this word means mortal, in that case as well, the better word would be nabi or rusool. By our understanding, only those two categories receive the message. If bashar means mortal then any mortal is entitled to the kilam of Allah. Does that sound right to you?  
 
as I mentioned earlier, it is not that simple as to say that Al-Kitab is Jibreel. However, Jibreel is the ability of Al-kitaab to enforce people to stay on the right path, if they desire the promised results. In other words, thinking of the law as Quran would mean "the complete and strong one" thinking of it as Al-kitab would mean "the finalized one", and thinking of it as Jibreel would mean "the one that enforces"  
 
The prove is in the logic and the proper use of the words and language. Do not disregard a logical explanation of moazzam and nargis by presenting more illogical translations. Ergo, you shall see the logic yourself.  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 26 October 2011Report Abuse
Dhulqarnain  
 
***Please see all verses were the word Jibrail is mentioned. See how the root meaning of jabar fits in the context. Also note that 2 of these 3 places, malaika are mentioned in addition to Jibrail. If Jibrail is one of the malaika (regardless what malaika is) then the mention of Jibreel should not be in addition but the verbal form should have been "including". That is not the case.***  
 
I’m not claiming that Jibreel is of the malaika. Not all messengers are of that class. Some people are messengers. Nonetheless, whatever Jibreel is, and according to the ayats which I presented in my Oct. 24 post on this thread, he is a messenger of some type. Now, don’t get me wrong here, there is still strong evidence to include Jibril in the class of the angels, to wit:  
 
22:75 Allah chooses messengers from among the angels and from among the men; surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing.  
 
Clearly Jibreel is not a human being.  
 
***Bashar does not mean mortal, since in that case all animals and other living thing would be bashar. (mortal = finite = has to die some day).***  
 
Bashar certainly does mean mortal and that would include all living things this side of the Ghaib/Unseen/World to Come. Human being are living things, hence, mortal/basher. Ayat 42:51 is referring to basher as it relates to the human being.  
 
***Note that it says that 42:51 says something about Allah giving His Kalima to bashar. This does not directly mean "speaking" because sending a message via a messenger is not the definition of speaking to someone. As it is described, this kalima can be presented either via Wahi, from behind Hijaab, or via a messenger.***  
 
I never claimed that Allah “speaks” to people or that kalima means “direct speaking to”. We have no argument here.  
 
***As I said, the verse is also not specifying if this messenger is a specific one. You say that it does not have to, but why should Quran make such a gramatical error then? This form is general. But if that messenger is a specific one, then I would say "I will send you the messenger" In this case I would not need to specify in this sentence whom this messenger is,because that would have been defined somewhere else in the context, or through our some previous conversation. ***  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him, except by revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases. Surely He is High, Wise.  
 
There is no grammatical error in 42:51. The ayat is simply informing humanity as to how Allah communicates His messages to a human being. Your comment simply makes no sense; you’re looking for things which don’t exist.  
 
***Getting back to bashar. Let us suppose that this word means mortal, in that case as well, the better word would be nabi or rusool. By our understanding, only those two categories receive the message. If bashar means mortal then any mortal is entitled to the kilam of Allah. Does that sound right to you?***  
 
Allha did not say nabi or rasul, because there was no messenger to whom Allah communicated, but Allah did communicate with prophets (who some did become messengers others did not), Mary, and the mother of Musa.  
 
3:45 When the angels said: O Mary, surely Allah gives thee good news with a word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, worthy of regard in this world and the Hereafter, and of those who are drawn nigh (to Allah),  
 
28:7 And We revealed to Moses’ mother, saying: Give him suck; then when thou fearest for him, cast him into the river and fear not, nor grieve; surely We shall bring him back to thee and make him one of the messengers.  
 
***as I mentioned earlier, it is not that simple as to say that Al-Kitab is Jibree However, Jibreel is the ability of Al-kitaab to enforce people to stay on the right path, if they desire the promised results. In other words, thinking of the law as Quran would mean "the complete and strong one" thinking of it as Al-kitab would mean "the finalized one", and thinking of it as Jibreel would mean "the one that enforces"***  
 
Are you stating that you reject the notion which Moazzam and Nargis put forth that Jibreel=Al-Kitab? This is really a yes or no answer. Please take a position and defend it.  
 
If Jibreel =Al-Kitab, then Allah communicated directly with His prophet. This position would then contradiction Moazzam' and Nargis's other notion that Allah did not communicate directly with His people. If Jibree does not=Al-Kitab, then Jibreel is a messenger which then contradicts their notion that Jibreel=Al-Kitab. Please state your position on this issue plainly.  
 
***The prove is in the logic and the proper use of the words and language. Do not disregard a logical explanation of moazzam and nargis by presenting more illogical translations. Ergo, you shall see the logic yourself.***  
 
If you examine my arguments--I am, if nothing else, very logical. Thus far, logically speaking and Quranically speaking, you haven’t proven anything, but you have been refuted and proven so. Ergo, you shall see that you don't fully know what you're talking about in regard to this issue...just saying.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
Dhulqarnain  
 
Good argumentation from your side :)  
 
You have stated 22:75 which will be difficult to discuss if we do not establish mutual understanding of the words Malaika and Naas.  
 
In my understanding, these both classes are of humans. Malaika are those in power, and naas are civilizations were citizens live comfortably along with each other. The word in this vers is furthermore, an-naas, the term is specific and hence refering to some specific type of civilization already defined in the text somewhere. Hence all messengers would be humans. But I know that we do not have the same understanding of these words.  
 
Second point was of bashar. Seems like we agree that the target of this word are humans.  
 
Now getting to the gammatical problem which you stated, "does not make any sence". I present an example that there is a difference in saying "Yeh isnaan ke bas ki baat nahin" and "yeh iss insaan ke bass ki baat nahin".  
 
First sentence is general and apply to all insaan, while the second to someone specific. The same is the case of 42:51 where the term is general, not specific. If the intention here is a specific messenger, then the term should have been specific.  
 
***Allha did not say nabi or rasul, because there was no messenger to whom Allah communicated, but Allah did communicate with prophets (who some did become messengers others did not), Mary, and the mother of Musa. ***  
 
I liked this comment. This shows the distinction between bashar and nabi or rasool.  
 
When it comes to my stand regarding Jibreel, I can’t make myself any clear then that Jibreel is an attribution or characteristic or quality of Al-kitaab.  
 
There is a difference between saying that "Shiraz is strong" and saying that "strong=Shiraz"  
Likewise, being Jirbeel is a quality of al-kitaab.  
 
How Allah communicated, can be explained by 42:51, it was either from behind a hijaab, though Wahi, or via a Rasool.  
The matter will off course get a little complicated once we establish the true meanings of hijaab, Wahi and rasool.  
 
But to claim that Jibreel is a messenger from Allah, is something we strongly want to believe. This is not stated anywhere in the Quran. The verses you have pointed out are in general terms, and cant be pinpointed to be about Jibreel.  
 
And yes, your arguments are logical from a general perspective and should certainly be discussed.  

Comments by: bob On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
Ayat 2:97 is making it known that Jibreel, an agency of some type (remember now, according to the grammar, Jibreel is a proper name/noun), who brought something from his Creator, Allah, to the mind of “Muhammad”. Dhulqarnain  
 
ME: Jibraeel is a proper name referring to the Quran. AL Kitab is also a proper noun, referring to the book. You are adding Agency to this ayat, the grammar in this aya is not allowing Jibraeel to be an agent who is revealing something on the Qalb of the prophet- The one who is revealing is HE, Allah, and what is revealed is AL Kitab. Look at it word by word  
 
قُلْ = Say/ Tell/ Convey  
مَن = who  
كَانَ = is  
عَدُوًّا = ENEMY  
لِّجِبْرِيلَ = OF Jibraeel  
فَإِنَّهُ = Then for sure he  
نَزَّلَهُ = revealed it  
عَلَىٰ قَلْبِكَ = on your Qalb  
بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ = According to the laws of Nazool/ laws of revelation, of Allah  
مُصَدِّقًا = (it is) confirming  
يَدَيْهِ بَيْنَ لِّمَا = of what they have  
لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَىٰ = and a guidance and glad tiding for the Momineens  
 
It is Allah who reveals the message, not an agency. In this aya we have only two Masculine singular pronouns, فَإِنَّهُ which is referring to Allah (the one who is revealing the message) and the second singular pronoun نزّلہ, which is a reference to Al Kitab.  
 
اللَّهِ = genitive proper noun  
فانّہ = masculine singular pronoun  
 
لِّجِبْرِيلَ Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun  
نزّلہ Nazaluhu=masculine singular pronoun  
 
الْكِتَابِ Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1  
 
نزّلہ فَإِنَّهُ = then for sure HE revealed IT (الْكِتَابِ / لِّجِبْرِيلَ ) …  
 
The grammar in this ayah is clear.  
 
Go through the Quran and see for yourself that it is the Creator who revealed the message on the Qalb of the prophets, and it is accomplished through the laws اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ of revelation.  
 
For example: Say, Whoever is an enemy of Dhulqarnain, then for sure HE is revealed on your Qalb, according to the laws of Allah confirming what it before it …..At this point one can comprehend that “Dhulqarnain” is revealed on the Qalb of the prophet, he is not revealing anything on the Qalb of the prophet, and HE is the one who is conforming what they have.  
 
The aya is ordering the messenger to convey قُلْ something to “The enemies of Jibraeel”  
 
They need to know that Jibraeel is revealed نَزَّلَهُ by Allah on the Qalb of the prophet, i.e., the enemies are enemies of something revealed by Allah and not enemies of the prophets own thoughts. This is not an introduction of Jibraeel to the enemies, who ALREADY are opponents of Jibraeel. It means they know Jibraeel well enough to have antagonisms with him.  
 
The one who reveals: Allah  
Object revealed: AL Kitab  
 
Antagonists never wanted Al Kitab to be instigated, so they are enemies of those who advocate (Mikael) or convey (Rusool) Wahy (Jibraeel) in order to make Allah supreme ruler of the societies… (In opposition or instead of them, the Iblees Sheyateens and pharaohs)

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE DR. SHIRAZ,  
 
***Good argumentation from your side :) ***  
Thank you for your kind words.  
 
***You have stated 22:75 which will be difficult to discuss if we do not establish mutual understanding of the words Malaika and Naas.***  
 
Agreed.  
 
***In my understanding, these both classes are of humans. Malaika are those in power, and naas are civilizations were citizens live comfortably along with each other. The word in this vers is furthermore, an-naas, the term is specific and hence refering to some specific type of civilization already defined in the text somewhere. Hence all messengers would be humans. But I know that we do not have the same understanding of these words. ***  
 
While I cannot define what the angels/maliaka are (I’ve also heard them referred to as “controllers”), I can say with certainty what they are not. The following ayats determine that the maliaka are not human beings:  
 
17:95 Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.  
 
66:6 O you who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels, stern and strong. They do not disobey Allah in that which He commands them, but do as they are commanded.  
 
74:31 And We have made none but angels wardens of the Fire,  
 
69:17 And the angels will be on its sides. And above them eight will bear that day thy Lord’s Throne of Power.  
 
***Second point was of bashar. Seems like we agree that the target of this word are humans.***  
 
Yes.  
 
*** The same is the case of 42:51 where the term is general, not specific. If the intention here is a specific messenger, then the term should have been specific. But to claim that Jibreel is a messenger from Allah, is something we strongly want to believe. This is not stated anywhere in the Quran. The verses you have pointed out are in general terms, and cant be pinpointed to be about Jibreel. ***  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him, except by revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases. Surely He is High, Wise.  
 
I’m still not quite understanding you, but I believe I’m getting closer, though. I’m reading the ayat as saying: “a” (singular) messenger. Is this your read, as well? IF so, it locks Jibreel, by way of tasreef, into being, in fact, a messenger and the messenger who brought Allah’s message/words/Al-Kitab to the prophets. Once again, the following ayats determine that Jibreel is both “a” messenger from Allah and “the” messenger to the prophets and some others. Let’s reexamine the following ayats:  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
26:192-196 And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds./The Faithful Spirit has brought it,/On thy heart that thou mayest be a warner,/In plain Arabic language./And surely the same is in the Scriptures of the ancients.  
 
81:19-21 Surely it is the word of a bountiful Messenger, /The possessor of strength, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, /One to be obeyed, and Faithful.  
 
Here’s my analysis:  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him… by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases.  
 
In ayat 2:97 Jibreel is cited as the being who brought revelation (the revelation is, in fact, a message, thus, making Jibreel, in fact, a messenger) from Allah to “Muhammad”. What he/Jibreel brought to “Muhammad”—The Message, was to be obeyed (ayat 81:21) by “Muhammad”, hence, the prophet saying in ayat 10:15:  
10:15…I follow nothing but what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I disobey my Lord…  
 
Keep in mind that the phrase—obey the messenger must also apply to “Muhammad”. In other words…who did he obey? Certainly it was Allah, but please keep in mind that Allah, according to 42:51, did not DIRECTLY reveal anything to “Muhammad”, but Jibreel, per ayat 2:97, certainly did, hence, making him the one “Muhammad” had to obey! Jibreel, clearly, is a messenger.  
 
Ayats 81: 19:21 are speaking directly of Jibreel, because there is no other messenger to the prophets other than him, hence, the singular term messenger in ayat 42:51. Remember now that, 42:51 is referring to a messenger who is in the presence of Allah in the Ghaib/outside of this plane of existence. Given the above ayats and analysis, there is no doubt that Jibreel is a messenger and the messenger being referred to in ayats 42:51 and 81:19-21. Do you agree, now?  
 
***When it comes to my stand regarding Jibreel, I can’t make myself any clear then that Jibreel is an attribution or characteristic or quality of Al-kitaab.***  
 
Given that Jibreel was to be obeyed, because he brought the Message/revelation/Al-Quran to “Muhammad”, if he is, as you claim, an attribution or characteristic or quality of Al-kitaab, then the same must be the case for “Muhammad”. Is this your position? If what you’re claiming is the fact, then Jibreel is PART of Al-Quran. If this the fact, then you must bring the ayat or ayats which prove this beyond doubt. Al-Quran, as far as I know, are purely the kalima of Allah Himself.  
 
***How Allah communicated, can be explained by 42:51, it was either from behind a hijaab, though Wahi, or via a Rasool. The matter will off course get a little complicated once we establish the true meanings of hijaab, Wahi and rasool.***  
 
These meaning of these terms are quite clear and are not complicated at all. People complicate them—not Allah’s Message/Al-Quran, to wit:  
 
5:15 O People of the Book, indeed Our Messenger has come to you, making clear to you much of that which you concealed of the Book and passing over much. Indeed, there has come to you from Allah, a LIGHT and a CLEAR Book,  
 
CLEAR: free from obscurity; light; easily seen; sharply defined; easily perceptible to the eye or ear; distinct.  
 
COMPLICATE/COMPLICATED: difficult to analyze, understand, explain, to be to confusing; to be hard to understand; to make difficult.  
 
Allah says His Book is clear. If it’s complicated then it’s from the reader.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Nargis On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
17:95 Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.

which makes Malaika human, as the ayah is saying it is NOT sent from heaven. Read again.  
 

66:6 O you who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels, stern and strong. They do not disobey Allah in that which He commands them, but do as they are commanded.

How is stones fuel of fire? And why are Malaika placed over stones, what is the connection here?As long as you don't leave the orthodox translation, you will not see the Quraniq message..dæhæææ


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE BOB, MOAZZAM, NARGIS,  
 
***BOB: It is Allah who reveals the message, not an agency. In this aya we have only two Masculine singular pronouns, فَإِنَّهُ which is referring to Allah (the one who is revealing the message) and the second singular pronoun نزّلہ, which is a reference to Al Kitab. اللَّهِ = genitive proper noun فانّہ = masculine singular pronoun لِّجِبْرِيلَ Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun نزّلہ Nazaluhu=masculine singular pronoun  
الْكِتَابِ Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1 نزّلہ فَإِنَّهُ = then for sure HE revealed IT (الْكِتَابِ / لِّجِبْرِيلَ ) … The grammar in this ayah is clear. Go through the Quran and see for yourself that it is the Creator who revealed the message on the Qalb of the prophets, and it is accomplished through the laws اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ of revelation.***  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
I guess Pharaoh and Michael are Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, too! These two ayats completely refute your assertion. You do see this, right?  
 
Look at the following:  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
***BOB: The one who reveals: Allah Object revealed: AL Kitab ***  
 
If Jibril is the divine message/Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, as you proffer and not an intermediary force/ maliaka/agency/messenger between Allah and His Prophets, then you contradict Moazzam and Nargis when you assert:  
 
***BOB: The one who reveals: Allah Object revealed: AL Kitab ***  
 
If Allah Himself revealed Al-Quran/Divine Message to “Muhammad”, then that is DIRECT contact, PERIOD, but Moazzam and Nargis claim:  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: therefore its Allah’s dicision that there will be no direct divine intervention in any physical formation or in human affairs.***  
 
So, do I understand that you reject the position of Moazzam and Nargis? You cannot support both positions as they are absolutely contradictory positions.  
 
Let’s continue:  
 
2:97 Say: Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah’s command verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
Bob, you’re not even reading the ayat clearly. Grammatically your assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. Look again:  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed IT to thy heart by Allah’s command…  
The pronoun “he” is referring back to Jibreel—not forward Allah. Allah is giving a command to him/Jibreel. For your assertion to have even the slightest chance of being correct, the ayat would have to read as follows, which of course it doesn’t,  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to “Allah” — for surely he revealed Jibreel to thy heart by His command.  
 
You have misunderstood the grammar all across the board on this one and it has lead you into the same contradictions as Moazzam and Nargis.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS,  
 
17:95 Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.  
 
***which makes Malaika human, as the ayah is saying it is NOT sent from heaven. Read again.***  
 
Please stop. Now you’re insulting people’s intelligence. English is my native tongue and in English the ayat is stating a hypothetical not an actuality. If you cannot discern this, then what is the point of discussing anything? Your claim is just unbelievable, Nargis. I’m speechless, really..  
 
66:6 O you who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels, stern and strong. They do not disobey Allah in that which He commands them, but do as they are commanded.  
 
***How is stones fuel of fire? And why are Malaika placed over stones, what is the connection here?As long as you don't leave the orthodox translation, you will not see the Quraniq message..dæhæææ***  
 
The Fire, whatever it is, why it is, it is not in this world and it isn't human beings guarding it. Whatever translation you’re using is causing you to lose all touch with Al-Quran, Nargis. I hope you pull back soon, otherwise, you will have no iman. I really fear for you now, because your reponse to 17:95 and 66:6, is just bizarre. This is uncharacteristic even for you. :(  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: bob On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
****Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun. *** Dhulqrnain  
 
None of them have been Nazool on the Qalb of prophet. Only thing that have been revealed from Allah is revelation, nothing else is claimed to be revealed from Allah in the Quran. The verse 2:97 is clear in its grammar and a grammarian would see “Hu” attached to Nazool is a indication to something that is mentioned before. Since we know Allah is not revealed, the Hu cannot be a reference to him.  
 
John is a doctor. He likes to play football  
 
In this sentence you can see “He” is a reference to John. If the sentence were to say “she” likes to play football, then we would assume john is a girl. Likewise, the word Nazulahu is a verb and masculine singular object pronoun.  
 
Nazool (verb), Hu (masculine singular object pronoun)= referring to a masculine proper noun already mentioned for the readers.  
 
In this ayah, Hu attached to Nazul is a reference to something pointed out before, and must be masculine proper noun.  
Just like “she” is a reference to Linda and “He” is a reference to John.  
 
****If Jibril is the divine message/Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, as you proffer and not an intermediary force/ maliaka/agency/messenger between Allah and His Prophets, then you contradict Moazzam and Nargis when you assert: ****Dhulqarnain  
 
The Quran have made it clear, it is revealed through his laws اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ.: = According to the laws of Nazool/ laws of revelation, of Allah. There is still no direct interaction between Allah and his messenger, the “agency” bringing Jibraeel to the Qalb of prophet is اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ.  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed IT to thy heart by Allah’s command…  
***The pronoun “he” is referring back to Jibreel—not forward Allah. Allah is giving a command to him/Jibreel. For your assertion to have even the slightest chance of being correct, the ayat would have to read as follows, which of course it doesn’t, ****Dhulqarnain  
 
What you are presenting here is the English translation by someone who probably shared your view, and for that reason overlooked the grammatical construction of the sentence.  
 
You must study the grammar and see for yourself, Nazulahu is a reference to something that is mentioned; same goes with فَإِنَّهُ which is a reference to the one who reveals.  
 
Since Allah is not revealed, he is the revealer, for that reason فَإِنَّهُ is a reference to Allah.  
 
Since Nazulahu is with a hu referring back to something which is being nazuul, it can only refer back to something mentioned as a masculine noun.  
 
“John is a doctor and Linda is a lawyer, he likes to play football and she likes to watch TV”  
 
According the grammar rules, one may perceive that “He” is a reference to John, and “She” is a reference to Linda.  
Nazulahu have hu attached which means that Nazool is happening to Hu. “Hu” is nazooled,  
 
“Hu” (pronoun)is revealed (verb)  
“Hu” (pronoun) is not the doer فَإِنَّهُ of Nazool, that’s Allah.  
 
If Hu is a reference to AlKitab which is supposed to be something different than Jibraeel, then AlKitab must be mentioned in the aya in order to be a reference for “Hu”/ it.

Comments by: dawood On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
SA Brs. and Srs: Nice illuminating talk. I am learning quite a few things.  
 
"Bob: It is Allah who reveals the message, not an agency. In this aya we have only two Masculine singular pronouns, فَإِنَّهُ which is referring to Allah (the one who is revealing the message) and the second singular pronoun نزّلہ, which is a reference to Al Kitab."  
 
Bob, I am not sure how do you link the singular pronoun, فَإِنَّهُ to Allah and not to Jibreel, given that the word Allah is five places down the sentence and Jibreel is immediately preceding the pronoun, فَإِنَّهُ ? What grammatical rules say about this? I don't know grammar myself, so please explain it a bit. Thanks.

Comments by: bob On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
SA  
Allah introduced himself as We, He, a “NAFS” see the verse 3/30  
 
يَوْمَ تَجِدُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ مَّا عَمِلَتْ مِنْ خَيْرٍ مُّحْضَرًا وَمَا عَمِلَتْ  
مِن سُوءٍ تَوَدُّ لَوْ أَنَّ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَهُ أَمَدًا بَعِيدًا  
وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللّهُ نَفْسَهُ وَاللّهُ رَؤُوفٌ بِالْعِبَادِ  
 
وَمَا خَلَقْتُ 51:56  
11:7 وَهُوَ الَّذِي  
 
 
There is no other words used as masculine singular pronoun in 2:97. If فَإِنَّهُ is a reference to Jibraeel, then he would be the doer, and Allah would be what is being نزّلہ .I don't know if we agree on the fact that Allah is not "Revealed", rather he is the one who reveals?  
 
اس آیت میں دو جگہ ضمیر واحد مذکر غائب کی آئی ہے فانّہ میں ضمیر کا مرجع اللہ ہے او دوسری جگہ نزّلہ میں ضمیر کا مرجع کتاب ہے۔  
 
جبر ئیل کاذکر قرآن میں کل تین مرتبہ آیا ہے سورہ البقرہ کی آیات ۹۷ اور۹۸ اور سورۃ التحریم کی آیت نمبر ۴ میں۔ پورا قرآن گواہ ہے کہ کفار نے جب کبھی بھی دشمنی کی ہے تو وہ احکامات الہی سے کی ہے۔ اس آیت سے پہلےبھی بنی اسرائیل کی تاریخ بتاتے ہوئے اسی بات کو واضح کیا ہے کہ جب کبھی بھی ان کو وحی الہی کی دعوت دی گئی تو انہوں نےماننے سے انکار کر دیا اور سرکشی پر اتر آئے۔ قرآن میں کہیں بھی جبرئیل سے دشمنی کی بات نہیں کی گئی ہے۔ یہ کہانی روایات کی دین ہے یاد رکھئے قرآن نہ تو کسی فرشتہ نما مخلوق کی بات کرتا ہے اور نہ ہی کسی ایسے فرشتہ کی جس کا نام جبرئیل تھا

Comments by: dawood On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
Not sure this will make sense to anyone or not. I am just sharing it with you. Consider the following on 42:51 by Khawaja Azhar Abbas: ( I have translated it from Urdu, thus beg your pardon for my omission and commission)  
 
42:51: It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise"  
 
As we know there are two broader groups of people, namely messengers/prophets and other common folks according to 7:6. This verse, 42:51, is talking about all humans. Therefore, the first two methods are referring to the message/revelation from Allah to His chosen messengers/Prophets, and the last part must refer to other common folks who are given that message by messengers.

Comments by: dawood On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
SA Bob:  
 
اس آیت میں دو جگہ ضمیر واحد مذکر غائب کی آئی ہے فانّہ میں ضمیر کا مرجع اللہ ہے او دوسری جگہ نزّلہ میں ضمیر کا مرجع کتاب ہے  
 
This is Dr. Qz's inference. I am not sure on what basis he has linked Allah to FAINAHU? If he could have explained it a bit more, it could have been instructive.  
 
"Bob: There is no other words used as masculine singular pronoun in 2:97. If فَإِنَّهُ is a reference to Jibraeel, then he would be the doer, and Allah would be what is being نزّلہ .I don't know if we agree on the fact that Allah is not "Revealed", rather he is the one who reveals?"  
 
Although, I am not expert on Arabic grammar, but I do think FAINAHU is referring to the immediately preceding proper noun ALJIBREEL. NAZALHU would be referring to the message itself, Alkitab, as you pointed out earlier. I am not sure how do you get from this as Allah being revealed?  
 
The above is simply stating that "...Jibreel has brought down the message, ALKITAB, to the heart of the prophet by the permission of Allah (or whatever you call it , according to his laws of revelations, etc.).  
 

Comments by: Nargis On 27 October 2011Report Abuse
Please stop. Now you’re insulting people’s intelligence. English is my native tongue and in English the ayat is stating a hypothetical not an actuality. If you cannot discern this, then what is the point of discussing anything? Your claim is just unbelievable, Nargis. I’m speechless, really.. Dhulqarnain

No ayah is confirming that Malaika is flying down from heaven, and the ayah you are mentioning, is clearly telling people that IF ….. THEN Malaika would come from heaven….  
 
But IF is not fulfilled, so THEN Malaika is NOT from heaven. It’s very easy to understand.  
 
Malaika is sent as an army ““Recall that time when you were appealing your Nourisher and He responded with promise of help through a thousand Malaika force in proper formation. ”  
 
Malaika is witnessing: ““Allah testified that there is no Illah other than Him and the same is testified by Malaika and those people of Knowledge who stand firm with justice that there is no Ilaaha except the One who is the Dominant and the Wise.””  
 
Malaika talking to disbelievers: - “Verily, when Malaika fully requited those who were cruel to their people and asked them as to what were they involved in; they replied that they have been weak in that land; 4:97  
Malaika as Rabb: 3:97-98 “Nor would he order you to take angels and Prophets for lords (gods). Would He order you to disbelieve after you have become Muslims.”  
 
Malaika as subjects of Rehman: “People took the Malaika, who are the subjects of Al Rehman, for weak.  
Now this is supposed to be angels and not human beings, then how can they have a conversation with disbelievers, how can they be subject of Rehman and laughed at as Nisa, how can they be employed as an army, how can they be introduced as possible Rabbs and how can they witness something ? If these creatures are invisible then why on earth is Allah telling us about them?  
 
It is not me who is away of the Quran, it is those who use the traditional translation and spit out rubbish about a Divine book. That is the real attack on human intelligence and human dignity.Are those who know equal to those who don’t know? Can the light and the darkness be equal?  
 
NO  
 
The Malaika are PERFORMING TALKING and DOING something according to the Quran. In your mullah mind, this is heavenly whieewww phiiewww flying angels performing tasks through their invisibility visible only to the prophets, but the Quran is REAL and talking about real things. It’s not mentioning malaika and their tasks which we can’t even perceive or comprehend. Allah is saying they are witnesses, but we can’t even find ONE witness/ Malaika?

The Fire, whatever it is, why it is, it is not in this world and it isn't human beings guarding it. Whatever translation you’re using is causing you to lose all touch with Al-Quran, Nargis. Dhulqarnain

Not losing connection with the Quran, but your views based on the orthodox translations. Anyway, that’s not an answer to my question, I did not ask what the fire is, I asked HOW the STONES can be fuel for the fire? Are the stones proper or general nouns?  
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc&feature=share  
 
Special attention 4:45  
 
“It was impossible to connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards” You need to study the Quran from the beginning though its own language and rules and not through other peoples understanding presented in the orthodox translation. If you think the Quran is a book of myths, then you cannot convince Quranists, only religious people who like the words “Quranists”

 

Comments by: Nargis On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
ے  
 
This is Dr. Qz's inference. I am not sure on what basis he has linked Allah to FAINAHU? If he could have explained it a bit more, it could have been instructive.

He have linked it because Allah is the only one who reveals the message and Jibreel is never claimed to reveal anything. Even if he is taken as an Angel flying down from heaven (haha), he is still not revealing the messege, he is bringing it.In this ayah it is said Fainnahu , He is , nazulu hu, revealing it. It can only be a reference to what is mentioned, it is a pronoun. what is mentioned? Not the word Alkitab but the word Jibreel. What is revealed? Al kitab, called jibreel in this verse. If Fanniahu is a reference to jibreel and he is the one who is revealing nazaluhu, then nazalahu must be a reference to Allah , as thats the only option fitting as a reference to a masculine pronoun. Then it is sayin Jibreel is revealing Allah...and thats wring wrong.


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE BOB,  
 
When you stated/asserted the following you irrevocably refuted your own argument; there is no undoing this now, sorry:  
 
***BOB: Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1***  
 
***BOB: Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun***  
 
***BOB: Jibreel=Al-Kitab***  
 
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kita., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
It's time to just admit that your position in this matter is wrong, otherwise, practically speaking...you do become the enemy of Jibreel, A/The Messenger of Allah. Think about that.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS,  
 
The CENTRAL ISSUE in this discussion is whether or not the malaika are human beings. Let’s not lose sight of that, okay?  
 
17:95 Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.  
 
Again, ayat 17:95 is stating a hypothetical not an actuality. Literally, I could as a child a fifth grader what this ayat is saying and that child would answer just as I have. Why don't you put it o the test and see for yourself?  
 
*** No ayah is confirming that Malaika is flying down from heaven, and the ayah you are mentioning, is clearly telling people that IF ….. THEN Malaika would come from heaven….The Malaika are PERFORMING TALKING and DOING something according to the Quran. In your mullah mind, this is heavenly whieewww phiiewww flying angels performing tasks through their invisibility visible only to the prophets, but the Quran is REAL and talking about real things. It’s not mentioning malaika and their tasks which we can’t even perceive or comprehend. Allah is saying they are witnesses, but we can’t even find ONE witness/ Malaika?***  
 
I never referred to malaika as “flying around”. This is what you and Moazzam continue to falsely ascribe to me. I have no idea, and neither do you or moazzam, how the malaika locomote. The reality, however, is that they do get from one position to another by the Command of Allah. Do you know how the gamma rays and x-rays get from the sun to the earth? No, you don’t and neither does anyone else.  
 
***But IF is not fulfilled, so THEN Malaika is NOT from heaven. It’s very easy to understand.***  
 
They are from and in the Ghaib. I’m curious about something. Let me ask you this: If someone asked you what the malaika were created from, what would you answer? Please provide ayats in your answer.  
 
***Malaika talking to disbelievers: - “Verily, when Malaika fully requited those who were cruel to their people and asked them as to what were they involved in; they replied that they have been weak in that land; 4:97 Malaika as Rabb: 3:97-98 “Nor would he order you to take angels and Prophets for lords (gods). Would He order you to disbelieve after you have become Muslims.” Malaika as subjects of Rehman: “People took the Malaika, who are the subjects of Al Rehman, for weak. Now this is supposed to be angels and not human beings, then how can they have a conversation with disbelievers, how can they be subject of Rehman and laughed at as Nisa, how can they be employed as an army, how can they be introduced as possible Rabbs and how can they witness something ? If these creatures are invisible then why on earth is Allah telling us about them?***  
 
4:97 (As for) those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to themselves, (the angels) will say: What were you doing? They will say: We were weak in the earth. (They will) say: Was not Allah’s earth spacious, so that you could have migrated therein? So these it is whose refuge is hell — and it is an evil resort.  
 
My God, you are overworked Precious and it is seriously affecting your judgment and reading comprehension abilities. Ayat 4:97-98 is taking place in the past tense and in the world to come. The malaika, who took the souls of those mentioned in the ayat, are asking those souls about their behavior when they were alive on earth. Those souls are further being told that they must now enter into Hell.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: The Fire, whatever it is, why it is, it is not in this world and it isn't human beings guarding it. Whatever translation you’re using is causing you to lose all touch with Al-Quran, Nargis.  
 
66:6 O you who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels, stern and strong. They do not disobey Allah in that which He commands them, but do as they are commanded.  
 
***Not losing connection with the Quran, but your views based on the orthodox translations. Anyway, that’s not an answer to my question, I did not ask what the fire is, I asked HOW the STONES can be fuel for the fire? Are the stones proper or general nouns?***  
 
Whenever you find yourself refuted you want to ask 10,000 question, none of which, are germane to the central issue. This is a common evasive tactic with you. I don’t care what the stones are or aren’t (that can be the subject of thread) it will not change the reality of The Fire/Hell in the world to come. Ayat 66:6 speaks of the malaika who are guard this phenomenon and they are not human, period. I’m not going to play the “chase Nargis’s meaningless questions” game with you anymore.  
 
You have not proven that the malaika are human beings.  
 
***Can the light and the darkness be equal?***  
 
Absolutely not!  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE, BOB, NARGIS, and MOAZZAM,  
 
When are you people going to address this BLATANT CONTRADICTION?  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: JIBREEL = the divine message (Alkitab)***  
 
***BOB: The one who reveals: Allah Object revealed: AL Kitab ***  
 
If Jibril is the divine message/Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, as you people assert and not an intermediary force/ maliaka/agency/messenger between Allah and His Prophets, then you contradict Moazzam and Nargis when you assert:  
 
***BOB: The one who reveals: Allah Object revealed: AL Kitab ***  
 
If Allah, Himself, revealed Al-Quran/Divine Message to “Muhammad”, then that is DIRECT DIVINE INTERVENTION, PERIOD, but Moazzam and Nargis claim:  
 
***MOAZZAM/NARGIS: therefore its Allah’s dicision that there will be no direct divine intervention in any physical formation or in human affairs.***  
 
So, do I understand that you reject the position of Moazzam and Nargis? You cannot support both positions as they are absolutely contradictory positions.  
 
When are you going to address this? Please, no 10,000 meaningless questions, thanks much. :D  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: bob On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
Peace Dhulqarnain, The point of referring to AlKitab was to illustrate how it is used as revelation and as a proper noun. However, if it is puzzling you, then I suggest you stick to the masculine pronouns used in 2:97. It is clear that “”Hu/ IT” is a reference to a masculine proper noun which is stated already. As the other word is Allah and consequently it cannot be Allah who is being Nazool. He is the one responsible for the revelation.  
 
فَإِنَّهُ = Then for sure he  
نَزَّلَهُ = revealed it  
 
Allah(HE) is revealing hu (IT), which is masculine singular pronoun; hence it must refer to a masculine proper noun which is already mentioned. If something is not mentioned in the aya,” hu” as a reference wouldn’t have been used.  
 
you certainly don't understand the grammar, and wan't the Quran to fit your ideas. The grammar is not supporting your translations or views. However, you may continue believing so.  
 
***They are from and in the Ghaib (About malaika).***Dhulqarnain  
 
would you please back up this from the Quran?  
 
****If Allah, Himself, revealed Al-Quran/Divine Message to “Muhammad”, then that is DIRECT DIVINE INTERVENTION, PERIOD, but Moazzam and Nargis claim: *** Dhulqarnain  
 
you have asked the same question many times, and you have been answered. here it is "The Quran have made it clear, it is revealed through his laws اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ.: = According to the laws of Nazool/ laws of revelation, of Allah. There is still no direct interaction between Allah and his messenger, the “agency” bringing Jibraeel to the Qalb of prophet is اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ. "  
 
The previous post this answer is copied from is: http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=181#COM9749  
 
***42:51: It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise» As we know there are two broader groups of people, namely messengers/prophets and other common folks according to 7:6. This verse, 42:51, is talking about all humans. Therefore, the first two methods are referring to the message/revelation from Allah to His chosen messengers/Prophets, and the last part must refer to other common folks who are given that message by messengers.*** DAWOOD  
 
There is no differentiating in the receptionists of wahy in the first two parts, it is added information. I don’t understand why though.  
 
1) Wahy have been discussed before.  
 
2) A gifted human being would realize that this doesn’t mean Allah is passing on the message from behind a physical veil, tree or stone. To understand what behind a veil actually means, we would have to consider oneself as behind the veil seeking to cognize the message on the other side. You may become aware of the fact that the message on the other side is indistinct and thus not very clear. It will be clear only if one puts strength and effort to see it. So behind the veil means you have to put effort to figure out the connotations of Wahy. Whatever Hijab/ hindrance are preventing you from deciphering wahy must be conquered Whether it is the language or rules of the Quran.  
 
3) Someone distributes the communication of Wahy, as most of our educated scholars are doing.

Comments by: moazzam On 28 October 2011
Dears and Nears,All Aastana Members! Salam.  
The message of Alkitab can't be comprehend till some one not become familiar with the true sense of Quranic terminologies.  
Remember all the orthodox translators misunderstood the following terminologies , therefore IMPOSSIBLE TO COME IN LINE WITH those are taking the sense otherwise . Actual debatable issue is THE APPROPRIATE SENSE of the Quranic terminologies according to the context of Quran.  
QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES USED IN THE ABOVE DISCUSS.  
1) Malaika  
2) Jibreel.  
3) Wahy.  
4) Nuzool.  
5) Rasool.  
6) Waraa Alhijaab(behind the veil)  
7) Kamullah.  
8) Hijaarah.  
9) Jahannam.  
10) Be Izinallah.  
11) Qalbikja.  
12) Bashar.  
I HUMBLY ADVISE/INVITE TO DISCUSS/RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES IN UNDERSTANDING THE APPROPRIATE SENSE/MEANINGS OF THE ABOVE WRITTEN TERMINOLOGIES PRIOR TO INDULGE IN FOREGOING DEBATE/ISSUE.  
THANKS.(Moazzam)

Comments by: dawood On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
SA Nargis and Bob: Please ponder on the following:  
 
The word NAZALAHU is used twice in the Quran, once in 2:97 and once in 16:102.  
 
“Say, the Holy Spirit has revealed it (NAZALAHU) from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.(16:102).”  
 
Is ROHUL QUDS doing NAZALA in 16:102 from his Rab Or Rab is doing NAZALA from your Rab? What is being Nuzool ed here, The message, ALquran or the Rab? To me it is evident that NAZALAHU is always a reference to the message, Alkitab, and this job is being done by Rohul Quds in 16:102?  
 
Now return to 2:97: Exactly the same way, FAINAHU is a reference to the Jibreel who is doing the job. Why would anyone leave an immediate closer reference to FAINAHU and go out of the sentence to find the reference? Does it make sense?  
 
Further, according to your position 2:97 will read: “…Then indeed, He(Allah) revealed it (Jibreel) on your heart by the laws of Allah (BIZNILLAH)…” If Allah is referring to himself via FAINAHU then He would have used the same construction BIZNIHU instead of BIZNILLAH?  
 
Hope this makes sense.  

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
 
I agree with moazzam om this.  
 
The discussion is getting out of hand and continuing in circles.  
 
Many verses are presented with purely orthodox translations, while the terminologies of the wordings are not clear for some debaters.  
 
please also include the words of Arz and Sama in this list of moazzam's.  
 
Why do we translate these words to earth and heaven?  
 
what is this naar of which these malaika are wardens of? How does a fire burn of wrong doers and stones? Why would stones be "punished" in this naar? (keep in mind that the word Hajar is specific in surah 66.)  
 
in this sense, please also get the terminology of naar and hajar right before discussing this matter further.  
 
Hint:  
naar does not necessarily mean fire.  
hajar does not necessarily mean stone.  
 
At least get past one verse, its words and termilogy, in accordance with the grammar used, before discussion another verse.  
 
Just a suggestion.  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS, MOAZZAM, and BOB,  
 
Let me ask you this, 8:20 says:  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
Now, I hope you won’t deny that the Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer, and, as with the other believes, had to follow Al-Quran. So given that Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer… what Messenger then did he obey and told not to turn away from while he/"Muhammad", hears?  
 
Once again, the following absolutely refutes your argument on this.  
 
When you stated/asserted the following you irrevocably refuted your own argument; there is no undoing this now, sorry:  
 
***BOB: Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1***  
 
***BOB: Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun***  
 
***BOB: Jibreel=Al-Kitab***  
 
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kita., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
It's time to just admit that your position in this matter is wrong, otherwise, practically speaking...you do become the enemy of Jibreel, A/The Messenger of Allah. You cannot have Jibreel= genitive masculine proper noun=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and then not have Pharaoh and Michael who are also, according to your rules of grammar, genitive masculine proper nouns not= Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. That would be a contradiction/discrepancy.  
 
Ayat 8:20, as well as, "genitive masculine proper noun", refutes your assertion absolutely.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 28 October 2011Report Abuse
Dhulqarnain: *** 8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear. ***  
 
I may have to take a pause right here.  
 
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ = O ye who are the ones with Aman.  
 
Aamano is based upon the root A-M-N with the basic meaning of PEACE. One who live with or in peace will be called moumin. To liv in peace with something, one would have to be convinced of it. To convince someone, you would have to deliver proof. Aman does not mean believing, and at least not believing something blindfolded. Moumins, or Aamano in this sense are those who are convinced, not those who believe something.  
 
أَطِيعُواْ = To follow something through. To stick to a plan, or a prgram. This is not the same as obeying or fearing.  
 
رَسُولَهُ = R-S-L means to start a mission and then supervise its continuance and remove obstacles in the way of this mission's smooth running. One who does this is the Rasool. Rasool of Allah shall hence be someone who starts and maintains the mission of Allah.  
 
With focus on these terminologies, the translation you just presented is not correct. Hence no point in discussing other issues if the terminology of the words used is not clear.  
 

Comments by: moazzam On 29 October 2011
Dear Dawood,Participants! As I tolled in my previous posts that, “NUZOOL” الْكِتَابُ / الْقُرْآنَ means the message/idea conceiving in mind while pondering into it.  
As far as receiving of رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ= الْكِتَابُ = الْقُرْآنَ is concerns, we don’t know, how first conscious being (Rasool among the man kind) got it first time, see the verse 17/85.  
 
جِبْرِيلَ = تَنْزِيلُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ = رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ= الْكِتَابُ = الْقُرْآنَ= the values/message beyond time and space, to be more cleared see the verses 2/87,2/253,4/171,5/110  
فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ= certainly it (alkitab) made conceived in mind [(the message) (by pondering into it)]  
عَلَى قَلْبِكَ= in your heat and mind  
بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ = According to laws of nature  
الْأَمِينُ الرُّوحُ = the message(wahy) which keeps on peaceful  
 
2/97قُلْ مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Alkitab (Gabriel) by which(while pondering into it) message conceived in your mind (heart) through Allah's laws of nature, this Alkitab is a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who want to live in peace/peace providers.  
 
LET US SEE HOW MESSAGE CONCEIVED IN RASOOL’S MIND BY ALKITAB.  
26/191 وَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ  
And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful  
26/192 وَإِنَّهُ لَتَنْزِيلُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ  
Verily this Alkitab (Tanzeel)is from the Lord of the Worlds:  
26/193 نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ  
By it (Alkitab) conceived in your mind the message(Alrooh) which is to keeps on peaceful(Alamean)  
26/194 عَلَى قَلْبِكَ لِتَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُنذِرِينَ  
To thy heart and mind, that thou mayest admonish.  
26/195 بِلِسَانٍ عَرَبِيٍّ مُّبِينٍ  
In the perspicuous self explanatory mode (language)  
26/196 وَإِنَّهُ لَفِي زُبُرِ الْأَوَّلِينَ  
Without doubt it is (announced) in the mystic Books of former peoples  
LET US SEE HOW “AYAAT” CONCEIVED IN MIND WHILE PONDERING INTO ALKITAB.  
16/101 وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ  
When We substitute one sign (Ayah) for another, and Allah knows best what He made conceived (in rasool’s mind)- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.  
16/102  
قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ  
Say, it (the ayah) conceived in my mind by “ALKITAB” (while pondering into it) through Allah’s system of sustenance, in Truth, in order to strengthen those who want to live in peace/peace provider , and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims (the peace lovers)  
16/103  
وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِّسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَـذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُّبِينٌ  
 

Comments by: bob On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kita., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
I have never asserted anything like that, and I don’t figure out how you can draw this idea from my posts. I have stated that aya 2:97 is using two words as masculine pronouns, and they have to be a reference for masculine proper nouns.  
 
In Arabic, personal pronouns have 12 forms: In singular and plural, the 2nd and 3rd persons differentiate gender, while the 1st person does not. In the dual, there is no 1st person, and only a single form for each 2nd and 3rd person. Traditionally, the pronouns are listed in order 3rd, 2nd, 1st.Arabic has two genders (جنس ǧins), masculine (مذكر ) and feminine (مؤنث ). As mentioned above, verbs, adjectives and pronouns must agree in gender with the corresponding noun.  
 
Person Singular Dual Plural  
1st anā (أنا) naḥnu (نحن)  
 
2nd-->Masculine anta (أنت) antum (أنتم)  
---> Feminine anti (أنت) antumā (أنتما) antunna (أنتنّ)  
 
3rd-->Masculine huwa (هو) humā (هما) hum (هم)  
--->feminine hiya (هي) hunna (هنّ)  
 
Enclitic forms of personal pronouns (الضمائر المتصلة aḍ-ḍamāʾir ul-muttaṣila(tu)) are affixed to various parts of speech  
 
Person Singular Dual Plural  
1st -nī/-ī/-ya ـي - nā ـنا  
 
2nd---->masculine- ka ـك -kumā ـكما -kum ـكم  
----->feminine -ki ـك -kunna ـكن  
 
3rd --->masculine -hu/-hi ـه -humā/-himā ـهما -hum/-him ـهم  
----->feminine -hā ـها -hunna/-hinna ـهن  
 
For all but the first person singular, the same forms are used regardless of the part of speech of the word attached to. In the third person masculine singular,-hu occurs after the vowels ending in u or a (-a, -ā, -u, -ū, -aw), while -hi occurs after vowels ending in i (-i, -ī, -ay). The same alternation occurs in the third person dual and plural. But it seems like neither you nor brother Dawood understands this, so I have to agree with brother moazzam; the discussion loses its purpose, which is to gain knowledge from the Quran rather than disregard its grammatical construction so our own inflexible philosophies can subsist.  
 
However, if you change your mind and want to let the Quran speak, I suggest you study a brother Moazzam’s post which is a detailed.

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
DR. SHIRAZ,  
 
CC: NARGIS, BOB, MOAZZAM  
 
Dhulqarnain: *** 8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear. ***  
 
***I may have to take a pause right here.***  
 
You need to take a long post from posting until you know what you’re talking about. You are mangling the Words/Meaning of Allah.  
 
***يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ = O ye who are the ones with Aman. Aamano is based upon the root A-M-N with the basic meaning of PEACE. One who live with or in peace will be called moumin. To liv in peace with something, one would have to be convinced of it. To convince someone, you would have to deliver proof. Aman does not mean believing, and at least not believing something blindfolded. Moumins, or Aamano in this sense are those who are convinced, not those who believe something.***  
 
More precisely, the amanu, means to “trust” not believe. A belief must be proven to be accurate and when that happens the position is no longer one of belief , but trust.  
 
***أَطِيعُواْ = To follow something through. To stick to a plan, or a prgram. This is not the same as obeying or fearing.***  
 
LOL! What, are you kidding me?! If you stick to a plan or program you are in fact obeying the plan/program. Anyway Ta’a means to outright obey.  
 
OBEY: Comply with the command, direction, or request of a person or a law; submit to the authority of.  
 
Stop playing games and insulting mine and others intelligence.  
 
Anyway, you did not answer the following question:  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
Now, I hope you won’t deny that the Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster, and, as with the other believers/trusters, had to follow/obey Al-Quran. So given that Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster… what Messenger then did he have to obey and told not to turn away from while he/"Muhammad", hears?  
 
Looking forward to your reply  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: bob On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
More precisely, the amanu, means to “trust” not believe. A belief must be proven to be accurate and when that happens the position is no longer one of belief , but trust. Dhulqarnain  
 
If "amanu" means to trust, what does the word mean when Allah called Himself Al-Momin and Al-salaam in 59/23 ?  

Comments by: Mujeeb On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
Mr Bob, Brother Dawood Dear Dhulqarnain: Plz read Moazzam's above answer carefully, i think much stuff has been provided to make the issue under debate clear. But i am still confused.(if you don't mind Brother Moazzam)  
HOW IS THE FOLLOWING ? CAN SOME ONE HELP TO MAKE ME UNDERSTAND.  
جِبْرِيلَ = تَنْزِيلُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ = رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ= الْكِتَابُ = الْقُرْآنَ= the values/message beyond time and space, to be more cleared see the verses 2/87,2/253,4/171,5/110

Comments by: Dr Shiraz On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
 
***LOL! What, are you kidding me?! If you stick to a plan or program you are in fact obeying the plan/program. Anyway Ta’a means to outright obey.  
OBEY: Comply with the command, direction, or request of a person or a law; submit to the authority of.  
Stop playing games and insulting mine and others intelligence. ***  
 
That is not at all the intension. I am sorry that you felt it that way.  
 
Obey: To give ear to; to execute the commands of; to yield submission to; to comply with the orders of.  
 
The thing about obeying is to yield submission to someone. In this case whatever the order is, even contra dictionary to a previous order, you have to follow it without asking questions. This you do as result of your blind loyalty or some other similar reason.  
 
When you stick to a plan, you don't start to act differently if your commander orders you differently. In case he tell you to do something against protocol you have the right to disagree  
 
If the words did not make my point clear earlier, then perhaps this definition or distinction did.  
 
Islam do not ask us to obey Allah, but to follow his program.  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE BOB,  
 
***If "amanu" means to trust, what does the word mean when Allah called Himself Al-Momin and Al-salaam in 59/23 ?***  
 
That He is The Trustowrthy/trust except Him/to be trusted absolutely.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
DR. SHIRAZ,  
 
***Islam do not ask us to obey Allah, but to follow his program.***  
 
My God, do you really take yourself seriously, better yet, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with responses like this?!?  
 
Here is the definition fo "follow":  
 
FOLLOW: to act in agreement or compliance with; obey; to go in the direction of; be guided by: to accept the guidance, command, or leadership of.  
 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/follow  
 
Will you stop playing games now?  
 
So, can you now stop stalling and answer the following question?  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
Now, I hope you won’t deny that the Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster, and, as with the other believers/trusters, had to follow/obey Al-Quran. So given that Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster… what Messenger then did he have to obey and told not to turn away from while he/"Muhammad", hears?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 29 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE BOB:  
 
***BOB: I have never asserted anything like that, and I don’t figure out how you can draw this idea from my posts. I have stated that aya 2:97 is using two words as masculine pronouns, and they have to be a reference for masculine proper nouns.***  
 
Oh, but you did on Oct. 27th of this thread. Here, remind yourself:  
 
***BOB: It is Allah who reveals the message, not an agency. In this aya we have only two Masculine singular pronouns, فَإِنَّهُ which is referring to Allah (the one who is revealing the message) and the second singular pronoun نزّلہ, which is a reference to Al Kitab.  
 
اللَّهِ = genitive proper noun  
فانّہ = masculine singular pronoun  
 
لِّجِبْرِيلَ Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun  
نزّلہ Nazaluhu=masculine singular pronoun  
 
الْكِتَابِ Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1  
 
نزّلہ فَإِنَّهُ = then for sure HE revealed IT (الْكِتَابِ / لِّجِبْرِيلَ ) …  
 
The grammar in this ayah is clear.***  
 
 
On Oct. 27th you stated:  
 
BOB: It is Allah who reveals the message, not an agency.  
 
But then on Oct. 28th you stated:  
 
BOB:, the “agency” bringing Jibraeel to the Qalb of prophet is اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ. "  
 
There is still no direct interaction between Allah and his messenger, the “agency” bringing Jibraeel to the Qalb of prophet is اللَّهِ بِإِذْنِ. "  
 
LOL! One day there is no “agency” and the next there is an agency”.  
 
You, Nargis, and Moazzam (and others), because you people don’t know what you’re talking about, habitually contradict yourselves. This is the result of being CATEGORY B people—conjecturers. You see, when you and the others stated that there was/is no direct intervention between Allah and humans (and you’re right btw), it left you vulnerable to the reality that Allah sent a messenger to the humans whom He wanted to communicate some information to. However, when you declared that Jibreel=Al-Kitab you refuted your prior argument of no direct contact between Allah and humans, because if no messenger was sent then Allah, Himself, would have had to directly give the Prophet “Muhammad” Al-Quran/Al-Kitab. Now, in an attempt to salvage the unsalvageable you want to say the “agency” (so as to keep your no direct contact position) are the Laws of Nature. The problem with this notion is that it means “Muhammad” simply “studied” the laws of nature and Al-Quran was conceived in his mind, thus, he made up the message himself. The problem with this is, how, by studying the Laws of Nature, did he know about certain conversations long, long before he was born? Al-Quran clearly says he was not a witness nor could he have know about it unless Allah had told him? So, if Allah didn’t tell hom directly and no messenger-angel/malaika told him—how did he get this type of information?  
 
So, here are the three possibilites:  
 
a) Allah revealed directly to humans, hence, divine intervention occured in the affairs of humans.  
 
b) Allah sent the malaika-Jibreel.  
 
c) "Muhammad" concieved Al-Quran by himself without Allah's direct intervention and without a messenger-angel, by studing the laws of natue.  
 
There are no other possibilities,  
 
Listen Bob, neither you nor Nargis nor Moazzam nor Shiraz etc. have any idea what you’re talking about when it comes to this Deen. You are abusing and distorting the Message of Al-Quran even more than the Orthodox Traditionlist Ritulaist whom you criticize.  
 
Once again, the following absolutely refutes your argument on this matter.  
 
When you stated/asserted the following you irrevocably refuted your own argument; there is no undoing this now, sorry:  
 
***BOB: Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1***  
 
***BOB: Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun***  
 
***BOB: Jibreel=Al-Kitab***  
 
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kita., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
It's time to just admit that your position in this matter is wrong, otherwise, practically speaking...you do become the enemy of Jibreel, A/The Messenger of Allah. You cannot have Jibreel= genitive masculine proper noun=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and then not have Pharaoh and Michael who are also, according to your rules of grammar, genitive masculine proper nouns not= Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. That would be a contradiction/discrepancy.  
 
When are you going to answer this:  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
I hope you won’t deny that the Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster, and, as with the other believers/trusters, had to follow/obey Al-Quran. So given that Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster… what Messenger then did he have to obey/follow and told not to turn away from while he/"Muhammad", hears?  
 
Dhulqarnain:  
 

Comments by: Waqar On 30 October 2011Report Abuse
Dhulqarnain,  
How can one turn into a believer? Remember that 8:20 is addressing believers.  
How will a believer obey Allah and His messenger and how will he/she hear them? Why would believers turn away from Allah and His messenger if they are believer? Does it mean this verse is addressing false believers?  
 
You keep on saying Prophet "Muhammad" but you have not shown a single verse which clearly identifies Muhammad as a nabi (prophet according to your translations). So, according to your own rules you are in category B.  
 
Regards,  
Waqar

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 30 October 2011Report Abuse
WAQAR,  
 
***You keep on saying Prophet "Muhammad" but you have not shown a single verse which clearly identifies Muhammad as a nabi (prophet according to your translations). So, according to your own rules you are in category B.***  
 
Here you go:  
 
33:40 MUHAMMAD is not the father of any of your men, but he is the MESSENGER of Allah and the Last of THE PROPHETS; and Allah is cognizant of all things.  
 
If that ayat doesn't satisfy then nothing will.  
 
Listen, as I've said before, I’m not interested in yours or anyone elses's peripheral questions. I asked a question which is pertinent to me and this discussion. If you’re not going to answer my question directly, then don’t bother answering this post at all, because I will not respond to you. I’m tired of the “10, 000 evasive questions game” you and the others play when you cannot defend your conjectural assertions.  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
I hope you won’t deny that the Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster, and, as with the other believers/trusters, had to FOLLOW/OBEY AL-QURAN (see 10:15). So given that Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster…  
 
10:15 And when Our clear ayats/messages are recited to them, those who have no hope of meeting with Us say: Bring a Quran other than this or change it. Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord.I FOLLOW NOTHING BUT WHAT WAS REVEALED TO ME. Indeed I fear, if I DISOBEY my Lord, the chastisement of a grievous day.  
 
So, here’s the question to you, Nargis, Bob, Moazzam, and Shiraz:  
 
What Messenger then did he, the Messenger-Prophet “Muhammad”, have to obey/follow and told not to turn away from while he/"Muhammad", hears?  
 
Repeat: If you’re not going to answer my question directly, then don’t bother wasting your time answering this post at all, because I will not respond to you.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Nargis On 30 October 2011Report Abuse

Dhulqarnain is denying the Quraniq words. you are denying the grammatical construction of the Quran and giving meaning from yourself. You are ignoring the that Momin is the DOER, so when Allah called himself almomin, he is the one who is DOING something. A momin is someone who trusts, and when used at Allah he is trustworthy? Come on ......anyways, you are doing the same thing as other hadith junkeys have done, so you belong to category B,,,double BB tripple BBB fripple BBBBB fivlllle BBBBBB just bbbbbbbbbbbbb, youre BB Jee from BBC :-D


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 30 October 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NAARGIS,  
 
***Dhulqarnain is denying the Quraniq words. you are denying the grammatical construction of the Quran and giving meaning from yourself.***  
 
No, Beautiful…you are describing yourself and your practice. Hear, let me show you:  
 
When you supported what Bob stated/asserted you irrevocably refuted your own argument as well; there is no undoing this now, sorry:  
 
***BOB: Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1***  
 
***BOB: Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun***  
 
***BOB: Jibreel=Al-Kitab***  
 
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kitab., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
It's time to just admit that your position in this matter is wrong, otherwise, practically speaking...you do become the enemy of Jibreel, A/The Messenger of Allah. You cannot have Jibreel= genitive masculine proper noun=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and then not have Pharaoh and Michael who are also, according to your rules of grammar, genitive masculine proper nouns not= Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. That would be a contradiction/discrepancy.  
 
No Nargis...It is your who is denying the grammatical construction…do you see?  
 
***You are ignoring the that Momin is the DOER, so when Allah called himself almomin, he is the one who is DOING something. A momin is someone who trusts, and when used at Allah he is trustworthy? Come on ......anyways, you are doing the same thing as other hadith junkeys have done, so you belong to category B,,,double BB tripple BBB fripple BBBBB fivlllle BBBBBB just bbbbbbbbbbbbb, youre BB Jee from BBC :-D***  
 
While momin means does mean to trust…who does Allah trust?. For Him to trust He would have to be in need of trust, that is, He would have to be depend on something, The term, when applied to Him, cannot be a doer, but the absolute expression of the term, that is, Allah is The (definite article) Trustworthy, meaning, humans can depend upon Him.. Humans are the doers, they trust, not Allah, because He is free of need/dependency.  
 
LOL! I just love the way you and the others attempt to shift the discussion from the central issue to a peripheral one. I told you that I’m not going to play that game with you anymore. If you wish to start a thread on Momin then please do so, but for now the following is the central issue and question before you. Are you, yet again, going to run and hide? :)  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
Nargis, Bob, Moazzam, and Shiraz:  
 
What Messenger then did he, the Messenger-Prophet “Muhammad”, have to obey/follow and told not to turn away from while he/"Muhammad", hears?  
 
LOL! Come on now, you're a master of Al-Quran and I’ve seen you tackle much more difficult questions than this one…why are you avoiding answering it directly?  
 
8:20 just ends your conjectures, eh? :D  
 
No, Beautiful…I’m Category A…all... the... way. :D  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Nargis On 31 October 2011Report Abuse
You cannot have Jibreel= genitive masculine proper noun=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and then not have Pharaoh and Michael who are also, according to your rules of grammar, genitive masculine proper nouns not= Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. That would be a contradiction/discrepancy.  
 
No Nargis...It is your who is denying the grammatical construction…do you see? Dhulqarnain

Errm, you should definitely read again and again and again again again, until you at least get the message in the posts... If I had had the slightest inkling that you will understand the message, I would have written a long post, but now I know you won’t get it anyway, so no point.  
 
Life is not short, it’s the longest bloody thing ull ever do, that’s why you shouldn't stop eating chocolate or admit you’re a quitter,,,If youre not a quitter but a player, remember you need a team in order to win, If someone tell you B, then you should decode it as B and not A ,,,:-D  
 
Words of wisdom: D!!!!

LOL! Come on now, you're a master of Al-Quran and I’ve seen you tackle much more difficult questions than this one…why are you avoiding answering it directly?

xactly, that's why i need a master, only a master can understand a master:-D :-D ,but heyyy, even though I become an arrogant bigheaded master, ill blame my Haughtiness on all of you who appreciated my talent khikhikhikhi

 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 31 October 2011Report Abuse
DEAR NARGIS,  
 
DHULQARNAIN: You cannot have Jibreel= genitive masculine proper noun=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and then not have Pharaoh and Michael who are also, according to your rules of grammar, genitive masculine proper nouns not= Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. That would be a contradiction/discrepancy. No Nargis...It is your who is denying the grammatical construction…do you see? LOL! Come on now, you're a master of Al-Quran and I’ve seen you tackle much more difficult questions than this one…why are you avoiding answering it directly?  
 
NARGIS: Errm, you should definitely read again and again and again again again, until you at least get the message in the posts... If I had had the slightest inkling that you will understand the message, I would have written a long post, but now I know you won’t get it anyway, so no point. Life is not short, it’s the longest bloody thing ull ever do, that’s why you shouldn't stop eating chocolate or admit you’re a quitter,,,If youre not a quitter but a player, remember you need a team in order to win, If someone tell you B, then you should decode it as B and not A ,,,:-D  
Words of wisdom: D!!!! xactly, that's why i need a master, only a master can understand a master:-D :-D ,but heyyy, even though I become an arrogant bigheaded master, ill blame my Haughtiness on all of you who appreciated my talent khikhikhikhi  
 
Narge, you make my point. Your reply offers nothing in the defense of your assertion nor does it in the least refute mine. It's just distraction and denial. Anyway, Allah says His Quran is clear, fully detailed and explained, and consistent, among other things. Your reply only shows that your assertions are unfounded and cannot, via Al-Quran anyway, proven. I don’t when, or even if, you will stop conjecturing. Conjecturing is not the truth and it will always let you down/leave you in the lurch. As with Khatim Nabiyeen you are wrong about this topic as well, but, of course, your pride/ego will not permit you to admit it, sad. :( Your over reliance on the grammar, which is more than apparent that you don't, despite your claims, fully understand (otherwise you wouldn't have made Jibreel=Al-Kitab) is causing you take it over content, context, tasreef, and yes---common Al-Quranic sense.  
 
Anyway...  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
SAMI’A/HEAR: to hear; the act of hearing. Dictionary of Al-Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 270.  
 
Anyway, 8:20 proves that a messenger came to “Muhammad” and he/”Muhammad”, as with the other believers/trusters, had to obey the messenger who came to him. If this weren’t true, then Al-Quran would not apply to him/”Muhammad", because what messenger was he to obey. The ayat also mentions…”while you hear”. What did “Muhammad” hear? Well, it couldn’t have been Allah, because that would be direct contact by Allah, yeah? It couldn’t be Al-Quran, because Al-Quran cannot speak, So, what did he hear? Well, the only answer is he heard the The Messenger of Allah—Jibreel. Anyway, all of this Al-Quranic logic and common sense will certainly be lost on you.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: dawood On 31 October 2011Report Abuse
“Moazzam: Dear Dawood,Participants! As I tolled in my previous posts that, “NUZOOL” الْكِتَابُ / الْقُرْآنَ means the message/idea conceiving in mind while pondering into it.  
As far as receiving of رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ= الْكِتَابُ = الْقُرْآنَ is concerns, we don’t know, how first conscious being (Rasool among the man kind) got it first time, see the verse 17/85.”  
 
Dear Br., telling something is not equivalent to establishing something with proper grammar, context, ratal/tarteel, etc., as you often quote it. ALquran=Alkitab=Jibreel=RohulQuds=…. is another half-backed theory of yours. I would request you and all who support your above theory to kindly respond to the following and enlighten me:  
 
In 2:97, as BOB mentioned, one finds: Jibreel is a genitive masculine proper noun. Next to this is Fainahu, 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun, followed by Nazalahu, another 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. And then Allah is a genitive proper noun five places down this verse.  
 
Please enlighten me as to why Fainahu and then Nazalahu cannot be linked to Jibreel? Why these must (under what grammatical rules) be linked to a noun Allah five places down the verse? Similar situation is found in 16:102.Please translate each verse and elaborate in detail as to how your translation is the most suitable one, grammatically, etc?  
 
“Moazzam: فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ= certainly it (alkitab) made conceived in mind [(the message) (by pondering into it)]”  
Put your above translation in (14:1) and see it for yourself how it translates: “A. L. R. A Book which We have revealed unto thee, in order that thou mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness into light - by the leave of their Lord - to the Way of (Him) the Exalted in power, worthy of all praise!”  
 
“Moazzam: بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ = According to laws of nature.”  
Is this an attempt to equate Allah=nature and it is nature that matters, nothing more, nothing less? Which law of nature can tell you to obey the messenger in 4:64?  

Comments by: moazzam On 01 November 2011
Dear Dawood,All Participants! Salam.  
Dawood : Please enlighten me as to why Fainahu and then Nazalahu cannot be linked to Jibreel? Why these must (under what grammatical rules) be linked to a noun Allah five places down the verse? Similar situation is found in 16:102.Please translate each verse and elaborate in detail as to how your translation is the most suitable one, grammatically, etc?  
Moazzam: 2/97قُلْ مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَ  
هُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Alkitab (Gabriel a proper noun 3rd person masculine singular) by which(while pondering into Alkitab/ Fainahu, 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun ) message conceived (another 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun) in your mind, through  
Allah's (is a genitive proper noun )laws of nature, this Alkitab is a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who want to live in peace/peace providers.  
Dawood: Similar situation is found in 16:102  
Moazzam: To understand verse16/102: you have to focus at verse 101 where NAZALAH is not for Alkitab, rather, it is for AYAH/SIGN.  
Verse 101 “When We substitute ONE AYAH(SIGN) FOR AN OTHER, and Allah knows best what He made conceived (in rasool’s mind)- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not”  
Now carefully read the verse 102  
قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ  
Say, it (the ayah) conceived in my mind by “ALKITAB” (while pondering into it) through Allah’s system of sustenance, in Truth, in order to strengthen those who want to live in peace/peace provider , and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims (the peace lovers)  
 
Dawood: If(as you quoted) فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ= certainly it (alkitab) made conceived in mind [(the message) (by pondering into it)]”  
Put your above translation in (14:1) and see it for yourself how it translates.  
Moazzam: Not Alkitab rather , KITABUN has been used in 14/1 which means LAW as there are many LAWS in ALKITAB see the verse (98/3 فِيهَا كُتُبٌ قَيِّمَةٌ , Wherein are laws (or decrees) right and straight.)  
FIRSTLY, ORTHODOX TRANSLATORS HAVE TO DECIDE WHO REVEALED “KITAB” ALLAH OR JIBREAL ALSO THE SENSE OF QURANIC TERMS (بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ/ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ).It seem they are confused because of improper inference of إِذْنِ اللّهِ/ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ)  
LET ME TRANSLATE THE VERSE 14/1  
الر كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ لِتُخْرِجَ النَّاسَ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ  
بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ إِلَى صِرَاطِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَمِيدِ  
 
Alif, Lam, Ra. كِتَابٌ (is an indefinite masculine noun and is in the nominative case) which We [by due course of procedure ,بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ] have revealed to you[ the message conceived in your mind,( is the attached object pronoun third person masculine singular). that you might bring mankind out of darkness’ into the light to the path of the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy –  
 
 
 
Dawood: If you mean, بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ = According to laws of nature.”  
Is this an attempt to equate Allah=nature and it is nature that matters, nothing more, nothing less? Which law of nature can tell you to obey the messenger in 4:64?  
 
Moazzam: Remember; Allah’s set laws never be changed = nature  
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآؤُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا  
 
And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by Allah’s set laws, if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [the messenger of the time], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.  

Comments by: dawood On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Moazzam: Thanks for your time and efforts in this one.  
 
“Moazzam: To understand verse16/102: you have to focus at verse 101 where NAZALAH is not for Alkitab, rather, it is for AYAH/SIGN. Verse 101 “When We substitute ONE AYAH(SIGN) FOR AN OTHER, and Allah knows best what He made conceived (in rasool’s mind)- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not”  
Now carefully read the verse 102  
قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ  
Say, it (the ayah) conceived in my mind by “ALKITAB” (while pondering into it) through Allah’s system of sustenance, in Truth, in order to strengthen those who want to live in peace/peace provider , and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims (the peace lovers).”  
 
First, as per my limited understanding, your above translation is a wrong one, grammatically. Which word can be translated as “conceived in my mind by Alkitab..”??? Please explain it grammatically?  
 
Second, which word can be translated as “through Allah’s system of sustenance?” The word used is Rabuka, meaning your Rab or Lord?  
 
Third, by your own admission, Rohul Quds=Ayah (sign) and not equal to Alkitab, which you asserted on October 29, “Moazzam: جِبْرِيلَ = تَنْزِيلُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ = رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ= الْكِتَابُ = الْقُرْآنَ= = the values/message beyond time and space, to be more cleared see the verses 2/87,2/253,4/171,5/110.” What is true?  
 
Fourth, your translation of 16:101 is completely off mark. How could anyone call someone to be a forgerer? It is only possible if they had a previous/existing document and they compare a new one with the old one and find some variations, only then they are saying you are forging it? Thus, this does not support your claim for something to be conceived in someon’s mind? Rather, 16:101 and 102 very clearly convey to the readers that (i) Allah knows best what to reveal, and (ii) Rohul Quds brought it or descended with it from your Lord. This does not support your claim that Rohul Quds=Alkitab, either.  
 
Fifth, 16:102 is perhaps referring to the entire Alkitab and not just some Ayahs, since the entire book is guidance and good news for the Muslimeen and not just some Ayahs.  
 
Sixth, to my humble understanding, verse 2:97 and 16:102 are referring to the Law of Allah through which Allah’s Ayahs were revealed. We don’t understand this law, it’s a different matter. Earlier, we were wondering as to how the revelation took place. It seems there is a law of Allah that describes how it got here, but we don’t want to take it?  
 
“Moazzam: Not Alkitab rather , KITABUN has been used in 14/1 which means LAW as there are many LAWS in ALKITAB see the verse (98/3 فِيهَا كُتُبٌ قَيِّمَةٌ , Wherein are laws (or decrees) right and straight.)”  
 
It does not matter it is Kitab or Law. We are discussing the meanings and understanding of word Nazalahu, etc.  
 
“Moazzam: Alif, Lam, Ra. كِتَابٌ (is an indefinite masculine noun and is in the nominative case) which We [by due course of procedure ,بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ] have revealed to you[ the message conceived in your mind,( is the attached object pronoun third person masculine singular). that you might bring mankind out of darkness’ into the light to the path of the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy”  
 
You have adopted the same confusing and erroneous style in translating 14:1. A law conceived in mind cannot be a law until unless it is written and promulgated. Thus, what Allah made the prophet to be conceived in his mind is what is written in ALKITAB=ALQURAN. I don’t have to speculate what the prophet conceived, it is already there in this Book.  
 
Finally, you did not answer my question related to 2:97: In 2:97, as BOB mentioned, one finds: Jibreel is a genitive masculine proper noun. Next to this is Fainahu, 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun, followed by Nazalahu, another 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. And then Allah is a genitive proper noun five places down this verse. Please enlighten me as to why Fainahu and then Nazalahu cannot be linked to Jibreel?  

Comments by: Nargis2 On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
Please enlighten me as to why Fainahu and then Nazalahu cannot be linked to Jibreel? Dawood

If Jibreel is both FainaHU and NAzalaHU , then he is both, revealed and the one who reveals.  
 
Fainnahu nazaluhu = HE revelaed IT  
 
If both HE and IT is referring to Jibril, it would mean he revealed himself.  
 
And now according to you and your mullahs translations, no1 can see him because he is a private postman pat between Allah and the prophet, still he have enemies?

“I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect.” Oscar Wilde

 
What's the point of telling us that he is revealing himself (wahowww), when we don't even know what or who he is?  
 
And how is he revealing himself?  
 
Can you explain baizne Allah?  
 
could you also explain why masculine pronouns are used if they are not a reference to masculine proper nouns?  
And finally, is وَمَا خَلَقْتُ 51:56 11:7 وَهُوَ الَّذِي Jibreel the angel/agency (whatever you think it is) too? Who is I and HE in these ayahs?

First, as per my limited understanding, your above translation is a wrong one, grammatically. Which word can be translated as “conceived in my mind by Alkitab..”??? Please explain it grammatically?

according to your sometimes ""humble" sometimes "limited" understanding ( you are using to point out what's wrong)Is this explanation wrong according to the Ratal and tarteel method, and is it against the core message of the Quran?

We are discussing the meanings and understanding of word Nazalahu, etc.

 
 
Dr Uncle:The confusion starts when we consider the meanings of نزول as descent from above with a concept that God is sitting somewhere above in skies and drops down or sends things from there .let me quote a verse to decide the meanings of نزول  
 
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ قَالَ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ وَلَمْ يُوحَ إِلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ وَمَنْ قَالَ سَأُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ  
 
93. and who can be more unjust than He who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: "I have received inspiration," whereas He is not inspired In anything; and who says, "I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed  
 
This is an orthodox translation and you can see even in this translation that a person is called unjust when he claims  
1…,and invents lies against Allah ,  
2…,and / or he says he also receives Wahee  
3…, “I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed .  
Note that in this verse when a liar claims that  
 
" سَأُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ " the translation of سانزل becomes I will reveal.and نزل is translated as to reveal .  
 
Another example from verse 25 of sura57  
 
لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَنْزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْمِيزَانَ لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ وَأَنْزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَلِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ وَرُسُلَهُ بِالْغَيْبِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ  
 
25. indeed we have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice. and we brought forth iron wherein is mighty power (in matters of war), as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allâh may test who it is that will help Him (his Religion), and his Messengers In the unseen. Verily, Allâh is All-Strong, All-Mighty.  
 
This is another orthodox translation and you can see even in this translation that  
َأَنْزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَاب is translated as “revealed with them the scripture “ And وَأَنْزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ is translated as brought forth iron .  
 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  
Brother Badar :- one needs to be looking at Quran just like any other book. Once we do, we find out that word Nazal means to descend. Even word descend in English was to suggest for something to descend through generations as well, not from skies. Just like the book has descended to us through generations. No Jibrail is involved in its descention to us, isn't it. Why at any time?


Comments by: moazzam On 02 November 2011
Dear Dawood! Although you are one of the intelligent sincere student of Quran, but it seem that you are not ready to leave your old preconceived belief, because you didn’t bother to read/discuss the terminologies used in the subject under discussion. Remember to produce the true sense of the message written in Alkitab you have to take may other factors into account (as i usually describe) along with the linguistic expertise.  
KINDLY RECONSIDER MY REQUEST AS UNDER (let me reproduce it again)  
Remember all the orthodox translators misunderstood the following terminologies, therefore IMPOSSIBLE TO COME IN LINE WITH those are taking the sense otherwise. Actual debatable issue is THE APPROPRIATE SENSE of the Quranic terminologies according to the context of the subject and core message of Quran.  
QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES USED IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.  
1) Malaika  
2) Jibreel.  
3) Wahy.  
4) Nuzool.  
5) Rasool.  
6) Waraa Alhijaab(behind the veil)  
7) Be izzn e Rabbihee  
8) Hijaarah.  
9) Jahannam.  
10) Be Izinallah.  
11) Qalbika.  
12) Bashar.  
13) Alkitab  
14) Ayatullah  
I HUMBLY ADVISE/INVITE TO DISCUSS/RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES IN UNDERSTANDING THE APPROPRIATE SENSE/MEANINGS OF THE ABOVE WRITTEN TERMINOLOGIES PRIOR TO INDULGE IN FOREGOING DEBATE/ISSUE.  
THANKS.(Moazzam)  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
NARGIS and MOAZZAM,  
 
When you stated/asserted the following you irrevocably refuted your own argument; there is no undoing this now, sorry:  
 
***BOB: Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1***  
 
***BOB: Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun***  
 
***BOB: Jibreel=Al-Kitab***  
 
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kita., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
You cannot have Jibreel= genitive masculine proper noun=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and then not have Pharaoh and Michael who are also, according to your rules of grammar, genitive masculine proper nouns not= Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. That would be a contradiction/discrepancy. No Nargis...It is your who is denying the grammatical construction…do you see? It's time to just admit that your position in this matter is wrong, otherwise, practically speaking...you do become the enemy of Jibreel, A/The Messenger of Allah.  
 
Here's more proof:  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him… by SENDING A MESSENGER and revealing by His permission what He pleases.  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
SAMI’A/HEAR: to hear; the act of hearing. Dictionary of Al-Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 270.  
 
8:20 proves that a messenger came to “Muhammad” and he/”Muhammad”, as with the other believers/trusters, had to obey the messenger who came to him. If this weren’t true, then Al-Quran would not apply to him/”Muhammad", because what messenger was he to obey. The ayat also mentions…”while you hear”. What did “Muhammad” hear? Well, it couldn’t have been Allah, because that would be direct contact by Allah, yeah? It couldn’t be Al-Quran, because Al-Quran cannot speak, So, what did he hear? Well, the only answer is he heard the The Messenger of Allah—Jibreel. Anyway, all of this Al-Quranic logic and common sense will certainly be lost on you.  
 
Thus far, neither of you have offered a Quranic rebuttal to the above evidence...when would that be forthcoming?  
 
Please don't give me the orthodox translations baloney or how I'm possessed by a mullah or a post on "terminologies". 8:20 is translated correctly and effectively destroys your position on this matter...unless you can prove otherwise via Al-Quran.  
 
Looking forward to both of your replies.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: naeem sheikh On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
DHULQARNAIN: READ MOAZZAM'S REPLY TO BROTHER DAWOOD  
Thus far, neither of you have offered a Quranic rebuttal to the above evidence...when would that be forthcoming?  
Please don't give me the orthodox translations baloney or how I'm possessed by a mullah or a post on "terminologies(Dhulqarnain)  
You are not ready to leave your old preconceived belief, because you didn’t bother to read/discuss the terminologies used in the subject under discussion. Remember to produce the true sense of the message written in Alkitab you have to take many other factors into account (as i usually describe) along with the linguistic expertise.  
KINDLY RECONSIDER MY REQUEST AS UNDER (let me reproduce it again)  
Remember all the orthodox translators misunderstood the following terminologies, therefore IMPOSSIBLE TO COME IN LINE WITH those are taking the sense otherwise. Actual debatable issue is THE APPROPRIATE SENSE of the Quranic terminologies according to the context of the subject and core message of Quran.  
QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES USED IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ARE AS FOLLOWING.(see the details in his posts)

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
NAEEM,  
 
***NAEEM: You are not ready to leave your old preconceived belief, because you didn’t bother to read/discuss the terminologies used in the subject under discussion. Remember to produce the true sense of the message written in Alkitab you have to take many other factors into account (as i usually describe) along with the linguistic expertise.***  
 
Yes, you’re correct , I’m not ready nor will I ever be ready to accept conjecture, opinion, and unsubstantiated assertions from anyone. How I am to accept what Nargis and Moazzam are proffering when they cannot defend their own claims?! Why, instead of writing this post, didn’t you refute what I stated in the post above? The answer is because, as with Nargis and Moazzam, you cannot refute it. So, what do you do instead?...write me this useless post.  
 
***NAEEM: Remember all the orthodox translators misunderstood the following terminologies, therefore IMPOSSIBLE TO COME IN LINE WITH those are taking the sense otherwise.***  
 
LOL! How utterly arrogant, ignorant, and (p)sychophantic of you and to believe that ALL of the terms are misunderstood by ALL, except, Qamar, Moazzam, and Nargis! This is why exactly why Nargis and Moazzam cannot refute what Dawood and myself argue. They believe their own conjectural nonsense, hence, they underestimate their opposition, hence, when someone comes along who understands these terms they get refuted post haste. It’s their pride/ego and denial which won’t allow them to accept that they are wrong sometimes.  
 
You naeem, as with the others here, have made Qamar, Moazzam, and Nargis your clergy/mullah/imam class and you turn to them for guidance. You and them are no different than the Ritualists/Traditionalists whom you vilify. What they say…you fall right in line with, despite the fact, their assertions don’t hold up to scrutiny. Here, see what I mean:  
 
Seeing how Nargis and Moazam cannot refute the following, why don’t you take a stab at it:  
 
***BOB: Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1***  
 
***BOB: Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun***  
 
***BOB: Jibreel=Al-Kitab***  
 
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kita., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
You cannot have Jibreel= genitive masculine proper noun=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and then not have Pharaoh and Michael who are also, according to your rules of grammar, genitive masculine proper nouns not= Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. That would be a contradiction/discrepancy.  
 
Here's more proof:  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him… by SENDING A MESSENGER and revealing by His permission what He pleases.  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
SAMI’A/HEAR: to hear; the act of hearing. Dictionary of Al-Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 270.  
 
8:20 proves that a messenger came to “Muhammad” and he/”Muhammad”, as with the other believers/trusters, had to obey the messenger who came to him. If this weren’t true, then Al-Quran would not apply to him/”Muhammad", because what messenger was he to obey. The ayat also mentions…”while you hear”. What did “Muhammad” hear? Well, it couldn’t have been Allah, because that would be direct contact by Allah, yeah? It couldn’t be Al-Quran, because Al-Quran cannot speak, So, what did he hear? Well, the only answer is he heard the The Messenger of Allah—Jibreel. Anyway, all of this Al-Quranic logic and common sense will certainly be lost on you.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 

Comments by: Nargis2 On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
Yes, you’re correct , I’m not ready nor will I ever be ready to accept conjecture, opinion, and unsubstantiated assertions from anyone. Dhulqarnain

Ouww, but you are ready to force your own postman pat agency conjecture understaning on others?  
 
Like Jibreel is a messenger, even though the Quran never said it,,,but you picked it up somwhere  
 
You are posting 8:20 and assuming this "messenger" came to Mohammed and he must be Jibreel,,,where is any name written in 8:20,,,Is this not conjecture,,  
 
you said momin means beliver, but corrected it to truster,,,whereas the same word used on Allah becomes trustworthy,,,Is this not conjecture  
 
You said amn means to trust, but why use amn as trust/believ when words made of waw qaf fe are used in the Quran?  
 
You have not analysed the grammar used in the orthodox translations, but you are using them to support your own fantasies....  
 
what other lies do you tell yourself to feel good ? Even the Quran is not talking to you, how can a human being? If you are certain about the Quran, you should be able to tell us who these enemies of Gabriel are, you should tell us why no name of a messenger is mentioned in 8:20 if it is about a specific messenger and not about every messenger at his time, you have to explain why you don't understand pronouns as a reference to proper nouns must be of same gender, you also have to explain why you don't read posts and continue posting orthodox translations we reject?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  
 
The confusion starts when we consider the meanings of نزول as descent from above with a concept that God is sitting somewhere above in skies and drops down or sends things from there .let me quote a verse to decide the meanings of نزول  
 
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ قَالَ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ وَلَمْ يُوحَ إِلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ وَمَنْ قَالَ سَأُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ  
 
93. and who can be more unjust than He who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: "I have received inspiration," whereas He is not inspired In anything; and who says, "I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed  
 
This is an orthodox translation and you can see even in this translation that a person is called unjust when he claims  
1…,and invents lies against Allah ,  
2…,and / or he says he also receives Wahee  
3…, “I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed .  
Note that in this verse when a liar claims that  
 
" سَأُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ " the translation of سانزل becomes I will reveal.and نزل is translated as to reveal .  
 
Another example from verse 25 of sura57  
 
لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَنْزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْمِيزَانَ لِيَقُومَ النَّاسُ بِالْقِسْطِ وَأَنْزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَلِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ وَرُسُلَهُ بِالْغَيْبِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ  
 
25. indeed we have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice. and we brought forth iron wherein is mighty power (in matters of war), as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allâh may test who it is that will help Him (his Religion), and his Messengers In the unseen. Verily, Allâh is All-Strong, All-Mighty.  
 
This is another orthodox translation and you can see even in this translation that  
َأَنْزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَاب is translated as “revealed with them the scripture “ And وَأَنْزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ is translated as brought forth iron .  
 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  
 
One needs to be looking at Quran just like any other book. Once we do, we find out that word Nazal means to descend. Even word descend in English was to suggest for something to descend through generations as well, not from skies. Just like the book has descended to us through generations. No Jibrail is involved in its descention to us, isn't it. Why at any time?


Comments by: Mujeeb On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
My dear Brother Dhulqarnain; yours scholarly reflection always apparent usually from your work, I wondered why you hesitate to accept their good offer to discuss the Quranic terminologies prior to indulge further in the on going matter. As Mr. Naeem said  
"Actual debatable issue is to determine "THE APPROPRIATE SENSE OF THE QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES" in the light of the context of the subject and core message of Quran"  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 02 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS,  
 
***NARGIS: Ouww, but you are ready to force your own postman pat agency conjecture understaning on others? Like Jibreel is a messenger, even though the Quran never said it,,,but you picked it up somewhere. You are posting 8:20 and assuming this "messenger" came to Mohammed and he must be Jibreel,,,where is any name written in 8:20,,,Is this not conjecture,***  
 
It’s no conjecture and I proved this via tasreef. You’re familiar with that term, right? Here, look at my presentation again:  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him… by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases.  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
26:192-195 And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds./The Faithful Spirit has brought it,/On thy heart that thou mayest be a warner,/In plain Arabic language  
 
81:19-21 Surely it is the word of a bountiful Messenger, 81:20 The possessor of strength, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, 81:21 One to be obeyed, and Faithful.  
 
Here’s the analysis...AGAIN:  
 
In ayat 2:97 Jibreel is cited as the being who brought revelation (the revelation is, in fact, A/THE MESSAGE from Allah who conceived it), thus, making Jibreel, in fact, a messenger from Allah to “Muhammad”. What he/Jibreel brought to “Muhammad”—The Message, was to be obeyed (ayat 81:21) by “Muhammad”, hence, the prophet saying in ayat 10:15:  
 
10:15…I follow nothing but what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I disobey my Lord…  
 
Keep in mind that the phrase—obey the messenger must also apply to “Muhammad”. In other words…who did he obey? Certainly it was Allah, but please keep in mind that Allah, according to 42:51, did not DIRECTLY reveal anything to “Muhammad”, but Jibreel, per ayat 2:97, certainly did, hence, making him the one “Muhammad” had to obey! Jibreel, clearly, is a messenger.  
 
Ayats 81: 19:21 are speaking directly of Jibreel, because there is no other messenger to the prophets other than him, hence, the singular term messenger in ayat 42:51. Remember now that, 42:51 is referring to a messenger who is in the presence of Allah in the Ghaib/outside of this plane of existence. Given the above ayats and analysis, there is no doubt that Jibreel is a messenger and the messenger being referred to in ayats 42:51 and 81:19-21.  
 
Here’s proof that Jibreel was an angel:  
 
22:75 Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men. Surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing.  
 
So, either Jibreel was a human or an angel…what do you say? :D  
 
Where’s the conjecture? The tasreef has made it abundantly clear that Jibreel was the messenger-angel from Allah to “Muhammad”.  
 
Do you agree, now?  
 
Now, from Al-Quran, what are you going to refute the above analysis with?  
 
Moving on.  
 
Here, once again, is my rebuttal to Bob’s fiction, which you whole heartedly 100% agree with, regarding Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.  
 
When you stated/asserted the following you irrevocably refuted your own argument; there is no undoing this now, sorry:  
 
***BOB: Alkitab = genitive masculine proper noun 15:1***  
 
***BOB: Jibraeel= genitive masculine proper noun***  
 
***BOB: Jibreel=Al-Kitab***  
 
Al-Quran is consistent (39:23), hence, wherever "genitive masculine proper noun" is used in Al-Quran, then it must mean Al-Kita., therefore, the following, likewise, must mean Al-Kitab as well:  
 
2:49 And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to severe torment, killing your sons and sparing your women, and in this there was a great trial from your Lord.  
 
Pharaoh: genitive masculine proper noun  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers.  
 
Michael: genitive masculine proper noun.  
 
It's time to just admit that your position in this matter is wrong, otherwise, practically speaking...you do become the enemy of Jibreel, A/The Messenger of Allah. Think about that.  
 
Looking forward to a cogent and an Al-Quranic refutation…nothing less. Do you think you can do that, Beautiful? Let’s see.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 03 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MUJEEB,  
 
***"Actual debatable issue is to determine "THE APPROPRIATE SENSE OF THE QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES" in the light of the context of the subject and core message of Quran"***  
 
You have the so-called "terminology"--Jibreel, wrong. Or, do you agree that Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran? Please state your position on this matter and prove it.  
 
The core message of Al-Quran is as follows:  
 
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the polytheists/mushrikeen.  
 
So, based on that, please respond to my rebuttal of Nargis and Bob (November 2, 2011 post). Prove her to accurate via Al-Quran. No editorializing, thanks.  
 
Dhulqarnain:

Comments by: dawood On 03 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Nargis:  
 
“Nargis: If Jibreel is both FainaHU and NAzalaHU , then he is both, revealed and the one who reveals.  
Fainnahu nazaluhu = HE revelaed IT  
If both HE and IT is referring to Jibril, it would mean he revealed himself.”  
 
Please have a look at verse 16:193: NAZALA BIHI ArulAmin: He brought IT or came with IT or descended with IT RohulAmin. First, who is performing the act of NAZALA and what is being brought down? It is obvious that RohulAmin is the doer who descended or came with the message, Alkitab/Alquran, although there is no reference to what he came with. Now return to 2:97, and do some tasreef to see that nothing descended or revealed to the QALB of Prophet except the Message/ALQURAN/ALKITAB. Thus, Jibril is performing the same task in 2:97 which is performed by RohulAmin in 26:193.  
 
“Nargis: And now according to you and your mullahs translations, no1 can see him because he is a private postman pat between Allah and the prophet, still he have enemies?”  
 
I don’t have an answer to this. I am still trying to figure it out. My not knowing this, however, does not enable me to jump to a conclusion and say oh it did not exist or it did not happen that way. Not having a knowledge of something cannot rule out the existence of that something.  
 
“Nargis: Can you explain baizne Allah?”  
 
Please see Lanes Vol. 1, pages 42, column 3: By the will of God; by His permission; by God’s removal, prevention, and prohibition, etc.  
 
“Nargis: And finally, is وَمَا خَلَقْتُ 51:56 11:7 وَهُوَ الَّذِي Jibreel the angel/agency (whatever you think it is) too? Who is I and HE in these ayahs?”  
 
I thought you quoted this: “I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect.” Oscar Wilde  
 
“Nargis: according to your sometimes ""humble" sometimes "limited" understanding ( you are using to point out what's wrong)Is this explanation wrong according to the Ratal and tarteel method, and is it against the core message of the Quran?”  
 
Please review 16:102 and tell me which word/phrase could be grammatically translated as “conceived in my mind by Alkitab..”? Although I am not an expert on Ratal and Tarteel, these do not lead me to what Br. Moazzam concluded, nor it could be used to set aside direct and clear grammatical constructions.  
 
Can you explain what is the core message of the Quran and which verse(s) support your point of view?  
 
“Nargis: Dr Uncle:The confusion starts when we consider the meanings of نزول as descent from above with a concept that God is sitting somewhere above in skies and drops down or sends things from there .let me quote a verse to decide the meanings of نزول”  
 
I am not sure why and for what purpose you quoted Dr. QZ on 6:93 and 57:25. If anything, 6:93 highlights the following:  
 
1. The one who claims that “I have received inspiration, WAHI” is Zaalim. All such claims that Wahi is equivalent to conceiving, deducing, inferring, etc. from nature, by anyone is laid to rest. Thus, Wahi was something special that chosen messnegers and prophets received from their LORD, not from universe/nature.  
 
2. Second part of this verse puts to rest all such claims that Nuzool is equivalent to conceiving the message, etc. by anyone in his mind through laws of nature, etc. What Allah has revealed is Alquran/Alkitab. Therefore, Nuzool with reference to Alkitab is the availability of this document in our hands. It’s a done deal.  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 04 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE DAWOOD  
 
NARGIS: “Nargis: And now according to you and your mullahs translations, no1 can see him because he is a private postman pat between Allah and the prophet, still he have enemies?”  
 
DAWOOD: I don’t have an answer to this. I am still trying to figure it out. My not knowing this, however, does not enable me to jump to a conclusion and say oh it did not exist or it did not happen that way. Not having a knowledge of something cannot rule out the existence of that something.  
 
Isn’t interesting that Nargis, Moazzam, and Co. can up with the most bizarre, intricate, AND convoluted conjectures in support of their outrageously wild assertions, for examples, Al-Khatim Nabiyeen means “appointing prophet”, Allah=govt. on earth, and Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, but, because Jibreel cannot be seen how can he possibly have enemies!  
 
ENEMY: Someone who is hostile to, feels hatred towards, opposes the interests of, or intends injury to someone else;  
 
Jibreel has enemies, because he was the agency entrusted with bringing the Message/Al-Quran to “Muhammad”. By discrediting him, The Message and The Messager to whom he came, likewise, also get discredited. By doing exactly what Nargis is doing, i.e. denying that Jibreel is a messenger-angel, she is also discrediting the Prophet “Muhammad”, because how did he then get Al-Quran? Remember now, Nargis, Moazzam, and Co. assert that Allah has no DIRECT intervention with humans (they are correct here) so there are only two ways that the “Muhammad” could have come up with Al-Quran:  
 
1. Jibreel, a messenger-angel brought it him from Allah.  
 
2. “Muhammad” studied “the laws of nature” and conceived in his mind Al-Quran, in other words,---he can be easily accused of having just made Al-Quran up, because nothing brought Al-Quran to him.  
 
By denying Jibreel is a messenger-angel, being correct that Allah does not directly intervene in human affairs, and asserting that “Muhammad” studied “the laws of nature” and conceived in his mind Al-Quran/he made it up, you can see how easily now it is to discredit Jibreel as sentient being, “Muhammad” as rational person and prophet, and Al-Quran as divine book. By asserting the position that Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran Nargis, Moazzam, and Co, unwittlingly, have become enemies to Jibreel, because they are, once again, albeit unwittingly, have assigned a lie to Allah and what He revealed.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Nargis On 05 November 2011Report Abuse
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
SAMI’A/HEAR: to hear; the act of hearing. Dictionary of Al-Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 270.  
 
8:20 proves that a messenger came to “Muhammad” and he/”Muhammad”, as with the other believers/trusters, had to obey the messenger who came to him. If this weren’t true, then Al-Quran would not apply to him/”Muhammad", because what messenger was he to obey. The ayat also mentions…”while you hear”. What did “Muhammad” hear? Well, it couldn’t have been Allah, because that would be direct contact by Allah, yeah? It couldn’t be Al-Quran, because Al-Quran cannot speak, So, what did he hear? Well, the only answer is he heard the The Messenger of Allah—Jibreel.  
Anyway, all of this Al-Quranic logic and common sense will certainly be lost on you.

Oh may God, what a brilliant observations, because the word hearing, sami is used then rest of the story MUST MUST MUST be (let me rephrase what your words so everyone can understand your conjectures,,ermm I mean divine knowledge)  
 
Once upon a time in far-away-istan, we had a messenger to be who walked around in the desert, kicked a little sand here and kicked a little sand there. He sometime got bored and played in the sand, sometimes he sang songs ding dong, and sometimes he jumped on his right foot and then the left foot, and so on so on. That was the only way to keep oneself –busy…  
 
What he didn’t know ws that God is keeping an eye on him, and God was really angry to see his sand being kicked, what’s with the youth of today? No respect for God’s creation eh? So God decided to send his biggest super- hit-angel, called Postriel. And no it’s not post-real! Postriel was only visible for few bored chosen beloved ones who had nothing to do in the desert.  
 
Postriel got his armor on, his wings, and flew down with a book. He landed in front of the messenger to be, but our man didn’t get scared or shocked. Postriel just began to read from the Book and the messenger to be got so bored that he had to turn away. Postriel was offended, because that happened every time he visited a messenger to be, after all 8:20 is a general aya for every messenger to be.  
 
Then Postriel shouted out 8:20 and warned them this is a command from Allah, that dont TURN AWAY WHILE YOU HEAR...  
 
The messenger was afraid of being skin braided by God, so they didn’t turn away while hearing ever again. When they started to hear, they were now automatically selected to become the new messengers of their time. Their boring desert days had come to an end. Now they had a new activity plan, namely to convince people to leave their belief and join a new belief.  
 
Snippy snappy snoopy, fairytale is toppy and they lived happily ever after  
 
Writers: Two A students from Mullah-istan  
::::::::::::::  
 
1400 years later this story is used to convince stupid people to believe in an invisible angel flying down from seven eleven from heaven. Because they don't want to travel alone in the hell of darkness...  
 
NICE TRY THOUGH

 

Comments by: Nargis On 05 November 2011Report Abuse
Please have a look at verse 16:193: NAZALA BIHI ArulAmin: He brought IT or came with IT or descended with IT RohulAmin. First, who is performing the act of NAZALA and what is being brought down? DAWOOD

who is who  
how is who  
who is how  
the one who is how  
how would anyone know  
who is who whose how?  
 
Please show  
right now  
 
from the Quran.  
 
And repeat after me,,, Nazool = revealed, not sent DOWN  
 
If you say this every day at least 10 times, you will memorize it.

It is obvious that RohulAmin is the doer who descended or came with the message, Alkitab/Alquran, although there is no reference to what he came with.

So he could have come down with anything, like buns and syrup? When people became enemies of Gabriel, Allah made sure to illuminate them about the origin of Gabriel, He was sent down fro heaven,but when these people hindered the prophets to implement the Quran, Allah never bothered to tell where it comes from?  
 
the enemies felt really bad when they heard Gabriel is from heaven, right? Even though its pointed out that Gabriel is confirming previous scriptures,,,HOW DID HE DO THAT, WHEN HE IS INVISIBLE TO OTHER PEOPLE? But enemies are not bothered about that,right? Or maybe this information is for the messenger who used to turn away while hearing in his younger days as pointed out by your colleague Dhulqarnain regarding 8:20,, right?  
 
Feel free to attack our intellect with more fairy tales, we have digested Bokhari & co, why not the two of you

 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 05 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS, MOAZZAM, AND CO.  
 
***Oh may God, what a brilliant observations, because the word hearing, sami is used then rest of the story MUST MUST MUST be (let me rephrase what your words so everyone can understand your conjectures,,ermm I mean divine knowledge) Once upon a time in far-away-istan, we had a messenger to be who walked around in the desert, kicked a little sand here and kicked a little sand there. He sometime got bored and played in the sand, sometimes he sang songs ding dong, and sometimes he jumped on his right foot and then the left foot, and so on so on. That was the only way to keep oneself –busy… What he didn’t know ws that God is keeping an eye on him, and God was really angry to see his sand being kicked, what’s with the youth of today? No respect for God’s creation eh? So God decided to send his biggest super- hit-angel, called Postriel. And no it’s not post-real! Postriel was only visible for few bored chosen beloved ones who had nothing to do in the desert. Postriel got his armor on, his wings, and flew down with a book. He landed in front of the messenger to be, but our man didn’t get scared or shocked. Postriel just began to read from the Book and the messenger to be got so bored that he had to turn away. Postriel was offended, because that happened every time he visited a messenger to be, after all 8:20 is a general aya for every messenger to be. Then Postriel shouted out 8:20 and warned them this is a command from Allah, that dont TURN AWAY WHILE YOU HEAR... The messenger was afraid of being skin braided by God, so they didn’t turn away while hearing ever again. When they started to hear, they were now automatically selected to become the new messengers of their time. Their boring desert days had come to an end. Now they had a new activity plan, namely to convince people to leave their belief and join a new belief. Snippy snappy snoopy, fairytale is toppy and they lived happily ever after. Writers: Two A students from Mullah-istan. 1400 years later this story is used to convince stupid people to believe in an invisible angel flying down from seven eleven from heaven. Because they don't want to travel alone in the hell of darkness... NICE TRY THOUGH***  
 
LOL! Your post is a classic illustration of someone who is totally bereft an offense or defense. Your assertion has collapsed, as it did with Al-Khatim Nabiyeen, and you think by mocking that you have forwarded your own claims and refuted mine. Nothing can be further from the reality, however. You still have not explained these unanswered fissures in your position:  
 
A) CENTRAL QUESTION…how did the Prophet “Muhammad” get Al-Quran?  
 
Here are the only scenarios:  
 
1. Allah revealed it to him directly.  
 
2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.  
 
3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies.  
 
There is no fourth option.  
 
Now, 1. Cannot be true, because according to 42:51 and Nargis, Moazzam, and Co., Allah does not directly interfere in the affairs of humans. 2 cannot be correct, because you, Moazzam, and Co. declare Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. The only option available to you is option 3, but that becomes problematic, unless of course, you are prepared to declare to the world that “Muhammad”, own his own, conceived/made up/authored Al-Quran. This is the very thing which a party of the Christians and Jews claim, so, are they correct, then? According to you, Moazzam, and Co..they have to be correct, because it’s the same position as yours!  
 
Mock all you wish, but you still have not explained:  
 
B) What did “Muhammad”, hear?  
 
1. The voice of Allah?  
 
2. The voice of Jibreel?  
 
3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
 
There is no fourth option, so, which is it, then?  
 
It cannot be option 1., because that would mean direct intervention by Allah which you reject.  
 
It cannot be option 2., because Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and the book does not make sounds.  
 
The only option is option, but that would mean that “Muhammad” heard is own internal voices speaking to him, thus, making him mad. Isn’t that exactly what a party of the Christians and Jews declare? According to you, Moazzam, and Co., they would have to right again.  
 
C) The next major problem you, Moazzam, and Co. have is…what Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, soooo, what Messenger did he have to obey?  
 
1. It cannot be Allah, because Allah is not a messenger.  
 
2. It cannot be Jibreel, because you you, Moazzam, and Co., deny that Jibreel is a messenger-angel. Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran and seeing how “Muhammad”, according to you, Moazzam, and Co. conceived Al-Quran in his mind, it ( Al-Kitab/Al-Quran ), likewise, cannot be a messenger. What messenger did he/"Muhammad" have to obey?  
 
Nargis you have no intelligent ground to stand upon, and that is why your reply was mockery, rather than, an intelligent and reasoned Al-Quranic reply. You’re finished, Nargis, sorry.  
 
If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to do better.  
 
Dhulqarnain:  
 
 

Comments by: Waqar On 05 November 2011Report Abuse
Dhulqarnain,  
You wrote:  
"8:20 proves that a messenger came to “Muhammad” and he/”Muhammad”, as with the other believers/trusters, had to obey the messenger who came to him. If this weren’t true, then Al-Quran would not apply to him/”Muhammad", because what messenger was he to obey. The ayat also mentions…”while you hear”. What did “Muhammad” hear? Well, it couldn’t have been Allah, because that would be direct contact by Allah, yeah? It couldn’t be Al-Quran, because Al-Quran cannot speak, So, what did he hear? Well, the only answer is he heard the The Messenger of Allah—Jibreel. Anyway, all of this Al-Quranic logic and common sense will certainly be lost on you."  
 
Let's replace "Muhammad" by "Dhulqarnain" in your above explanation as it seems that you are a strong believer and hence 8:20 should apply to you too.  
 
8:20 proves that a messenger came to "Dhulqarnain" and he/"Dhulqarnain", as with the other believers/trusters, had to obey the messenger who came to him. If this weren’t true, then Al-Quran would not apply to him/"Dhulqarnain", because what messenger was he to obey. The ayat also mentions…”while you hear”. What did "Dhulqarnain" hear? Well, it couldn’t have been Allah, because that would be direct contact by Allah, yeah? It couldn’t be Al-Quran, because Al-Quran cannot speak, So, what did he hear? Well, the only answer is he heard the The Messenger of Allah—Jibreel. Anyway, all of this Al-Quranic logic and common sense will certainly be lost on you.  
 
Now let's go back to your translation of 8:20.  
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
Please answer following:  
1) Why do we have to obey Allah and His messenger? Is obeying Allah not sufficient?  
2) How do we obey Allah?  
3) Which messenger are we supposed to obey today?  
4) Turn not away from whom, Allah or Messenger?  
 
It will be benificial for us if you could explain 8:20 starting from 8:17. Here is one of the translation of 8:17.  
 
8:17 It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).  
 
It seems Allah is fighting against his own creation.  
 
Plese help me understand 8:17 thru 8:20.  
 
Regards,  
Waqar

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 05 November 2011Report Abuse
WAQAR,  
 
WAQAR: It will be benificial for us if you could explain 8:20 starting from 8:17. Here is one of the translation of 8:17. 8:17 It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things). It seems Allah is fighting against his own creation. Plese help me understand 8:17 thru 8:20.***  
 
I am not concerned with those ayats, my focus is 8:20—it stands on its own.  
 
WAQAR: Now let's go back to your translation of 8:20. Please answer following:  
 
Good idea, let’s stay focused. :D  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
WAQAR 1) Why do we have to obey Allah and His messenger?***  
 
We don’t “have to” do anything, we have a choice—serve Allah or serve shaitan. If we serve Allah we get Paradise. If we serve shaitan we get Hell. Simple choice, eh?  
 
WAQAR Is obeying Allah not sufficient? How do we obey Allah? ***  
 
Yes, it is sufficient! It’s all about obeying Allah! When you obey the Message/what was revealed/what was sent down you obey Allah, to wit:  
 
6:106 Follow that WHICH IS REVEALED TO YOU from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the polytheists.  
 
10:15 … I follow nothing but WHAT IS REVEALED TO ME . Indeed I fear, if I DISOBEYED my Lord, the chastisement of a grievous day.  
 
“Muhammad” did not disobey what what was revealed to him, and, by obeying The Message/what was revealed to him, obeyed both Allah and the messenger-angel Jibreel .  
 
WAQAR 3) Which messenger are we supposed to obey today? Turn not away from whom, Allah or Messenger?***  
 
Al-Quran [in English] is the messenger to me:  
 
6:19 Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me. And this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and WHOMSOEVER IT (Al-Quran) REACHES.  
 
14:4 And We sent NO MESSENGER BUT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE, so that he might explain to them clearly. Then Allah leaves in error whom He pleases and He guides whom He pleases. And He is the Mighty, the Wise.  
 
61:6 And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news a MESSENGER WHO WILL COME AFTER ME, HIS NAME BEING AHMAD. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment.  
 
Ahmad is the comparative form of hamid, hence, The Messenger to come after Jesus would be better/more worthy of praise than what he was given. Ahmad=Al-Quran/The Message.  
 
Now, are you going to answer my questions with proof or continue to be arrogant and rude and ask yours but ignore mine?  
 
A) CENTRAL QUESTION…how did the Prophet “Muhammad” get Al-Quran?  
 
Here are the only scenarios:  
 
1. Allah revealed it to him directly.  
 
2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.  
 
3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies.  
 
There is no fourth option.  
 
 
B) What did “Muhammad”, hear?  
 
1. The voice of Allah?  
 
2. The voice of Jibreel?  
 
3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
 
There is no fourth option, so, which is it, then?  
 
 
C) What Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, so, what Messenger did he have to obey?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: abdullahbashoeb On 05 November 2011
Salam  
 
As we have seen, the system Prophet Mohammad established was based on the laws of the Quran i.e. when people obeyed the Prophet, they actually obeyed Allah (4:80) because the Prophet used to judge all matters according to the Book of Allah (5:48). So, what is the meaning of "Atee-‘ullah –wa- Atee-‘ur-Rasool" (obey Allah and obey the Prophet)? Since there are more than twenty verses in the Quran on this topic, its importance cannot be overemphasized  
 
 
"Yaa ayyuhal lazheena aamanu atee’ullaha wa attee’ur Rsoolahu wa laa tawallau ‘anho wa antum tasma’oon" [O you who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him while you are hearing.] (8:20)  
 
In this verse the pronoun used for Allah and the Messenger is singular (‘anho). If the reference had been to two separate obediences then, according to Arabic grammar, the pronoun should have been ‘anhuma (for two)  
 
Salam

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 06 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE ABDALLAHBASOEB,  
 
***As we have seen, the system Prophet Mohammad established was based on the laws of the Quran i.e.***  
What system did he establish? Please post the ayat which says this. I’m not sayig your not correct, I just want to see it.  
*** when people obeyed the Prophet, they actually obeyed Allah (4:80) because the Prophet used to judge all matters according to the Book of Allah (5:48).***  
 
You are not correct here. There is no command form Allah to obey the Prophet. The command is to obey the Messenger.  
 
***So, what is the meaning of "Atee-‘ullah –wa- Atee-‘ur-Rasool" (obey Allah and obey the Prophet)? Since there are more than twenty verses in the Quran on this topic, its importance cannot be overemphasized***  
 
Rasool and prophet are two different capacities. There is no “Atee-al-Nabi” anywhere in Al-Quran.  
 
22:52 And We did not send before you any messenger OR prophet, but when he desired, …  
 
***In this verse the pronoun used for Allah and the Messenger is singular (‘anho). If the reference had been to two separate obediences then, according to Arabic grammar, the pronoun should have been ‘anhuma (for two)***  
 
So, who then is the pronoun “he” referring to—Allah or the Messenger? Choose one and explain.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: abdullahbashoeb On 06 November 2011
Salam Br Dulqarnai.  
 
I think here is more than one references for your kind information, where in Quran says to obey AlNNabi refer to Al  
Rasulan AlNNabi to whom this Quran was revealed that is Mohaammad Alrasulullah AlNNbiun.......  
 
إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ وَهَـذَا النَّبِيُّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَاللّهُ وَلِيُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
 
 
 
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُواْ النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ  
 
 
 
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ لاَ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ يُحْيِـي وَيُمِيتُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ  
 
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَسْبُكَ اللّهُ وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
 
 
Salam  
 
 
 
 
 

Comments by: Nargis On 06 November 2011Report Abuse
2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.Dhulqarnain

But I wonder, if the messenger turned away while Gabriel were talking important hot stuff, so instead of yelling at the messenger, why couldn't Gabriel just jump from one side to the other side, where the prophet had turned his face? Is it not bad to tell us that the prophet used to get bored and turned away from Gabriel?but main point is that Gabriel flew down from seven heaven, but cant fly from the right ear side to the left ears side? could it be that the prophets neck was hurting so he had to turn away? Remember it is a long message so it is possible that he got tired having his head turned towards Gabriel for hours?

Ahmad is the comparative form of hamid, hence, The Messenger to come after Jesus would be better/more worthy of praise than what he was given. Ahmad=Al-Quran/The Message.

Of course , your a genius, I envy you.  
 
So if the society is having AIDS, Jesus came with a medicine to cure them, to eliminate the disease(which it does), but he is telling these guys that later when other people will have the same disease, a better medicine will come...which is doing the SAME thing as the medicine given to me,,,but it is better.  
 
The source of the medicine is same, its effects are the same... but it is better.  
 
Not to mention, everyone will turn away their face when the source will send its medicine man to the distributors..He is not improved but the medicine is :-D  
 
Only a genius could come up with something like that,wallahi.


Comments by: Nargis On 06 November 2011Report Abuse
There is no “Atee-al-Nabi” anywhere in Al-Quran. dhulqarnain

Aha, so people don't have to follow the Nabi, only the Rusool? It means this is a spelling mistake,,ermm, or is this ayah given when the prophet had turned his face away from Gabriel?  
 
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 06 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS,  
 
DHULQARNAIN: . Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.Dhulqarnain  
 
***NARGIS: But I wonder, if the messenger turned away while Gabriel were talking important hot stuff, so instead of yelling at the messenger, why couldn't Gabriel just jump from one side to the other side, where the prophet had turned his face? Is it not bad to tell us that the prophet used to get bored and turned away from Gabriel?but main point is that Gabriel flew down from seven heaven, but cant fly from the right ear side to the left ears side? could it be that the prophets neck was hurting so he had to turn away? Remember it is a long message so it is possible that he got tired having his head turned towards Gabriel for hours?***  
 
DHULQARNAIN: It’s because you mock so much that the message is more and more lost on you. You know that your assertion has been refuted and rather than admit to it and grow from it and become more solidly Quraniyoon, you prefer in stead to sulk and mock. You cannot serve Allah or humanity with your current mindset. In no way am I advocating what you wrote above, this is your limited understanding of the matter. 8:20 really exploded your conjectures,eh? As I said before, you recent posts have not proven your claims nor have they refuted mine. Your Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran notion, has utterly disintegrated in the light of 8:20  
 
DHULQARNAIN: Ahmad is the comparative form of hamid, hence, The Messenger to come after Jesus would be better/more worthy of praise than what he was given. Ahmad=Al-Quran/The Message.  
 
***NARGIS: Of course , your a genius, I envy you. So if the society is having AIDS, Jesus came with a medicine to cure them, to eliminate the disease(which it does), but he is telling these guys that later when other people will have the same disease, a better medicine will come...which is doing the SAME thing as the medicine given to me,,,but it is better. The source of the medicine is same, its effects are the same... but it is better. Not to mention, everyone will turn away their face when the source will send its medicine man to the distributors..He is not improved but the medicine is :-D Only a genius could come up with something like that,wallahi.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: Isa’s message, unlike the Message that was to come after, was only meant for the Children of Israel; he was sent to them specifically.  
 
61:6 And when Isa son of Marium said: O CHILDREN OF ISRAEL! SURELY I AM A MESSENGER of Allah TO YOU, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.  
 
The message to come after him was meant for…whomever:  
 
6:19 Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and WHOMSOEVER IT REACHES…  
 
Al-Quran is Ahmad/better, because it is the final revelation from Allah. It is a guardian over that which came before it, hence, it is better, because there is nothing coming after it. If there is something better coming after Al-Quran, please post the ayat which makes that case, thanks. Your analogy fails, before the reality of things.  
 
5:48 And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed...  
 
DHULQARNAIN: There is no “Atee-al-Nabi” anywhere in Al-Quran.  
 
***NARGIS: Aha, so people don't have to follow the Nabi, only the Rusool? It means this is a spelling mistake,,ermm, or is this ayah given when the prophet had turned his face away from Gabriel? O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.  
 
I’ll ask you again, where is the ayat where Allah says to obey the Prophet? Is that forthcoming? Anyway, what you posted is Allah commanding the Prophet to say something to his family and the believers with him. Is the Prophet here today with us? How does one obey the Prophet today? Please tell us, thanks. That ayat was specific to him and those with him during his life not for us today. If you’re advocating “obey the Prophet” then the claims of the Ritualist /Traditionalist/Mullahs, whom you claim you revile, are correct! Is not their claim to…obey the Prophet along with Allah and His Ayats?  
 
Nargy, your mocking and ridicule and refusal to admit when you’re wrong blinds you to the truth, and compels you to make more and more silly comments. You’re in a bad bad bad place right now, Beautiful…you are becoming the enemy of Jibreel. Ayat 8:20 has done you, Moazzam, and Co. in. Just admit it and let’s move on to another topic of concern to the Quraniyeen.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 06 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE ABDALLAHBASOEB,  
 
***I think here is more than one references for your kind information, where in Quran says to obey AlNNabi refer to Al  
Rasulan AlNNabi to whom this Quran was revealed that is Mohaammad Alrasulullah AlNNbiun....... ***  
 
إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ وَهَـذَا النَّبِيُّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَاللّهُ وَلِيُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
 
 
 
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُواْ النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ  
 
 
 
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ لاَ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ يُحْيِـي وَيُمِيتُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ  
 
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَسْبُكَ اللّهُ وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
 
Please post the above in English, thanks.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: dawood On 07 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Sister Nargis:  
 
“Nargis: who is who how is who who is how the one who is how how would anyone know who is who whose how? Please show right now from the Quran.”  
 
I am not sure what is exactly your translation or stand on 26:193. So please give me your understanding of 26:93 and then I would reply to your questions.  
 
“Nargis: And repeat after me,,, Nazool = revealed, not sent DOWN . If you say this every day at least 10 times, you will memorize it.”  
 
Dear sister, please stop acting as a joker and be a serious student of the ALquran.  
 
You mean “revealed” as opposed to hidden, if I have correctly understood your point. Put your that understanding in 6:7-8 and see it for yourself. These translations are taken from  
http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%286:8:1%29  
 
And even if We had sent down to you, a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, "This is not but obvious magic."  
And they say, "Why was there not sent down to him an angel?" But if We had sent down an angel, the matter would have been decided; then they would not be reprieved.  
 
“Nargis: So he could have come down with anything, like buns and syrup? When people became enemies of Gabriel, Allah made sure to illuminate them about the origin of Gabriel, He was sent down fro heaven,but when these people hindered the prophets to implement the Quran, Allah never bothered to tell where it comes from?  
the enemies felt really bad when they heard Gabriel is from heaven, right? Even though its pointed out that Gabriel is confirming previous scriptures,,,HOW DID HE DO THAT, WHEN HE IS INVISIBLE TO OTHER PEOPLE? But enemies are not bothered about that,right? Or maybe this information is for the messenger who used to turn away while hearing in his younger days as pointed out by your colleague Dhulqarnain regarding 8:20,, right?”  
 
Your mocking attitude is as good as any Mullah could do in Pakistan today. About the enemy stuff, I told you I don’t know this answer yet. Dhulqarnain provided a good rationale reply above, though. Did you read it? I will take up the issue of who came with what when you reply to my first request in this post.  
 
“Nargis: Feel free to attack our intellect with more fairy tales, we have digested Bokhari & co, why not the two of you”  
 
Fairy tales are of at least two kinds, the one given to us by our ancestors and the others given to us by our so called rationalists who claim to steer away from fairy tales, yet indulging in the same with different names though. With such a display of arrogance, you donot show any sign of intellect rather hardened opinions and those too borrowed from others.  

Comments by: dawood On 07 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Dhulqarnain:  
 
"Dhulqarnain: .....and asserting that “Muhammad” studied “the laws of nature” and conceived in his mind Al-Quran/he made it up, you can see how easily now it is to discredit Jibreel as sentient being, “Muhammad” as rational person .... because they are, once again, albeit unwittingly, have assigned a lie to Allah and what He revealed."  
 
Thanks for your rational explanation. I would like to take a trivial example to highlight my understanding. It is our day-to-day observation that sometimes ambassadors are expelled by their hosts for serious policy differences with other countries that are represented by those ambassadors. Are host governments enemies to the persons of ambassadors or they are merely showing a disapproval of the policies pursued by the concerned countries represented by the expelled ambassadors? The answer is obvious.  
 
There is a term "ADUWAN Allah" in Alquran in 2:98. Given the fact Allah cannot even be comprehended much less to be seen, how people would show enmity towards Allah? IS this enmity toward the person of Allah, so to speak, or is it directed toward His commandments? The answer is obvious. Thus, the argument that "...how people could be enemy to Jibreel even when they cannot see him...?" is null and void.  

Comments by: Mujeeb On 08 November 2011Report Abuse
Dawood: I would like to take a trivial example to highlight my understanding. It is our day-to-day observation that sometimes ambassadors are expelled by their hosts for serious policy differences with other countries that are represented by those ambassadors. Are host governments enemies to the persons of ambassadors or they are merely showing a disapproval of the policies pursued by the concerned countries represented by the expelled ambassadors?(dawood)  
Mujeeb: Read the verse 2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.  
Is jibreel working as an ambassador of Allah to convey His policies for the dwellers in planet earth?  
Or the rasool/Nabi/prophet is His ambassador?

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 08 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE DAWOOD,  
 
"DHULQARNAIN: .....and asserting that “Muhammad” studied “the laws of nature” and conceived in his mind Al-Quran/he made it up, you can see how easily now it is to discredit Jibreel as sentient being, “Muhammad” as rational person .... because they are, once again, albeit unwittingly, have assigned a lie to Allah and what He revealed."  
 
***DAWOOD:Thanks for your rational explanation.  
 
Thank you for your kind words, Dawood.  
 
***DAWOOD: There is a term "ADUWAN Allah" in Alquran in 2:98. Given the fact Allah cannot even be comprehended much less to be seen, how people would show enmity towards Allah? IS this enmity toward the person of Allah, so to speak, or is it directed toward His commandments? The answer is obvious. Thus, the argument that "...how people could be enemy to Jibreel even when they cannot see him...?" is null and void.  
 
Dawood, yes, the answer is obvious. You are spot on as is your custom to be. It is simply inexplicable to me why Nargis, Moazzam, Aastana Exec. Board, and their supporters cannot or will not accept the obvious. The reason, or one of the reasons, I believe, for their behavior is that the obvious is boring/a conversation stopper and there is no fun in that for them. By re-working, conjecturing, redefining, etc. it gives them something to “go on about”/to prove that they’re “heavy”/to see who can come up with the “true meaning” of an ayat regardless of how bizarre it might be. It is because of this behavior that it is so easy for you and I to dismantle their silly and naïve claims time and again, yet, they still won’t learn. It really is mindboggling.  
 
Here are some of the topics which we’ve had to correct them on:  
 
1. Pronouns/proper names in Al-Quran.  
2. Khatim Nabiyeen.  
3. Jibreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.  
4. Zina/illicit sexual expression.  
 
Looking forward to reading more of your fine insights.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 08 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MUJEEB,  
 
***MUJEEB: Is jibreel working as an ambassador of Allah to convey His policies for the dwellers in planet earth? Or the rasool/Nabi/prophet is His ambassador?  
 
This the very thing Dawood was criticizing some of the members here of—not accepting the obvious. Why can’t you just accept the obvious?? The obvious is—both Jibreel and The Prophet “Muhammad” were messengers. What is the point of tying to now redefine them as ambassadors? Dawood put to rest the “enemy” question when he posted the following:  
 
2:98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then surely Allah is an enemy to disbelievers  
 
***DAWOOD: There is a term "ADUWAN Allah" in Alquran in 2:98. Given the fact Allah cannot even be comprehended much less to be seen, how people would show enmity towards Allah? IS this enmity toward the person of Allah, so to speak, or is it directed toward His commandments? The answer is obvious. Thus, the argument that "...how people could be enemy to Jibreel even when they cannot see him...?" is null and void.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Waqar On 09 November 2011Report Abuse
Is enemy of Allah = Enmity towards commandments of Allah = Enmity towards Al-Quran?  
Is enemy of Jibreel = enemy of Al-Quran?  
 
If Jibreel is an angel or a messenger then why Jibreel is mentioned separately in 2:98?  
 
If Jibreel = Al-Kitab/Al-Quran then why it's referenced as Jibreel instead of Al-Kitab or Al-Quran?  
 
Regards,  
Waqar

Comments by: moazzam On 09 November 2011
Dear Participants! In on going debate, first you have to decide whether “JIBREEL” is Angle or not, if he is one among the angles then why separately from angles, mentioned in both of the following verses.It clearly shows that Jibreel is not an angle,it is some thing else other than angles. Moreover you have to ponder into Quran what was/is the thing , the KUFFAR always treat/behave with it like enemy, surely that is ALQURAN, read the verse 2/97.  
66/4 فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ مَوْلَاهُ وَجِبْرِيلُ وَصَالِحُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ ظَهِيرٌ  
truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.  
2/98مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ  
Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.  
At third place in Quran verse 2/97 the term “JIBREEL” been described while some thing being “NUZOOL”, here the understanding of grammatical formation of sentence along with the concept of “nuzool alkitab” in required.Remember I have already explained the message Nuzool by Alkitab in the mind of Rasool while pondering into it.  
 
2/97قُلْ مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ  
عَلَ  
ى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْ  
رَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel who Nazala in your mind the (the message) bizin-Allah's(with due course of procedure), a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,-

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 09 November 2011Report Abuse
WAQAR,  
 
I told you in my November 5th post to you that I was not going to answer anymore of your questions until you answer mine. You're very arrogant and rude by continuing to question me but not answer mine. They are as follows:  
 
A) CENTRAL QUESTION…how did the Prophet “Muhammad” get Al-Quran?  
 
Here are the only scenarios:  
 
1. Allah revealed it to him directly.  
 
2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.  
 
3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies.  
 
There is no fourth option.  
 
 
B) What did “Muhammad”, hear?  
 
1. The voice of Allah?  
 
2. The voice of Jibreel?  
 
3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
 
There is no fourth option, so, which is it, then?  
 
 
C) What Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, so, what Messenger did he have to obey?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Mujeeb On 09 November 2011Report Abuse
Mr Dhul: The matter of WAHY/NUZOOL has already been discussed in detail at this blog, which you failed to comprehend due to sticking with your preconceived belief.  
 
Dhulqarnain: A) CENTRAL QUESTION…how did the Prophet “Muhammad” get Al-Quran?  
B) What did “Muhammad”, hear?  
C) What Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, so, what Messenger did he have to obey?  
Mujeeb: Do you believe “ALQURAN/ALKITAB” is a divine book IS A MEDIA BETWEEN ALLAH AND MANKIND(RASOOL), if yes then discuss to understand its message, don’t waist your time and others as well in fruitless debate of how, by whom, where, and why. It is advised to keep on stuck with your belief of JIBREEL/ANGLE as a media between Allah and Rasool.  

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 09 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM  
 
CC: NARGIS; AASTANA EXEC. BOARD AND THEIR SUPPORTERS,  
 
***MOAZZAM: Dear Participants! In on going debate, first you have to decide whether “JIBREEL” is Angle or not, if he is one among the angles then why separately from angles, mentioned in both of the following verses.It clearly shows that Jibreel is not an angle,it is some thing else other than angles.***  
 
Well, let’s see:  
 
22:75 Allah chooses messengers from among the angels and from among the men; surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing.  
Ayat 22:75 states that Allah chooses messengers from the angels and from men. So, Jibreel is either:  
 
A. An angel.  
 
B. A human being.  
 
Which do you choose? And prove it.  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him, except by revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases. Surely He is High, Wise.  
 
Ayat 42:51 states that when Allah wishes to communicate with His servants, He sends, per ayat 22:75, either a messenger-angel, a messenger-human being, or, per ayat 42:51, a messenger-revelation (book) . Again, which category does Jibreel fall into:  
 
A. Messenger-angel.  
 
B. Messenger- human being.  
 
C. Messenger-revelation (a book). A book, as a messenger, i.e. Al-Quran (see below 14:4 and 61:6) had to come first via either a messenger-angel or a messenger-human being (see below 6:19).  
 
So, again, which do you choose A or B?  
 
A or B are the only choices which Allah gives as messengers.  
 
Examine, again, the following ayats:  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
Jibreel cannot be Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, because that means Allah had DIRECT CONTACT with His Prophet which you, Nargis, the Aastana Exec., and your supporters adamantly reject.  
 
26:192-196 And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds./The Faithful Spirit has brought it,/On thy heart that thou mayest be a warner,/In plain Arabic language./And surely the same is in the Scriptures of the ancients.  
 
81:19-21 Surely it is the word of a bountiful Messenger, /The possessor of strength, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, /One to be obeyed, and Faithful.  
 
Ayats 2:97, 26:192-196, and 81:19-21 all refer to an “agency” which brought something from [nazala] Allah- to His Messenger-Prophet “Muhammad”. That ”agency’ was either an angel or a human being…there is nothing else.  
 
But following is the decisive ayat:  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
The believers/trusters were commanded to obey the Messenger. Prophet “Muhammad”, also being a believer/truster, what messenger did he have to obey? It cannot Allah or Al-Quran, because whoever this messenger was, the Prophet “heard” him. Books don’t make sounds and Allah makes no direct contact with His servants.  
 
Listen, Jibreel clearly is an angel and a messenger-angel in particular. The tasreef makes this perfectly clear.  
 
ADDITIONAL AYATS:  
 
14:4 AND WE SENT NO MESSENGER BUT WITH THE LANGUAGE OF HIS PEOPLE, so that he might explain to them clearly…  
 
6:19 Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me. And this Quran has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and WHOEVER IT REACHES…  
 
61:6 And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a MESSENGER WHO WILL COME AFTER ME, his name being Ahmad. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment.  
 
3:144 And Muhammad is but a messenger — messengers have already passed away before him. If then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And he who turns back upon his heels will do no harm at all to Allah. And Allah will reward the grateful.  
 
Obviously “Muhammad” is dead, however, the Messenger/Message—Al-Quran continues on.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 
 
 

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 09 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MUJEEB,  
 
As I said to Waqar, answer my questions found in my November 5th or 9th posts and then I will respond to yours.  
 
Quid pro quid.  
 
Thank you.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: moazzam On 09 November 2011
Mr. ARCHILOCUS! In fact the concept of Quranic term Malaika be needed clear to you, prior to indulge in above discussion.You are considering the old orthodox concept of Malaika as a separate creature other than Humans.so it is difficult for you to comprehend my answer.

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 09 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM,  
 
CC NARGIS, AASTANA EXEC. BOARD, AND SUPPORTERS  
 
MOAZZAM: Mr. ARCHILOCUS! In fact the concept of Quranic term Malaika be needed clear to you, prior to indulge in above discussion.You are considering the old orthodox concept of Malaika as a separate creature other than Humans.so it is difficult for you to comprehend my answer.***  
 
Moazz. you do realize that your response is a total NON-ANSWER to my analysis and questions, don't you? If I'm wrong, and the translations are wrong, then why do you continue to avoid answering my direct questions regarding this matter?? Just your saying that I don't understand a term and that I'm considering old concepts is will not fly. Where else in the world of debate can you go and offer a pablum response like that?? Following are my questions. If you TRULY know what you're talking about then you will have no problem answering the following questions briefly and directly. If you don't answer them directly or avoid them, then you don't know what you're talking about and you are simply attempting to deceive people.  
 
A) CENTRAL QUESTION…how did the Prophet “Muhammad” get Al-Quran?  
 
Here are the only scenarios:  
 
1. Allah revealed it to him directly.  
 
2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.  
 
3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies.  
 
There is no fourth option. So, choose either 1, 2, or 3 and explain, thanks.  
 
 
B) CENTRAL QUESTION...what did “Muhammad”, hear?  
 
1. The voice of Allah?  
 
2. The voice of Jibreel?  
 
3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
 
There is no fourth option, so, which is it, then? Choose either 1, 2, or 3 and explain, thanks.  
 
 
C) What Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, so, what Messenger did he have to obey?  
 
Looking forward to your reply; no avoidance/game playing, okay? Enough now.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: moazzam On 09 November 2011
Dear Dhulqarnain!  
A) CENTRAL QUESTION…how did the Prophet “Muhammad” get Al-Quran?  
 
Here are the only scenarios:  
 
1. Allah revealed it to him directly.  
There is no direct intervention of Allah, rather, every happening is through due course of set procedure.  
2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah.  
8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.  
There is no any concept of such a malaika in Quran.  
 
3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies.  
No not at all.  
There is no fourth option. So, choose either 1, 2, or 3 and explain, thanks.  
It is your limitation, there are other options as well.  
 
B) CENTRAL QUESTION...what did “Muhammad”, hear?  
1. The voice of Allah?  
No, not at all.  
2. The voice of Jibreel?  
No.  
3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
Yes, the vice (message) of Al-Quran conceiving in every Rasool’s mind (including Mohammad) and this process is still going on  
There is no fourth option, so, which is it, then? Choose 1, 2, or 3 and explain thanks.  
 
 
C) What Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, so, what Messenger did he have to obey?  
The Al-Quran only  

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 09 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM,  
CC CC NARGIS, AASTANA EXEC. BOARD, AND SUPPORTERS.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: A) CENTRAL QUESTION…how did the Prophet “Muhammad” get Al-Quran? Here are the only scenarios:  
 
1. Allah revealed it to him directly.  
 
***MOAZZAM: There is no direct intervention of Allah, rather, every happening is through due course of set procedure.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: Okay, so Allah is ruled out as the direct source of Al-Quran.  
 
 
DHULQARNAIN: 2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.  
 
***MOAZZAM: There is no any concept of such a malaika in Quran.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: Okay, then you’ve ruled out Jibreel as a messenger-angel, thus, he did not bring Al-Quran to the Prophet (prophet NOT messenger. “Muhammad” is the Prophet first BEFORE he becomes the Messenger.)  
 
Summation: According to YOU neither Allah nor Jibreel revealed Al-Quran to the Prophet “Muhammad”.  
Moving on, then.  
 
 
DHULQARNAIN: 3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies. There is no fourth option.  
 
***MOAZZAM: No not at all. It is your limitation, there are other options as well.  
 
LOL! Oh, I see, it's my limitations. You’ve got to be kidding me, right?! You’ve ruled out both Allah and Jibreel as having revealed Al-Quran, and now you say that “Muhammad” did not make it up on his own by, as you claim, “studying the laws of nature”. SO, HOW ELSE DID HE GET AL-QURAN, THEN?!? WHAT’S LEFT?? You claim I’m limited and that there are other options, but you don’t bother telling us what those “other options” are! What kind of game are you playing, man??  
 
 
DHULQARNAIN: B) CENTRAL QUESTION...what did “Muhammad”, hear?  
 
DHULQARNAIN: 1. The voice of Allah?  
 
***MOAZZAM: No, not at all.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: 2. The voice of Jibreel?  
 
***MOAZZAM: No.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: 3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
 
***MOAZZAM: Yes, the voice (message) of Al-Quran conceiving in every Rasool’s mind (including Mohammad) and this process is still going on.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: Well then,  
 
1. “Muhammad” MADE UP THE QURAN ON HIS OWN. If he heard internal voices, then that is him he was hearing. You are saying something that not even the crazy mullahs would utter. Your position is exactly the same as that of the detractors of Prophet “Muhammad” and Al-Islam—that is, he, the Prophet, made it up. You cannot deny that he made it up, because you have ruled out Allah and Jibreel, only he’s left.  
 
2. It cannot be Al-Quran because Al-Quran has NO VOICE! So he could not possibly hear Al-Quran  
 
 
Let me show you how confused and contradictory your positions are in this matter:  
 
DHULQARNAIN: 3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies. There is no fourth option.  
 
STATEMENT A. ***MOAZZAM: No not at all.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: 3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
 
STATEMENT B. ***MOAZZAM: Yes, the voice (message) of Al-Quran conceiving in every Rasool’s mind (including Mohammad) and this process is still going on.  
 
DHULQARNAIN: Your statements contradict. Both statements rule out Allah and Jibreel, thus, you cannot say in statement A that—“ No not at all”--.”Muhammad” did not make up Al-Quran based on his study of the”laws of nature”, and then turn round in statement B and say “yes”—the voice of Al-Quran conceiving in his mind”.  
Tell us---how did “Muhammad”—“conceive the voices of Al-Quran in his mind” if Allah didn’t put it in his mind and Jibreel didn’t put it in his mind and now the “laws of nature did not put it in his mind. So, what put it in his mind, then?  
 
 
DHULQARNAIN: C) What Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, so, what Messenger did he have to obey?  
 
***MOAZZAM: The Al-Quran only  
 
This cannot be correct, because according to ayat 8:20 he heard the messenger. As I stated above Al-Quran does not make sounds.  
 
Looking forward to your reply. I want direct answers; no double talk; asking questions etc.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: moazzam On 10 November 2011
Brother Dhulqarnain!  
Dhul: LOL! Oh, You claim I’m limited and that there are other options, but you don’t bother telling us what those “other options” are! What kind of game are you playing, man??  
Moazzam: There is problem, if you would have read seriously my previous posts in this regard you wouldn’t ask me such a question now .How/when/where did Alrooh/Alkitab/ Al-Quran/Rooh Alqudus received first time by the fist Rasool/Nabi at earth, this matter is entirely different than NUZOOL alkitab Alaa Qalb(conceiving in mind) in any rasool’s mind. It is advised please re-read the material already available at this blog.  
ً Yes, the voice (message) of Al-Quran conceiving in every Rasool’s mind (including Mohammad) and this process is still going on.  
17/85وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلاَّ قَلِيل  
They ask thee concerning the الرُّوحِ. Say: "The الرُّوحِ by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)  
الرُّوحِ = Alkitab/Alquran = the eternal message beyond time and space  
 
Dhul: What Messenger did the Prophet “Muhammad” have to obey? As a Muslim, he too, was required to obey the Messenger, so, what Messenger did he have to obey? , because according to ayat 8:20 he heard the messenger  
 
***MOAZZAM: The Al-Quran only , unfortunately you misunderstood the verse 8/20, Dear Dhul,if you are really serious to learn, then read the verses 8/1-21,the context of the subject will determine the true sense of 8/20 the only verse you quoted with out its context.  
8/20 يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلاَ تَوَلَّوْا عَنْهُ وَأَنتُمْ تَسْمَعُونَ  
O ye who claim to be the peace provider! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)  
Think who is speaking here (the Rasool of the time is speaking with Momineen).  
8/21 وَلاَ تَكُونُواْ كَالَّذِينَ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَهُمْ لاَ يَسْمَعُونَ  
Nor be like those who say, "We hear," but listen not:  
Dhul: This cannot be correct. As I stated above Al-Quran does not make sounds.  
Moazzam: I am sorry about such an intellect level  
 

Comments by: Nargis On 10 November 2011Report Abuse

Dhulqarnain  
 
If you study the Quran through orthodox translators who based their understanding on Hadith and history, you will not understand THE QURAN. Only the translators understanding will reach your mind.  
 
We said the Quran dnt need any other book in order to be comprehended, the Quran explain itself.  
 
It means that you study the Quran through the eyes of sectarians, while we study the Quran itself.  
 
That is why you will never understand 8.20 or 2.97. Yesterday I had a meeting with Oslo's so called Quranist s, parwezis, and I asked them where in the Quran the definition for AlMasjid Al Haram is, you know what they said? "If we are going to ask such questions, then why is the word T written in front of V? , what does TV mean?" and I'm not joking, they actually said this.  
 
So we will never agree because you are still in A box, the box,that box....,the one we left ages ago.


Comments by: Nargis On 10 November 2011Report Abuse

Because we are not talking to each other, but to the readers, we are going back to the terminologies, and move on from there - Sign this contract :-D


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 10 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM and NARGIS,  
 
CC ASTANA EXEC. BOARD, AND SUPPORTERS  
 
***MOAZZAM: There is problem, if you would have read seriously my previous posts in this regard you wouldn’t ask me such a question now .How/when/where did Alrooh/Alkitab/ Al-Quran/Rooh Alqudus received first time by the fist Rasool/Nabi at earth, this matter is entirely different than NUZOOL alkitab Alaa Qalb(conceiving in mind) in any rasool’s mind. It is advised please re-read the material already available at this blog. ***  
 
2.30-34 And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said: Surely I know what you do not know. And He taught Adam all the names, then presented them to the angels; then He said: Tell me the names of those if you are right. They said: Glory be to Thee! we have no knowledge but that which Thou hast taught us; surely Thou art the Knowing, the Wise. He said: O Adam! inform them of their names. Then when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not say to you that I surely know what is ghaib in the heavens and the earth and (that) I know what you manifest and what you hide? And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers.  
 
As with you, I am not concerned with where or when, but the how is critical to for us to determine. Why? It is for this reason. When you proffer that “Muhammad” –“conceived it in his mind”, you are, like it or not or want it or not, playing right into the hands of the detractors of Al-Islam. They, as with you, likewise, claim that “Muhammad” –“conceived it in his mind”, or, in other words, he made it up. I’m certain that this does not escape yours or Nargis’s notice. For example, (and there are others) how did the prophet know of the above mentioned events (ayats 2:30-34), unless, Allah informed him of them? How could the prophet conceive something which he could not possibly have witnessed? You cannot claim that it is a parable which he “conceived in his mind from studying the laws of nature”, because then it would be clear to the detractors of Al-Islam that he did, in fact, make up Al-Quran on his own. Likewise, if Allah didn’t directly give him Al-Quran directly nor indirectly through Jibreel, then, once again, it means that Al-Quran came from the prophet himself, that is, he made it up. There are no other alternatives, Moazzam. Surely you must see this now? If you have another answer, then please articulate clearly and definitively as I have done. Just telling me that I don’t understand, that I’m not on an intellectual level, that I’m not familiar with terminologies, that I need to re-read, that I’m possessed by the mullahs, that if I’m to really serious to learn, etc, is not intellectual, articulate, or definitive response to yours or my assertions. Nowhere in the world of discussion/debate you could you reply to your adversary and not be roundly criticized and labeled not competent to discuss the material at hand. Surely you know this so why try and do that here with me?  
 
So, again, please explain, via Al-Quran, how the Prophet “conceived Al-Quran in his mind from studying nature”, yet, did not make it up on his own? Remember now: per your words, Allah did not reveal it to him and Jibreel did not bring it to him. Also, please keep in mind that Al-Quran is prefect without flaw/error/mistake/discrepancy, thus, how could any human being accomplish that feat?  
 
Looking forward to a definitive answer at this juncture, thank you.  
 
As per our talk earlier I am all for discussing the "terminologies", but I'm also for discussing, simultaneously, other topics as well. This current topic of MUST, not only for our own sakes, but for the sakes of those who read these discussions, be resolved. Moazzam, you need to rescind your position on this matter if you cannot definitively answer--how did "Muhammad" get Al-Quran without him be accused of making it up.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
ً  

Comments by: Nargis On 10 November 2011Report Abuse

Peach, piece and peace, QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES USED IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.  
 
1) Malaika  
2) Jibreel.  
3) Wahy.  
4) Nuzool.  
5) Rasool.  
6) Waraa Alhijaab(behind the veil)  
7) Be izzn e Rabbihee  
8) Hijaarah.  
9) Jahannam.  
10) Be Izinallah.  
11) Qalbika.  
12) Bashar.  
13) Alkitab  
14) Ayatullah  
 
Contract signed today is we will go through the terminologies. .... my wrath will ....arghhhh....:-D


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 10 November 2011Report Abuse
NARGIS,  
 
***Peach, piece and peace, QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES USED IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION.  
 
1) Malaika 2) Jibreel. 3) Wahy. 4) Nuzool. 5) Rasool. 6) Waraa Alhijaab(behind the veil) 7) Be izzn e Rabbihee  
8) Hijaarah. 9) Jahannam. 10) Be Izinallah. 11) Qalbika. 12) Bashar. 13) Alkitab 14) Ayatullah  
 
Contract signed today is we will go through the terminologies. .... my wrath will ....arghhhh....:-D ***  
 
If we are going to discuss these terms, then I do not want to see any of the following phrases used as they are CATEGORY B phrases:  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=41&QID=1825 [CATEGORY B TERMS]  
 
1. "the sense of".  
 
2. "I think".  
 
3. "it's my opinion".  
 
If a term cannot be understood and articulated definitively, then just say--"I don't know", but don't act as if you do know and attempt to pass that of as knowledge. NO CONJECTURING. NO STALLING ON ANSWERS.  
 
Nargis,I will start a new thread.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: dawood On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Moazzam:  
 
“Moazzam: Yes, the voice (message) of Al-Quran conceiving in every Rasool’s mind (including Mohammad) and this process is still going on.  
17/85وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلاَّ قَلِيل  
They ask thee concerning the الرُّوحِ. Say: "The الرُّوحِ by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)  
الرُّوحِ = Alkitab/Alquran = the eternal message beyond time and space”  
 
What confusing statements are you making dear brother. If Alroh is the message as you claim, don’t you think the reply in 17:85 is totally absurd? It is clear from the last part of the verse that people are not asking about the message, they are asking about the process, the means through which he (the prophet) got the Quran. This simply means, they are inquiring about the Alroh itself: what it is?; how did it bring the book to you? So on and so forth. Thus, the reply that it is from Amr-e-Rabi, and you have limited knowledge about it.  
 
Second, Alroh is also called ALAmin, meaning trustworthy in 26:193. Thus, indicating that whatever Allah wanted to convey, it has been conveyed without anything added or taken away from it.  
 
Third, the Alroh is something that would be called upon to stand in row with angels in 78:38. How could a message be made to stand along with angels?  
 
The above lead me to conclude that ALROH=JIBREEL=The messenger/medium through which Allah’s message, ALquran was delivered to the prophet’s mind(Qalb), in response to the command of Allah. What is His command? KUN=BE, and it starts happening.  

Comments by: dawood On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Dhulqarnain:  
 
"Dhulqarnain: As with you, I am not concerned with where or when, but the how is critical to for us to determine. Why? It is for this reason. When you proffer that “Muhammad” –“conceived it in his mind”, you are, like it or not or want it or not, playing right into the hands of the detractors of Al-Islam. They, as with you, likewise, claim that “Muhammad” –“conceived it in his mind”, or, in other words, he made it up. I’m certain that this does not escape yours or Nargis’s notice. ..."  
 
You got it right, Dhulqarnain. I strongly think it was long coming from Br. Moazzam. He is either utterly confused and/or playing in the hands of those whos agenda is to discredit both the Quran and the messenger who brought it to us. The entire effort to convert almost every letter into a terminology along with zillion other mutations is like weaving a web to not only confuse average readers about the Quran, but also to come up with any meanings one wants for any given verse in the Quran.

Comments by: dawood On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Waqar:  
 
“Waqar: If Jibreel is an angel or a messenger then why Jibreel is mentioned separately in 2:98? “  
Please consider the following:  
 
(2:34): And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith.  
 
In the above, Iblees is one of the Angels (Malaika). He is specifically identified with name Iblees because of certain behavior that this angel (Iblees) displayed. Hence, wherever Malaika are mentioned, Iblees will not be considered as one of them.  
 
(22:75): Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men for Allah is He Who hears and sees (all things).  
 
Now, given 22:75, and the fact that Allah does not interact with humans directly, the only choice left is that Jibreel must be one of the angels, and when he is given a specific name (Jibreel), he will not be mentioned as part of general Malaika, exactly the same way as Iblees is understood not to be part of the geenral Malaika whenever this is mentioned.  
 
“Waqar: If Jibreel = Al-Kitab/Al-Quran then why it's referenced as Jibreel instead of Al-Kitab or Al-Quran?”  
 
This is a good question. Allah mentioned Jibreel only three times in the Quran by this name and seven times by the name Alroh. One must ask Br. Moazzam, did Allah want to confuse us with this term?  

Comments by: Nargis On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
You got it right, Dhulqarnain. I strongly think it was long coming from Br. Moazzam. He is either utterly confused and/or playing in the hands of those whos agenda is to discredit both the Quran and the messenger who brought it to us. The entire effort to convert almost every letter into a terminology along with zillion other mutations is like weaving a web to not only confuse average readers about the Quran, but also to come up with any meanings one wants for any given verse in the Quran. Dawood

“Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy.” Samuel Johnson  
 
Lolz, if you both are soooooo right, wonder why you had to come up with such low stuff? That was not even expected by a person like you, who claimed he came to learn, but is in fact trying to push his orthodox belief and views on others in disguise.


Comments by: Nargis On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
“Waqar: If Jibreel = Al-Kitab/Al-Quran then why it's referenced as Jibreel instead of Al-Kitab or Al-Quran?”  
 
This is a good question. Allah mentioned Jibreel only three times in the Quran by this name and seven times by the name Alroh. Dawood

So why is the Quran called AlKitab? You are not confused by Al Quran called Al Kitab and Jews and christians are called AHL KITAB when they didn't have the Quran which is Al Kitab, but you are confused if the Word Jibrael is used for the Quran? :-S  
 
However, we have decided to start all over again, and start from the basic terminologies in order to understand the message.


Comments by: moazzam On 11 November 2011
Brother Dawood, Aastana Members dear participants! Salam.  
Dawood: What confusing statements are you making dear brother. If Alroh is the message as you claim, don’t you think the reply in 17:85 is totally absurd? It is clear from the last part of the verse that people are not asking about the message, they are asking about the process, the means through which he (the prophet) got the Quran. This simply means, they are inquiring about the Alroh itself: what it is?; how did it bring the book to you? So on and so forth. Thus, the reply that it is from Amr-e-Rabi, and you have limited knowledge about it.  
 
Moazzam: As I always use to say that although grammar is important but context also play determinant role to understand the true sense of the verse. To understand the verse 17/85 you have to read carefully the verses 17/78-89 the matter will be cleared to you. Here only the Al-Quran has been discussed  
17/85وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلاَّ قَلِيل  
They ask thee concerning the الرُّوحِ. Say: "The الرُّوحِ by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!) الرُّوحِ = Al-Kitab/Al-Quran = the eternal message beyond time and space”  
Dawood: Second, Alroh is also called ALAmin, meaning trustworthy in 26:193. Thus, indicating that whatever Allah wanted to convey, it has been conveyed without anything added or taken away from it.  
Moazzam:  
LET US SEE HOW MESSAGE CONCEIVED IN RASOOL’S MIND BY ALKITAB.  
26/191 وَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ  
And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful  
26/192 وَإِنَّهُ لَتَنْزِيلُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ  
Verily this Alkitab (Tanzeel)is from the Lord of the Worlds:  
26/193 نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ  
By it (Alkitab) conceived in your mind the message(Alrooh) which is to keeps on peaceful(Alamean)  
26/194 عَلَى قَلْبِكَ لِتَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُنذِرِينَ  
To thy heart and mind, that thou mayest admonish.  
26/195 بِلِسَانٍ عَرَبِيٍّ مُّبِينٍ  
In the perspicuous self explanatory mode (language)  
26/196 وَإِنَّهُ لَفِي زُبُرِ الْأَوَّلِينَ  
Without doubt it is (announced) in the mystic Books of former peoples  
LET US SEE HOW “AYAAT” CONCEIVED IN MIND WHILE PONDERING INTO ALKITAB.  
16/101 وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ  
When We substitute one sign (Ayah) for another, and Allah knows best what He made conceived (in rasool’s mind)- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.  
16/102  
قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ  
Say, it (the ayah) conceived in my mind by “ALKITAB” (while pondering into it) through Allah’s system of sustenance, in Truth, in order to strengthen those who want to live in peace/peace provider , and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims (the peace lovers)  
16/103  
وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِّسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَـذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُّبِينٌ  
 
 
Dawood: Third, the Alroh is something that would be called upon to stand in row with angels in 78:38. How could a message be made to stand along with angels?  
Moazzam: 78/38 يَوْمَ يَقُومُ الرُّوحُ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ صَفًّا لَّا يَتَكَلَّمُونَ إِلَّا مَنْ أَذِنَ لَهُ الرحْمَنُ وَقَالَ  
صَوَابًا  
In this period the state officials (الْمَلَائِكَةُ) will be standing in line with the message written in Al-kitab( الرُّوحُ) (to implementation its rule), none shall speak except any who is permitted by law of state (based on gracious legislation) , and he will say what is right.  
Read the Surah78 carefully, here, the time period when Islamic state will exist into being and accountability process will start functioning, is described.  
يَوْمَ = Time period.  
يَوْمَ الْفَصْلِ = الْعَظِيمِ النَّبَإِ = read the verses 38+39+40+18  
 
 
 

Comments by: abdullahbashoeb On 11 November 2011
Salam,  
 
Brother Moazzam impressive presntation. Please go ahead and you know it will take time for them to understand. I hope one day they will realise....  
 
And this article is nothing to do above discussions but very interesting. Interesting point is in this article some people in this world working asper Al Quran where as those who claime to be inherited they lost its pristine message.  
 
2-11 When they are asked not to spread Fas’ad (disorder) in society, they retort audaciously: “We do not spread fas’ad (disorder); rather we are the Musliheen i.e. those who promote order.” Beware! they, indeed, are the mufsideen who spread disorder  
 
 
‘Our planet is not balanced. Too few control too much, and too many have too little to hope for. Too much turmoil, too many wars. Too much suffering.’ Depending on who you are, you might think that this is Mother Teresa or Sub-Commandante Marcos of the Zapatistas. Actually, it’s James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, speaking at the joint WB-IMF meeting in Dubai in September this year.  
 
A few days after Wolfensohn got it off his chest, the International Herald Tribune reported that the International Monetary Fund, which bitterly attacked Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohammad during the East Asian financial crisis, has since had a rethink. Aw shucks, we were, you know, sort of wrong: ‘The IMF has since accepted that Mahathir’s (capital and currency controls) formula worked.’  
 
Around the same period, the Wall Street Journal came up with this original idea. Well, original for the Journal, anyway. It wrote: ‘Markets are a great way to organise economic activity, but they need adult supervision.’ Now had they figured this out 20 years ago, millions of poor families might have been spared a great deal of misery. Misery brought about precisely by the idea that markets could solve every single problem of the human race. An idea propagated forcefully and ruthlessly by the World Bank, the IMF and the Wall Street Journal.  
 
Any criticism of the market as God these past two decades led to being branded a heretic. The market had all the answers. There was no miracle it could not perform. Some, like Swaminathan Aiyer, argued that markets alone could save the environment. Others, like Time magazine, asserted that hunger was but a function of anti-market systems. Want jobs? Leave it to the market. The market wasn’t just good for democracy. It was Democracy. This was the baloney of the last 15-20 years. There were other possible positions. Such as that you might need the market. As a tool, not as a tyranny. As just one instrument amongst many, not as an all encompassing ideology. But that would have been blasphemy.  
 
 
 
 
 
So are the high priests of the Bank, the Fund and the Wall Street Journal sincere about this realisation? That markets need adult supervision? No such luck. (Never mind that countless millions across the world believe the Bank and the Fund – not to mention the Journal – urgently require adult supervision.) One of the tenets of market fundamentalism is that the preacher is always exempted from the practice. Iraq today presents a great example. The first declaration of the American-run Iraqi governing council was to open up every single sector of the Iraqi economy to full foreign ownership.  
 
At the same time, any Iraqi ownership was effectively pre-empted. Two local entrepreneurs for instance, had set up the country’s first cell phone network after the war. They were doing a thriving business when they were shut down physically, and the network building job was handed over to MCI of America, a company that had no experience in that field and which only months ago was caught in the biggest accounting fraud in history.  
 
So much for free markets. The Iraqi market is now free for American corporations ranging from Halliburton and MCI to scores of others. Halliburton is importing oil into Iraq – a country with the world’s second largest reserves of oil – at a cost of $ 1.70 a gallon. It actually costs 71 cents a gallon in the region, but the Americans have established a very captive ‘free’ market. This ‘opening up’ process resembles the opium wars of the 19th century.  
 
 
 
 
 
Let us now look at the growth of inequality. Inequality is worse in today’s world than at any point since World War II. Inequality has grown faster in the last 15 years than in the past 50. The series of United Nations Human Development Reports since 1990 establishes that very clearly. Look at just a few of its dimensions. Rich-poor divides, resource inequality, income and consumption, access to health, or even just to water, or jobs. This crisis now affects most of the planet.  
 
Of the many trends in globalisation, the crucial one today is corporate globalism. A world driven by and for corporate profits. Based on corporate greed rather than human need. It’s a world marked by the collapse of restraint on corporate power, in every continent.  
 
The income gap between the top 20 per cent of the world’s population and the bottom fifth has more than doubled. By 1998, the top 20 per cent consumed 86 per cent of all goods and services. The bottom fifth made do with 1.3 per cent. The world’s richest 200 people, according to the 1999 Human Development Report, ‘more than doubled their net worth in the four years to 1998, to over $ 1 trillion. The assets of the top three billionaires are more than the combined GNP of all least developed countries and their 600 million people together.’ By 2003, that position had worsened. To the point that the Fund and Bank are making bleats of caution (if not of remorse).  
 
 
 
 
 
What is being termed an ‘economic recovery’ in the USA, as Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton points out, is a period in which the same economy has lost three million jobs. It has also happened in a period when Chief Executive Officers (CEO) salaries reached their highest ever. (Jack Welch of GE with his $ 123 million compensation and Richard Grasso of the New York Stock Exchange with his $ 140 million, for instance.) The number of Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 12.4 per cent of the population. And among minority Blacks and Hispanics, that percentage is almost double.  
 
Russia, once the second superpower, was subjected to ‘shock therapy’ and other doctrines of market fundamentalism in the 1990s. The former USSR lost 42 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product in a spectacularly short period. A remarkable achievement. No country has ever done that without a famine or a war. Russia did it with just the help of Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF. Poverty in Russia skyrocketed, accompanying a rise in mortality rates and high levels of distress.  
 
Each winter, hundreds die of the cold. In 2000-01, well over 300 died in Moscow alone of hypothermia. But in that same season sales of Mercedes Benz cars in Moscow leaped by one-third. And Giorgio Armani opened a new salon in the city, to be welcomed by old friends Versace and Bulgari who had already set up store there. (The Herald Tribune referred to Armani’s delayed arrival as ‘Giorgio-come-lately’.)  
 
China, long one of the most egalitarian societies in the world, now has countless dollar millionaires. Yet, the gap between rich and poor, coastal and interior China has grown worse. Also, the effects of certain kinds of development show up in other ways. Two giant and rapidly growing sectors catch the eye. Both are misery related. One, according to China’s own People’s Procurate, is corruption. The other is prostitution.  
 
 
 
 
 
Would you believe that Afghanistan had the fastest growing economy this year? Not too difficult if your earlier growth was sub-zero. The Afghan economy grew at 20 per cent. But more than 50 per cent of that came from the opium crop. And what of Africa? Ask Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz (who was dismissed from the World Bank for heresy against market fundamentalism). As he points out, the African continent, subjected to forcibly imposed policies of the IMF, has lost nearly a fourth of her income. Even as African cotton farmers who grow the cheapest cotton in the world go bankrupt, American cotton farmers get an annual subsidy of about a million dollars each.  
 
So great is Africa’s overall crisis that its skilled personnel are leaving in alarming numbers. According to the Financial Times, the entire continent in 2001 had just 20,000 engineers and scientists to serve a population of 600 million. The result: there are more African scientists and engineers working in the United States than in all of Africa, says the Geneva-based International Organisation for Migration (OIM). This drain of skills is making poverty reduction almost impossible. This goes on intensifying, with not a word of protest. Yet, in today’s world, if 400 low-paid American jobs were to go to Africa, the squawking in the US would last for months in the media.  
 
In Latin America, long the world’s most unequal region, inequality rose sharply in the ’90s. In this part of the world, 100 million people fell below the poverty line in the 1980s. So the shock of the ’90s came atop that misery. In Mexico alone, an additional 11 million people fell below the poverty line between 1990-96.  
 
Worldwide, as FAO Director General Jacques Diouf pointed out (at the same meeting where Wolfensohn saw the light), in the last 15 years, as rich countries increased subsidies to their farmers, poor countries went from being net exporters of food to net importers.  
 
 
 
 
 
India is a classic example of engineered inequality. On 20 October, The New York Times had a front page lead celebrating the birth of a class of people in India who spend their weekends at malls. It failed to mention that this year, India slipped three places in the human development ranking of the United Nations. We now stand at rank 127. This year’s UN Human Development Report had found that for the bulk of the Indian population, living standards are lower than those of Botswana – or even the occupied territories of Palestine. So while some of the richest people in the world live in India, so do the largest number of the world’s poor.  
 
The euphoria over one good monsoon (actually, we’ve had several these past 15 years) seems to have erased any debate in the media on what’s happening in Indian agriculture. Small farms are dying. Investment in agriculture is down. Rural credit has collapsed and debt has exploded. Many are losing their lands as a few celebrate at the malls. In March this year, as Professor Utsa Patnaik points out, the per person availability of foodgrain was lower than it had been during the notorious Bengal Famine of 1942-43.  
 
Thousands of farmers have committed suicide since the late 1990s. In a single district of Andhra Pradesh, Anantapur, more than 2400 farmers have taken their own lives since 1997. Elsewhere in India, like in Gujarat or Mumbai, the loss of countless jobs in industry is boosting religious fundamentalism. In the 2002 violence in Gujarat in which over 1500 lives were lost, many of the rioters were workers from shut-down textile mills.  
 
The huge new inequalities are feeding into existing ones: For instance, in a society where they are already disadvantaged, hunger hits women much harder. Millions of families are making do with less food. In the Indian family women eat last. After they have fed their husbands and children. With smaller amounts of food being left over now, poor Indian women are eating even less that they did earlier. The strain on their bodies and health becomes greater. Yet, health care is ever more expensive.  
 
 
 
 
 
So what sort of a society are we building in the new, confident India? We are closing small health centres and opening super luxury hospitals that 90 per cent of Indians cannot afford; shutting down primary schools and opening colleges based on exorbitant donations for admissions; closing libraries and opening multiplexes; winding up bus depots and services as we expand the airport systems.  
 
Thousands of rich Indians now patronise weight loss clinics to shed some of their prosperity – during a period when the foodgrain available per person sharply declined. The salaries of CEOs are up, even as the pathetic real wage of landless workers sharpens their misery. We are closing fair-price food shops and opening food boutiques. We complain ritually each year of the ‘century’s greatest drought’, but build hundreds of water parks and golf courses.  
 
Even in the basic needs of people, the divides are startling. Mumbai faced a severe water problem this summer. You wouldn’t know this if you live in the rich colonies. But in the slums countless women line up for water every morning. From four in the morning they begin positioning their buckets in line to stake their place in the queue. Sometimes, they might not get the water they wait for, which is no more than 40-50 litres a day.  
 
In and around the same Mumbai, in the same period, there were 24 amusement water parks using 50 billion – that’s right, 50 billion – litres of water a day for the entertainment of the rich. In the desert state of Rajasthan, plagued by actual scarcity of water for five years, more water parks and golf courses were planned. A single golf course takes 1.8 to 2.3 million litres of water a day through the season. On that amount of water, over 100,000 villagers in the state could have all their water needs met for the entire summer season.  
 
Worldwide, water is shifting from farmland and food crop to swimming pools, amusement parks, water slides, golf courses and gardens. We go ahead with this even as we know ours is a century where wars will be fought over water.  
 
 
 
 
 
Health and living conditions: As health care gets dismantled, or privatised and more expensive, there is a lot of SARS by other names waiting to happen. The number of deaths due to SARS worldwide was about 800-odd. In four months. That’s less than half the number killed by tuberculosis in India each day. But SARS got a lot of attention because it affected the flying classes. The same with our ‘plague’ of 1994-95. It killed fewer than any major disease in India, but it frightened the beautiful people. Plague germs are notorious for their non-observance of class distinctions. They don’t require passports and visas. They board aircraft and fly club class to New York.  
 
 
 
 
 
Why was China the worst hit by SARS? It has much to do with the economic philosophy of the past couple of decades. In China, you accessed your health care through workplace, your factory or school, or related networks. This went up in a chain from bottom to top. The small medical post at the local level posting a problem to the laboratory at the next level. When thousands of these enterprises were shut down, millions lost their access to health care. Many of these little health posts ceased to exist. When SARS broke out, China’s early warning system had been dismantled. The Chinese were taken by surprise. SARS cost the economy billions. Hong Kong Singapore, many others also found themselves hurt by SARS.  
 
But why only China? This year, the government of France confirmed officially that nearly 15,000 people had died from a heat wave in August. That is far more devastating than SARS. Those dying were overwhelmingly elderly, senor citizens. This was not the first year France has seen a heat wave. What happened was that health care had seen serious cuts in recent times, particularly affecting the elderly. Several French parliamentarians have demanded a special debate on the so-called health reforms.  
 
In America, tens of thousands of elderly, aging Americans are crossing the border into Canada in order to be able to buy affordable drugs. The same drugs are sold both sides of the border. But in America, the corporations marketing them have total control over pricing. Now the American state and police are intervening. Not on behalf of the poor and elderly, but on behalf of the corporations. Police are raiding pharmacies and chemists in Michigan, confiscating genuine but cheaper drugs.  
 
In Africa, thanks to the intellectual property arrangements presided over by the WTO, millions dying of AIDS were denied cheaper drugs. The American companies controlling the patents threatened Indian companies producing the cheaper version with legal action leading possibly to their closure. After an international outcry, a compromise was reached. But the drugs are not as cheap as they could have been. Corporate profits took precedence over the lives of poor Africans.  
 
What SARS shows you, though, is that the damage visited on the poor, the helpless, the elderly, come back to visit us. China saved some money in shutting down health care for poor rural people. It paid billions in lost tourism and other factors due to SARS. Health issues will be further complicated by the living standards built into the current dispensation. According to the latest report of the UN Habitat, one in every three human beings will live in a slum by 2030. What do we call that? From global village to global slum? The globalisation of squalor? Imagine the kind of health complications we are looking at when a third of humanity lives in slums.  
 
 
 
 
 
The military dimension: Global inequality expresses itself in the military sphere, too. In no period of history has the gap between one power and the rest been so enormous. Yet, while the military dimension is overwhelming, it often turns out to be neither decisive nor final as the Americans are finding out in Iraq. The increasing use of military force, coupled with changing geo-political realities, also raises anew the questions surrounding military bases, such as those in Okinawa. An internal conflict in the Philippines has been globalised and soldiers from bases in Okinawa and Guam are being used for that purpose. And as the Japanese begin to find out the costs of carrying American baggage in Iraq, one Japanese anti-base protestor put into four words, what volumes of security studies do not honestly tell you: finally, bases mean war.  
 
War is a part of this form of globalisation, not an aberration. It has already seen the seizing of resources and the looting of whole countries. The world’s second largest oil reserves are now reserved for a few corporations. The ‘axis of evil’ idea that further destabilised the Korean peninsula saw military power as a decisive mechanism. This illusion has also led to a dangerous nuclear brinkmanship between India and Pakistan. And underscores Israel’s brutality in the occupied territories. Corporate-driven globalism generates insecurity and trauma. It speaks global, but promotes local xenophobia and national chauvinism. All countries will have to cope with these.  
 
 
 
 
 
This military dimension is built into and based on the inequalities of our time. Yet, it is this dimension that is increasingly being resorted to in our time (and not just by the United States). The free market in Iraq is simply and plainly a military construct. Crushing Afghanistan in military terms was easy. Now the US has to face the reality that opium cultivation is higher than it ever was during the time of the Taliban. And that Hamid Karzai is President of a few rooms of the palace in Kabul. Little else.  
 
The privatisation of everything: Another central tenet of market fundamentalism dominates our times. The privatisation of everything – from industry to intellect. The huge, rapid privatisation in Russia, with rigged auctions and fraudulent sales, led to the rise of what even the government there calls ‘gangster capitalism’. A battle now rages between elected government and mafia oligarchs. Interestingly, even while supporting the arrested corporate chief, the western media do not conceal that they were and are essentially corrupt mafioso.  
 
 
 
 
 
Meanwhile, in country after country, the privatisation of basic services has caused unimaginable distress. Serious inequality has begun to surface in countries that have not known it in a long time. In many of these processes, for instance, Japan has remained relatively unaffected in any significant way. The condition of the lowest 20 per cent of Japanese society would be far better than that same section in, say the United States. Given this, while inequalities grow worldwide, can a Japan remain immune? Unlikely.  
 
For one thing Japan’s national debt is three times her GDP and about 36 per cent of total global debt. For another, new data suggest that even in that prosperous land, at least one-fifth of all households have, in the words of the Asahi Shimbun daily, ‘no financial assets – no savings, no insurance, no investments.’ At the same time, the value of assets for households that did have savings was at its highest ever. So the gaps are showing. Both extremes were visible in the Survey on Financial Assets and Liabilities released last month by a unit of the Bank of Japan.  
 
And it’s going to get more complicated. Especially as Japan contemplates getting on to that privatisation-of-everything bandwagon. If Japan actually privatises management of her 250 trillion yen Postal Savings and 150 trillion yen Simplified Insurance Cover, she could be asking for very big trouble. Waiting in the wings are the very ‘fund managers’ who worked such wonders in the United States. This, after all, is the Age of the Mega Con.  
 
 
 
 
 
Unravelling time: One thing about the prediction that less than 30 years from now, slums will house a third of humanity. The vast majority of these people will be not in Africa or Latin America but here in Asia. The worse the economic ravages, the greater the growth will be of fundamentalism and neo-fascist trends. We are witnessing the greatest loot and grab sortie in history. Not in one country, but in most. The era of giant collapses has already begun. Enron and WorldCom produced the largest bankruptcies in history. And ruined countless retirees whose pension funds had been invested in them. To MCI goes the honour of the largest accounting fraud in history. But you will see many more.  
 
So What Can We Do? Well, for one thing, we can abandon market fundamentalism for a course that places people, not profits, at the centre of everything.  
 
The money required to address basic problems is smaller than what many might imagine. On an additional $ 28 billion a year the world could provide basic education for every child, clean water and safe sewers to every human, and basic health and nutrition for everyone on the planet. Too costly at 28 billion? Well, every year, Europeans and Americans spend between $ 36-40 billion on cosmetics, ice cream and pet food alone. $ 28 billion is also a tiny part of the wealth of the world’s richest 225 individuals, who have a combined worth of over $ 1 trillion.  
 
Where does the public intellectual, or for that matter any public-spirited human being, stand on these issues? How does he or she respond? Too many are celebrating the new prosperity: The Indian Express newspaper writes editorials asserting greed is good. It speaks of the value of the ‘Greed Dividend’. Many have become private intellectuals, owned by corporations, monopolies and foundations. Call it privatisation of the intellect and soul.  
 
 
 
 
 
You would think that for something to be global it has to be inclusive and encompassing. Oddly enough, the world we call global is in fact based on exclusion, not inclusion. How does this system include or even need cotton growers in Burkina Faso? Cane cutters in the Caribbean, fishermen in Bali or for that matter Nova Scotia? Where is its place for small farmers in Bangladesh, poor peasants in Honduras, Cambodian woodcutters, Indian fishing communities, indigenous hunter-gatherers, girl students in Afghanistan, wood craftsmen in Zambia, or dam-displaced people in China?  
 
How does corporate-driven globalism in any way need these people or include then? A system that excludes maybe two billion people – maybe far more – cannot be sustained. But here’s the good news: the excluded are responding. In October, Bolivian indigenous people cancelled a corrupt gas deal with the United States. Then they cancelled their president as well. In Venezuela, people saved the president they wanted – in a military coup supported by Washington and a coup which The New York Times wrote an editorial supporting – 24 hours before it collapsed. (The same people are all for democracy in Iraq).  
 
In Britain, a prime minister is on survival notice. In the United States, a president with record popularity ratings enters election year fearful of defeat. There was even a silver lining to the clouds of war. For perhaps the first time in history, huge, giant anti-war movements were on the streets before the war in Iraq began. London saw what was probably its biggest anti-war rally ever – before the war began. It speaks so well of all the anti-war protests that they happened in the face of the most enormous barrage of pro-war media propaganda across the globe.  
 
In Seattle, in Cancun, in Davos and New York. In Washington and Prague, in Genoa and Quebec, the numbers of those protesting the globalisation of inequality grows, it does not diminish. In the World Social Forum at Porto Allegre, in a hundred other forums, people seek transnational public unity against transnational corporate tyranny. Whether they are finding all the answers is another issue. The point is they are addressing many of the right questions.  
 
 
 
 
 
There are huge energies now unleashed in the global arena. From anti-war to social justice movements. The protestors at Seattle and Cancun can in fact be seen as real globalisers. Only, they seek to globalise not greed but social justice movements. To globalise people’s cooperation against the exploitation of people. From political reform movements and minority rights platforms to basic struggles for democracy and human rights, it’s happening. All those concerns you have heard addressed earlier. Major battles are on for a radical redistribution of resources in several societies. All these are in the global arena. The challenge is how to marry these energies. Another world is possible. Other worlds are possible.  
 
By P Sainath  
Indian jurnalis of Hindu news paper..  
 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS,  
 
***NARGIS: “Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy.” Samuel Johnson  
Lolz, if you both are soooooo right, wonder why you had to come up with such low stuff? That was not even expected by a person like you, who claimed he came to learn, but is in fact trying to push his orthodox belief and views on others in disguise.***\  
 
Once again, your reply has not forwarded your claims nor has it refuted ours. These kinds of replies are simply useless and not becoming of an intellectual who should know what they’re talking about. Hopefully, at some point, you will admit to yourself and others that your assertions cannot be supported by Al-Quran logic or any other logic for that matter. Ya gotta it admit…Dawood is sharp.  
 
***NARGIS: but is in fact trying to push his orthodox belief and views on others in disguise.***  
 
LOL! This, well-worn mantra of yours, in particular, is really getting old now…er..no on second thought…it is old. Trade it in for something fresh, huh? :D  
 
Oh, btw, you should spend less time quoting the dalleen and more time quoting Allah...correctly. Just a thought, just a thought.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM,  
 
You quoted the following ayat:  
 
26:192 And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.  
 
Does the word—“nazala/sent down” have any significance for you at all? Let’s see its definition, maybe that will clear up matters some.  
 
NAZALA/NUN-ZAIN-LAM: to descend; to come down; settle in a place; sent down; divine revelation. Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 559  
 
SENT/SEND: Order or instruct to go to a particular destination or in a particular direction; to cause or order to be taken, directed, or transmitted to another place.  
 
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=send&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=_yG9TqyiHMTX0QGK-9TjBA&ved=0CB0QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=fe5f426cbef479b9&biw=1262&bih=870  
 
DOWN: From a higher to a lower place or POSITION  
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/down  
 
As intelligent human beings of course we know nazala/sent down does not mean directionally as in “up and down” like going up stairs and coming down stairs. Nazala is directional in terms of from--to something. Al-Quran is from Allah--to His Prophet.  
 
SENT DOWN/NAZALA: transmitted from Allah, that is, from one who is in a higher position/station to the Prophet who is in a lower position/station. Divine revelation/Al-Quran was FIRST with Allah, given that, Al-Quran are His Words/Kalima and then those words were uttered by The Prophet in this world.  
 
Now, the all important question still remains. How did the Words of Allah get into the mind of the Prophet? Once again, you ONLY have three options:  
 
1. Allah revealed His Words directly to the Prophet.  
 
2. Allah dispatched a messenger-angel—Jibreel.  
 
3. The Prophet, by studying the laws of nature, conceived in his mind—Al-Quran.  
 
Please tell us how a human being can:  
 
a) know the Words of Allah without Him first revealing His Words  
 
b) by “studying the laws of nature” then write a flawless/error-free/ no contradictions/perfect book as is Al-Quran?  
 
Can you explain these things, Moazzam and/or Nargis?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: dawood On 11 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Moazzam:  
 
“Moazzam: LET US SEE HOW “AYAAT” CONCEIVED IN MIND WHILE PONDERING INTO ALKITAB.  
16/101 وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ  
When We substitute one sign (Ayah) for another, and Allah knows best what He made conceived (in rasool’s mind)- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.”  
 
Please ponder at your own writing. In the above, you are suggesting that Allah knows best what He (Allah) caused to be conceived in prophet’s mind. If this assertion is true, then the second part of the same verse is meaningless, because people cannot see what is conceived in rasul’s mind, since that knowledge is either with the prophet or with Allah as per the first part. Since they don’t know what is conceived in rasul’s mind, they cannot blame him for forgery either. A could only be blamed for forgery by B if A has come up with a document that does not exactly tally with the original document that B has. The only written document that prophet ever produced is Alquran. Thus, this verse is certainly referring to the Quran and nothing else but the Quran. This verse also refutes an erroneous claim that prophet inherited this book, Alquran from previous generations; had this been the case they could have never blamed him for forgery unless he tempered with it.  
 
“Moazzam: 16/102 قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ  
Say, it (the ayah) conceived in my mind by “ALKITAB” (while pondering into it) through Allah’s system of sustenance, in Truth, in order to strengthen those who want to live in peace/peace provider , and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims (the peace lovers)”  
 
You messed up the entire translation. This verse is simply the continuation and the answer to the accusation described in 16:101. “Say, [O Muhammad], "The Pure Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth (ALHAQ) to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims.", Clearly refuting the charge that prophet is a forgerer, who made up the stuff. By the way, this is what you are implying at many places that he conceived it while pondering into the universe.  
 
Lets look at another word ALHAQ used in this ayah. What this may mean?  
 
(6:73): It is He who created the heavens and the earth with ALHAQ: the day He saith, "Be (KUN)," behold! it is. His word (QAUL) is the truth (ALHAQ). ...”  
 
His qaul, BE (KUN), is ALHAQ. Now link the first part of this verse in which it is said “ He who created the heavens and the earth with ALHAQ”. This simply means, His Qaul, BE (KUN) started the process of creating the universe. Did it happen overnight, and without any Law governing it? Of course not. His Qaul created the law and as per that law universe came into existence. Exactly the same way His Qaul, BE started the process of Nazool upon the prophet’s qalb. Did it happen without any law? Of course not. Jibreel =Alroh is that law that started and completed the process of revelation.  
 
“Moazzam: 16/103 وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِّسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَـذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُّبِينٌ “  
 
16:103: And certainly we know that they say, “only teaches him a human being.” Tongue of the one they refer to is foreign (Ajami, not clear) while this is in Arabic Mubeen (clear, self explanatory).  
 
The accusers of the prophet are accusing him that a human being is teaching him, Allah says, a human being just by himself/herself (or all together) cannot produce THIS DOCUMENT, ALQURAN and ITS VERSES, meaning it would not be ARABIC MUBEEN if produced by human beings alone. Then who is giving him these ayahs? Allah, of course. Is he giving him these ayahs directly? of course not. Then how did the prophet get these ayahs in exact words that we find them today in the book?  

Comments by: moazzam On 12 November 2011
Brother Dawood! No body can pure new stuff in already filled bottle.You have to make it empty first, then you can understand my version that seem new to you.You are free to refill it again with your old stuff.  
Moazzam: 16/101 وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ  
When We substitute one sign (Ayah) for another, and Allah knows best what He made conceived (in rasool’s mind)- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.  
2/106 مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ  
We do not abrogate an AYAH or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?  
 
Remember,  
(1) When any thing referred to Allah, you must always consider it through due course of process set by Allah( because no direct intervention of Allah ).  
(2) The message written in Al-Kitab has never been changed from the first day for any nation/rasool, this is eternal.  
(3) The ayaat present in the universe which conceived in Rasool’s mind (while pondering into Al-Kitab) could be changed to guide his nation in any era.  
(4) Normally religious intrigue does match the Rasool’s teachings with their own hand written (mutilated material) and negate the Rasool’s teachings.  
(5) The Ayaat of Al-Quran (Al-Kitab) is /was/will be remained un-changed but the rasool of time will face the same situation of false blaming by the people and this process will be continued till the last day.  

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM,  
 
A. The all important question still remains. How did the Words of Allah get into the mind of the Prophet? Once again, you ONLY have three options. Please choose one of the following so that I can get a better ubderstanding of what you're trying to  
 
1. Allah revealed His Words/Al-Quran directly to the Prophet.  
 
2. Allah dispatched a messenger-angel—Jibreel with His Words/Al-Quran  
 
3. The Prophet, by studying the laws of nature, conceived in his mind—Al-Quran.  
 
 
B. Please tell us how a human being can:  
 
a) know the Words of Allah without Allah first revealing His Words?  
 
b) by “studying the laws of nature” then write a flawless/error-free/ no contradictions/perfect book as is Al-Quran?  
 
Moazzam, if you have a 4th possibility then please capture it in one sentance so I can take a look at it. As it stands right now your above reply to Dawood falls under "option 3".  
 
Can you explain these things, Moazzam and/or Nargis?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: moazzam On 12 November 2011
Dear Dhulqarnain, Brother Dawood! The following statement is based on the Quranic terminologies I understood through my research work. The reader might face difficulties to digest it with out gone through the said terminologies.  
How, first time at earth, “Al-Quran/Al-Kitab/Al-Rooh” had been revealed in its physical shape, I DON’T KNOW as per verse17/85.  
But the message of this book by pondering into it (also by studying the laws of nature) which has been conceived in the mind of Prophet/rasool of time called revealing as well (Nuzool Al-Kitab). To be more cleared THE WORLS USED IN AL-KITAB is the cause of revealing the message in the rasool’s mind.  
 

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE MOAZZAM,  
 
CC NARGIS, AASTANA EXEC. BOARD, AND SUPPORTERS.  
 
***MOAZZAM: Dear Dhulqarnain, Brother Dawood! The following statement is based on the Quranic terminologies I understood by my research work. The reader might face difficulties to digest it with out gone through the said terminologies.***  
 
It’s just simply time for you abandon your terminologies. Have you ever considered that you could just be wrong and need to reassess matters/definitions?  
 
***MOAZZAM: How, first time at earth, “Al-Quran/Al-Kitab/Al-Rooh” had been revealed in its physical shape, I DON’T KNOW as per verse17/85. ***  
 
You’re making the same mistake as Nargis and Bob did. They made Jibreel=Al-Quran. Now you’re doing it again by making Al-Roh=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran. Al-Ruh is Jibreel.  
 
In addition, Al-Ruh cannot =Al-Quran, because of ayats 5:110 and 16:102:  
 
5:110 When Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My favour to thee and to thy mother, when I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit;…  
 
16:102 Say: The Holy Spirit has revealed it from thy Lord with truth, that it may establish those who believe, and as a guidance and good news for those who submit.  
 
Ayats 5:110 and 16:102 show why The Holy Spirit cannot be Al-Quran. Quddus means holy and nowhere does Allah refer to Al-Quran as holy…nowhere. Jibreel, The Holy Spirit, did not bring Al-Quran to Mary.  
 
Anyway, I’m pleased to see you say that you “don’t know”. When you don’t know something Allah forbids you (me or anyone else) from commenting as if you do know.  
 
17:36 And follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge. Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, of all of these it will be asked.  
 
When one does not have knowledge, but proceeds as if he/she does, then what that individual in fact has is ---conjecture. Conjecture is CATEGORY B, stuff:  
 
53:28 And they have no knowledge of it; they do not follow anything but conjecture, and surely conjecture does not avail against the truth at all.  
 
It is imperative then to resolve your question---“Moazzam: How, first time at earth, “Al-Quran/Al-Kitab” had been revealed in its physical shape, I DON’T KNOW ”.  
 
Dawood and myself, in our previous posts on this thread, clearly show how Al-Quran came to earth. In a nutshell, Al-Quran came to earth via Jibreel, a messenger-angel. To reject this is to, like it or not, want it or not, believe it or not—make “Muhammad” a god/God and the inventor of Allah and Al-Islam.  
 
Following are just some comments from the web which are the consequence of your position:  
 
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters: “He (Muhammad) made it all up and I am being totally serious with no disrespect to Muslims who have been conned and tricked by this madman!”  
 
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081217122635AAs4Ee7  
 
“What Muhammad PRODUCED in the Quran is simply a book of gibberish consisting of later evil verses abrogating (superseding) earlier peaceful verses…Muhammad, its lone prophet, who made no prophecies, CONCEIVED his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money.”  
 
http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm  
 
Answer B: mohmmad is a writer of book "Quran" , Mohammad had no natural power, Also involved in war. also killed innocent peoples. And he forced to peoples to adopt his idea by reading book "Quran". Those how not convert to Islam, They are killed them. This is purely nonsense thing ...right. why we are going to follow some writer thinking. God send to do some good work and live peacefull without hurting to others. plz i request to all think about false writer Mohammad and his books. thanks to all.  
 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Muhammad_get_the_Quran#ixzz1dUbf6Br6  
 
 
***MOAZZAM: But the message of this book by pondering into it (also by studying the laws of nature) which has been conceived in the mind of Prophet/rasool of time called revealing as well (Nuzool Al-Kitab). To be more cleared THE WORDS USED IN AL-KITAB is the cause of revealing the message in the rasool’s mind.***  
 
Your problem, however, remains, that being---where did the words used in Al-KitabAl-Quran, which , as you say, is the cause of revealing the message in the rsool’s mind,…come from in the first place? No matter how you phrase or re-phrase your position on this matter your central/principle problem remains---where do the Words of Allah come from and how did “Muhammad” come by them?. If Allah didn’t conceive the Words in Al-Quran and then reveal His Words directly to “Muhammad” and if Jibreel did not bring Allah’s Words indirectly to “Muhammad”, then your only answer is “Muhammad” made up Al-Quran on his own by” studying the laws of nature”. This means, “Muhammad”---would have had to invent Allah as well! I say this, because you deny any connection of the Words of Allah/Al-Quran coming to “Muhammad” from Allah directly or indirectly by Jibreel. With this in mind then, you’ve severed any connection with the source of the Words of Allah—Allah Himself. Thus, there is no way that “Muhammad” could have had any “knowledge” of Allah unless he got it from other books and/or just made up Allah and the Words of Allah making Al-Quran a forgery.  
 
Also Moazzam, you’ve yet to explain how a human being could possibly write a book which is perfect, without mistake or error, no discrepancies or inconsistencies. Only a god could do that! In this book are things which “Muhammad” could not possibly have known, because he was not around to witness those events. Only a god could do that! So, as you can see, as with the orthodox/traditionalist muslims who you revile, you’ve, likewise, made “Muhammad” into a god or God!  
 
I truly hope you can now see why your position cannot be upheld.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse

DHULQARNAIN, PROVE TO US THAT JIBREEL CAME WITH THE QURAN, THROUGH THE QURAN.  
 
HOW IS THE QURAN REVEALED?  
 
WHAT PROCESS TO REVEAL THE QURAN IS USED BY ALLAH?  
 
WHAT IS AL ROH ?  
 
BRING YOUR PROOFS IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL 2:211


Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
Does the word—“nazala/sent down” have any significance for you at all? Let’s see its definition, maybe that will clear up matters some.  
 
NAZALA/NUN-ZAIN-LAM: to descend; to come down; settle in a place; sent down; divine revelation. Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 559  
 
SENT/SEND: Order or instruct to go to a particular destination or in a particular direction; to cause or order to be taken, directed, or transmitted to another placeDHULQARNAIN

HOW IS THE WORD USED IN THE QURAN, EXPLAIN THROUGH RATTAL


Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters: “He (Muhammad) made it all up and I am being totally serious with no disrespect to Muslims who have been conned and tricked by this madman!” DHULQARNAIN

 
 
PROVE THAT MOHAMMED GOT THE QURAN FROM GABRIEL, AND GABRIEL GOT IT FROM ALLAH-  
 
WHATS THE PROOF THAT S MOHAMMED OR ANY PROPHET DID NOT MAKE UP GABRIEL ?  
 
"Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111  
 
21:24 Ami ittakhathoo min doonihi alihatan qul hatoo burhanakum hatha thikru man maAAiya wathikru man qablee bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona alhaqqa fahum muAAridoona  
 
21:24 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof: this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.  
 
28:75 WanazaAAna min kulli ommatin shaheedan faqulna hatoo burhanakum faAAalimoo anna alhaqqa lillahi wadalla AAanhum ma kanoo yaftaroona  
 
28:75 And from each people shall We draw a witness, and We shall say: "Produce your Proof": then shall they know that the Truth is in Allah (alone), and the (lies) which they invented will leave them in lurch.  
 
Allah, in these ayats, makes clear that we must bring our evidence/borhan for whatever we ascribe to Him, His Din, his Book, and His Messenger. This not a suggestion, but a command.


Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
Dawood: Second, Alroh is also called ALAmin, meaning trustworthy in 26:193. Thus, indicating that whatever Allah wanted to convey, it has been conveyed without anything added or taken away from it. DAWOOD

Prove this, if this is about Roh/ angel Gabriel, being al Amin, then prove it. How do we know this statement is true, where can we find Gabriel to verify and witness his personality is matching this statement of the Quran?"Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111  
 
21:24 Ami ittakhathoo min doonihi alihatan qul hatoo burhanakum hatha thikru man maAAiya wathikru man qablee bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona alhaqqa fahum muAAridoona  
 
21:24 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof: this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.  
 
28:75 WanazaAAna min kulli ommatin shaheedan faqulna hatoo burhanakum faAAalimoo anna alhaqqa lillahi wadalla AAanhum ma kanoo yaftaroona  
 
28:75 And from each people shall We draw a witness, and We shall say: "Produce your Proof": then shall they know that the Truth is in Allah (alone), and the (lies) which they invented will leave them in lurch.  
 
Allah, in these ayats, makes clear that we must bring our evidence/borhan for whatever we ascribe to Him, His Din, his Book, and His Messenger. This not a suggestion, but a command.

 

Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS,  
 
CC MOAZZAM, AASTANA EXEC.BOARD, AND SUPPORTERS.  
 
Ahh, come on Narge, we've already been down this road already.  
 
Anyway...  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him, except by revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases. Surely He is High, Wise.  
 
Jibreel, by way of tasreef, in fact, was the messenger-angel who brought Allah’s message/words/Al-Kitab to the prophets. Once again, the following ayats determine that Jibreel is both “a” messenger from Allah and “the” messenger to the prophets and some others. Let’s reexamine the following ayats:  
 
2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Jibreel — for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and a guidance and glad tidings for the believers.  
 
26:192-196 And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds./The Faithful Spirit has brought it,/On thy heart that thou mayest be a warner,/In plain Arabic language./And surely the same is in the Scriptures of the ancients.  
 
81:19-21 Surely it is the word of a bountiful Messenger, /The possessor of strength, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, /One to be obeyed, and Faithful.  
 
Here’s my analysis/proof:  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him… by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases.  
 
In ayat 2:97 Jibreel is cited as the being who brought revelation (the revelation is, in fact, a message, thus, making Jibreel, in fact, a messenger) from Allah to “Muhammad”. What he/Jibreel brought to “Muhammad”—The Message, was to be obeyed (ayat 81:21) by “Muhammad”, hence, the prophet saying in ayat 10:15:  
 
10:15…I follow nothing but what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I disobey my Lord…  
 
Keep in mind that the phrase—obey the messenger must also apply to “Muhammad”. In other words…who did he obey? Certainly it was Allah, but please keep in mind that Allah, according to 42:51, did not DIRECTLY reveal anything to “Muhammad”, but Jibreel, per ayat 2:97, certainly did, hence, making him the one “Muhammad” had to obey! Jibreel, clearly, is a messenger.  
 
Ayats 81: 19:21 are speaking directly of Jibreel, because there is no other messenger to the prophets other than him, hence, the singular term messenger in ayat 42:51. Remember now that, 42:51 is referring to a messenger who is in the presence of Allah in the Ghaib/outside of this plane of existence. Given the above ayats and analysis, there is no doubt that Jibreel is a messenger and the messenger being referred to in ayats 42:51 and 81:19-21. Do you agree, now?  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
I hope you won’t deny that the Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster, and, as with the other believers/trusters, had to FOLLOW/OBEY AL-QURAN (see 10:15). So given that Prophet “Muhammad” was a believer/truster…  
 
10:15 And when Our clear ayats/messages are recited to them, those who have no hope of meeting with Us say: Bring a Quran other than this or change it. Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord.I FOLLOW NOTHING BUT WHAT WAS REVEALED TO ME. Indeed I fear, if I DISOBEY my Lord, the chastisement of a grievous day.  
 
Moving right along:  
 
42:51 And it is not vouchsafed to a mortal that Allah should speak to him… by SENDING A MESSENGER and revealing by His permission what He pleases.  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
SAMI’A/HEAR: to hear; the act of hearing. Dictionary of Al-Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 270.  
 
8:20 proves that a messenger came to “Muhammad” and he/”Muhammad”, as with the other believers/trusters, had to obey the messenger who came to him. If this weren’t true, then Al-Quran would not apply to him/”Muhammad", because what messenger was he to obey. The ayat also mentions…”while you hear”. What did “Muhammad” hear? Well, it couldn’t have been Allah, because that would be direct contact by Allah, yeah? It couldn’t be Al-Quran, because Al-Quran cannot speak, So, what did he hear? Well, the only answer is he heard the The Messenger of Allah—Jibreel. Anyway, all of this Al-Quranic logic and common sense will certainly be lost on you.  
 
Now, do you want to address the following:  
 
B. Please tell us how a human being can:  
 
a) know the Words of Allah without Allah first revealing His Words?  
 
b) by “studying the laws of nature” then write a flawless/error-free/ no contradictions/perfect book as is Al-Quran?  
 
Your problem, however, remains, that being---where did the words used in Al-KitabAl-Quran, which , as you say, is the cause of revealing the message in the rsool’s mind,…come from in the first place? No matter how you phrase or re-phrase your position on this matter your central/principle problem remains---where do the Words of Allah come from and how did “Muhammad” come by them?. If Allah didn’t conceive the Words in Al-Quran and then reveal His Words directly to “Muhammad” and if Jibreel did not bring Allah’s Words indirectly to “Muhammad”, then your only answer is “Muhammad” made up Al-Quran on his own by” studying the laws of nature”. This means, “Muhammad”---would have had to invent Allah as well! I say this, because you deny any connection of the Words of Allah/Al-Quran coming to “Muhammad” from Allah directly or indirectly by Jibreel. With this in mind then, you’ve severed any connection with the source of the Words of Allah—Allah Himself. Thus, there is no way that “Muhammad” could have had any “knowledge” of Allah unless he got it from other books and/or just made up Allah and the Words of Allah making Al-Quran a forgery.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse

>Dhulqarnain  
 
Follow what is revealed to you..7:3-->  
 
so follow 2:111 and answer my questions.  
 
BRING YOUR PROOFS IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL 2:211


Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
"The Pure Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth (ALHAQ) to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims.", Clearly refuting the charge that prophet is a forgerer, who made up the stuff. DAWOOD

 
 
Why did they say he is a forger er if only he and Allah knew what's in his mind?  
 
Now PROVE throgh the Quran ("Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111 ) that the spirit brought it down from the Lord ?  
 
How did he do that and what is the proof of him doing it?


Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
(6:73): It is He who created the heavens and the earth with ALHAQ: the day He saith, "Be (KUN)," behold! it is. His word (QAUL) is the truth (ALHAQ). ...”  
 
His qaul, BE (KUN), is ALHAQ. Now link the first part of this verse in which it is said “ He who created the heavens and the earth with ALHAQ”. This simply means, His Qaul, BE (KUN) started the process of creating the universe. Did it happen overnight, and without any Law governing it? Of course not. His Qaul created the law and as per that law universe came into existence. Exactly the same way His Qaul, BE started the process of Nazool upon the prophet’s qalb. Did it happen without any law? Of course not. Jibreel =Alroh is that law that started and completed the process of revelation. Dawood

What is Allahs Qaul?  
 
how did Allahs Qaul create a law?  
 
Is Gabriel/ Alrooh Allahs qoul?  
 
How did "Jibreel =Alroh is that law that started and completed the process of revelation"  
 
Prove each and every statement you are making as per 2:111  
 
Do you read namaaz  
 
Do you believe in namaaz ?


Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On 12 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS.  
 
You are still talking around the issue/not addressing your principle problem. Here, let me simplify it again for you:  
 
You, Moazzam, and your supporters claim the following:  
 
a) Allah did not reveal His Words/Al-Quran directly to the Prophet "Muhammad".  
 
b) Allah did not reveal His Words/Al-Quran indirectly via a messenger-angel, Jibreel  
 
Now, by asserting a) and b) to be the truth you'e severed the connection with Allah and the Prophet in terms of his ("Muahmmad") getting the Words of Allah/Al-Quran from Allah .  
 
So, once again, I ask you...from where then did "Muhammad" get the Words of Allah.Al-Quran? If he got from "studying the laws of nature/universe", as you claim:  
 
a) How then did he know exactly what words to write down to compile Al-Quran and then state that what he compilied were, in fact, the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature/universe" to give hm that ability?  
 
b) If Allah did not tell him anything, directly or indirectly, how then, could he claim that what he was preaching, in fact, were the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature/universe" to give hm that ability?  
 
c) By severing the connection between Allah and the Prophet, and stating he "studied the laws of nature/universe" and that's how he got the Words of Allah/Al-Quran, is to make "Muhammad" the author of Al-Quran and not Allah.  
 
Are you sure you want to stand maintain this position?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
c)

Comments by: Nargis On 12 November 2011Report Abuse

why are you not answering the Questions? Can the supports of dhulqarnain answer my questions ?


Comments by: dawood On 13 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Moazzam:  
 
“Moazzam: How, first time at earth, “Al-Quran/Al-Kitab/Al-Rooh” had been revealed in its physical shape, I DON’T KNOW as per verse17/85.  
But the message of this book by pondering into it (also by studying the laws of nature) which has been conceived in the mind of Prophet/rasool of time called revealing as well (Nuzool Al-Kitab). To be more cleared THE WORLS USED IN AL-KITAB is the cause of revealing the message in the rasool’s mind.”  
 
As per your previous assertions, the book/ALKITAB was already with people when the prophet came along. Given this position, their question (sawal) is illogical if it relates to the physical BOOK itself. Therefore Alroh is not physical Alkitab.  
 
Second, if Alroh is to be taken as a message or essence given in the Book, again the reply in 17:85 negates this position as well. Message is for people to comprehend it, thus within their comprehension, hence, the reply in 17:85 does not support this position either.  
 
The only inference that one can draw from 17:85 is that people are being inquisitive as to the nature of the ALROH itself. What is Alroh? How did it reveal to you the Quran? So on and so forth. Therefore, Alroh is something that brought/revealed the message/Alquran upon the Qalb of the prophet.  
 
Further, “When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.(16:101)”. The context of 16:101 is the Quran and how to avoid Shaitan, therefore, this ayah is definitely talking about the Ayahs of Alquran, and nothing but the Ayahs of Alquran. Additionally, people have access to these ayahs in written form and they are comparing these with previous revelations and found the Alquran to be different than the previous ones. Thus, the charge that the prophet has forged it.  
 
Moreover, “Say, the Holy Spirit (Rohul Quds) has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.(16:102)”. This is again talking about the Nuzool of the Ayahs as mentioned in 16:101, and the agency to perform this nuzool is Rohul Quds, who did it in response to the command of Allah.

Comments by: dawood On 13 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Nargis:  
 
“Nargis: What is Allahs Qaul?  
 
According to 6:73, KUN is His qaul. Similarly, in 2:117, and 16:40 for examples.  
 
“Nargis: how did Allahs Qaul create a law?  
 
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.” We the descendent of Adam (humans) are here in this present form. Do you think we all got here in this form through some sort of process/law that governed our evolution to this stage? If yes, then the same qaul=Kun is responsible for this law. If not, no further arguments, your honor.  
 
“Nargis: Is Gabriel/ Alrooh Allahs qoul? How did "Jibreel =Alroh is that law that started and completed the process of revelation"  
 
According to 2:97, Jibreel is bringing the revelation to the Qalb of the Prophet. According to 26:193, the same function is performed by Rohul Amin. According to 16:102, the Rohul Quds is performing the same function, this time with ALHAQ. As we have seen above, Allah’s qaul=Kun(Be)=Alhaq, thus all above performed the same function with His command/qaul. Of course, the task was completed, for we have the final product in our hands.  
 
“Nargis: Do you read namaaz Do you believe in namaaz ?”  
 
I am not sure, how is this related to our present discussion. I however don’t believe in any rituals, including Namaaz, roza, Haj, etc.  

Comments by: moazzam On 13 November 2011
Dear Dawood! “I however don’t believe in any rituals, including Namaaz, roza, Haj, etc” (dawood)  
.This only happened due to your realistic approach to analyze the matters, Congratulation.  
Hope Dogmas will also be evaporated through your research work, because you seem not among the one who suffers with following psyche.  
TARZ E KUHAN PE ARNA , TEHZEEB E NO SE DARNA  
MANZIL YEHI KATHAN HAI QAUMON KI ZINDAGI MAIN  
THE END STATEMENT: Dear brother, I have had the same belief long back, but now my study being a meager student of Quran, doesn’t allow me to believe that Allah will provide the un-comprehendible information which may cause the chose and ambiguity in its “KITABUN MUBEEN” such like angels,Gibreel,Mikaeel,Izraeel, Sheitan, Jinn ( as an unseen)/supper natural/infra-natural activity/Direct intervention of Allah in human affairs etc etc.  
It is advised to adjourn for an appropriate time, the matter which can’t be comprehended for the time being. But be steadfast that, Allah given THE MESSAGE which is self explanatory and comprehendible to mankind.  
If the people of any era unable to grip it, then leave it for coming generations they may understand it, but shouldn’t be converted into DOGMAS like been practiced by past religious intrigues. THANKS  

Comments by: Nargis On 13 November 2011Report Abuse
Dawood, “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.” We the descendent of Adam (humans) are here in this present form. Do you think we all got here in this form through some sort of process/law that governed our evolution to this stage? If yes, then the same qaul=Kun is responsible for this law. If not, no further arguments, your honor. ---

Aji jaate kaha hai? Yes we will have many more arguments, debates and discussions. And you are not going anywhere, only on holiday now and then. You are comitted :P :-D  
 
You came with some nice claims here, Qaul means to SAY BE and it Becomes, right? So Allah haven't said anything for millions of years, coz when he SAY something ,,anything can happen? anyway you have to explain this through the Quran, having in mind that prophet himself asked others for proofs.

According to 2:97, Jibreel is bringing the revelation to the Qalb of the Prophet. According to 26:193, the same function is performed by Rohul Amin. According to 16:102, the Rohul Quds is performing the same function, this time with ALHAQ. As we have seen above, Allah’s qaul=Kun(Be)=Alhaq, thus all above performed the same function with His command/qaul. Of course, the task was completed, for we have the final product in our hands. Dawood: Second, Alroh is also called ALAmin, meaning trustworthy in 26:193. Thus, indicating that whatever Allah wanted to convey, it has been conveyed without anything added or taken away from it. DAWOOD

Nope, according to the Quran HE in 2:97 is a ref to Allah and only Allah revealed the Quran, according to 2:97 your interpretation is wrong as usual. You and your friend Dhulqarnain have to PROVE Gabriel was in the mind of the prophet...  
 
Prove this, if this is about Roh/ angel Gabriel, being al Amin, then prove it. How do we know this statement is true, where can we find Gabriel to verify and witness his personality is matching this statement of the Quran?"Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111


Comments by: Nargis On 13 November 2011Report Abuse

both of you have to prove Gabriel was an angel send down from heaven/ space whatever, and laned on the mind of the prophet.  
 
You have to prove his personality as the Quran is explaining in the above ayah Dawood mentioned.  
 
Is Gabriel metaphysical or physical, what "material" is he made of since he can talk to the prophet, did he speak Arabic?  
 
AND, WHATS THE PROOF OF MOHAMMED NOT MAKING UP GABRIEL?  
 
WHY DID ALLAH SEND HIS MESSAGE LATER, WHEN HE COULD JUST PLACE IT HERE IN THE BEGINNING, LIKE MATH, SCEINCE, ETC ETC ?  
 
IS GABRIEL LANDING ON THE MIND OF PROPHET COMING DIRECTLY FROM ALLAH, NOT A MIRACLE?  
 
FROM DHULQARNAIN OWN POST @ ANOTHER SITE: Allah, in these ayats, makes clear that we must bring our evidence/borhan for whatever we ascribe to Him, His Din, his Book, and His Messenger. This not a suggestion, but a command.  
 
GET BUSY, MULLAH BIRDS.


Comments by: Nargis On 13 November 2011Report Abuse

THE END STATEMENT: Dear brother, I have had the same belief long back, but now my study being a meager student of Quran, doesn’t allow me to believe that Allah will provide the un-comprehendible information which may cause the chose and ambiguity in its “KITABUN MUBEEN”

such like angels,Gibreel,Mikaeel,Izraeel, Sheitan, Jinn ( as an unseen)/supper natural/infra-natural activity/Direct intervention of Allah in human affairs etc etc.

It is advised to adjourn for an appropriate time, the matter which can’t be comprehended for the time being. But be steadfast that, Allah given THE MESSAGE which is self explanatory and comprehensible to mankind. If the people of any era unable to grip it, then leave it for coming generations they may understand it, but shouldn’t be converted into DOGMAS like been practiced by past religious intrigues. THANKS

 
 
exactly. Thank you brother Moazzam


Comments by: Nargis On 13 November 2011Report Abuse

IF BOTH OF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE PROOFS FOR YOUR CLAIMS, THEN THIS DISCUSSION IS THE END. ONLY PROOFS!


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 13 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE NARGIS and MOAZZAM,  
 
CC AASTANA EXEC. BOARD AND SUPPORTERS.  
 
***NARGIS: FROM DHULQARNAIN OWN POST @ ANOTHER SITE: Allah, in these ayats, makes clear that we must bring our evidence/borhan for whatever we ascribe to Him, His Din, his Book, and His Messenger. This not a suggestion, but a command. GET BUSY, MULLAH BIRDS.***  
 
***NARGIS: IF BOTH OF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE PROOFS FOR YOUR CLAIMS, THEN THIS DISCUSSION IS THE END. ONLY PROOFS!  
 
ENOUGH!, Nargis. Your attempt to run from your claims and put the burden of proof on me and Dawood with this baloney is not going to fly, sorry. Dawood and I are replying to your's and Moazzam's original claims and the reason for this discussion in the first place. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS YOUR"S AND MOAZZAM"S. No, Sweety, you and Moazzam have to be held accountable for what you’re proffering. I know you want to now beat a hasty retreat, because you, once again, see your claims dissolving right in front you and you are helpless to stop it. If you make a claim, then back it up or admit that you're wrong. You cannot have it both ways, sorry. You and Moazzam's wanting to cut and run now without admitting that you're wrong//cannot prove your claims, is simply cowardly and repugnant. I'm sorry I have to be honest with you both. I've asked you both before...where in the world can you go and debate like this and not be laughed at or have objects hurled at you, ridiculed, and and booed off of the stage? Your behavior is just incredulous.  
 
Anyway...  
 
I proved Jibreel is the messenger-malaika to “Muhammad”, but you reject the evidence, while, at the same time, not even remotely substantiating your claims at all. The principle issues and the reason for this discussion are yours and Moazzam's claims that:  
 
1. Jebreel=Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.  
 
2. "Muhammad" got Al-Quran by "studying the laws of nature and pondering on the universe".  
 
Moazzam, and rightly so, admitted that he does not know how the physical Al-Quran came to earth: "How, first time at earth, “Al-Quran/Al-Kitab/Al-Rooh” had been revealed in its physical shape, I DON’T KNOW...***  
 
But here's another problem---how can you and him not know when you both vehemently assert that you do know, meaning, both of your claim that "Muhammad" got Al-Quran from "studying the laws of nature and pondering on the universe". So you both do know. So, which is it..do you know or don't you know? Do you see how easily you are caught in your own self contradictory statements time, and time, and time, again? This is because neither of you have the grasp of Al-Quran as you delude yourselves into believing you have and the proof is how easily your claims are refuted.  
 
So, once again then, you two claim that:  
 
a) Allah did not reveal His Words/Al-Quran directly to the Prophet "Muhammad".  
 
b) Allah did not reveal His Words/Al-Quran indirectly via a messenger-angel, Jibreel  
 
c) "Muhammad" got Al-Quran by "studying the laws of nature and pondering on the universe".  
 
Now, by asserting a) and b) to be the truth you’re severed the connection with Allah and the Prophet in terms of his ("Muahmmad") getting the Words of Allah/Al-Quran from Allah .  
 
So, again, I ask you...from where then did "Muhammad" get the Words of Allah.Al-Quran? If he got from "studying the laws of nature/universe", as you claim:  
 
a) How then did he know exactly what words to write down to compile Al-Quran and then state that what he compilied were, in fact, the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature/universe" to give hm that ability?  
 
b) If Allah did not tell him anything, directly or indirectly, how then, could he claim that what he was preaching, in fact, were the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature/universe" to give hm that ability?  
 
c) By severing the connection between Allah and the Prophet, and stating he "studied the laws of nature/universe" and that's how he got the Words of Allah/Al-Quran, is to make "Muhammad" the author of Al-Quran and not Allah.  
 
Are you sure you want to maintain this position?  
 
You have to answer to what you've put out here; there's no running away. Cute remarks, stalling/avoiding by asking other questions, referring to other links, and all other non-essential commentary, are not acceptable responses, thanks.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Nargis On 13 November 2011Report Abuse

PROOFS ! Or admit that you cannot prove your stand but want us to agree with you and Dawood blindly.  
 
GOT YOU NOW, be a man and prove your claims. Won't let you run away this time.


Comments by: Nargis2 On 13 November 2011Report Abuse
Does the word—“nazala/sent down” have any significance for you at all? Let’s see its definition, maybe that will clear up matters some.  
 
NAZALA/NUN-ZAIN-LAM: to descend; to come down; settle in a place; sent down; divine revelation. Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 559  
 
SENT/SEND: Order or instruct to go to a particular destination or in a particular direction; to cause or order to be taken, directed, or transmitted to another placeDHULQARNAIN

Dear readers, can you see how he is trying to run away and continue with his baloney conjectures and ideas about Allahs book? Well there is no place to hide Dhulqarnain, answer the questions , HOW IS THE WORD USED IN THE QURAN, EXPLAIN THROUGH RATTAL


Comments by: Nargis2 On 13 November 2011Report Abuse

PROOFS ! Or admit that you cannot prove your stand but want us to agree with you and Dawood blindly.  
 
GOT YOU NOW, be a man and prove your claims. Won't let you run away this time.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters: “He (Muhammad) made it all up and I am being totally serious with no disrespect to Muslims who have been conned and tricked by this madman!” DHULQARNAIN

PROVE THAT MOHAMMED GOT THE QURAN FROM GABRIEL, AND GABRIEL GOT IT FROM ALLAH-  
 
WHATS THE PROOF THAT S MOHAMMED OR ANY PROPHET DID NOT MAKE UP GABRIEL ?  
 
"Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111  
 
21:24 Ami ittakhathoo min doonihi alihatan qul hatoo burhanakum hatha thikru man maAAiya wathikru man qablee bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona alhaqqa fahum muAAridoona  
 
21:24 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof: this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.  
 
28:75 WanazaAAna min kulli ommatin shaheedan faqulna hatoo burhanakum faAAalimoo anna alhaqqa lillahi wadalla AAanhum ma kanoo yaftaroona  
 
28:75 And from each people shall We draw a witness, and We shall say: "Produce your Proof": then shall they know that the Truth is in Allah (alone), and the (lies) which they invented will leave them in lurch.  
 
Allah, in these ayats, makes clear that we must bring our evidence/borhan for whatever we ascribe to Him, His Din, his Book, and His Messenger. This not a suggestion, but a command.


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 13 November 2011Report Abuse
 
 
Oh, please Nargis, who are you kidding other than yourself. Any sane person reading our exchanges will come quickly to the conclusion that you and your supporters cannot be taken seriously. If you had any ability to reflect introspectively you would be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. I won't be pursuing any more discussions with you and Moazzam until you grow up and come clean with yourselves...it would just be pointless.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: Nargis2 On 13 November 2011Report Abuse

Its about time you provide proofs of your claims! This is not a suggestion, its a command--> 21:24,,28:75,,2:111

 

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 13 November 2011Report Abuse
You're just laughable.  
 
I've proved my claims in regard to Jibreel. You've simply rejected the evidence out of hand, because you're too proud and emotionally immature at this point in your life to admit when you're wrong.  
 
I'm still waiting for you to prove the following:  
 
You claim "Muhammad" got Al-Quran from "studying the laws of nature and pondering on the universe". , yet...no proof from you. How did he know exactly what to write down, that is, what in nature/the universe gave him the words he used and said that it came from Allah.  
 
You're full of baloney Nargis, and what you've asserted here will come back to mock you...sooner or later.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: Nargis2 On 14 November 2011Report Abuse

Dhulqarnain and Dawood, its a shame both of you cannot prove your claims, that's why both of you are trying to run away from this thread.

According to 2:97, Jibreel is bringing the revelation to the Qalb of the Prophet. According to 26:193, the same function is performed by Rohul Amin. According to 16:102, the Rohul Quds is performing the same function, this time with ALHAQ. As we have seen above, Allah’s qaul=Kun(Be)=Alhaq, thus all above performed the same function with His command/qaul. Of course, the task was completed, for we have the final product in our hands. Dawood: Second, Alroh is also called ALAmin, meaning trustworthy in 26:193. Thus, indicating that whatever Allah wanted to convey, it has been conveyed without anything added or taken away from it. DAWOOD

Nope, according to the Quran HE in 2:97 is a ref to Allah and only Allah revealed the Quran, according to 2:97 your interpretation is wrong as usual. You and your friend Dhulqarnain have to PROVE Gabriel was in the mind of the prophet...  
 
Prove this, if this is about Roh/ angel Gabriel, being al Amin, then prove it. How do we know this statement is true, where can we find Gabriel to verify and witness his personality is matching this statement of the Quran?"Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111  
 
both of you have to prove Gabriel was an angel send down from heaven/ space whatever, and laned on the mind of the prophet.  
 
You have to prove his personality as the Quran is explaining in the above ayah Dawood mentioned.  
 
Is Gabriel metaphysical or physical, what "material" is he made of since he can talk to the prophet, did he speak Arabic?  
 
AND, WHATS THE PROOF OF MOHAMMED NOT MAKING UP GABRIEL?  
 
WHY DID ALLAH SEND HIS MESSAGE LATER, WHEN HE COULD JUST PLACE IT HERE IN THE BEGINNING, LIKE MATH, SCEINCE, ETC ETC ?  
 
IS GABRIEL LANDING ON THE MIND OF PROPHET COMING DIRECTLY FROM ALLAH, NOT A MIRACLE?  
 
FROM DHULQARNAIN OWN POST @ ANOTHER SITE: Allah, in these ayats, makes clear that we must bring our evidence/borhan for whatever we ascribe to Him, His Din, his Book, and His Messenger. This not a suggestion, but a command.  
 
PROVE THAT MOHAMMED GOT THE QURAN FROM GABRIEL, AND GABRIEL GOT IT FROM ALLAH-  
 
WHATS THE PROOF THAT S MOHAMMED OR ANY PROPHET DID NOT MAKE UP GABRIEL ?  
 
"Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111  
 
21:24 Ami ittakhathoo min doonihi alihatan qul hatoo burhanakum hatha thikru man maAAiya wathikru man qablee bal aktharuhum la yaAAlamoona alhaqqa fahum muAAridoona  
 
21:24 Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides him? Say, "Bring your convincing proof: this is the Message of those with me and the Message of those before me." But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.  
 
28:75 WanazaAAna min kulli ommatin shaheedan faqulna hatoo burhanakum faAAalimoo anna alhaqqa lillahi wadalla AAanhum ma kanoo yaftaroona  
 
28:75 And from each people shall We draw a witness, and We shall say: "Produce your Proof": then shall they know that the Truth is in Allah (alone), and the (lies) which they invented will leave them in lurch.  
 
Allah, in these ayats, makes clear that we must bring our evidence/borhan for whatever we ascribe to Him, His Din, his Book, and His Messenger. This not a suggestion, but a command.


Comments by: Nargis On 14 November 2011Report Abuse

HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPHET IS ASKING FOR PROOFS, WHAT IS HIS PROOF FOR NOT MAKING UP GABRIEL, WHAT PROOF DID HE PROVIDE TO HIS AUDIENCE, FOR GABRIEL REALLY BEING AN AN ANGEL LANDING ON HIS MIND? WHAT PROOF DID HE GIVE FOR HIS(GABRIEL S) PERSONALITY AS PER DAWOODS CLAIMS?- IS THE PROPHET ASKING OTHERS TO PROVE THEIR CLAIMS BUT ASKING FOR BLIND BELIEF IN HIS PRESENTATIONS, ANGELS SENT FROM GOD ETC? IF IT IS ABOUT BELIEF, WHY CANT PEOPLE BELIEVE IN WHATEVER THEY LIKE?

CATEGORY B:  
 
25:30 And the Messenger will say: My Lord, surely my people treating this Quran as a forsaken thing.  
 
I “THINK”: to consider something as a possible action; to have a belief or opinion; to believe to be true of someone or something.  
 
OPINION: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.  
 
CONJECTURE: inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork;  
a statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork; the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.  
 
BELIEF: something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:  
 
EDITORIAL: an article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers; of or resembling an editorial, especially in expressing an opinion:  
 
EDITORIALIZE: to set forth one's position or opinion on some subject in, or as if in, an editorial; to inject personal interpretations or opinions into an otherwise factual account.  
 
 
If you are, at any time, in category B you’ve effectively forsaken Al-Quran at that time. The remedy for Category B individuals is as follows:  
 
27:64… Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.  
 
17:36 And follow not that of which thou hast no knowledge…  
 
7:33 Say: My Lord forbids only indecencies, …that you associate with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and that you say of Allah what you know not.  
 
 
CATEGORY A:  
 
IS: to exist; to be.  
 
CERTAINTY: established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable; Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable; capable of being relied on; dependable  
 
POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE: characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation; admitting of no doubt; irrefutable:  
 
TRUTH: conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true; in accordance with fact : actual.  
 
ACTUAL: existing and not merely potential or possible; existing in fact or reality; based on fact; not merely possible, but real.  
 
ACCURATE: Conforming exactly to fact; free from error or defect; conforming exactly to truth or to a standard.  
 
FACT: something that actually exists; reality; truth: something that has actual existence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality.  
 
REAL: being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence:existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary; being actually such; not merely so-called: genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation;  
 
TRUE: being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story. 2. real; genuine; authentic: consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous: in accordance with fact; that agrees with reality: reliable; accurate; in accord with reality, fact, or truthfulness.  
 
VERIFY: to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of.  
 
VERIFIABLE: capable of being verified; that which can be proven to be the truth; undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; that can be proved to be true or accurate.


Comments by: dawood On 14 November 2011Report Abuse
SA NArgis:  
 
“Nargis: Aji jaate kaha hai? Yes we will have many more arguments, debates and discussions. And you are not going anywhere, only on holiday now and then. You are comitted :P :-D”  
 
Do you know the difference between involved and committed? I have read somewhere that its like a egg-and-ham sandwich. Chicken is involved and Ham is committed. If you are referring to this commitment, I am already feeling the heat of being fried, due to devoting lot of my time away from my other responsibilities. Anyway, lets get back to the topic.  
 
“Nargis: You came with some nice claims here, Qaul means to SAY BE and it Becomes, right? So Allah haven't said anything for millions of years, coz when he SAY something ,,anything can happen? anyway you have to explain this through the Quran, having in mind that prophet himself asked others for proofs.”  
 
There is no proof better than Allah’s ayahs. “And He Who created (KHALAQA) the heavens and the earth with ALHAQ. And the day He says (Yaqoolu, from qaul, Qaf, Wav, Lam) BE (KUN) and it is (FAYAKOON), His qaul (QAULOHU) is the ALHAQ….” (6:73) .  
 
From the above, His qaul=ALHAQ. and what is His qaul? He says KUN and then FAYAKOON. Since there is nothing before KUN, thus KUN is the qaul of Allah that initiates the process for something. The second part simply signifies the certainty of the result. Thus, He created ….with ALHAQ, meaning with His QAUL, KUN (BE). The end product is a TRUTH that we all can see, touch, and verify, meaning the end product represents FACTS, nothing but FACTS. Since we know that things happen according to the Laws of Allah, therefore, the QAUL of ALLAH, KUN also establishes those laws that produce the final product which is certain to be produced.  
 
Your point that “Allah havn’t said anything for million years” is also off the mark, for the word YAQOOLU is translated as, He says, thus, it is a continuous process, whenever, wherever. “16:40, Indeed, Our word (QAULONA) to a thing when We intend it is but that We say (NAQOOLA) to it, "Be," and it is.”  
 
“Nargis: Nope, according to the Quran HE in 2:97 is a ref to Allah and only Allah revealed the Quran, according to 2:97 your interpretation is wrong as usual. You and your friend Dhulqarnain have to PROVE Gabriel was in the mind of the prophet... “  
 
Moazzam has already debunked your claim that NAZALAHU in 2:97 is referring to Allah. Please see http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1884#COM9975  
 
“Nargis: Prove this, if this is about Roh/ angel Gabriel, being al Amin, then prove it. How do we know this statement is true, where can we find Gabriel to verify and witness his personality is matching this statement of the Quran?"Produce your proof if ye are truthful." 2:111”  
 
Please consider the following:  
 
“(2:151): Just as We have sent among you a messenger from yourselves reciting to you (ALIKUM) Our verses (AYAHS) and purifying you and teaching you the Book and wisdom and teaching you that which you did not know.”  
(2:252): These are the Ayahs of Allah: We rehearse (NATLOHA) them to thee (ALIKA) in truth (BILHAQ): verily Thou art one of the messengers.  
 
In 2:151 and similarly in 3:164, a human messenger is reciting/rehearsing Allah’s Ayahs upon people, among other things. In 2:252 (and 3:108, 45:6) the same function of rehearsing Allah’s Ayahs is performed by Allah, this time with BILHAQ. Since Allah does not have a direct contact with humans, who is doing this function of reciting Allah’s Ayahs with ALHAQ upon the messenger? The word ALHAQ is also missing in 2:151. Now combining 6:73 and 2:252, the only plausible answer to this conundrum is that in response to Allah’s qaul, Kun, someone is reciting/rehearsing Allah’s Ayahs upon the messenger. Since this someone is bringing the messeage (Ayahs) of Allah to the messenger, thus he is a messenger to the prophet. Since messengers are either from Malaika or Humans, thus, this messenger is a messenger-angle(AMALAIKA). This establishes Dhulqarnain’s point that messenger-angle brought the message to the Prophet. I will get back to rest of this ASA I get some time.  

Comments by: Nargis On 14 November 2011Report Abuse

and more blahblah, will have a chit chat with you some day, but now I'm asking for proofs not your interpretation of orthodox translations hijacked form Mullahs.  
 
Can you provide the same proofs prophet gave to his audience about Gabriel?  
 
both of you have to prove Gabriel was an angel send down from heaven/ space whatever, and laned on the mind of the prophet.  
 
You have to prove his personality as the Quran is explaining in the above ayah Dawood mentioned.  
 
Is Gabriel metaphysical or physical, what "material" is he made of since he can talk to the prophet, did he speak Arabic?  
 
AND, WHATS THE PROOF OF MOHAMMED NOT MAKING UP GABRIEL?  
 
WHY DID ALLAH SEND HIS MESSAGE LATER, WHEN HE COULD JUST PLACE IT HERE IN THE BEGINNING, LIKE MATH, SCEINCE, ETC ETC ?  
 
IS GABRIEL LANDING ON THE MIND OF PROPHET COMING DIRECTLY FROM ALLAH, NOT A MIRACLE?


Comments by: Nargis On 14 November 2011Report Abuse
Moazzam has already debunked your claim that NAZALAHU in 2:97 is referring to Allah. Please see http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1884#COM9975

IF you don't understand something, its better to zip it. Here is his reply and try to understand it

(3) Jibreel causes to reveal the message in the prophet’s mind, read the verse 2/97.  
قُلْ مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
 
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel who Nazala in your mind the (the message) bizin-Allah's(with due course of procedure), a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,-

In verse 2/97 the term “JIBREEL” has been described while some thing being “NUZOOL” in the rasool’s mind.  
 
At this stage, the understanding of grammatical formation of sentence along with the concept of “nuzool alkitab” should be known.  
 
NUZOOL Al-Kitab = conceiving the message in mind of rasool while pondering into Al-Kitab.  
The conclusion:- JIBREEL = ALROOH = Allah’s word written in Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.


Comments by: Nargis On 14 November 2011Report Abuse
Dawood , You claim Nazaluhu is a reference to Gabriel, HE (Gabriel) is revelaing it (the Quran), DAWOOD:- Please have a look at verse 16:193: NAZALA BIHI ArulAmin: He brought IT or came with IT or descended with IT RohulAmin. First, who is performing the act of NAZALA and what is being brought down? It is obvious that RohulAmin is the doer who descended or came with the message, Alkitab/Alquran, although there is no reference to what he came with. Now return to 2:97, and do some tasreef to see that nothing descended or revealed to the QALB of Prophet except the Message/ALQURAN/ALKITAB. Thus, Jibril is performing the same task in 2:97 which is performed by RohulAmin in 26:193.

but the Quran said,here Allah said HE revealed the Quran  
 
15:9 We have, without doubt, nazzalnā, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).  
 
so who is nazzalnā ,revealing the Quran?


Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 14 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE DAWOOD,  
 
NARGIS: NUZOOL Al-Kitab = conceiving the message in mind of rasool while pondering into Al-Kitab.  
The conclusion:- JIBREEL = ALROOH = Allah’s word written in Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.  
 
But here's Nargis and Moazzam's main problem and central issue...where did Al-Kitab/Al-Quran come from in the first place?  
 
Mozzam now states that he does not know, but Nargis continues to maintain that the Prophet got Al-Quran from studying the laws of nature and pondering on the universe. Nargis, realizes that she cannot begin to prove such an outlandish claim and this why she continues to ask us for proof that Jibreel is an angel when such proof was provided on this thread.  
 
Dhulqarnain-

Comments by: dawood On 14 November 2011Report Abuse
SA Nargis:  
 
“Nargis: IF you don't understand something, its better to zip it. Here is his reply and try to understand it  
(3) Jibreel causes to reveal the message in the prophet’s mind, read the verse 2/97.  
قُلْ مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ  
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel who Nazala in your mind the (the message) bizin-Allah's(with due course of procedure), a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,”  
 
OOPS, it’s a problem of my understanding. Arrogance, coupled with ignorance has no bounds. Whom are you kidding, no one else but yourself. Have a look at “Jibreel causes to reveal the message…” and then “Jibreel who Nazala…” in the above. Did Moazzam write that Allah is revealing???? Your case is closed or is it zipped?  
 
“Nargis: NUZOOL Al-Kitab = conceiving the message in mind of rasool while pondering into Al-Kitab.”  
 
Which Alkitab? The one prophet was blamed for forgery according to 16:101 or the one you are hallucination about? Your position is not tenable. Period.  
 
“Nargis: The conclusion:- JIBREEL = ALROOH = Allah’s word written in Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.”  
 
I am happy to see that you have come around to equate Jibreel=Alroh. This is what myself and Dhulqarnain said. You are only able to see the light when Moazzam has written it. Did you ask Moazzam which ayah equates Alroh with Jibreel? What a blind following, indeed.  
 
Now a word about the part that JIBREEL and ALROOH are also equal to “Allah’s word written in Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.” You cannot be possibly serious about this assertion, for who cannot read and see the words written in Alquran? If someone asks you what is Alroh, what would be your reply? Would you say Allah’s words in the Quran according to your own statement or would you say you have a very little knowledge about it? For a change, please think about your own thinking.  
 
Finally come clean on this claim of yours: Prophet got Alquran from Nature…  

Comments by: Nargis On 15 November 2011Report Abuse

Can you provide the same proofs prophet gave to his audience about Gabriel?  
 
both of you have to prove Gabriel was an angel send down from heaven/ space whatever, and laned on the mind of the prophet.  
 
You have to prove his personality as the Quran is explaining in the above ayah Dawood mentioned.  
 
Is Gabriel metaphysical or physical, what "material" is he made of since he can talk to the prophet, did he speak Arabic?  
 
AND, WHATS THE PROOF OF MOHAMMED NOT MAKING UP GABRIEL?  
 
WHY DID ALLAH SEND HIS MESSAGE LATER, WHEN HE COULD JUST PLACE IT HERE IN THE BEGINNING, LIKE MATH, SCEINCE, ETC ETC ?  
 
IS GABRIEL LANDING ON THE MIND OF PROPHET COMING DIRECTLY FROM ALLAH, NOT A MIRACLE?  
 
here Allah said HE revealed the Quran  
 
15:9 We have, without doubt, nazzalnā, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).  
 
so who is nazzalnā ,revealing the Quran?  
 
Nice to see your post, i know how to take off fake "sharafat ke chole" form mullah's- And lol @ Arrogance , hehehehe---


Comments by: dawood On 15 November 2011Report Abuse
Sa Nargis: Is there anything coming on this old claim of yours: Prophet got Alquran from Nature…Looking forward to your enlightening explanation.

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 15 November 2011Report Abuse
PEACE DAWOOD,  
 
“Nargis: The conclusion:- JIBREEL = ALROOH = Allah’s word written in Al-Kitab/Al-Quran.”  
 
DAWOOD: I am happy to see that you have come around to equate Jibreel=Alroh. This is what myself and Dhulqarnain said. You are only able to see the light when Moazzam has written it. Did you ask Moazzam which ayah equates Alroh with Jibreel? What a blind following, indeed.  
 
Absolutely. Moazzam, it appears, is her source of guidance and not Allah.  
 
Another fine point for you to consider:  
 
16:102 Say: The Holy Spirit has revealed it from thy Lord with truth, that it may establish those who believe, and as a guidance and good news for those who submit.  
 
Al-Ruh, in ayat 16:102, is called Quddus/Holy. If Jibreel=Al-Quran=Al-Ruh, then Al-Quran cannot =Jibreel/Al-Ruh, because nowhere in Al-Quran does Allah ever refers to His Quran as Quddus/Holy Quran. Thus, Al-Ruh cannot be Al-Quran.  
 
Allah has given the Quraan many names some of these appear below.  
 
The Quraan  
The Furqaan  
The Kitaab  
The Tanzeel  
Noor meaning Light  
Huda meaning Guidance  
Mau'idha meaning Good admonishment  
Shifaah meaning Cure  
Rahmah meaning Mercy  
Mubarek meaning Blessed  
Mubeen meaning Clear  
Bushra meaning Good news  
Azeez meaning Great and Lofty  
Majeed meaning Majestic  
Basheer meaning Glad Tidings  
Nadheer meaning Warner of Recompense  
Kareem meaing Noble  
Ahsan ul-Hadeeth meaning the Best Speech and Words  
 
http://www.imanway1.com/namesofquran.htm  
 
No holy Quran, though...  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

Comments by: Waqar On 15 November 2011Report Abuse
Dhulqarnain,  
 
<>  
No, the CENTRAL QUESTION should be:  
a) What is the purpose of this book?  
b) Are our study and research in line with the purpose of this book?  
 
Muhammad has done his job. We should not worry about how he got Al-Quran. We should worry about what are we going to do with it.  
 
<  
1. Allah revealed it to him directly.>>  
 
2. Jibreel, the messenger-angel, brought it to him by the Command of Allah. 8:20, hence, it was revealed indirectly by Allah.  
 
3. “Muhammad” studied the laws of nature, conceived in his own mind, in other words, he made it up on his own based on his own studies.  
 
There is no fourth option. >>  
 
I can not comprehend a direct communication. The communication between two human beings always involves some means according to Allah's laws. As for Allah, I think this concept of "direct/indirect" doesn't apply to Him. He is beyond all these stuffs.  
 
<  
1. The voice of Allah?  
 
2. The voice of Jibreel?  
 
3. His own internal voices conceiving Al-Quran?  
 
There is no fourth option, so, which is it, then? >>  
Why are we so worried about what Muhammad heard? Did he tell us? This question and any answer of it will put us in Category B.  
Below is your translation of 8:20.  
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
 
So, the first thing is what does it mean by "O you who believe" believe on what? Believe that a messenger came to Muhammad to warn him not to turn away? Who are those momins? If we are not the addressee then why should we worry about it just like if in a gathering somebody says "attention doctors" then why would engineers pay attention to it.  
 
<>  
Did he obey? If he obeyed then we don't have to obey anymore?  
You said that Al-Quran (in English) is a messenger for you. I did not understand it. Do you mean an English translation of Quran is a messenger?  
 
 
Regards,  
Waqar

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 15 November 2011Report Abuse
WAQAR,  
 
***WAQAR: No, the CENTRAL QUESTION should be: a) What is the purpose of this book? b) Are our study and research in line with the purpose of this book? Muhammad has done his job. We should not worry about how he got Al-Quran. We should worry about what are we going to do with it.***  
 
What a silly answer. No, the central issue is—how did “Muhammad” get Al-Quran? Let’s stay focused on that until it is resolved. If Al-Quran is not from Allah, who is perfect, then it's from man, who is imperfect. What relevancy is there to studying a so-called book of guidance if it's from man who is imperfect? What kind of guidance would that be?  
 
Do you have an explanation for the following, then:  
 
If JIBREEL = ALROOH = Allah’s word written in Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, as you say, and you reject that Allah had any direct contact with His Prophet, and you further reject that a messenger-angel brought the Words of Allah/al-Quran to the Prophet…  
 
a) How then did the Prophet know exactly what words to write down to compile Al-Quran and then state that what he compiled were, in fact, the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature/universe" to give him that ability?  
 
b) If Allah did not tell him anything directly or indirectly how then could he claim that what he was preaching,was, in fact, the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature and from pondering the universe" to give him that ability?  
 
c) Given that Allah did not contact him directly or indirectly how then could the Prophet claim to have the Words of Allah?  
 
d) c) Given that Allah did not contact him directly or indirectly how then could the Prophet claim that what he had was a perfect book/free of error or mistake?  
 
e) Where did Al-Kitab/al-Quran come from in the first place for the Prophet to ponder/conceive in his mind?  
 
f) By severing the connection between Allah and the Prophet, and stating he "studied the laws of nature and pondering the universe" and that's how he got the Words of Allah/Al-Quran, is to make THE UNIVERSE/THE LAWS OF NATURE THE SOURCE OF AL-QURAN AND NOT ALLAH and makes "Muhammad" THE AUTHOR OF AL-QURAN AND NOT ALLAH, don't you understand this?!  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 
 
 

Comments by: naeem sheikh On 15 November 2011Report Abuse
Dear Dawood! If Rooh Al-Qudus mean Jibreel(angel) then Please, Explain how ROOH AL-QUDUS could be justified in the following verses2:87,2:225,4:171,5:110,16:102.  
Also elaborate the term Alrooh came in verses 66:12,58:22,40:15,and 21:91could you justify your assertion in the said verses?thank you.  

Comments by: Nargis On 15 November 2011Report Abuse
Dawood , You claim Nazaluhu is a reference to Gabriel, HE (Gabriel) is revelaing it (the Quran),

but the Quran said,here Allah said HE revealed the Quran  
 
15:9 We have, without doubt, nazzalnā, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).  
 
so who is nazzalnā ,revealing the Quran?


Comments by: Nargis2 On 15 November 2011Report Abuse
the CENTRAL QUESTION should be:  
a) What is the purpose of this book?  
b) Are our study and research in line with the purpose of this book?  
Waqar  

 
Exactly-But it is too much to ask them to understand this.

.  
 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150947408745624&set=a.10150909033855624.763422.631600623&type=3&theater  
 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150947408470624&set=a.10150909033855624.763422.631600623&type=3&permPage=1

Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On 15 November 2011 Edit DeleteReport Abuse
PEACE TO ALL,  
 
Nargis, Waqar, and Naeem, wrote:  
 
***NARGIS: so who is nazzalnā ,revealing the Quran?  
 
This is your ongoing error. Nazala is not a who or an it, it is an action/verb (verbs express action), my God.  
 
2:176 That is because Allah has revealed/nazala the Book with truth. And surely those who disagree about the Book go far in opposition.  
 
Allah is doing the action of nazala—revealing.  
 
***WAQAR and NAEEM: the CENTRAL QUESTION should be: a) What is the purpose of this book? b) Are our study and research in line with the purpose of this book? Waqar***  
 
***NARGIS: Exactly-But it is too much to ask them to understand this.***  
 
4:82 Will they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any OTHER THAN ALLAH, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.  
 
LOL! I just love how you feed into each other’s denial. It truly is fascinating and hilarious to see which of you will come up with the craziest conjecture. :D  
 
Anyway, the central question is and issue will always be---WHERE DID AL-QURAN COME FROM? This is the essential question, because it speaks to the GENUINENESS and AUTHENTICITY of Al-Quran, that is, is Al-Quran/The Words of Allah from a perfect and the only god—Allah or is Al-Quran/The Words of Allah, actually not from Allah, but from an imperfect human being—“Muhammad”, who got it by "studying the laws of nature and pondering on the universe. Are you people familiar with these terms genuine and authentic? Both are CATEGORY A terms, you know. Here, allow me to presentt their definitions:  
 
GENUINE: Truly what something is said to be; authentic; not fake, spurious or counterfeit; actual; in accordance with truth or fact or reality.  
 
AUTHENTIC: having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; of undisputed origin; genuine; based on facts; accurate or reliable; not false or copied; genuine; real; entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy.  
 
10:37 And this Quran is not such as could be forged/produced by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the Book, there is no doubt in it, FROM THE LORD OF THE WORLDS.  
 
You will notice that it says---from The Lord of the Worlds and not from YOUR GOD--- the laws of nature/the universe. If “Muhamad” got Al-Quran from studying the laws of nature and pondering the universe, then the genuineness and authenticity of Al-Quran will always be in doubt, because humans make mistakes, hence, the trustworthiness of Al-Quran would always be in doubt. If Al-Quran from is Allah, then the genuineness, authenticity and the trustworthiness of it will always be unassailable, because it is from Allah who cannot make a mistake.  
 
So, full circle, then:  
 
If JIBREEL = ALROOH = Allah’s word written in Al-Kitab/Al-Quran, as you say, and you reject that Allah had any direct contact with His Prophet, and you further reject that a messenger-angel brought the Words of Allah/al-Quran to the Prophet…  
 
a) How then did the Prophet know exactly what words to write down to compile Al-Quran and then state that what he compiled were, in fact, the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature/universe" to give him that ability?  
 
b) If Allah did not tell him anything directly or indirectly how then could he claim that what he was preaching,was, in fact, the Words of Allah? What did he "study in the laws of nature and from pondering the universe" to give him that ability?  
 
c) Given that Allah did not contact him directly or indirectly how then could the Prophet claim to have the Words of Allah?  
 
d) c) Given that Allah did not contact him directly or indirectly how then could the Prophet claim that what he had was a perfect book/free of error or mistake?  
 
e) Where did Al-Kitab/al-Quran come from in the first place for the Prophet to ponder/conceive in his mind?  
 
f) By severing the connection between Allah and the Prophet, and stating he "studied the laws of nature and pondering the universe" and that's how he got the Words of Allah/Al-Quran, is to make THE UNIVERSE/THE LAWS OF NATURE THE SOURCE OF AL-QURAN AND NOT ALLAH and makes "Muhammad" THE AUTHOR OF AL-QURAN AND NOT ALLAH, don't you understand this?!  
 
a-f all speak to the issue of trustworthiness, genuineness and authenticity. Your choice.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  

»«
OTHER QUESTIONS ON
TRANSLATIONS
what is the meining of baqara or al baqara Question by: laiq ahmed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 15/02/2010
 
al baqara 121 to 128 can you difne Question by: laiq ahmed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 18/02/2010
 
what is ataz zakat Question by: laiq ahmed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 23/02/2010
 
chapter 23, verses 5,6 are transtaled as "what your right hand posseses " thereby implying slavery of women and concubinage. can u pl provide correct translation . thanks. Question by: WaseemHassan On 01/03/2010
 
can you define these aayat al baqara 121 to 128 please give me your under standing ? Question by: laiq ahmed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 10/03/2010
 
Please Define Yajooj Majood as per Quran and please describe Surah Ambiya Ayat # 97 Question by: Umair_Hamidani From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 16/03/2010
 
I visited you site, i am very glad to read your precious study about islam. i want to ask u about SURAH KOSAR, plz describe me this SURAH, what does KOSAR mean? Question by: UMAR HUSSAIN On 22/03/2010
 
Please define SORATUL QADAR??? Question by: Adnan Yousuf Zai On 25/03/2010
 
Kinldy define Soratul NAAS and Soratul Falak... Question by: Umair_Hamidani From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 25/03/2010
 
Salamunalaikum Respected Br. D. Qamar Zaman. Brother you are truely Qamar Zaman .I am not over praising but it is fact your work shows that. Alhamdulillah. Can you present us your understanding of Sura 10. verse 92. Question by: abdullahbashoeb From INDIA (HYDERBAD) On 28/03/2010
 
AOA dear Dr Qamar, Does the surah 105 relates to the event of Abraha as qouted in traditional tafasir , if yes then how that event reached us? If not then who were 'ashabi alfeel' بِأَصْحَابِ الْفِيلِ ? Wassalam Question by: Anwer Suri From UNITED STATES On 30/03/2010
 
Dear Mr. Aurangzaib/ Dr. Qamar Zaman: Kindly define soratul aadiyat (sora # 100).... Question by: Adnan Khan On 03/04/2010
 
وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ بِالْأُفُقِ الْمُبِينِ (81:23) I am looking for a translation of this verse based on Quran. Also what we should understand from word 'Jibrael"? Question by: Anwer Suri From UNITED STATES On 03/04/2010
 
Dear Dr.Qamarzaman regards, thankyou very much to enlighten us at AL-BAQARA,kindly complet this topic by including the verse 2/71alongwith the verse2/67---70 (new horison for us).plz enlighten the bani israeel,yahood and nasara. Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 07/04/2010
 
Dr. Qamarzaman regards,kindly enlighten us the verse 33/40. thanks Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 12/04/2010
 
Dear Dr. sahib slam, Does verse 4 of sura14 prove that messenger is always present in every nation ? May God bless u . thanks. Question by: Hafiz Abdullah From PAKISTAN (RAWALPINDI) On 24/04/2010
 
Dr. Qamar sahib regards,The term "malakat aimanukum" and verses 4/3,23/6 are now clear to me.But i hv a query,when consolidate verses 4/24,4/25 it seems conditional permission to merry with "malakat aimanukum" also the verse 33/52 looks like same. Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 30/04/2010
 
Could u please explain what is the meaning of the verses 36-39 of sura Tauba/Ultimatum (Barã'at) ( 9/36-37 )? Question by: Hafiz Abdullah From PAKISTAN (RAWALPINDI) On 30/04/2010
 
Could u please explain what is the meaning of the verses 2:72-74 ? Question by: Hafiz Abdullah From PAKISTAN (RAWALPINDI) On 30/04/2010
 
Dr. sahib regards,as u mensioned "yajooj majooj" are the anti islamic ideological forces.If "Zulqarnains"story from verse 18/93-99 is in metaphoric way ,then it neads quranic justification also consolidate 21/95-97.plz solve the query. Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 03/05/2010
 
Dear Dr. Qamar Zaman Sb / Aurangzaib Sb. SA Please explain the meaning in detail of two ayats of surah baqra 259 and 260 in urdu but in english type. 2- What is mano-salwa Dr. M.Alam Question by: alam1162@gmail.com From INDIA (DELHI) On 08/05/2010
 
Salamunalaikum Respected Br Dr Qamar Zaman, And Respected AurangZaib. Can you give us your precious understanding of Sur 9 Tauba verse 5and 36. it is very important we were discussing them. Fee amanillah Question by: abdullahbashoeb From INDIA (HYDERBAD) On 12/05/2010
 
Dear all, there are 2 schools thought, one says "first know the truth then believe", and the other says " first believe only then will you be able to know the truth". I belong to the first and struggling, someone please explain to me surah tehrim. Question by: nadeem On 29/05/2010
 
Dr. Qamar sahib regards,although the meanings of words in quranic verses could be selective as per context.But u hv taken 2 different meaning of LAIL,DULOOK used in the verse 17/78 in HAQEEQAT E SOAM &HAQEEQAT E SALAT. Same query a Ali haider's. Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 04/06/2010
 
Dr. Qamar zaman and all Assalam o alaikum.Food for thought ,Thought is related to the tafseer al quran by Dr Qamar sahib,plz read and comment. Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 23/06/2010
 
dear dr qamar zaman i have just come to know that ou are writing the tafseer based translation of quran .i am waiting for it anxiously.plz let me know until when will it be available on the website?God bless you Question by: bilal_khan5181 From PAKISTAN On 28/06/2010
 
Dr. Qamar and Aurangzeb Bhai Regards!!!!!!!!!! I have to ask a question regarding 10:92 verse of Quran, due to shortage of space I am explaining my question by giving a comment on it. Thanks Question by: ali.haideer From PAKISTAN (LARKANA) On 02/07/2010
 
Due to shortage of space i am writing my question in remakrs. Kindly answer it. Question by: Dr. Samreen Mohsin From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 02/07/2010
 
Aslamoalikum Dr Qamar Zaman: I have come some questions which I want to ask regarding Chapter 27 that is Soreh Namal. I am giving my questions below in comments Question by: ali.haideer From PAKISTAN (LARKANA) On 18/07/2010
 
Dear Dr. Qamarzaman regards,kindly elaborate the verse 17/16.thanks Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 27/07/2010
 
Respected Dr. Qamar sahab regards,if meanings of NISA is taken as the weaker persons of the society ,and RAJJAL means men,then kindly elaborate the verse 4/98.Plz also explain the verse 7/81,keeping in view the verse 3/14 Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 21/09/2010
 
Aslamoalikum Respected Dr. Qamar Zaman Sahab, I want to ask a question and I hope you will reply me soon and will clear my doubts.I am explaining my question below by giving comment on it. Question by: Nadeem_Akhtar From PAKISTAN On 23/09/2010
 
Salamun Alaykum I would like to ask the following question regarding SURAH 2 VERSE 3 especially this part: Alladhina y’uminina bilghaib - those persons who believe in the unseen;” What is really meant by the unseen? Question by: ardee From SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TWON) On 05/10/2010
 
Salamun Alaykum Can someone kindly explain if this translation is correct. And if correct, whats the purpose? 2:228 After divorce, women shall wait three menstruations before remarriage. Question by: ardee From SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TWON) On 23/10/2010
 
Dr.Sb / Auranzaib sb. SAK Plz explain seven ayats of surah Al. Haqqah 69/40-46 Question by: alam1162@gmail.com From INDIA (DELHI) On 23/10/2010
 
PUNISHING WOMEN, PLEASE EXPLAIN AYAT 34 OF SURA AL NISA Question by: momin From PAKISTAN On 28/10/2010
 
MEN CAN MARRY A JEW OR CHRISTIAN WOMEN WHY CAN' T WOMEN DO THE SAME? Question by: momin From PAKISTAN On 28/10/2010
 
Dear Dr. Qamarzaman,Brother Aurangzaib :Regards,In the light of your " Food for thought" related to surah feel(105) ,It seems that this debate was held with QOUM E LOOT and concluded as Surah Feel describs.Fpr details plz read my comments. Question by: moazzam From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 24/11/2010
 
Dear Dr. Qamar Sb. Kindly explain sura recited for SAFAR (Travelling) Question by: Saad Haider On 26/11/2010
 
dr sahib aap hamar salam ho god bless u every time but aap jo translation kr rahy umeed ha muslam us pr itfaak kr ly gy inshallaha.... Question by: abbas From PAKISTAN (LAHORE) On 27/11/2010
 
Dear all, what do you believe is the CORRECT interpretation of 24:30-31 where believing men and women are told to "yagudduu absaariheem wa yahfathuu furujahum"? Question by: Damon From UNITED STATES (PITTSBURGH) On 11/12/2010
 
What does the following verse denote? He is the Lord of two Easts and two Wests what is the meaning of this? Question by: ardee From SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TWON) On 07/02/2011
 
Here is the some of the translation of the Quran by Aidid Safar, maybe Aastana family would like to read:- Question by: Nargis2 From TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (TOMBACCO) On 07/02/2011
 
What is the law of Absolute Right? Question by: Zubair From UNITED STATES (WASHINGTON) On 07/02/2011
 
Dear All, how many unbiased western ( Non Muslim ) researchers have decoded Quran as it has to be? If Any ? Question by: Mubashir Syed From INDIA (HYDERABAD) On 10/03/2011
 
What is the meaning in 39:42? Question by: ardee From SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TWON) On 24/03/2011
 
Salaam to all. Dr. Qamar I hope you are in the best of your health, if possible please give a draft translation/understanding of Surah Al-Takweer 81. Moazam bhai or Badar or Aurangzaib bhai or anyone. Mujazee or Haqeeqi. thanX in advance. Question by: Iqbal kay shaheen From NAMIBIA (WALVIS BAY) On 10/05/2011
 
DHULQARNAIN ASKED 61:6 giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment. Who is Ahmed? Who is the.. "he"? Question by: Nargis-Badshah-Salamat From FIJI (FAUJI) On 31/05/2011
 
Dear Dr. Qamar Sb. Kia Quran men jahan "AL" lagey hai un ka matlab khaas hojaata hai. Mene yeh sawal buhut dinon ki confusion ke baad poocha hai. Like 3/14,16/8 Question by: waseemameer From AUSTRALIA (SYDNEY) On 31/05/2011
 
Dear Brs. and Srs at Aastana: Please share your understanding about 4:163 and 17:55, paying special attention to the last parts of these verses and the relationship these may have with the other respective parts of the verses. Question by: dawood On 09/06/2011
 
Dear Moazzam and Members Please explain soorah Alqaariah (101). Question by: Saeed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI(MSAEEDTAJ@GMAIL.COM)) On 13/06/2011
 
Dear Brother Moazzam! kindly define RATAL as you are very frequently using this term "wa rattil al Qurana tarteela"Thanks, the prompt response will be appreciated. Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 22/06/2011
 
Quran said to prophet as Rehmatal lil aalameen. Please explain. Question by: Saeed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI(MSAEEDTAJ@GMAIL.COM)) On 23/06/2011
 
Brother Moazzam, can you please explain Jaloot taloot in detail :P???? Question by: Nargis2 From TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (TOMBACCO) On 30/06/2011
 
Dear Moazzam Bhai, Please explain sora e Ikhlas. Question by: Saeed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI(MSAEEDTAJ@GMAIL.COM)) On 01/07/2011
 
Please explain 22/36-37 Question by: alam1162@gmail.com From INDIA (DELHI) On 14/07/2011
 
Salaam; Brother Moazzam, Please explain (in detail) the true concept behind the following verses; Question by: Junaid From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 14/07/2011
 
Dear Brother Moazzam : Kindly enlighten us about the attrebute "ABU LAHAB" described in Surah 111, as you said,ABU LAHAB is a character not A specific personality.THANKS Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 16/07/2011
 
Salam to All: where are MOAZZAR, AURANGZAIB, DR. SB. ADNAN, and more ???? kindly let me know any ayat where Allah has mentioned to do good deed for HUMAN BEING instead of himself or good deed to human being = Allah's consent. Question by: Dr. Samreen Mohsin From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 22/07/2011
 
Dear Moazzam and members, Please explain 2/180-181 Question by: waseemameer From AUSTRALIA (SYDNEY) On 25/07/2011
 
Dear Brother Moazzam. Please Translate Sura Al-Feel (الفیل). and elaborate who is "ashab ul feel" and what is the mistake of ashab ul feel. Question by: abbas From PAKISTAN (LAHORE) On 25/07/2011
 
Dear All, Why God choose language to pass his message(Quran in Arabic, Bible in Hebrew etc). It should be for each era and for every one, like air,water,sun and universal laws.Please enlighten. Question by: Saeed From PAKISTAN (KARACHI(MSAEEDTAJ@GMAIL.COM)) On 26/07/2011
 
Respected Sir, Would you be kind enough for me to please explain the meanings of verse No.69 to 83 of Sura Hud (11) ? Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 04/08/2011
 
When Dr.qamar sb, u will translate whole Quran? Question by: ashfaq From CANADA (ETOBICOKE) On 07/08/2011
 
The Short Interpretation of The Quran by Mughal1 Question by: Mughal1 From UNITED KINGDOM On 07/08/2011
 
What is proof and proving? Question by: Mughal1 From UNITED KINGDOM On 08/08/2011
 
Quranic Conference in Johannesburg, South Africa Question by: ardee From SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TWON) On 17/08/2011
 
Dear Sir, Certain Sura's of Quran begin with "Haroof-e-Muqatteaat" such as " Alaf-laam-meem" (2/1) " Yaa-Seen" (36/1) etc. Please describe what your research about these "words" ?., Which commandants these words attributed to ? Regards, M.Aslam Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 27/08/2011
 
Dear All: Can someone please define "what is the core message" of the Quran in the light of the Quran? How many components it may have? Which verses can show the various components of this core message? thanks. Question by: dawood On 01/09/2011
 
The South African Quran Conference Question by: ardee From SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE TWON) On 08/09/2011
 
Dear Brs. and Srs: Please refer to 2:34 and 2:35. " And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. (2:34)" , continued next... Question by: dawood On 18/09/2011
 
PEACE TO ALL, CONCERNING MULTIPLE ID's Question by: DHULQARNAIN From UNITED STATES On 02/10/2011
 
Brother Moazzam ! As there are many strange creatures at earth why Allah pointed out only CAMEL being a strange creature in universe, see the verse 88/17 أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ Question by: Mujeeb From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 11/10/2011
 
Brothe Moazzam Please enlighten us about the verse 100/6 إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لِرَبِّهِ لَكَنُودٌ Truly man is, to his Lord, ungrateful Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 13/10/2011
 
Brother Moazzam and Aastana members: Can you please explain the spider's house(web) as Allah quoted it as the weakest house(the web, whereas scientifically it is strongest one? Read the comments for details. Question by: Mujeeb From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 18/10/2011
 
ASA. What would you say is the grammatical distinction in the meanings of Muslim (مُسْلِمْ), muslimaan (مُسْلِمَانْ) and Suleman (سُلَيْمَان), given that they all have the same root? Thanks in advance. Question by: Dr Shiraz From NORWAY (OSLO) On 18/10/2011
 
Brother Moazzam: Please enlighten us about the verse 16/66, where Allah said "MILK EXTRACTS from the cattle's body between the blood and their dung.Whereas Medical science takes it as a separate system with no relation with blood and dung? Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 19/10/2011
 
Brother Moazzam! Please enlighten us about the bounties mentioned in Surah Rehman, are these for this world or in life after death, if for this world then what does the verse حُورٌ مَّقْصُورَاتٌ فِي الْخِيَامِ72 mean? Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 26/10/2011
 
Dear sir, Please elaborate 27/44 =.......قِيلَ لَهَا ادْخُلِي الصَّرْحَ ۖ فَلَمَّا رَأَتْهُ حَسِبَتْهُ لُجَّةً وَكَشَفَتْ عَنْ سَاقَيْهَا ۚ Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 31/10/2011
 
SALAM to all respected members of Aastana Blog, Please elaborate focal point of "Divine Guidance" for humankind with reference to Quranic Verses, the status , whereat , Quran wants to see its followers. Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 03/11/2011
 
Dear Sir I mean , extract of Quranic educations...We want know, what we have to do..,followin which we can attain the status described as (وَأَنْتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ (3:139 Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 04/11/2011
 
Aslamoalikum: Here are few links of Javeed Ahmed Ghamdi, he says that Ghulam Ahmed Perveez was not knowing Arabic language and he used Arabic lexicons to support his ideas and Arabs even don't know those meanings. Read my comments. Question by: ali.haideer From PAKISTAN (LARKANA) On 07/11/2011
 
Salam to All, Please explain 6/82 .( الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يَلْبِسُوا إِيمَانَهُمْ بِظُلْمٍ أُولَئِكَ لَهُمُ الْأَمْنُ وَهُمْ مُهْتَدُونَ ) Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 08/11/2011
 
Who is saying what is 12:71? The grammatical form suddenly changes from "They said" to "I am". Guidende appreciated. Question by: Dr Shiraz From NORWAY (OSLO) On 08/11/2011
 
Salaam to all, Could you please translate, Surah Al-Fajr and provide your stand word for word. specially 89:27 Nafse Mutmaina, and 89:22 Wa jaa Rabukaa wal malaku safaan saffa. How does your meanings of malaikaa (influencial) people fits in here. Question by: Iqbal kay shaheen From NAMIBIA (WALVIS BAY) On 09/11/2011
 
Dr.Qamarzaman; translation of verse 2/286.Kindly explain the word “RABBANA”, how اے پروردگار could be fitted here, whereas all the matters in the said verse has been settled through مملکت الہی Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 10/11/2011
 
Brother Moazzam: If "JINNS" are one of the category of Human being then what does verses 55/14-15 mean " And He created the jinn from a smokeless flame of fire"?? Question by: Mujeeb From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 23/11/2011
 
Dear Sir, Please explain 30/2-3-4 & 9/118 . Are these historical events? & should we be familiar with history to understand Quran ?. Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 26/11/2011
 
Some verses end with "for those who use wisdom(yaʿqilūna/taʿqilūna)",,, Question by: Nargis2 From TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (TOMBACCO) On 29/11/2011
 
یَوۡمَ یُکۡشَفُ عَنۡ سَاقٍ وَّ یُدۡعَوۡنَ اِلَی السُّجُوۡدِ فَلَا یَسۡتَطِیۡعُوۡنَ ﴿068:042﴾‏ ‏ What does this verse mean , Sir. Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 01/12/2011
 
What does the verse(68/42) mean, Sir? Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 01/12/2011
 
Please explain 114:1-6 Question by: Nargis From BARBADOS (KIO BATAO?) On 04/12/2011
 
Brother moazzam, please explain 36:12 imamin mubeen Question by: Nargis2 From TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (TOMBACCO) On 13/12/2011
 
Meaning of NAFS (نفس) are different like (NAFS-e-Ammara and NAFS-e-lawwama), what is the difference please explaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin :D Question by: Nargis2 From TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (TOMBACCO) On 04/01/2012
 
Plz explain 86:6-8 Question by: Nargis2 From TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (TOMBACCO) On 15/01/2012
 
May I draw your attention to isue of constitution, please! Question by: Mughal1 From UNITED KINGDOM On 17/01/2012
 
Brother Moazzam: Now a days in battle field the tanks are being used instead of horses. Please enlighten us about this verse100 :1 وَالْعَادِيَاتِ ضَبْحًا . Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 18/01/2012
 
Online resources for all to use: Lexicons, Dictionaries and books regarding Arabic Grammar Question by: William From UNITED KINGDOM On 18/01/2012
 
Respected Dear Moazzam; please explain ayat # 04 of sura -e-Nisa.... Question by: Saad Haider On 26/01/2012
 
ISLAM V ISLAM WHY? What are reasons for divisions and what can be basis for unity? Question by: Mughal1 From UNITED KINGDOM On 29/01/2012
 
Dear Members: As we see, there are many animals on earth those are very strange in creature, then why Allah emphasized at CAMEL being the most strange animal refer to verse 88/17 ?????? Question by: Mujeeb From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 06/02/2012
 
Dear Sir , Please give in detail , meanings of 22/ 1-2 Question by: M Aslam From PAKISTAN (GOJRA) On 28/02/2012
 
Dear readers, sharing a post from FB, the traditional view on 4:34 vs Astana's version. plz correct mistakes Question by: Nargis From BARBADOS (KIO BATAO?) On 10/03/2012
 
sura baqra 1st ayat ..ALIF LAM MEM .. ME MEEM PER LAGI HUYE TASHDID KIYON NAHI PARHI JATI.?.KIYA TASHDEED SIRF KHUBSURTI KE LIYE HAI... Question by: nachowdhry From INDIA (MUMBAI) On 17/03/2012
 
Brother Moazzam, Asstana members: Allah created all living-being including DONKEY,MONKEY AND PIGS,why Allah mentioned these animals as a similitude of the worst people. Are these really the worst animals amongst other animal kingdom. Question by: naeem sheikh From PAKISTAN (ISLAMABAD) On 28/03/2012
 
how i download this translation to read it with out net Question by: owaisok From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 29/04/2012
 
Can Any One Translate This In Quran 17:1 Question by: maklewis123 From INDIA (JEDDAH) On 24/05/2012
 
Dear, Q. Zaman: Quran Arabic Language main nazil hoa, Arab main bhi wesa hi islam hai jaisa hamaray han. Sir, Rozay (Som) wo bhi wese hi rakhtay hain jese k ham,kia wo rozo, namaz, haj etc. ka mafhoom nahi samjhay jb k Quran unki hi zaban main hai. Question by: smusman From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 27/06/2012
 
Salaam. Given that the message always has been the same, what is your suggested understanding of verse 11:17 where the orthodox translation says "and before it was book of Moses" ? Question by: J. Malik From PAKISTAN (LAHORE) On 21/07/2012
 
Dr.Sahab, When Sura Al-Ahzab remaining translation is available. Since it is long time Ayat-40 translation is on the site. Mozam Sahab can you please give your input on the issue. Regards. Aamir. Question by: aamiralwaz From PAKISTAN (KARACHI) On 03/09/2012
 
Quran Surah 2, Ayaat 30-39 Question by: Damon From UNITED STATES (PITTSBURGH) On 22/09/2012
 
إِن كان المراد ببسم "الكتاب" لماذا قال كلمة "بسم " مجروراً؟ Question by: saidalavi ansari From INDIA (KERALA) On 25/09/2012
 
SALAAM, PLEASE EXPLAINE 43 :36 WHO IS قَرِين ? Question by: saidalavi ansari From INDIA (KERALA) On 29/09/2012
 
Salam can anyone plz give the meaning of "aahad" Question by: Maniza From DENMARK (COPENHAGEN) On 25/11/2012
 
Dear Moazzam Bhai,Salam, Jannat agar Quranic state hai to isme hamesha rehne ka matlab kya hai? Question by: Mohd Danish From INDIA (SAHARANPUR) On 25/01/2013
 
Dear Moazzam Bhai,Salam, Jannat agar Quranic state hai to isme hamesha rehne ka matlab kya hai? Question by: Mohd Danish From INDIA (SAHARANPUR) On 25/01/2013
 
salam. What is divine commencements in Quran? Question by: maideen5 From MALAYSIA (KUALA LUMPUR) On 06/02/2013
 
Salam ,pls Explain 19: 28 Question by: saidalavi ansari From INDIA (KERALA) On 12/02/2013
 
salaam Dr sahib pls Explain " Innee vajathuha va kowmaha yasjudoona lissamsi" What is the sujood lissamsi Question by: saidalavi ansari From INDIA (KERALA) On 13/02/2013
 
Dear Moazzam sb, pls can u explain the (21:58), "Then he broke them all into pieces, sparing only the supreme one among them that they may possibly return to him".... what broken ... what let spare.? Question by: sajjad hussain From SAUDI ARABIA (JEDDAH) On 14/02/2013
 
Dearest all Salaam. Please elaborate on the meanings/understanding of 6:108 and 5:116. Will really appreciate it. Question by: Iqbal kay shaheen From NAMIBIA (WALVIS BAY) On 18/02/2013
 
Moazzam bhai salaam,Imaan Kufr ka opposite hai,kufr ka meaning inkar karna hai fir Imaan ka meaning Aman kaise hai wo to Maan lena hona chahiye. Question by: Mohd Danish From INDIA (SAHARANPUR) On 24/02/2013
 
Dr Sahib Salaam. pls Explain 24:2 and 24:4 مائة جلدة and ثمانين جلدة Question by: saidalavi ansari From INDIA (KERALA) On 27/02/2013
 
God, a proven fact or a mere fiction? Question by: Mughal1 From UNITED KINGDOM On 02/03/2013
 
Dear All see verse 54:18 How can someone deny AADUN? Question by: Nargis From BARBADOS (KIO BATAO?) On 09/03/2013
 
Dr sir pls explain minimum 1-25 verses in soora yousuf in English Question by: saidalavi ansari From INDIA (KERALA) On 13/03/2013
 
Explanation of the whole quran in urdu by allaama ghulam ahmed parwez. http://archive.org/details/ImportantLinks Also need for dimaagh, hawaas, quran, hadith, fiqh, itiba, itaat, ijma and qayaas explained in urdu. Question by: Mughal1 From UNITED KINGDOM On 14/03/2013
 
Hey everyone, I found a note on http://www.aastana.com/blog/NewsLetter.asp that said that the English translation by Dr Qamar Zaman of the Qur'an is available as a PDF, but I am unable to find it on the site (my Urdu's lacking). Help please? Question by: noman From UNITED STATES (CLIFFWOOD) On 17/12/2013
 
One more question, over at the Ourbeacon forum Syed Ijlal Hussain has accused Dr Qamar Zaman of declaring Prophet Muhammad as not being the last messenger. Don't mean to fan flames, but again, my Urdu's lacking. Can someone confirm please? Thanks. Question by: noman From UNITED STATES (CLIFFWOOD) On 17/12/2013
 
Dr.Sahab salam,21/91 me Hazrat Maryam ke liye Fiha ka pronoun aya hai jabki 66/12 me Fihi ka pronoun aya hai.Plz isko samjha den. Question by: Mohd Danish From INDIA (SAHARANPUR) On 25/12/2013
 
Mehrbani karke sufi ke bare me batyen kay sufi islam ke dushman they? Question by: Saleem Ahmed Shaikh From INDIA (AURANGABAD) On 05/01/2014
 
Dear Moazzam sir,regards, Sir Quran me kain places par na ki pronoun use huyee hai joki first person ki plural hai jaise 2/3 me hai razaq na hum.Yahan na(we) se murad kaun hai?kya khaliq e kaynat? Question by: Mohd Danish From INDIA (SAHARANPUR) On 09/04/2014
 
Salam.Is there a Translation of Quran in English By Dr Qamar Zaman.?I have read the translation in English by Mughal 1 . Your feedback highly appreciated. Question by: ashukorkc From MALAYSIA (SELANGOR) On 20/10/2014
 
Re verse no 92 Allah n Malaika are translated as understood by previous translators implying that here they are actually meant as sky bound god and angels Question by: saleem From INDIA (CHENNAI) On 07/11/2014
 
Dear members Question by: Nargis From BARBADOS (KIO BATAO?) On 03/07/2017
 
Comments...
Blog Home Question Explorer Member's Area Mission & Vision Join AASTANABLOG
© 2006-2010 Aastana e Research and Understanding Quran. All Rights Reserved
www.aastana.com