TOPIC: Islam >> Beliefs
Q.  
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
HOW COULD MUHAMMAD HAVE ASKED THE PRIOR MESSENGERS...ANYTHING?  
 
By: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/23/2011

1.Nargis, Moazzam, Perwez, Waseemameer,  
 
3:144 And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels!s, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.  
 
Given ayat 3:144, how could Muhammad have asked the prior Messengers anything...they were all dead when he came on the world stage.  
 
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/23/2011

 
2.Dhulqurnain,  
 
In 43/45 , No name is mentioned.
Comments by: waseemameer On: 8/23/2011

 
3.It's Muhammad, because of the term kaf ك , which is the 2nd person masculine singular pronoun.  
 
Allah, who revealed this ayat to Muhammad, is the 1st person masculine singular pronoun.  
 
Now you know why it's Muhammad although his name is not mentioned.  
 
So, the question remains...given ayat 3:144, how could Muhammad have asked the prior Messengers anything?...they were all dead when he came on the world stage.  
.  
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/23/2011

 
4.Dhulqurnain,  
 
Considering your post above, kaf is second person masculine singular, and hay هِ is third person.  
 
While ayat 3/144 was revealed to Muhammad, and addressed to people not to him, and talk about Muhammad in it.  
 
As per grammar rule, ayat 3/144 should have revealed directly to people? What do u think? or it should be worded differently? Just a question please, I am only a student, and have knowledge less than you.
Comments by: waseemameer On: 8/23/2011

 
5.Dhulqarnain! With consolidation of verse 3/144 and 43/ 45, if you have the inference that, Quran= Muhammad= messenger, then you are at wrong footing.  
Read the verses 43/40-45,  
40: Then will you make the deaf hear,[ O prophet of the time], or guide the blind or he who is in clear error?  
41: And whether [or not] We take you (the prophet of the time) away [in death], indeed, We will take retribution upon them.  
42: Or whether [or not] We show you(the prophet of the time) that which We have promised them, indeed, We are Perfect in Ability.  
43: So adhere to that which message has been conceived in your mind(after pondering into Alkitab),. Indeed, you(the prophet of the time) are on a straight path.  
44: And indeed, it is a remembrance for you( the prophet of the time) and your people( in any era), and you [all] are going to be questioned.  
45: And ask those We sent before you (the prophet of the time) of Our messengers; have We made besides the Most Merciful to be a ruling authority to whom they surrendered  
Comments by: moazzam On: 8/23/2011

 
6.Waseemameer,  
 
***Considering your post above, kaf is second person masculine singular, and hay هِ is third person. While ayat 3/144 was revealed to Muhammad, and addressed to people not to him, and talk about Muhammad in it. As per grammar rule, ayat 3/144 should have revealed directly to people? What do u think? or it should be worded differently? Just a question please, I am only a student, and have knowledge less than you.***  
 
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.  
 
I have no idea what your talking about. 1st person and 2nd person are clear as to what they mean. Al-Quran was revealed from Allah (1st person masc. sing.) to only one individual male, Muhammad (2nd person masc. sing). That Allah mentions people in the 3rd person doesn’t alter that fact. 3:144 was still revealed to only one individual male although it's discussing the concerns of more than two individuals.  
 
So, the question remains...given ayat 3:144, how could Muhammad have asked the prior Messengers (43:45) anything?...they were all dead when he came on the world stage.  
.  
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/23/2011

 
7.Moazzam,  
 
***Dhulqarnain! With consolidation of verse 3/144 and 43/ 45, if you have the inference that, Quran= Muhammad= messenger, then you are at wrong footing.***  
 
I’m not discussing ayat 3:144 nor am I making any such inference as Quran=Muhammad. I will say that Muhammad =messenger, however. Here’s the question Moazzam:  
 
So, the question remains...given ayat 3:144, how could Muhammad have asked the prior Messengers (43:45) anything?...they were all dead when he came on the world stage.  
 
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/23/2011

 
8.Dhulqurnain  
 
I must admit that you have the best quality of ignoring people messages/posts. You have ignored Brother Moazzam post completely.  
Comments by: waseemameer On: 8/23/2011

 
9.I didn't ignore him at all.  
 
He still hasn't articulated, as far as I'm concerned anyway, the answer to my question. His response is not clear to me at all. I've never met people so devoted to obfuscation than those here at Aastana Blog.  
 
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/23/2011

 
10.Mr Dhulqarnain! Please read carefully, the translation Brother Moazzam posted in his previous post, the query would be cleared to you.Especial attention should be given at the matterial written in brackits (just for clarification)
Comments by: naeem sheikh On: 8/23/2011

 
11.He needs to rephrase; he is not clear to me. If you or Waseemameer knows what he's talking about, then you rephrase it for him.  
 
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: PRIEST BOKMEI On: 8/23/2011

 
12.Dear Dhulqarnain! It mean the prophethood is still continued, and prophet of the time means any rasool present in that era can asks who is already present before him in his time and in his nation. this verse is also prove the continuation in Resaalat in each era read the 43/44 .  
43/44 And indeed, it is a remembrance for you( the prophet of the time) and your people( in any era), and you [all] are going to be questioned.  
Comments by: naeem sheikh On: 8/23/2011

 
13.Dhulqarnain  
 
I request you, please read brilliant brother Waseem Ameers point.The ayah is talking ABOUT Mohammed but TO the people- you are ASSUMING this ayah is talking TO Mohammed ABOUT Mohammed. ك kaf is second person masculine singular, and hay هِ is third person. As per grammar rule, ayat 3/144 should have revealed directly to people? What do u think? or it should be worded differently?  
 
***I have no idea what your talking about. *** Dhulqarnain  
 
Correct, you have no idea at all. He said something very essential. You have no idea what he said and you have no idea what the Ayah is saying. Brother Moazzam explained it very well.3:144 can't be isolated from other ayah's. you have to see other ayah's to understand the particular one. Ayah 43:44 does not mention any name. Whatever name you give, is your own assumption, as the meaning is (the prophet of the time)and your people( in any era), and you [all] are going to be questioned. .
Comments by: Universal-Lanati On: 8/23/2011

 
14.***I request you, please read brilliant brother Waseem Ameers point.The ayah is talking ABOUT Mohammed but TO the people- you are ASSUMING this ayah is talking TO Mohammed ABOUT Mohammed. ك kaf is second person masculine singular, and hay هِ is third person. As per grammar rule, ayat 3/144 should have revealed directly to people? What do u think? or it should be worded differently?***  
 
***Correct, you have no idea at all. He said something very essential. You have no idea what he said and you have no idea what the Ayah is saying. Brother Moazzam explained it very well.3:144 can't be isolated from other ayah's. you have to see other ayah's to understand the particular one. Ayah 43:44 does not mention any name. Whatever name you give, is your own assumption, as the meaning is (the prophet of the time)and your people( in any era), and you [all] are going to be questioned.***  
 
1. Moazzam didn’t explain anything.  
 
2. I have no idea want you’re talking, but, then, you don't know what you're talking about either.  
 
Personal pronouns can also be characterized or distinguished by person.  
 
1. FIRST PERSON: refers to the speaker(s) or writer(s) ("I" for singular, "we" for plural).  
 
2. SECOND PERSON: refers to the person or people being spoken or written to ("you" for both singular and plural).  
 
3. THIRD PERSON: refers to the person or people being spoken or written about ("he," "she," and "it" for singular, "they" for plural).  
 
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm  
 
Now, let’s look at the ayats in light of the above grammar definitions.  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
1. FIRST PERSON: refers to the speaker(s) or writer(s) ("I" for singular, "we" for plural).  
 
A) Who is the speaker/addressor in this ayat? Well, it has to be Allah.  
 
2. SECOND PERSON: refers to the person or people being SPOKEN OR WRITTEN TO ("you" for both singular and plural).  
 
B) Who is being spoken TO/the addressee in this ayat? Well, it must be the one to whom Al-Quran (from sura 2-sura 114) was revealed—Muhammad. This is not an assumption, but a FACT, to wit:  
 
47:2 And those who believe and do good, and believe in WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO MUHAMMAD, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.  
What was revealed to Muhammad—Al-Quran (sura 2-sura 114)  
 
6:19 Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and THIS THE QURAN WAS REVEALED TO ME that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are other gods with Allah? Say: I do not bear witness. Say: He is only one God, and surely I am clear of that which you set up (with Him).  
 
Get it?  
 
Regarding ayat 3:144 if what you’re saying was true, then Allah would have had to reveal the wahy to all of the people mentioned in the ayat DIRECTLY as He did with his messenger-prophet Muhammad.  
 
So, again:  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
HOW COULD MUHAMMAD HAVE ASKED THE PRIOR MESSENGERS...ANYTHING?  
 
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: PRIEST BOKMEI On: 8/24/2011

 
15.Mr Dhulqarnain! Your post reflects, that, you are continuously hoodwinking to Brother Moazzam’s and other senior members posts. Also I found you dull/silly in understanding even the most obvious matters by deliberately taking them in juvenile and infantile manners. No body can teach the dumb, just desecrate and waste of time.
Comments by: naeem sheikh On: 8/24/2011

 
16.***Mr Dhulqarnain! Your post reflects, that, you are continuously hoodwinking to Brother Moazzam’s and other senior members posts. Also I found you dull/silly in understanding even the most obvious matters by deliberately taking them in juvenile and infantile manners. No body can teach the dumb, just desecrate and waste of time***  
 
Yeah, and blah blah blah, who do you think you're fooling? Just yourelf. The question remains unanswered by you. Calling me names, complaining, etc. are YOUR attempts to avoid the implications of 43:45.  
 
Contrary to your view, Moazzam, has not answered the question at all, period.  
 
Here's a thought, why don't you, in your own words, explain 43:45? Do you think you can do that or will you just copy and paste Moazzam's non-answer?  
 
If the ayat is referring to "prophets" as you people claim, then, by all means, name the prophets contemporary with Muhammad and name one who is alive today? But nah, you aren't going to that, instead, you will just complain and indulge in ad hominems.  
 
So, again:  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
HOW COULD MUHAMMAD HAVE ASKED THE PRIOR MESSENGERS ANYTHING...THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/24/2011

 
17.DHULQARNAIN: HOW COULD MUHAMMAD HAVE ASKED THE PRIOR MESSENGERS ANYTHING...THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD?  
 
PERWEZ: The prophets were living in GARDENS weren't they???  
And Muhammad met those prophets on his trip to heaven. Haven't you heard that thing ???  
 
OK here we go to heaven again.  
You are yet to prove me wrong mate.  
I have pointed out few contradictions in Quran and you have not proven them wrong and neither you are accepting that the translations you have been quoting throughout the blog are doubtful.  
 
Here they are :-  
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1616#COM8473  
 
Alright lets do it this way.  
 
Answer YES or NO.  
 
Do you think the translations from Y. ALi, Pickthall and others which you have posted in the past are totally correct?  
YES or NO?  
 
If these translations are correct, then you should face no problem in proving the contradictions wrong !  
TRUE or FALSE?  
 
If these translations are doubtful then all your previous assertions become doubtful too !!!  
TRUE or FALSE?  
 
If you are not proving those contradictions as incorrect, and you are also not accepting the translations as doubtful, then does this means you are running away?  
YES or NO?  
 
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/24/2011

 
18.Dear Pervez1, i think you are right and got to the root of issue in its own style...  
 
Thanks,  
Mubashir Syed.  
 
Comments by: Mubashir Syed On: 8/24/2011

 
19.Dhulqarnain  
 

By linking 3/144 and 43/ 45, it seems like you mean to point out that the previous messenger is a reference to the Quran?  
 
However, the verse 43:45 cannot be seen quarantined and it should be seen in its given context. Which is from 43:40:-  
 
40: Then will you make the deaf hear, [O prophet of the time], or guide the blind or he who is in clear error?  
 
Here, no name is mentioned, you assume it is talking to Mohammed. But if that is the case, why not mention the name? Are you having the authority to put words and names in ayas?  
 
Here the verse is clearly talking to YOU, who have the message and the ability to understand it.  
 
The hard part is, if you understand something very difficult to grasp in the first part, then it’s equally hard to make others understand it  
 
If you don’t understand the message yourself, then it is impossible to make others understand.  
 
So he YOU in this part is the one who is blessed with the knowledge of the book, and YOU is the prophet of the time who is trying to guide people. Then again the receivers are mentioned as blind and it is then emphasized that the efforts won’t result in anything.  
 
WHY?  
 
Because the sun never guide the one who have closed his eyes.  
The stupid’s biggest punishment is his stupidity  
The one living in the darkness has a chastisement, which is the darkness.  
But he is not aware of it.  
 
41: And whether [or not] we take you (the prophet of the time) away [in death], indeed, We will take retribution upon them.  
 
Here again, the name of a specific prophet is NOT mentioned, but it is assumed by you and others. This is again a statement to every prophet of his time.  
 
Had it been Mohammed only, then the retribution would be limited to his people. Which is not the case, look at the punishment mentioned above, it is “beyond time and space”:-D  
 
My professor in psychology said: - The more you know, the less you know you know  
 
This means, when you start solving the puzzles of knowledge, you can see how much you still need to know, and that you don’t have time to absorb it all.  
 
In other words, the fool talks, the intelligent listens  
 
The fool is a natural born PHD; the intelligent learn all his life  
 
42: Or whether [or not] we show you (the prophet of the time) that which we have promised them, indeed, we are Perfect in Ability  
 
Here you can see again, this is a talk to the prophet of the time, that even if he can see with his own eyes the promise or not, the ability of doing so is the guarantee given to him. This is for EVERY PROPHET of his time.  
If you used to be Hindu or Christian, but Ahmed Deeded teach you the Quran, then who is your messenger? The one who give you the message?  
 
43: So adhere to that which message has been conceived in your mind (after pondering into AlKitab), Indeed, you(the prophet of the time) are on a straight path.  
 
So after understanding the Al Kitab, HE is encouraged to stand by it no matter what others may say, because he the prophet of the time, is indeed on the right path  
 
44: And indeed, it is a remembrance for you (the prophet of the time) and your people (in any era), and you [all] are going to be questioned.  
 
Because this is a promise to EVERYONE, that EVERYONE is to be questioned, this message is again beyond time and space to every prophet of his time and every people living on planet earth.  
 
45: And ask those we sent before you (the prophet of the time) of our messengers; have we made besides the Most Merciful to be a ruling authority to whom they surrendered  
 
This is obvious, the messengers before are those who were present – Like your “Messenger” can ask us cough cough :-D  
 
3:144  
 
I think this one should be clear now.  
 
Agreeing with Mubashir syed :P

Comments by: Nargis On: 8/24/2011

 
20.Nargy, and All,  
 
***By linking 3/144 and 43/ 45, it seems like you mean to point out that the previous messenger is a reference to the Quran?... This is obvious, the messengers before are those who were present – Like your “Messenger” can ask us cough cough :-D***  
 
No on both accounts, you are not reading the ayats correctly:  
 
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.  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
I don’t know how these ayats can be any plainer or explained any better, but here goes. Ayat 3:144 plainly states that, at the time of Muhammad all of the previous Messengers (messengers is with the definite article) had passed away/khalat: to be dead; died. Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg.165. We know this word means physical death, because Allah then asks, regarding Muhammad--" ...If then he dies or is killed..."  
 
Now, given that the messengers, prior to Muhammad, had all died, then how could Muhammad, per ayat 43:45, ask them anything? Explain to me how Muhammad could ask dead people anything? Neither you nor the others have explained this, to date. These two ayats are inextricably linked.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/24/2011

 
21.

Ok, can you tell me where the name of prophet Mohammed is mentioned in 43:45, or where it is written that KAf ALWAYS means Mohammed? where is this definition given in the Quran?  
 
 
Before you say 43:45 is mentioning Mohammed, or directed to prophet Mohammed Only, you have to confirm it through the Quran.  
 
Bring your proofs if your truthful 2:111-

Comments by: Nargis On: 8/24/2011

 
22.Nargis,  
 
***Ok, can you tell me where the name of prophet Mohammed is mentioned in 43:45, or where it is written that KAf ALWAYS means Mohammed? where is this definition given in the Quran? Before you say 43:45 is mentioning Mohammed, or directed to prophet Mohammed Only, you have to confirm it through the Quran.***  
 
Oh God, why do you play these games all the time, Narge? You understand the grammar on this and you know full well that 43:45 is addressing Muhammad. Where did I ever write that kaf ALWAYS means Muhammad? Why do you have to lie like this? Kaf is simply the 1st person masculine singular. It’s also used in regard to Allah.  
 
Anyway, here is the proof:  
 
1. FIRST PERSON: refers to the speaker(s) or writer(s) ("I" for singular, "we" for plural).  
 
2. SECOND PERSON: refers to the person or people being spoken or written to ("you" for both singular and plural).  
 
3. THIRD PERSON: refers to the person or people being spoken or written about ("he," "she," and "it" for singular, "they" for plural).  
 
Now, let’s look at the ayats in light of the above grammar definitions.  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
1. FIRST PERSON: refers to the speaker(s) or writer(s) ("I" for singular, "we" for plural).  
 
A) Who is the speaker/addressor in this ayat? Well, it has to be Allah.  
 
2. SECOND PERSON: refers to the person or people being SPOKEN OR WRITTEN TO ("you" for both singular and plural).  
 
B) Who is being spoken TO/the addressee in this ayat? Well, it must be the one to whom Al-Quran (from sura 2-sura 114) was revealed—Muhammad. This is not an assumption, but a FACT, to wit:  
 
47:2 And those who believe and do good, and believe in WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO MUHAMMAD, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.  
What was revealed to Muhammad—Al-Quran (sura 2-sura 114)  
 
6:19 Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and THIS THE QURAN WAS REVEALED TO ME that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are other gods with Allah? Say: I do not bear witness. Say: He is only one God, and surely I am clear of that which you set up (with Him).  
 
Now you have your proof that it is Muhammad being addressed in 43:45.  
 
Can you now explain the following? Or will you throw some more diversionary baloney on the wall to see what might stick?  
 
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.  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
I don’t know how these ayats can be any plainer or explained any better, but here goes. Ayat 3:144 plainly states that, at the time of Muhammad all of the previous Messengers (messengers is with the definite article) had passed away/khalat: to be dead; died. Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg.165. We know this word means physical death, because Allah then asks, regarding Muhammad--" ...If then he dies or is killed..."  
 
Now, given that the messengers, prior to Muhammad, had all died, how then could Muhammad, per ayat 43:45, ask them anything? Explain to me how Muhammad could ask dead people anything? Neither you nor the others have explained this, to date. These two ayats are inextricably linked.  
 
Looking forward to your explanation.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 
Comments by: PRIEST BOKMEI On: 8/24/2011

 
23.Show us  
 
Not a personal inference  
But from the Quran a reference  
 
Show us from the Quran the Kaf , second persons name plz.  
 
We have explained it, if you disagree its okay. Still I want you to prove from the Quran that the second person you mean is Mohammed in 43:45, Is Mohammed.
Comments by: Nargis2 On: 8/24/2011

 
24.Nargis,  
 
I made no personal inference as is yours and the others custom to do.  
 
Okay, tell me then, who this is, if it isn't Muhammad:  
 
2:4 And who believe in that which has been revealed to you/ kafand that which was revealed before you/kaf and they are sure of the hereafter.  
 
kaf: 2nd person masculine singular...who is this single male being addressed?  
 
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: PRIEST BOKMEI On: 8/24/2011

 
25.

kaf: 2nd person masculine singular...who is this single male being addressed?  
 
Thats what We are asking you...And we have to stick to the topic. Remember what you said when you were asked about shahr al ramadan when you quoted 2:183-187,,,you said keep it to the topic....  
 
Now you have to explain your claim that the kaaf here 45:43 is Mohammed. If you say or assume it is directed to Prophet Mohammed only, then it is a personal inference as long as a Quraniq reference is not provided to back it up..right ? :P  
 
When this is solved, we can move forward or right left.... :P

Comments by: Nargis2 On: 8/24/2011

 
26.DHULQARNAIN YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED MY POST MATE !!!  
 
I provided the answer to your question but it seems as if you overlooked. Let me post it again :-  
 
 
DHULQARNAIN: HOW COULD MUHAMMAD HAVE ASKED THE PRIOR MESSENGERS ANYTHING...THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD?  
 
PERWEZ: The prophets were living in GARDENS weren't they???  
And Muhammad met those prophets on his trip to heaven. Haven't you heard that thing ???  
 
OK here we go to heaven again.  
You are yet to prove me wrong mate.  
I have pointed out few contradictions in Quran and you have not proven them wrong and neither you are accepting that the translations you have been quoting throughout the blog are doubtful.  
 
Here they are :-  
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1616#COM8473  
 
Alright lets do it this way.  
 
Answer YES or NO.  
 
Do you think the translations from Y. ALi, Pickthall and others which you have posted in the past are totally correct?  
YES or NO?  
 
If these translations are correct, then you should face no problem in proving the contradictions wrong !  
TRUE or FALSE?  
 
If these translations are doubtful then all your previous assertions become doubtful too !!!  
TRUE or FALSE?  
 
If you are not proving those contradictions as incorrect, and you are also not accepting the translations as doubtful, then does this means you are running away?  
YES or NO?  
 
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/24/2011

 
27.Nargy,  
 
DHULQARNAIN: kaf: 2nd person masculine singular...who is this single male being addressed?  
 
***Thats what We are asking you... Now you have to explain your claim that the kaaf here 45:43 is Mohammed. If you say or assume it is directed to Prophet Mohammed only, then it is a personal inference as long as a Quraniq reference is not provided to back it up..right ?***  
 
I told you who it is—Muhammad. Who else received Al-Quran mentioned in ayat 2:185, among other ayats? What are you talking about?! I gave you the following two ayats to prove that it was Muhammad who received Al-Quran, yet, you completely ignored them:  
 
47:2 And those who believe and do good, and believe in WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO MUHAMMAD, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.  
 
6:19 Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and THIS THE QURAN WAS REVEALED TO ME that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. Do you really bear witness that there are other gods with Allah? Say: I do not bear witness. Say: He is only one God, and surely I am clear of that which you set up (with Him).  
 
Given the above two ayats then, who do you think the 2nd person masculine singular pronoun is referring to, among others, in ayats 2:4 and 43:45?! Here let me refresh your grammar vocabulary.:  
 
PRONOUN: word that can function as a noun phrase used by itself and that REFERS either to the participants in the discourse (e.g., I, you) or to SOMEONE or something MENTIONED ELSEWHERE IN THE DISCOURSE.  
 
Pronouns can replace proper nouns i.e. Allah, Jibril, Muhammad, The Messenger etc..  
 
You know Narge you think you’re playing games with me, but actually you’re not. You’re playing games with Allah and His Words ( if you even believe that He’s a living being who created you and everything else and that He (pronoun) will judge you on that Day) and your own soul. You should really think about that.  
 
Dhulqaranain-  
Comments by: PRIEST BOKMEI On: 8/25/2011

 
28.You know Narge you think you’re playing games with me, but actually you’re not. You’re playing games with Allah and His Words ( if you even believe that He’s a living being who created you and everything else and that He (pronoun) will judge you on that Day) and your own soul. You should really think about that.  
 

I'm really sick and bored of this Christian religious issue oaths presented by Qadiyani followers calling themselves Quranists. You think playing games with you is the same as playing games with Allah? do you really think you are Allah ? And asking you to provide verifications when you talk about The Quran is playing games? Do you really think people are here to play games with you to convert you form Qadianyism, and not to learn what the Quran is saying in Arabic `?  
 
Yeh yeh now you will say you only follow the Quran. You follow not THE Quran but THEIR Quran. Had it been THE Quran, you would have studied it and tried to find out what it says, not contested with it with the orthodox translations. You will not win over the Quran with the Christian concepts camouflaged in Qadiyani translations; the Quran insusceptible from such tasteless attempts.  
 
You need to get rid of the Christian salvations concept, we are not standing in the Church, and you are here with orthodox translations of Qadiyani s. They may mislead you because you jumped from the Church to their mosque, a bad copy of the churches. But you can’t fool the one who study the Quran. Now pack in your Christian qadiyani codswallop and answer the questions  
 
Provide proof from the Quran for ANY claim regarding the Quran, start with the aya 43:45. Show us the name you are signifying is there but we can’t see.  
 
Ask them to provide their proofs IF THEY ARE TRUTHFUL 2:111  

Comments by: Nargis On: 8/26/2011

 
29.Narge,  
 
***1.The pronoun kaf is 2nd person masculine singular. What if a female is reading it? She cannot be masculine singular.***  
 
This is true, however, we are not concerned with the reader, rather, we are concerned with who is being referred to IN Al-Quran. That’s the issue!  
 
***If the words Qawm is masculine plural, does it mean it only consists of men?  
yadaka, يَدَكَ is divided into 2 morphological segments, A noun and possessive pronoun. The noun is feminine singular and is in the accusative case (منصوب). The noun's triliteral root is yā dāl yā (ي د ي). The attached possessive pronoun is second person masculine singular. Now tell me, is the hand of a woman or a hand of a man?***  
 
I’m not discussing qawn, that is a different situation. I don’t know why some words take on gender. What I do know though is that the following personal pronouns are gender specific—without doubt:  
 
19:19 He said: I am only bearer of a message of thy Lord: That I will give YOU a pure boy.  
 
In ayat 19:19, the YOU is 2nd person feminine singular  
 
27:33 They said: We are possessors of strength and possessors of mighty prowess. And the command is yours, so consider what YOU will command.  
 
In ayat 27:33, again, the YOU is 2nd person feminine singular.  
 
In the following three ayats all are 2nd person masculine singular  
 
7:144 He said: O Moses, surely I have chosen YOU above the people by My messages and My words. So take hold of what I give YOU and be of the grateful.  
 
17:101 And certainly We gave Moses nine clear signs; so ask the Children of Israel. When he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: Surely I deem YOU, O Moses, to be one bewitched.  
 
79:17-18 Go to Pharaoh, surely he has rebelled. And say: Wilt YOU purify thyself?  
 
2:4 And who believe in that which has been revealed to YOU and that which was revealed before thee, and of the Hereafter they are sure.  
 
 
Now, ayat 2:4 has to refer to a human being either male or female, correct? So, I ask you. If you were taking questions at public forum (not online), in front of scholars and professional people, and was asked:  
 
1. who is 2:4 referring to?  
 
2. is the individual male or a female?  
 
What would your answer be?  
 
***And answer Parwez too, he is asking questions relevant to your claims and use of orthodox translations.***  
 
I’m not interested, at this time anyway, in the topic—Orthodox Translations: Contradictions and Doubts. I have other more pressing arguments at hand.  
 
***You can’t run away any more, we have seen your behavior and hidings whenever you are asked something, so it is about time you don't hide but answer questions.***  
 
Run?!? LOL!! I’ve been after you for weeks to answer 3:21, that is, to name just ONE prophet at the time of Muhammad and ONE today. Have you answered? Nope. You write whole term papers here with no problem, yet I ask you for one name (or say male or female) and you cannot provide it. And guess what? You never will because what your proffering is not true, hence, your argument/position on 3:21 is invalid.  
 
***And what a nice trick, I asked you to produce proofs about 43:45, instead you opened a new thread to avoid producing proofs as you are ordered in 2:111.***  
 
Speaking of which you’ve run from this question as well. Here, I’ll ask you again.  
How could Muhammad ask any of the messengers anything, given the fact that, per ayat 3:144, they were all dead.  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before YOU: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
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.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On: 8/26/2011

 
30.

So you again are avoiding Questions, and running away?  
 
The question to us was how Mohammed can ask those who have passed away, and we said this verse is talking to "YOU", prophet in every era, ANY TIME.  
 
That you overlooked and pushed on with no, the YOU is Mohammed. Then I asked you , what is the proof of YOU being Mohammed when the name is not mentioned.  
 
Can you answer that? Bring your proofs if you are truthful 2:111

Comments by: Nargis2 On: 8/26/2011

 
31.Nargis,  
 
I see you refused to answer the questions on my prior post, no problem.  
 
***So you again are avoiding Questions, and running away?  
 
Oh, please.  
 
***NARGIS: The question to us was how Mohammed can ask those who have passed away, and we said this verse is talking to "YOU", prophet in every era, ANY TIME. That you overlooked and pushed on with no, the YOU is Mohammed. Then I asked you , what is the proof of YOU being Mohammed when the name is not mentioned.***  
 
I agree that the there is no mention of Muhammad and probably not in any other ayat for that matter. I began to use the “name” Muhammad only for convenience, as do you, because there is no solid proof that is a proper name. That is why I used to use the term—Last Prophet, however, you deny that Khatim nabiyeem means last prophet and then you wrote the following:  
 
3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
 
***NARGIS: In this verse the verbs used are not in past tense ,the verbs are  
یکفرون یقتلون These words can either be translated in present tense or future tense . these words can in no way be translated into past tense . So when this verse was revealed to prophet Mohammad there were so many انبیاء and it is a non ending continuous process . Now keeping in mind the verse 21 of sura 3 ( already discussed above ) , which clearly indicates that so many prophets انبیاء were present in the times of prophet Mohammad . This verse no 40 of sura 33 is declaring that Mohammad was the seal of the prophets , which simply means He was the appointing authority of other prophets.***  
 
I challenged you repeatedly to give just one name of a prophet at the time of the prophet who was given Al-Quran and one today (as any rational person hearing this would ask you). Of course haven’t done this to date, yet, you want to offer as hard fact that prophets existed with the prophet who was given Al-Quran and today.  
 
You rejected where Allah says that He is ever sending messengers and not prophets. I asked you to provide the ayat where Allah says that He is ever sending prophets, but you through that behind your back as well. Why?, because no such ayat exists which states such a thing.  
 
So, you want to claim that Khatim nabiyeem doesn’t mean last prophet, but you cannot prove that any prophets came after him. What kind of sense does that make??  
 
I give you 2:2 to prove that a book came before Al-Quran and 2:4 to prove that Al-Quran came to some sinle male. What do you do…threw it all right behind your back.  
 
Nargis, there is arguing with you, because you don’t respect facts.  
 
Let me ask you and Moazzam the following:  
 
1. When people first heard ayat 2:2 recited by the person who was given Al-Quran, who do you think they thought it was referring to?  
 
2.According to Al-Quran, when people first saw the person who was given Al-Quran, did they see a male or a female?  
 
Then I confronted you with the following...but no rebuttal:  
 
***"Nargis: Just have to answer this, Dogmas that the Quran is different from Injeel and Taurah, and Allah is giving different kind of books when the purpose of nazala in any scripture is to esbalish DEEN. "***  
 
WOW! Now you’re changing your story now! Good!  
 
Your previous position was:  
 
***Al-Quran is the First, the last, THE ONLY REVELATION given to mankind***  
 
Now you’re saying:  
 
***the purpose of nazala IN ANY scripture***  
 
“Any” suggests a number of things and differentiation, hence, Al-Quran (nazala/sent down in 2:185 and given to the individual in 2:4; nazala is not directionally” down”, but directionally “from Allah to” a particular male human being/prophet ) is not exactly the same as prior scriptures nor was it revealed before the other scriptures.  
 
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the polytheists.  
 
5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as a religion…  
 
2:185 The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed, a guidance to men and clear proofs of the guidance and the Criterion…  
 
2:4 And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee, and of the Hereafter they are sure.  
 
All the scriptures before Al-Quran proclaimed 6:106 as the core Message and, yes, to established the Deen. However, Deen Al-Islam was NOT perfected/completed until the coming of this “particular kitab”, that being, Al-Quran (nazala/sent down in 2:185 and given to the individual in 2:4). Ayat 2:4 TELLS any rational person that something was revealed before Al-Quran. In fact, ayat 2:2 doesn’t say-- “THIS/HADTHA” BOOK, but “THAT/THALIKA” BOOK, which also means this Al-Quran opens by pointing BACK to another book. Ayat 2:4 backs up 2:2.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: ARCHILOCUS On: 8/26/2011

 
32.I agree that the there is no mention of Muhammad and probably not in any other ayat for that matter. I began to use the “name” Muhammad only for convenience, as do you, because there is no solid proof that is a proper name. That is why I used to use the term—Last Prophet, however, you deny that Khatim nabiyeem means last prophet and then you wrote the following:  
 
3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
 

Yes, The word khatim doesn't mean to stop, word for that is Akhir.  
 
the verse 3:21 is saying, announce a painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL THE PROPHETS WITHOUT RIGHT  
 
who is going to announce this, when the prophets (in plural) are being killed?  
 

* If this order is given to Prophet Mohammed only, then how can he announce painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL PROPHETS, when he is the only prophet of his time?  
 
* REFLECT

3:21 does NOT mention any name, so I cant produce names from myself. I don't go out of the Quran and cannot add words to the Quran because you want me to produce names. I'm not into names because the Quran is not into names, rather it is telling you attributes. The Quran encompass every character or attribute who is doing a certain task as described in the Quran.  
 
We have said it many times but you don't read, Nabi is a task, not a name reserved only for few people in the world, who is not even here. If Nabi is a pre historical thing, then it have no value for us and the next generations. Read through the Quran and you will see Nabis issue orders and implement Wahy.  
 
Why is he last NAbi and not last Rusool? Can you name Rusools after him  
? Because obviously there is a continuation of rusools....but not Nabi's, according to your understanding.  
 
We keep it to the Quran and its own method of providing information.  
 
Please explain every ayah you are using/ posting to back up your claims. and prove every claim through the Quran,

Comments by: Nargis-Badshah-Salamat On: 8/26/2011

 
33.DHULQARNAIN:-  
You wrote few lines and I want to know which book are you referring to???  
 
See this what you wrote :-  
 
DHULQARNAIN: 3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
 
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the polytheists.  
 
5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as a religion…  
 
2:185 The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed, a guidance to men and clear proofs of the guidance and the Criterion…  
 
2:4 And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee, and of the Hereafter they are sure.  
 
ME : These lines are taken from which book???
Comments by: Universal-Lanati On: 8/26/2011

 
34.Nargis,  
 
DHULQARNAIN-I agree that the there is no mention of Muhammad ina ayat 2:4 and probably not in any other ayat for that matter. I began to use the “name” Muhammad only for convenience, as do you, because there is no solid proof that is a proper noun. That is why I used to use the term—Last Prophet, however, you deny that Khatim nabiyeem means last prophet and then you wrote the following:  
 
3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
***3:21 does NOT mention any name, so I cant produce names from myself***  
 
Nargis, when you, and rightly so, called me on using Muhammad as a proper noun, I conceded the point to you, because I cannot prove that it is a proper noun, no problem. Muhammad, according to the grammar, is a nominative proper noun which can mean either a proper noun or an abstract idea. Now, you admit that you cannot produce a name of a prophet to prove you assertion concerning 3:21, hence, you likewise, need to concede the point as you cannot prove your claim no more than I could. In light of these facts, Khatim Nabiyeen must remain as the Last of the Prophet as you cannot, definitely, name any other prophets after the last one who was given Al-Quran.  
 
***I don't go out of the Quran and cannot add words to the Quran because you want me to produce names. I'm not into names because the Quran is not into names, rather it is telling you attributes. The Quran encompass every character or attribute who is doing a certain task as described in the Quran.***  
 
It doesn’t matter that you are not into name Nargis. What matters is what Allah is into. Consider the following ayat:  
 
2:124 And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make thee a leader of men. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the wrongdoers, said He.  
 
According to the grammar, Abraham is a masculine proper noun which means it is the actual name of the individual, unlike, the situation with Muhammad. Abraham is the actual name of the individual just as Nargis is the actual name of an individual. Allah, further on in the ayat, refers to Abraham in the 2nd person masculine singular. Hence, in 2:124, we have a definite proper noun/name who is identified as a single male. This is the grammar Nargis and you just can’t discard it when it is not convenient for you.  
 
***We have said it many times but you don't read, Nabi is a task, not a name reserved only for few people in the world, who is not even here. If Nabi is a pre historical thing, then it have no value for us and the next generations. Read through the Quran and you will see Nabis issue orders and implement Wahy.***  
 
You’re back to using the present imperfect tense in regard to nabi. In light of the above you must step back from referring to nabi in the present tense until you can definitively name a prophet which you’ve already admitted that you cannot.  
You couldn’t be more wrong Nargis. Consider the following ayat:  
 
19:41 And mention Abraham in the Book. Surely he was a truthful man, a prophet.  
 
While I agree that each nabi was given a task, nabi, nonetheless, is also an actual title. Abraham, as we’ve established, is a proper noun/name, hence,was an actual historical human being, and he carried the title/name prophet/nabi. This, once again, is the grammar. Prophets were historical. Pre-historic simply means before written recorded history. Prophets, in and of themselves, aren’t what’s of value (though there’s no denying their value as human beings who carried out a task assigned to them by Allah.). What’s of value is what they were given by Allah to share with their respective peoples. The following ayat captures this truth:  
 
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.  
 
Please remember that the individual who was given Al-Quran was messenger-prophet  
 
***Why is he last NAbi and not last Rusool? Can you name Rusools after him  
? Because obviously there is a continuation of rusools....but not Nabi's, according to your understanding.***  
 
It’s the last of the prophets, because there is no longer any need for them. In ayat 5:3 Allah tells the prophet, who was given Al-Quran, the following:  
 
5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as your Deen…  
 
Clearly, what was the given the prophet, who was given Al-Quran, was the completed Deen—Al-Islam. You will note that Al-Islam is with the definite article. This means that it is prefect/complete in totality. It is the same thing as one of Allah’s descriptions preceded by the definite article. It means perfect/complete in that description. Given that that the Deen is completed and perfect of what need then are prophets after the one who was given the completed Deen as articulated within the Guidance that is Al-Quran? Now, Allah says that:  
 
44:5 A command from Us — truly We are ever sending messengers —  
 
You asked if I can name a messenger today and the answer is yes--Al-Quran, to wit:  
 
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 WHOMEVER IT REACHES...  
Al-Quran is the Message/Messenger.  
 
You and I, for examples, are messengers. We are not of THE Messengers, but, nonetheless, we are messengers. Anyone who recites Al-Quran to others is a messenger. One day I was watching Glenn Beck a popular Christian right of center talk show host. Well on one episode he recited the following in an attempt to show how Muslims were misguided...ironic isn't it?  
 
5:72-3 Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. And the Messiah said: O Children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, Allah has forbidden to him the Garden and his abode is the Fire. And for the wrongdoers there will be no helpers. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah is the third of the three. And there is no God but One God. And if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement will surely befall such of them as disbelieve.  
 
What an absolutely powerful message he recited that day without even knowing it! What he recited to his audience that day, as you know, is absolutely accurate. He delivered the Message to his audience. This is why Allah says that He is ever sending messengers.  
 
Now you know why there is no need for prophets, hence, that is why none can be found today, but messengers for Allah continue in..."every era".  
 
Regarding wahy. Technically speaking, only the prophet who was given Al-Quran had wahy:  
 
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the mushrikeen.  
 
When he recited the wahy it wasn't the wahy the people were getting, but a hadith/report. For example:  
 
39:23 Allah has revealed the best HADEETH, a Book consistent, repeating (its injunctions), whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts soften to Allah’s remembrance. This is Allah’s guidance — He guides with it whom He pleases. And he whom Allah leaves in error, there is no guide for him.  
 
There is a fine distinction between wahy and hadith Al-Quran.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/27/2011

 
35.Dhulqarnain:-  
I noticed Universal Lanti asked a very important question but as usual you ignored his question too. Now I will ask you the same question.  
 
You quoted something in your last post and I am reproducing it below :-  
DHULQARNAIN: 3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
2:124 And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make thee a leader of men. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the wrongdoers, said He.  
19:41 And mention Abraham in the Book. Surely he was a truthful man, a prophet.  
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.  
5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as your Deen…  
44:5 A command from Us — truly We are ever sending messengers —  
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 WHOMEVER IT REACHES...  
5:72-3 Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. And the Messiah said: O Children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, Allah has forbidden to him the Garden and his abode is the Fire. And for the wrongdoers there will be no helpers. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah is the third of the three. And there is no God but One God. And if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement will surely befall such of them as disbelieve.  
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the mushrikeen.  
39:23 Allah has revealed the best HADEETH, a Book consistent, repeating (its injunctions), whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts soften to Allah’s remembrance. This is Allah’s guidance — He guides with it whom He pleases. And he whom Allah leaves in error, there is no guide for him.  
 
 
PERWEZ: Universal-Lanti has raised a very important question and I am very impressed. My question is same :-  
 
THESE LINES YOU QUOTED ARE TAKEN FROM WHICH BOOK ???  
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/27/2011

 
36.Sister Nargis,Perwez! How can you make a person listening, when he does wear THE AIR TIGHT EAR PLUGS in his both ears( THE DEAF)?.  
And how can you make seeing if a black man does cover his eye with BLACK GLASESS.?  
How can you make the silli/dull minded sharp?.  
EVERY LEARNER MUST GO THROUGH THE BASIC TERMINOLOGIES FIRST TO GRASP ON THE RELEVANT FIELD (DESCIPLINE)OF KNOLEDGE  
THE POOR AIL DHULQARNAIN IS ONE OF THE aryal tattu , WHO IS EVEN NOT READY TO READ THE MOST IMPORTANT QURANIC TERMINOLOGIES (PERSISTANTLY OVER LOOKING), HE IS HERE AT THIS BLOG TO MAKE YOU CHANGE.
Comments by: naeem sheikh On: 8/27/2011

 
37.  
You asked if I can name a messenger today and the answer is yes--Al-Quran, to wit:  
Dhulqarnain  
 
Name even ONE place where the Quran is called THE messenger? Where is the Quran called ALRUSOOL?  
 
It’s the last of the prophets, because there is no longer any need for them. In ayat 5:3 Allah tells the prophet, who was given Al-Quran, the following: 5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as your Deen… Dhulqarnain  
 
Where in 5:3 does it say Nabis are not NEEDED? And tell you what day this is, is it in month of Ramadan, did the Quran nazala at once?  
 
IF THE NABIS ARE NOT NEEDED AFTER THIS DAY, IT MEANS THE NABI WHO IS GIVEN THIS IS NOT NEEDED EITHER, DID HE DIE AFTER THIS DAY?  
 
DHULQARNAIN: 3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
2:124 And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make thee a leader of men. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the wrongdoers, said He.  
19:41 And mention Abraham in the Book. Surely he was a truthful man, a prophet.  
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.  
5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as your Deen…  
44:5 A command from Us — truly We are ever sending messengers —  
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 WHOMEVER IT REACHES...  
5:72-3 Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. And the Messiah said: O Children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, Allah has forbidden to him the Garden and his abode is the Fire. And for the wrongdoers there will be no helpers. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah is the third of the three. And there is no God but One God. And if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement will surely befall such of them as disbelieve.  
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the mushrikeen.  
39:23 Allah has revealed the best HADEETH, a Book consistent, repeating (its injunctions), whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts soften to Allah’s remembrance. This is Allah’s guidance — He guides with it whom He pleases. And he whom Allah leaves in error, there is no guide for him.  
 
THESE LINES ALONG WITH OTHERS YOU QUOTED ARE TAKEN FROM WHICH BOOK ???
Comments by: Universal-Lanati On: 8/27/2011

 
38.

Naeem Sheikh is absolutely right. Should have listened to you earlier. He don't know the Quran, only other books we don't know who wrote for him. look at how he totally overlooked the verse 3:21 , who is saying, announce a painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL THE PROPHETS WITHOUT RIGHT

who is going to announce this, when the prophets (in plural) are being killed? * If this order is given to Prophet Mohammed only, then how can he announce painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL PROPHETS, when he is the only prophet of his time?

Dhulqarnain, I think I will let you be in your darkness you call light. Unless you read the books and the terminologies. If your not INTERESTED, then we are not interested in this Christian converted Qadianyism presentation. Either you read our research, and debate from that with proofs and no personal inferences like Quran is Al Rusool etc., or you keep your Christian Qadianyism for yourself. If you have made up your mind and there is nothing you can learn, then you have nothing to do here,because here the platform is for learning. And NOT orthodox stupidity, but the Quraniq terminologies and content purely. At least I'm done with this boring stuff. I haven't learn even one mg of something new-  
 
You should tell Perwez and Universal what book you are quoting?

Comments by: Nargis On: 8/27/2011

 
39.DHULQARNAIN- You asked if I can name a messenger today and the answer is yes--Al-Quran, to wit:  
Dhulqarnain  
 
***Name even ONE place where the Quran is called THE messenger? Where is the Quran called ALRUSOOL?***  
 
Al-Quran is not called the messenger directly, however, it is identified as such nonetheless.  
 
8:20 O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger and turn not away from Him while you hear.  
When one obeys the messenger what exactly is one obeying? The only answer is the message-Al-Quran. The following ayat makes this clear:  
 
84:21 And when the Quran is recited to them they do not make obeisance?  
 
Clearly, the message is the messenger and is to obeyed.  
 
Consider these ayats as well:  
 
14:4 Messenger sent in the language of the people to make things clear.  
 
41:44 And if We had made the Quran in a foreign tongue they would certainly said: Why have not its ayats been made clear? What! A foreign language and Arabian!  
 
26:194-199 Upon your that you maybe of the warners. In plain Arabic language. And most surely is in the scriptures of the ancients. And if we had revealed it in to any of the foreigners so that he should have recited it to them, they would not have believed.  
 
These ayats discuss the necessity of the Message from Allah, Al-Quran in our time period/era, to be in the language of the particular people in question. I speak English, hence, the Message of Allah would have to be in English. No prophet brought me Al-Quran, but a particular person many years did bring me Al-Quran, hence, he was a messenger. Consider this scenario. Just suppose I had been walking and discovered Al-Quran on a park bench and began to read it, then, after x number of days of reflection, I decide to embrace its teaching. Well, Al-Quran, being in my language, was also The Messenger to me. I’ve brought Al-Quran to many others making me a messenger as well. In other words, a messenger brings a message.  
 
It’s the last of the prophets, because there is no longer any need for them. In ayat 5:3 Allah tells the prophet, who was given Al-Quran, the following: 5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as your Deen… Dhulqarnain  
 
***Where in 5:3 does it say Nabis are not NEEDED??***  
 
It doesn’t, but if they were needed, as they were in the past, then simply name one prophet who was alive at the time of the prophet and one prophet today. If they are here and are important we need at least one name to prove your assertion. If the thrust of your question is prove that prophets are still needed, then produce your proof and name one alive today. If you cannot meet this challenge then your argument is invalid. If you stay with your assertion and cannot produce concrete proof then you are following something blindly. The following ayat shows that prophets are not as important as the message they were given to announce. Remember now, per ayat 7:157, “Muhammad” is a messenger-prophet.  
 
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.  
 
***And tell you what day this is, is it in month of Ramadan, did the Quran nazala at once? ***  
 
Whatever Ramadan is/was, that was when Al-Quran, all at once, was given to “Muhammad”. The following ayat proves that “Muhammad” was given Al-Quran all at once:  
 
25:33 And they cannot bring thee a question, but We have brought thee the truth and the best explanation.  
If he didn’t have Al-Quran all at once, then he could have been asked a question which could not have been answered immediately. Or do you believe “Muhammad” would contact Allah and say..”I have a question for you…” or do you believe that Allah waited around for people to ask questions and then He would send Jibril to “Muhammad” with the answer.  
 
*** IF THE NABIS ARE NOT NEEDED AFTER THIS DAY, IT MEANS THE NABI WHO IS GIVEN THIS IS NOT NEEDED EITHER, DID HE DIE AFTER THIS DAY***  
 
Yes, he eventually did die, yet, Al-Quran, The Message/Messenger from Allah, continues. So, there is no need for him today. There can be no other prophet, because there will be no other messages from Allah. Allah, per ayat 5:3, makes it clear that with the advent of “Muhammad”, and Al-Quran given him, the Deen was/is now complete.  
 
***THESE LINES ALONG WITH OTHERS YOU QUOTED ARE TAKEN FROM WHICH BOOK ???***  
 
They are the English translation of Al-Quran.  
 
NARGIS: 3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
The above quote is from Nargis, not me. I don’t know how my got attached to her quote.  
 
2:124 And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make thee a leader of men. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the wrongdoers, said He.  
 
19:41 And mention Abraham in the Book. Surely he was a truthful man, a prophet.  
 
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.  
 
5:3…This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as your Deen…  
 
44:5 A command from Us — truly We are ever sending messengers —  
 
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 WHOMEVER IT REACHES...  
 
5:72-3 Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. And the Messiah said: O Children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, Allah has forbidden to him the Garden and his abode is the Fire. And for the wrongdoers there will be no helpers. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Allah is the third of the three. And there is no God but One God. And if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement will surely befall such of them as disbelieve.  
 
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to thee from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the mushrikeen.  
 
39:23 Allah has revealed the best HADEETH, a Book consistent, repeating (its injunctions), whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts soften to Allah’s remembrance. This is Allah’s guidance — He guides with it whom He pleases. And he whom Allah leaves in error, there is no guide for him.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/27/2011

 
40.***Sister Nargis,Perwez! How can you make a person listening, when he does wear THE AIR TIGHT EAR PLUGS in his both ears( THE DEAF)?. And how can you make seeing if a black man does cover his eye with BLACK GLASESS.? How can you make the silli/dull minded sharp?. .***  
 
naeem, first modudi and now you, no problem. Your post is nothing but a racist diatribe and a clear statement that you cannot refute my arguments. For ever how long I remain at aastana blog, I have nothing further to say to you.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/27/2011

 
41.NARGIS,  
 
***NARGIS: Naeem Sheikh is absolutely right.***  
 
***NAEEEM: Nargis,Perwez! How can you make a person listening, when he does wear THE AIR TIGHT EAR PLUGS in his both ears( THE DEAF)?. And how can you make seeing if a black man does cover his eye with BLACK GLASESS.? How can you make the silli/dull minded sharp?.***  
 
Apparently, you agree with his racist statement. Well, it’s obvious NOW how you feel and what you’re about.  
 
Anyway, moving on.  
 
***Should have listened to you earlier. He don't know the Quran, only other books we don't know who wrote for him. look at how he totally overlooked the verse 3:21 , who is saying, announce a painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL THE PROPHETS WITHOUT RIGHT who is going to announce this, when the prophets (in plural) are being killed? * If this order is given to Prophet Mohammed only, then how can he announce painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL PROPHETS, when he is the only prophet of his time?**  
 
Consider the following, then:  
 
QATALA/QAF-TA-LAM/KILL: to kill; put to death; slay; BE ACCUSED; attempt to kill; RENDER PERSON LIKE ONE  
 
KILLED. Dictionary of the Quran by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg, 442  
 
KILL: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay. to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes. to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor. to spoil the effect of. mark for deletion, rub off, or erase; "kill these lines in the President's speech.  
 
Clearly, both in English and Arabic kill/qatala has a non-physical application. Slander is a form of killing—it is aimed at a soul or souls character. Many people past and present, (and likely the future), slander and ridicule the prophets of old i.e. Noah, Abraham, Solomon, David, Jesus, and “Muhammad”, in an attempt to “qatala/kill” their teachings from Allah. Many people past and present, (and likely into the future), outright deny the historical existence of the prophets in hopes of extinguishing their teachings from Allah. This is what is being said in 3:21, because if this weren’t the case then ONE OF YOU, by now, would have produced the NAME of at least ONE prophet’s name from the time of “Muhammad” up till now AND what message he brought with him. By your own admission Nargis, you cannot meet this challenge. This is why 33:40 means “Muhammad is the Last of the Prophets”.  
 
***Dhulqarnain, I think I will let you be in your darkness you call light. Unless you read the books and the terminologies. If your not INTERESTED, then we are not interested in this Christian converted Qadianyism presentation. Either you read our research, and debate from that with proofs and no personal inferences like Quran is Al Rusool etc., or you keep your Christian Qadianyism for yourself. If you have made up your mind and there is nothing you can learn, then you have nothing to do here,because here the platform is for learning. And NOT orthodox stupidity, but the Quraniq terminologies and content purely. At least I'm done with this boring stuff. I haven't learn even one mg of something new-  
You should tell Perwez and Universal what book you are quoting?***  
 
I’m sorry to see you chosen to revert back to ad hominine and racist attacks...a sure indication that you and the others cannot sustain your assertions. But, be that as it may, you still have not proved any of your assertions in our discussion. You, and the others here, have simply attempted to redefined certain terms, labeling them—“terminologies”, and then pass them off as Quranic dogma. This simply cannot happen. Al-Quran is a protected book.  
 
Allah says:…And there is NONE to change the words of Allah…  
 
6:34 And messengers indeed were rejected before thee, but they were patient when rejected and persecuted, until Our help came to them. And there is none to change the words of Allah. And there has already come to thee some information about the messengers.  
 
You, and the others, are angry and getting angrier, because via my arguments ayat 6:34 is proving some of your “terminologies” to be inaccurate. If you people weren’t so closed minded, stubborn, conceited, and yes, RACIST! you just might learn something…new.  
 
Anyway, you’re back to square one in regard to 3:21; 43:45; 3:144  
 
Here's the question again:  
 
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
 
HOW COULD "MUHAMMAD" or, if you prefer, the male individual who was given Al-Quran, HAVE ASKED THE PRIOR MESSENGERS...ANYTHING, as they were all dead when he came on the world stage?  
 
Do any of you Masters/Scholars of Al-Quran have an answer, yet?  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/27/2011

 
42.DHULQARNAIN: naeem, first modudi and now you, no problem. Your post is nothing but a racist diatribe and a clear statement that you cannot refute my arguments.  
 
PERWEZ: What is the basis of your arguments? Where are you quoting the references from ???  
It is you who cannot refute the arguments by me and Universal-Lanati and that is why you are constantly ignoring all our questions. Who is running away???  
 
DHULQARNAIN: Apparently, you agree with his racist statement. Well, it’s obvious NOW how you feel and what you’re about.  
 
PERWEZ: I think no one should criticize or degrade anyone on the basis of RACE and/or GENDER. You are so ignorant that you cannot even see who started all this !!!  
It is you Dhulqarnain who started gender discrimination by sharing references from orthodox translations which are already rejected by aastana. It is you who degraded women on the basis of their gender. It was you who started attacking one female participant using personal remarks. Discrimination is discrimination whether it is on the basis of race or gender. If you use such discriminatory words against a woman in your country, if you tell her that she is a thing which you possess in your right hand even if she is your wife and not a stranger I can guarantee you that you will end up behind the bars.  
Tell me one thing :-  
Has anyone said anything to you before you started using bad language for Nargis?  
I think whatever you heard afterwards was a reaction of a discriminatory comments you used against a female participant.  
IT IS YOU WHO VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR AASTANA.  
FOR YOUR REFERENCE :-  
5. Utmost respect for humanity is the basic policy. Therefore, civil manners, decency and politeness are advocated.  
6. No kind of rigidity, extremism, air of authority, religious edicts or final words are employed.  
8. Use of impolite, offensive or abusive language and personal remarks of derogatory nature would disqualify you from AastanaBlog's membership.  
 
YOU VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT BY USING PERSONAL REMARKS FOR A FEMALE MEMBER.  
WHY ARE YOU SHOWING SO MUCH ATTITUDE THEN???  
 
BY SAYING ALL THIS I DON"T MEAN TO SAY AT ALL THAT RACIST REMARKS ARE GOOD. I STRONGLY CONDEMN NOT ONLY ALL KIND OF RACISM BUT ALSO ALL KIND OF GENDER-ISM.  
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/28/2011

 
43.NOW BACK TO THE QUESTION :-  
 
DHULQARNAIN ASKED :-  
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
HOW COULD MUHAMMAD HAVE ASKED THE PRIOR MESSENGERS...ANYTHING?  
 
PERWEZ: My friend, would you mind telling me where you took these lines from?  
43:45 And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent?  
WHICH BOOK I MEAN?
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/28/2011

 
44.***PERWEZ: I think no one should criticize or degrade anyone on the basis of RACE and/or GENDER. You are so ignorant that you cannot even see who started all this !!! It is you Dhulqarnain who started gender discrimination by sharing references from orthodox translations which are already rejected by aastana.***  
 
Oh, I see, it’s my fault you use racial slurs.  
 
Sharing referenes…whaaaa?? What are you talking about?  
 
***It is you who degraded women on the basis of their gender. It was you who started attacking one female participant using personal remarks. Discrimination is discrimination whether it is on the basis of race or gender.***  
 
What female member did I attack on the basis of gender and what did I say. Post it.  
 
***If you use such discriminatory words against a woman in your country, if you tell her that she is a thing which you possess in your right hand even if she is your wife and not a stranger I can guarantee you that you will end up behind the bars.***  
 
What the…?? I have no idea what “right hand possession means. Post where I said that Nargis was/is “a right-hand possession! What are you talking about?!  
 
***Tell me one thing :- Has anyone said anything to you before you started using bad language for Nargis? I think whatever you heard afterwards was a reaction of a discriminatory comments you used against a female participant.***  
 
Oh please, you are so full of crap. I had no idea that I insulted Nargis. I’ve gotten to know Nargis for a bit and I do have some affectionate nicknames for her. To express that is simply a cultural thing. Although we contend here, I have nothing but affection and respect for her. I would assume that if I was offensive to her, that she would have excoriated me on the spot, as is her custom to do at times. Nargis does not appear to me to be afraid to express herself on any level. If I was gender offensive to her and knew that, believe me, I would not need the likes of you racist bums to tell me, because I not have done it in the first place. You people calling me the n-word and other racial names has NOTHING to do with Nargis, you phoney. Given that I hurt her feeling in ignorance, why didn’t you or the others simply bring my indiscretion to my attention so that I could apologize? No, the expressing of racial slurs was nothing more than your own pent up frustration of having your precious theories challenged and proven wrong. Using Nargis to justify your racial animus is a load of crap, period. You could certainly have criticized me without using racial slurs, there’s no excuse for it.  
 
Now get lost, you and your question.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/28/2011

 
45.ADMINS AND AASTANA MODERATORS:-  
I WANT TO ASK WHY THIS GUY WAS NOT BANNED WITH MODUDI AND PRIEST BOKEMI ???  
 
See his personal, Mocking and abusive remarks about different members :-  
 
DHULQARNAIN : Now get lost, you and your question.  
DHULQARNAIN: And blah blah blah blah blah blah LOL! What a hoot you are!  
DHULQARNAIN: But for now, seeing how you are a supporter of Nargy the Beautiful (and she is beautiful, btw) and Moazzam, AND you've got a bigmouth  
DHULQARNAIN: I knew people would over think think it and do exactly as bigmouth Perwez did. I glad that you weren’t fooled, though.  
DHULQARNAIN: Thank you, Nargy Badass Salamander, the Beautiful! Do you think you can come to America so I can marry you? :D  
DHULQARNAIN: It is sad that you're last two posts were spent mocking rather than defending your position regarding 3:21. You mock because you're busted now and it's the only thing left for you to do, because you can't defend your claim.  
DHULQARNAIN:Waseemameer, I couldn't stop laughing while and after reading your post. I mean my abs and jaws hurt right now.  
DHULQARNAIN: I'm telling you, you Nargis, Junaid, Yellow Cow, and Moazzam, are Masters of Bafflegab, extraordinaire.  
DHULQARNAIN: Dr. Zaman, Moazzam, Nargis, et al,  
As I ‘ve read and tried to understand where you people are coming from, more and more, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re more grounded in Materialism and Religious Humanism than Al-Islam.  
 
And a lot of his shameful comments were deleted. For example :-  
DHULQARNAIN: MO-DOODY, that’s for damn sure! lol. No, no, you read my post correctly…Pakistani and Indians sisters. Probably your sister! LOL!  
 
And many more comments full of vulgarity which I cannot even quote here !!!
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/28/2011

 
46.Brother Dhulqarnain!The best offer to run side by side to shoulder the common responsibilities being a Muslim/Quranist. As we all agreed that Alkitab(Quran) is the last and final book/message of Allah, and If Suppose we consider your stance that, Quran(Alkitab) is last and final mesenger(imam) as well (being considering interpretation of verses 36/12,11/17,46/12, the book as an " IMAM/RASOOL)". Then what we have to do? , infact we have to understand this Alkitab by Alkitab IT SELF is itn't?  
SO COME AT COMMON TERMS AMONG US, THAT IS TO INTERPRET THIS BOOK BY THIS BOOK(ALKITAB) ONLY(by keeping away the orthodox translations and by observing ratal al Quran only).  
OK, SET THE MATTER ASIDE, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THE PERSON WHO IS INTERPRETING(making them understand) THIS BOOK TO THE PEOPLE OF THAT ERA ie IMAM/RASOOL/NABI/TEACHER( this issue could be resolved/discussed later. Are you agree????????  
Comments by: moazzam On: 8/28/2011

 
47.My dear brs. and srs, SA: I am indeed shocked to read some racist comments and observations in this thread and in some others as well. Are we here to learn via decent, well-reasoned, and logical arguments or we are here to pass racist remarks? In research, it is always possible that one is right, somewhat right or out rightly wrong. Some of us are exhibiting an attitude as if they know all and there is no room to disagree with their assertions. If you want someone to see your point of view then present it well, both in terms of writing and reasoning. Once you have done your best then leave it to the other person to take it or discard it. Please avoid personal remarks. Thank you.  
 
OK to be in disagreement over some thoughts/concepts/ideas but it is not OK to be disrespectful If this forum is a research forum, we need to neglect and discard such comments
Comments by: dawood On: 8/28/2011

 
48.Moazzam,  
 
***Brother Dhulqarnain!The best offer to run side by side to shoulder the common responsibilities being a Muslim/Quranist.***  
 
No doubt. I very much want to find our common ground, especially, that we both claim to be Quran only and alone, for our guidance.  
 
***As we all agreed that Alkitab(Quran) is the last and final book/message of Allah, and If Suppose we consider your stance that, Quran(Alkitab) is last and final mesenger(imam) as well (being considering interpretation of verses 36/12,11/17,46/12, the book as an " IMAM/RASOOL)". Then what we have to do? , infact we have to understand this Alkitab by Alkitab IT SELF is itn't?***  
 
Just a couple of things.  
 
1. I am very curious about something and perhaps you can clear it up for me. You and Nargis, just for examples, do not put the definite article “al” before Quran, however, you always do before Kitab. Allah, in the main, and depending upon the context, always includes the definite with His Words/Al-Quran. Without the definite article, and once again, depending upon the context, Al-Quran becomes just a qaraa/reading/recital. For example ayats 10:15 and 17:106.  
 
10:15 And when Our clear 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 naught but what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the chastisement of a grievous day.  
 
Ayat 10:15 is referring to a Quran being brought other than the one Allah revealed. The hadith books and the fiqh books so loved by the Ritualists, are examples of “other qaraa’s/Qurans”.  
 
17:106 And it is A QURAN We have made distinct, so that thou mayest read it to the people by slow degrees, and We have revealed it in portions.  
 
Ayat 17:106, on the other hand, is referring to Al-Quran which Allah revealed.  
 
a) Is it your position that Al-Quran (with the definite article) and Quran(without the definite article) are identically the same thing, that is, comprised of suras 2-114?  
 
b) Is it your position that Al-Kitab and Al-Quran, in all instances, are the identically same thing (comprised of suras 2-114?)  
I need this clarification, because I can’t honestly say that I know how you are using the terms Al-Kitab and Al-Quran in all instances.  
 
Please do not link me to past threads. I would like us to start here afresh.  
 
2. ***and If Suppose we consider your stance that, Quran(Alkitab) is last and final mesenger(imam) as well (being considering interpretation of verses 36/12,11/17,46/12, the book as an " IMAM/RASOOL)***  
No offense, but please et me state my stance in my words  
 
a) Al-Quran is the final revelation/message to humanity.  
 
b) Al-Quran is the messenger to humanity.  
 
***SO COME AT COMMON TERMS AMONG US, THAT IS TO INTERPRET THIS BOOK BY THIS BOOK(ALKITAB) ONLY(by keeping away the orthodox translations and by observing ratal al Quran only).***  
 
1. In discussing our positions, I am only coming from the book—Al-Quran (comprised of suras 2-114), except, when Allah/ it refers the reader to previous kitabs i.e. Torah and Injeel.  
 
2. Just how are you using the term ratil?  
 
3. Many of you use the orthodox translations as well, so, how do any us, effectively, keep away from them?  
 
4. Although I post what you and others call orthodox translations, I am checking to see if the English terms and the Arabic terms, match. I am not accepting the orthodox translations without first checking the words  
 
5. Al-Quran must come to me in my language as it has come to you in yours, Urdu. There is simply no way around this.  
 
14:4 And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly; then Allah makes whom He pleases err and He guides whom He pleases and He is the Mighty, the Wise.  
 
***OK, SET THE MATTER ASIDE, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THE PERSON WHO IS INTERPRETING(making them understand) THIS BOOK TO THE PEOPLE OF THAT ERA ie IMAM/RASOOL/NABI/TEACHER( this issue could be resolved/discussed later. Are you agree????????***  
 
Allah, according to His Words/Al-Quran, says the following:  
 
1. He/Allah teaches Al-Quran and He never told anyone to…interpret Al-Quran, but only to recite it and He will teach it.  
 
55:1-2 The Beneficent. Taught the Quran.  
 
96:5 Taught man what he knew not.  
 
65:11 A messenger who recites to you the clear communications of Allah…  
 
98:2 A messenger from Allah, reciting pure pages,  
 
 
2. Allah makes things clear.  
 
2:242 Allah thus makes clear to you His ayats that you may understand.  
 
 
3. Al-Quran explains itself.  
 
25:33 And they cannot bring you a question, but We have brought you the truth and the best explanation.  
The point of the above ayats was to make clear to you that there are no designated interpreters or teacher/teachers of Al-Quran. This what the so-called ulema/mullahs have attempted to do. I only want a true translation of Allah’s clear Al-Quran. As a nabi, “Muhammad did not “teach” Al-Quran nor did he interpret it. His teaching was only to recite clearly and accurately what he was commanded.  
 
The Messenger—Al-Quran, does not interpret, it teaches. We, as messengers, meaning, we bring to people’s attention Al-Quran only and alone, meaning, we bring them an accurate translation of Al-Quran, but not an interpretation of Al-Quran.  
 
Aastana Blog, unfortunately, has been more involved with interpretation, which invariably is conjecturing, than translation which is accurate reporting. Interpretation is contrary to the teaching of Al-Quran. For example, the translation of Allah is—The God. Some here at aastana have now interpreted “Allah” to mean the Islamic State. Now, there is no ayat that can be posted that will translate Allah as the Islamic State, hence, this is an interpretation.  
 
These are my positions. I am looking forward to a clean, productive, and sincere discussion of these issues, as I’m sure you are.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/29/2011

 
49.Nargis,  
 
Are you going to reply to the following or are you now going to bow out of the discussion, leaving those who may read this later on, with no proof from you for your assertion on 3:21?  
 
NARGIS: 3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment.  
 
***NARGIS: In this verse the verbs used are not in past tense ,the verbs are  
یکفرون یقتلون These words can either be translated in present tense or future tense . these words can in no way be translated into past tense . So when this verse was revealed to prophet Mohammad there were so many انبیاء and it is a non ending continuous process . Now keeping in mind the verse 21 of sura 3 ( already discussed above ) , which clearly indicates that so many prophets انبیاء were present in the times of prophet Mohammad . This verse no 40 of sura 33 is declaring that Mohammad was the seal of the prophets , which simply means He was the appointing authority of other prophets.***  
 
***Should have listened to you earlier. He don't know the Quran, only other books we don't know who wrote for him. look at how he totally overlooked the verse 3:21 , who is saying, announce a painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL THE PROPHETS WITHOUT RIGHT who is going to announce this, when the prophets (in plural) are being killed? * If this order is given to Prophet Mohammed only, then how can he announce painful torment for THOSE WHO KILL PROPHETS, when he is the only prophet of his time?**  
 
Consider the following, then:  
 
QATALA/QAF-TA-LAM/KILL: to kill; put to death; slay; BE ACCUSED; attempt to kill; RENDER PERSON LIKE ONE  
 
KILLED. Dictionary of the Quran by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg, 442  
 
KILL: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay. to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes. to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor. to spoil the effect of. mark for deletion, rub off, or erase; "kill these lines in the President's speech.  
 
Clearly, both in English and Arabic, kill/qatala has a non-physical application. Slander is a form of killing—it is aimed at a soul or souls character. Many people past and present, (and likely the future), slander and ridicule the prophets of old i.e. Noah, Abraham, Solomon, David, Jesus, and “Muhammad”, in an attempt to “qatala/kill” their teachings from Allah. Many people past and present, (and likely into the future), outright deny the historical existence of the prophets in hopes of extinguishing their teachings from Allah. This is what is being said in 3:21, because if this weren’t the case then ONE OF YOU, by now, would have produced the NAME of at least ONE prophet’s name from the time of “Muhammad” up till now AND what message he brought with him. By your own admission Nargis, you cannot meet this challenge. This is why 33:40 means “Muhammad is the Last of the Prophets”.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/29/2011

 
50.THE BEST ANSWER FOR DHULQARNAIN :-  
 
NOW GET LOST, YOU AND YOUR QUESTION.  
 
YOU NIGGYWIGGY OR WHATEVER YOU ARE!!!
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/29/2011

 
51.Dear Dhulqarnain: salam  
Dhulqrrnain: Is it your position that Al-Quran (with the definite article) and Quran(without the definite article) are identically the same thing?  
 
b) Is it your position that Al-Kitab and Al-Quran, in all instances, are the identically same thing?  
Moazzam: ALKITAB= ALQURAN(27/1, 15/15)  
The ense of KITAB and QURAN depends upon its cotext  
1)The sense of Quran could be comprehende by reading the verses42/7,17/106,36/59,12/2,10/15,17/7820/113,it means when explained/ interpret this Alquran/Alkitab to the people by the rasool of the time.  
2) KITAB= The verses and subjects written in tis Alkitab/Alquran see the verse 98/3, there are many kutub in this Alkitab.  
To comprehend the sense of word KITAB please read the verses 18/27,2/89,5/15,6/92,6/155,7/21,7/52,11/1211/17,21/10,23/62  
Nuzool min alkitab means what you understand from the message written in alkitab.  
Dhulqarnain : My stance is.  
a) Al-Quran is the final revelation/message to humanity. b) Al-Quran is the messenger to humanity.  
Moazzam: Yes Alquran is the last and final message of Allah and messenger as well (verses 36/12,11/17,46/12)  
***SO COME AT COMMON TERMS AMONG US, THAT IS TO INTERPRET THIS BOOK BY THIS BOOK(ALKITAB) ONLY(by keeping away the orthodox translations and by observing ratal al Quran only).***  
Dhulqarnain: In discussing our positions, I am only coming from the book—Al-Quran (comprised of suras 2-114), except, when Allah/ it refers the reader to previous kitabs i.e. Torah and Injeel.  
Moazzam; ok stay in Alquran/Alkitab.  
Dhulqarnain: how using the term ratil?  
Moazzam: Read the verses 25/32,73/4, it means to understand Alquran/terminologies by using the context,tasreef, core message of quran,appropriate selection of meanings of words from lexicon and grammar.  
 
Dhulqarnain:Although I post what you and others call orthodox translations, I am checking to see if the English terms and the Arabic terms, match. I am not accepting the orthodox translations without first checking the words  
Moazzam; Its good,but better to know the Quranic arabic language, we don't trust at Orthodox, therefore trying our best to understand the true sense of Alquran by RATAL ALQURAN.  
Dhulqarnain:Al-Quran must come to me in my language as it has come to you in yours, Urdu. There is simply no way around this.  
Moazzam: Yes. .  
Dhulqarnain: I only want a true translation of Allah’s clear Al-Quran.  
Moazzam: You can't translate the Alquran/terminologies because it is written in its unique farmate/style,rather can be understood its message by ratal.  
Dhulqarnain: As a nabi, “Muhammad did not “teach” Al-Quran nor did he interpret it. His teaching was only to recite clearly and accurately what he was commanded.  
Moazzam: See the verse 75/16, the rasool/Nabi/Hadi/imam of the time must elaborate the Quranic message according to his time/era.Therefore, the continuation of Risalat has been mentioned in Alquran.  
Dhulqarnain:The Messenger—Al-Quran, does not interpret, it teaches. We, as messengers, meaning, we bring to people’s attention Al-Quran only and alone, meaning, we bring them an accurate translation of Al-Quran, but not an interpretation of Al-Quran.  
Moazzam: yes,alquran explains itself,and the prophet of the time will elaborate /explain it to implement according to his era.  
Dhulqarnain:Aastana, has been more involved with interpretation, which invariably is conjecturing, than translation which is accurate reporting. Interpretation is contrary to the teaching of Al-Quran. For example, the translation of Allah is—The God. Some here at aastana have now interpreted “Allah” to mean the Islamic State. Now, there is no ayat that can be posted that will translate Allah as the Islamic State, hence, this is an interpretation.  
Moazzam; We are trying to provide true sense of the message written in Alkitab/Alquran by ratal.
Comments by: moazzam On: 8/29/2011

 
52.Moazzam,  
 
Thank you for your reply.  
 
***The sense of KITAB and QURAN depends upon its context***  
 
Good deal, I agree.  
 
But would you agree that Al-Quran, although it can be viewed as being a part of a broader book, is a specific kitab unto itself consisting of suras 2-114? I get the sense from you that you do, but I want to be absolutely certain of your position in this regard.  
 
Dhulqarnain : My stance is. a) Al-Quran is the final revelation/message to humanity. b) Al-Quran is the messenger to humanity.  
 
***Moazzam: Yes Alquran is the last and final message of Allah and messenger as well (verses 36/12,11/17,46/12)***  
 
I’m not certain how 36:12 and 11:17 supports your position, but I do see how 46:12 does. I would also like to add ayats 6:19 and 61:6, as well.  
 
46:12 And before it was the Book of Moses, a guide and a mercy. And this is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language, that it may warn those who do wrong, and as good news for the doers of good.  
 
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…  
 
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.  
 
Well, we have our 1st point of agreement: Moazzam: “Yes Alquran is the last and final message of Allah and messenger as well”. We can certainly build from here.  
 
Dhulqarnain: In discussing our positions, I am only coming from the book—Al-Quran (comprised of suras 2-114), except, when Allah/ it refers the reader to previous kitabs i.e. Torah and Injeel.  
 
***Moazzam; ok stay in Alquran/Alkitab.***  
 
Good deal, our 2nd point of agreement.  
 
Dhulqarnain:Al-Quran must come to me in my language as it has come to you in yours, Urdu. There is simply no way around this.  
 
***Moazzam: Yes. ***  
 
Our 3rd point of agreement.  
 
Dhulqarnain: Although I post what you and others call orthodox translations, I am checking to see if the English terms and the Arabic terms, match. I am not accepting the orthodox translations without first checking the words  
 
***Moazzam; Its good,but better to know the Quranic arabic language, we don't trust at Orthodox, therefore trying our best to understand the true sense of Alquran by RATAL ALQURAN.***  
 
We agree, in the main, for the 4th time.  
 
1. I don’t trust the orthodox translation either, although, and I think you will agree with me when I say this, not all of the ayats have been mistranslated.  
 
2. I don’t have to learn the Arabic language in order to understand Al-Quran, but I do need to know, from the Arabic language, the Arabic terms used in Al-Quran.  
 
Although we agree on the above, the following may be points of disagreement, but, after some discussion, maybe we will reach agreement in these areas as well.  
 
***Moazzam: Read the verses 25/32,73/4, it means to understand Alquran/terminologies by using the context,tasreef, core message of quran,appropriate selection of meanings of words from lexicon and grammar.***  
 
Dhulqarnain: how are you using the term ratil?  
 
***Moazzam: therefore trying our best to understand the true sense of Alquran by RATAL ALQURAN. Ratal … Read the verses 25/32,73/4, it means to understand Alquran/terminologies by using the context,tasreef, core message of quran,appropriate selection of meanings of words from lexicon and grammar. ***  
 
I can see your idea that ratila also mean to “read correctly”-Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg.201.  
 
Now, you have to be careful though, because “reading correctly” can become very subjective very quickly resulting not in translation, but—interpretation. In other words, “reading correctly”, becomes”reading into”. For example: “A man driving a red car fast hits and kills an elderly woman”, can become “A man driving a red sports car, red as we know can affect some emotionally and could have factored in the accident, hits and kills an elderly woman”.  
Again, when you claim that ratia means: “to understand Alquran/terminologies by using the context, tasreef, core message of quran,appropriate selection of meanings of words from lexicon and grammar”, you’re rendering an “interpretation” of the term and not a “translation” of the term. I say this, because there is no ayat , containing the term ratila, which would make one define it as you have. Perhaps there are other terms which would, but not ratila.  
 
I have no problem with using context, tasreef, dictionaries/lexicons, and grammar. Could you though define what you mean by “core message Al-Quran” ?  
 
Dhulqarnain: I only want a true translation of Allah’s clear Al-Quran.  
 
***Moazzam: You can't translate the Alquran/terminologies because it is written in its unique farmate/style,rather can be understood its message by ratal.***  
 
I can’t agree with you here, because Allah, at least from my study of Al-Quran, has placed no restrictions on one translating His Ayats and terminologies. Allah m makes no mention of a “farmate/style”. I will need an ayat which definitively supports your assertion.  
 
Dhulqarnain: As a nabi, “Muhammad did not “teach” Al-Quran nor did he interpret it. His teaching was only to recite clearly and accurately what he was commanded. The Messenger—Al-Quran, does not interpret, it teaches. We, as messengers, meaning, we bring to people’s attention Al-Quran only and alone, meaning, we bring them an accurate translation of Al-Quran, but not an interpretation of Al-Quran.  
 
***Moazzam: See the verse 75/16, the rasool/Nabi/Hadi/imam of the time must elaborate the Quranic message according to his time/era.Therefore, the continuation of Risalat has been mentioned in Alquran. yes,alquran explains itself,and the prophet of the time will elaborate /explain it to implement according to his era.***  
 
This is the exact same position of the Ritualist so-called Muslims. They claim that the prophet, whom they identify as “Muhammad”, must explain/teach and make clear Al-Quran, hence, the necessity of the hadiths and sunna. You’re claiming that the prophet, of any era, must explain/teach and make clear Al-Quran, hence, the necessity of his hadith and sunna. These are the exact same positions. The only difference is, the Riualist so-called Muslims have named the prophet who is to explain/teach and make clear the Al-Quran, whereas, your prophet of any era remains unnamed.  
 
You must keep in mind that, not all of the prophets were messengers. Ibrahim, for an example, was a prophet, but not a messenger-prophet as were Ishmael, Moses, Jesus, and “Muhammad”. Only Ibrahim was given the title of Iman to Al-Nas. Allah makes no mention of any Iman to teach His Quran. Please produce the ayat or ayts which proves your position. Again, with the term prophet, Allah makes no mention of ongoing prophets, however, Allah does say there will be onging messengers. Allah’s message/Al-Quran does not require any prophet, imam, mullah, sheikh, mufti etc. , in any era, to teach it.  
 
Again, if a prophet is to come in any era, since the passing of “Muhammad”, then you must produce at least one name of a prophet who has done as you assert. A name is vital to your assertion, because without one you have no concrete proof, but only a conjecture, do you see?  
 
Dhulqarnain:Aastana, has been more involved with interpretation, which invariably is conjecturing, rather than translation which is accurate reporting. Interpretation is contrary to the teaching of Al-Quran. For example, the translation of Allah is—The God. Some here at aastana have now interpreted “Allah” to mean the Islamic State. Now, there is no ayat that can be posted that will translate Allah as the Islamic State, hence, this is an interpretation.  
 
***Moazzam; We are trying to provide true sense of the message written in Alkitab/Alquran by ratal.***  
 
This is fine, however, "sensing" is not concrete fact, but opinion,conjecture and interpreting. Can you give me the ayat which ontains the word "sense", as fact?  
 
SENSE: .Intellectual interpretation; an intuitive or acquired perception or ability to estimate; a discerning awareness.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/29/2011

 
53.“However, "sensing" is not concrete fact, but opinion, conjecture and interpreting. Can you give me the ayat which contains the word "sense", as fact? “

Do you have any better suggestions, another word that replaces sense? We use the word “sense” to describe the meaning, connotation, and wisdom applied in the message through the aya’s. Conveyed by the Qur'an, i.e. what is the substance, TRUE MESSAGE, MEANING conveyed by the message?

“They claim that the prophet, whom they identify as “Muhammad”, must explain/teach and make clear Al-Quran, hence, the necessity of the hadiths and sunna.”  
 

They say the Prophet made ADDITIONAL explanation, which is not to be found in the Quran but in Hadith.We are saying what the Quran say, that he explained the Quran BY the Quran. His explanations are in the Quran, not outside.Make clear the Quran means to make it understandable to everyone

I can’t agree with you here, because Allah, at least from my study of Al-Quran, has placed no restrictions on one translating His Ayats and terminologies. Allah m makes no mention of a “farmate/style”. I will need an ayat which definitively supports your assertion.

He didn’t mean to say it is not allowed, it means it has a special composition which is not making sense if it is translated word by word.  
For example, if you say:- I’m burning  
 
To understand its SENSE, one has to see the context and how YOU use the word burning. It may be apparent that you meant to say you’re burning because you’re angry.  
 
Arabic is a root language, its root describe an object and its functions. Ibrahim can be “translated” to Abraham, but the word Ibrahim means someone who can convince with arguments based on evidence. Now the author of the Quran have used some words and in a special way to preserve it so it reveal itself to the active reader when he use ratil and tasreef, and see the use of the words.  
 
The style can be OBSERVED by the active reader, for example do the Rattal and tasreef under the parameter of the core message of the Quran and make sure you see the appropriate words in order to get the true message. This is in a total synchronization with its own claims, such as there is no contradiction.  
 
RATTIL ALQURANA TARTEELA = TO READ/ PUT/ARRANGE THE VERSES/QASES OF QURAN IN AN OPPROPRIATE MANNERS .SO AS, THE SOLUTIONS TO THE MATTERS UNDER QUESTION MAY BECOME CLEAR TO THE LISTENERS.  
 
The real quranic procedure to elaborate (tafseer) any verse of Quran, ( to understand the true divine message), has been defined in a term “RATAL”, which include the “TASREEF AL AYAT”  
 
Quran never reveals all at once in ones mind, but issue to issue and matter to matter discussions according to the course of RATAL would make you satisfied.  
 
It is because, if, any body comes with a certain/specific issue/matter, you may enlighten him with “the best elaboration”.  
 
وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لَوْلَا نُزِّلَ عَلَيْهِ الْقُرْآنُ جُمْلَةً وَاحِدَةً كَذَلِكَ لِنُثَبِّتَ بِهِ فُؤَادَكَ وَرَتَّلْنَاهُ تَرْتِيلًا 25/32  
 
وَلَا يَأْتُونَكَ بِمَثَلٍ إِلَّا جِئْنَاكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَأَحْسَنَ تَفْسِيرًا 25-33  
 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RATAL COULD BE SEEN IN SURAH MUZZAMMIL 73/4  
إِنَّا سَنُلْقِي عَلَيْكَ قَوْلًا ثَقِيلًا  
 
أَوْ زِدْ عَلَيْهِ وَرَتِّلِ الْقُرْآنَ تَرْتِيلًا

Comments by: Nargis On: 8/29/2011

 
54.BY MY BELOVED PERWEZ1 GEE........THE BEST ANSWER FOR DHULQARNAIN :-  
 
NOW GET LOST, YOU AND YOUR QUESTION.  
 
YOU NIGGYWIGGY OR WHATEVER YOU ARE..  
 
 
OHHH yaar tussi baaz nai aao gey???... ki karda ai yaar... kya tu ghar vich phadda shadda kar k aatey hooo jeeeeee??????  
Ohhh.. perwez jee... sada ek friend hai NAFSIYATI doctor... tussi bolo tu terey baarey me discuss shiscuss karonn??? tey ab bura na maniiiiiii.......
Comments by: Saad Haider On: 8/30/2011

 
55.SAAD GEE O CONTROL YAAR !!!  
TUSSI ZARA MERI POST DE UPAR DHULQARNAIN DA JAWWAB TE WEKHO.  
I JUST REPEATED HIS WORDS :)  
Main koi mahaatma Gandhi te nahi jera pathar da jawaab phul naal denda ae.  
Tussi aap hi dasso ... ki kharaabi si mere sawaal wich ?  
Te sawaal zaroor parh lena jawaab dene tou pehle.  
 
Sada aik friend hai EYE SPECIALIST ... tussi bolo tu terey baray mein discuss shiscuss karoon?  
Te ik mashwara he tuade waaste O vi bilkul muft.  
Tussi apne us NAFSIYATI Doctor dost naal raabta karo te thora ilaaj willaj karwa lo apna vi.  
Mere khayaal ich tuannu zarrorat he gi.  
illaaj te o vi muft. kinna changa mashwara ditta main ... hun japphi pao isi khusi vich :D  
Waise tussi vi kamal karde ho.  
Bari hamdardi he tuannu Is kaale Qadyani naal .  
Tussi Kaale ho ya Qadiayani???  
Kera bhai chara bol raha he tuadda?  
Hun bura na mani !!!  
 
DEAR MOAZAAM AND NARGIS.  
I know you both have looked at this reply of Dhulqarnain to my genuine question :-  
DHULQARNAIN: Now get lost, you and your question  
 
Don't you think he should be treated in the same way he is treating others???  
Comments by: Perwez1 On: 8/30/2011

 
56.

Sad jee ne buttering shuro kar di, Dr Uncle se nahi to AURo se ? Tussi siddha siddha kio nahi mande toanno Aastana pasand nahi, jao kidre hour marro para

Comments by: Nargis On: 8/30/2011

 
57.Dhulqarnain: I can see your idea that ratila also mean to “read correctly”-Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg.201.  
Now, you have to be careful though, because “reading correctly” can become very subjective very quickly resulting not in translation, but—interpretation. In other words, “reading correctly”, becomes”reading into”. For example: “A man driving a red car fast hits and kills an elderly woman”, can become “A man driving a red sports car, red as we know can affect some emotionally and could have factored in the accident, hits and kills an elderly woman”.  
Again, when you claim that ratia means: “to understand Alquran/terminologies by using the context, tasreef, core message of quran,appropriate selection of meanings of words from lexicon and grammar”, you’re rendering an “interpretation” of the term and not a “translation” of the term. I say this, because there is no ayat , containing the term ratila, which would make one define it as you have. Perhaps there are other terms which would, but not ratila.  
Moazzam: Remember "to read correctly" is one of the requerments, but we have to understand Alquran by RATAL ALQURAN. Read the verses 25/32,73/4, it means to understand the message(Alquran/terminologies) by using the context,tasreef, core message of quran,appropriate selection of meanings of words from lexicon and grammar  
 
Dhulqarnain: I have no problem with using context, tasreef, dictionaries/lexicons, and grammar. Could you though define what you mean by “core message Al-Quran” ?  
Moazzam: Thats good, the core message of Alquran is to protect the human rights( through established islamic state where allah's nizam eraboobiyat among the mankind must be executed, same as in rest of the universe).  
. Dhulqarnain:I can’t agree with you here that Alquran cant be traslated (because it is written in its unique farmate/style).Because Allah, at least from my study of Al-Quran, has placed no restrictions on one translating His Ayats and terminologies. Allah makes no mention of a “farmate/style”. I will need an ayat which definitively supports your assertion.  
Moazzam: I agree with Sister Nrgis's reply in this regard.  
Dhulqarnain: As a nabi, “Muhammad did not “teach” Al-Quran nor did he interpret it. His teaching was only to recite clearly and accurately what he was commanded. The Messenger—Al-Quran, does not interpret, it teaches. We, as messengers, meaning, we bring to people’s attention Al-Quran only and alone, meaning, we bring them an accurate translation of Al-Quran, but not an interpretation of Al-Quran.  
Moazzam: You misunderstood me, I don't agree with HADITH BE CONSIDERD as the interpretation of Quran by Mohammad.  
We don't rely on orthodox translatios because we differ with them at following grounds,It is requested you,please try to understand/discuss the following Quranic terminologies, prior to traslate/interpret Alquran  
1) propethood, Wahy ,Nuzool.  
2) Rasool/Nabi/ Imam/Hadi,Mohammad (the Khatim Annabiyeen).  
3) Alkitab as a book beyond time and space.  
4)Names of the prophets as a generic tamplates to have the same respective role models in the societies in each era.  
5) All the characters written in Alkitab, like Abu lahab, ashaab alfeel,haroot,Maroot, Firaoh,Yajooj Maajooj,Haman, etc etc are also the generic tamplets, which could be seen in the societies in each era.  
6) The Quranic terminologies like Yahood, Nasara, momin, muslim, kafir, youm al aakhirah, youm addin, Yaum alqiyamah,Malaikah, sheitan, Jinn,Salah, saom, Zina, Fuhash, etc etc  
Dhulqarnain: I dont agree with your stance that " See the verse 75/16, the rasool/Nabi/Hadi/imam of the time must elaborate the Quranic message according to his time/era.Therefore, the continuation of Risalat has been mentioned in Alquran. yes,alquran explains itself,and the prophet of the time will elaborate /explain it to implement according to his era"  
I rejected your stance because, this is the exact same position of the Ritualist so-called Muslims. They claim that the prophet, whom they identify as “Muhammad”, must explain/teach and make clear Al-Quran, hence, the necessity of the hadiths and sunna. You’re claiming that the prophet, of any era, must explain/teach and make clear Al-Quran, hence, the necessity of his hadith and sunna. These are the exact same positions. The only difference is, the Riualist so-called Muslims have named the prophet who is to explain/teach and make clear the Al-Quran, whereas, your prophet of any era remains unnamed.  
Moazzam: I dont agree with Mullahs Ahadith presented as the elaboration of Quran by Mohammad.  
Any Momin who is correctly conveying the true message of Alkitab could be called Rasool and you may recognize him with his guts and qualities( the attrebutes of rasool written in alkitab) in your society, your teacher of quran who tought you the true Quranic message is rasool for you, could be many at a time.  
Dhulqarnain:Aastana, has been more involved with interpretation, which invariably is conjecturing, rather than translation which is accurate reporting. Interpretation is contrary to the teaching of Al-Quran. For example, the translation of Allah is—The God. Some here at aastana have now interpreted “Allah” to mean the Islamic State. Now, there is no ayat that can be posted that will translate Allah as the Islamic State, hence, this is an interpretation.  
 
***Moazzam; We are trying to provide the true sense of the message written in Alkitab/Alquran by ratal.***  
 
Dhulqarnain: SENSE: .Intellectual interpretation; an intuitive or acquired perception or ability to estimate; a discerning awareness.  
Moazzam: I have cleared my position above in this regard.  
 
 
Comments by: moazzam On: 8/30/2011

 
58.Salam to all Aastana family, readers and participants,  
 
I have been away for a while and now I can see how I was missed! So peoplesssssss am back and ready for business, therefore call it a warning or just a slight tap on the wrist, I would remind All to conduct themselves in a civil manner, ( you know who you are ) :)) Imagine this is your house and you have invited people to discuss the Quran, no matter how different their or your own opnions, treat others civil and expect the same.  
 
Agree to disagree.
Comments by: Maniza On: 8/31/2011

 
59.

Maniza aaaaaaa gaye maniza aaaaaaaa gaye maniza aaaaa gaye  
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oScuxx2j04k  
 
welcome back, we all missed you a lot :-D Have been waiting for you, they have all been bad to me :( Hope you missed us too:-D

Comments by: Nargis On: 8/31/2011

 
60.Peace Moazzam,  
 
DHULQARNAIN:Aastana, has been more involved with interpretation, which invariably is conjecturing, rather than translation which is accurate reporting. Interpretation is contrary to the teaching of Al-Quran. For example, the translation of Allah is—The God. Some here at aastana have now interpreted “Allah” to mean the Islamic State. Now, there is no ayat that can be posted that will translate Allah as the Islamic State, hence, this is an interpretation.  
 
***MOAZZAM; We are trying to provide the true sense of the message written in Alkitab/Alquran by ratal.***  
 
I’m still not certain what you mean by ratil, but I think you will agree with me when I say that the folIowing items are necessary in studying Al-Quran in order to see what it is explaining.  
 
a) bring ayat (s) of proof.  
b) context:  
c) tasreef,  
d) dictionaries/lexicons  
e) grammar.  
 
Dhulqarnain: I can’t agree with you here that Alquran cant be traslated (because it is written in its unique farmate/style). Because Allah, at least from my study of Al-Quran, has placed no restrictions on one translating His Ayats and terminologies. Allah makes no mention of a “farmate/style”. I will need an ayat which definitively supports your assertion. …However, "sensing" is not concrete fact, but opinion, conjecture and interpreting. Can you give me the ayat which contains the word "sense", as fact...?  
 
***Moazzam: I agree with Sister Nargis's reply in this regard.***  
 
***NARGIS: Do you have any better suggestions, another word that replaces sense? We use the word “sense” to describe the meaning, connotation, and wisdom applied in the message through the aya’s. Conveyed by the Qur'an, i.e. what is the substance, TRUE MESSAGE, MEANING conveyed by the message?***  
 
I do have have a better suggestion,Moazzam—17:36. Let’s replace “sense” with the term Allah wants us to use when delivering His Message—ILM=knowledge/fact.  
 
17:36 And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge/ILM. Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, of all of these it will be asked.  
 
“Sense”, as described by Nargis and supported by you, is:  
 
SENSE: to be e aware that something is the case without being able to define exactly how one knows.  
 
Which is:  
 
CONJECTURE: statement or an idea which is unproven, but is thought to be true; a guess; a supposition based upon incomplete evidence.  
 
OPINION: is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.  
 
KNOW: be absolutely certain or sure about something.  
 
For example, in conveying to someone that 9 plus 37=46, you don’t have to have “a sense” that 9 plus 37=46. You don’t sense this, because you know it to be the fact and you can prove it. 17:36 is commanding the muslim to have certitude not a “a sense” before delivering the Message. To understand and to deliver the Message accurately, the individual cannot have a “sense” of the thing, but rather, the facts/knowledge of the thing”. Now, if you are proffering something for another’s consideration or “fleshing” something out and have not arrived at a factual conclusion, then, certainly, you can say of the subject in discussion that..”it is my sense that…”  
 
So, bottomline, “sense of” is not “the fact of”…agreed.  
 
Do you see what I mean, here? So, when you write:  
 
***MOAZZAM: “the core message of Alquran is to protect the human rights( through established islamic state where allah's nizam eraboobiyat among the mankind must be executed, same as in rest of the universe”***  
 
Now, is your above claim your “sense” of what Al-Quran is stating…or is it the ILM/fact of what the Al-Quran is stating? If it is the latter, then you must provide the ayat(s) which makes this clear, otherwise, as with Nargis’s claim than prophets are ongoing up to the present, your claim, as well, remains in the realm of sense, conjecture, opinion, but not fact/ilm. Agreed?  
 
DHULQARNAIN-“They claim that the prophet, whom they identify as “Muhammad”, must explain/teach and make clear Al-Quran, hence, the necessity of the hadiths and sunna.”  
 
***NARGIS: They say the Prophet made ADDITIONAL explanation, which is not to be found in the Quran but in Hadith.We are saying what the Quran say, that he explained the Quran BY the Quran. His explanations are in the Quran, not outside. Make clear the Quran means to make it understandable to everyone***  
 
***Moazzam: I dont agree with Mullahs Ahadith presented as the elaboration of Quran by Mohammad.***  
 
***MOAZZAM: Any Momin who is correctly conveying the true message of Alkitab could be called Rasool and you may recognize him with his guts and qualities( the attrebutes of rasool written in alkitab) in your society, your teacher of quran who tought you the true Quranic message is rasool for you, could be many at a time.***  
 
Now, you’ve changed from…nabi…to raool! Very good! Allah says that "He ever sending messengers". This why your’s and Nargi’s clainm that allah is still sending prophets cannot possibly be correct. Why  
 
1. Allah states that he’s ever sending messengers  
 
2. allah has not stated that he’s ever sending nabi  
 
3. for you or nargy to say of allah what he did not say of himself is unquranic and, would be shirk.  
 
4. you cannot name even one prohet since the time of “Muhamamd”  
 
As a nabi, “Muhammad did not “teach” Al-Quran nor did he interpret it. His teaching was only to recite clearly and accurately what he was commanded—the ayats. The Messenger—Al-Quran, does not interpret, it teaches. We, as messengers, meaning, we bring to people’s attention Al-Quran only and alone, meaning, we bring them an accurate translation of Al-Quran, but not an interpretation of Al-Quran. Can you then, provide an ayat where the Prophet was teaching/explaining/interpreting Al-Quran with other than the revealed ayats?  
 
***MOAZZAM: You misunderstood me, I don't agree with HADITH BE CONSIDERD as the interpretation of Quran by Mohammad. We don't rely on orthodox translatios because we differ with them at following grounds,It is requested you,please try to understand/discuss the following Quranic terminologies, prior to traslate/interpret Alquran.***  
 
You miss my point. I’m not claiming that you support in any way the hadith of the Ritualist so-called Muslims. The following is your claim/position:  
 
1.“yes,alquran explains itself,and the prophet of the time will ELABORATE/EXPLAIN it to implement according to his era”; and  
 
2.“the rasool/Nabi/Hadi/imam of the time MUST ELABORATE the Quranic message according to his time/era. Therefore, the continuation of Risalat has been mentioned in Alquran”.  
 
The “prophet of any era” will be doing the same thing that Ritualist so-called Muslims claim “Muhammad” did,—explain/teach/ELABORATE on Al-Quran, hence, the need for the prophet of the era hadiths as well. So, whether “Muhammad explained/taught/elaborated on Al-Quran or the prophet of the era explains/teaches/elaborates on Al-Quran it doesn’t matter. In either case it is Allah who explains, teaches, elaborated on His Quran not His prophets or any others.  
 
ELABORATE: To express at greater length or in greater detail: marked by intricate and often excessive detail; complicated; to work out carefully or minutely; develop to perfection; to add details to; to expand.  
 
As I said in several posts to Nargis, and now to you, if there were prophets at the time of “Muhammad” and ever since then, then you are obligated to prove that claim by naming at least one prophet since the time of “Muhammad”. Nargis has admitted that she cannot do this. If you cannot do this then your claim cannot be valid, because it cannot be proven via Al-Quran, history, or current event. Do you agree?  
 
Let’s look at three of your statements.  
 
MOAZZAM STATEMENT 1: “yes,alquran explains itself,and the prophet of the time will elaborate /explain it to implement according to his era”  
 
MOAZZAM STATEMENT 2: “the rasool/Nabi/Hadi/imam of the time must elaborate the Quranic message according to his time/era. Therefore, the continuation of Risalat has been mentioned in Alquran”,  
 
MOAZZAM STATEMENT 3: Any Momin who is correctly conveying the true message of Alkitab could be called Rasool and you may recognize him with his guts and qualities( the attrebutes of rasool written in alkitab) in your society, your teacher of quran who tought you the true Quranic message is rasool for you, could be many at a time.  
 
In statement #1 you state: the prophet of the time will elaborate /explain it…  
 
In statement #2 you state: the rasool/Nabi/Hadi/imam of the time must elaborate the Quranic message.  
 
In statement #3 Any Momin who is correctly conveying the true message of Alkitab could be called Rasool and you may recognize him with his guts and qualities…  
 
Statement #3 is what Al-Quran supports and proves: 44:5 A command from Us — truly We are ever sending messengers —  
 
This we can agree on.  
 
Statements #1 and #3 directly contradict each other, because #3 can be proven via Al-Quran, history, and current event, whereas, #1 cannot. Statement #2 is not correct either, because it contains nabi and imam along with rasool.  
 
*** “MOAZZAM:Thats good, the core message of Alquran is to protect the human rights…” DHULQARNAIN- Could you though define what you mean by “core message Al-Quran” ?  
 
*** Thats good, the core message of Alquran is to protect the human rights( through established islamic state where allah's nizam eraboobiyat among the mankind must be executed, same as in rest of the universe). ***  
 
I cannot agree with you here. The core message of Al-Quran is 6:106, because if this ayat isn’t properly understood and obeyed one will remain in shirk until death and then be consigned to Hell.  
 
6:106 Follow that which is revealed to you from thy Lord — there is no god but He; and turn away from the muskrikeen/polytheists.  
 
But even if human rights was the core message, then we must, via Al-Quran, prove all that which we assert, otherwise, we will mislead them and undermine their human rights. Do you agree? If so, what ayat defines the core message of Al-Quran as being ---“protect human rights” through established islamic state where allah's nizam eraboobiyat among the mankind must be executed, same as in rest of the universe?  
 
Remember, no more “sensing”, but ilm/knowledge/fact/ayat(s).  
 
Looking forward to your reply. I would like to hear from you and not others on your behalf.  
 
Btw, exactly what is: “nizam eraboobiyat”? Please do not link me to other threads. I went through them and I am still not clear what this is. Thank you.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 8/31/2011

 
61.As I said in several posts to Nargis, and now to you, if there were prophets at the time of “Muhammad” and ever since then, then you are obligated to prove that claim by naming at least one prophet since the time of “Muhammad”. Nargis has admitted that she cannot do this. If you cannot do this then your claim cannot be valid, because it cannot be proven via Al-Quran, history, or current event. Do you agree? DHULQARNAIN  
 

Where in the Quran does it say 33:40 is valid ONLY if names of the prophets living at the time of Mohammed are mentioned, please refer to the ayah  
 
Why didn't the Quran mention their names?  
 
How many Nabis who wsn’t Rusools, are mentioned in the Quran?  
 
SENSE  
 
sensed, sens·ing, sens·es  
1. To become aware of; perceive.  
2. To grasp; understand.comprehend  
free dictionary online  
 
com·pre·hend·ed, com·pre·hend·ing, com·pre·hends  
1. To take in the meaning, nature, or importance of; grasp.  
 
Sense= meaning  
 
mean·ing  
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.  
synonyms of Sense (some of them)  
 
signification, stuff, substance, thrust, understanding,Signification, Essence  
 
It should be clear what we mean when we use the word sense.

Comments by: Nargis2 On: 8/31/2011

 
62.Brother Dhulqurnain and members,  
 
It is very important to start a disucssion agreeing to the objective of Al-Quran. Arguments and counter arguments is a non-ending process without the objectives being agreed.  
I want to request brother Dhulqurnain to discuss/agree with the objective of Al-Quran and go from thr. Usless discussions/arguments/criticism on personalities can be observed everywhere so why waste time on this blog.  
It is really frustrating to note people putting their energies to defeat arguments rather than involve in a discussions leading to an output.  
 
We should ask these simple questions to ourselves  
 
1. Why we need to study Al-Quran?  
2. What we want to acheive with this Al-kitab?  
3. What impact/ role it will/can play in our lives?  
4. What basic things/values Al-Quran want us to follow?  
 
I want to divert your attention to one of the ayaats which you can find everywhere in Quran. Dr.Sahab explained it before  
 
 
وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الأنْهَارُ كُلَّمَا رُزِقُوا مِنْهَا مِنْ ثَمَرَةٍ رِزْقًا قَالُوا هَذَا الَّذِي رُزِقْنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَأُتُوا بِهِ مُتَشَابِهًا وَلَهُمْ فِيهَا أَزْوَاجٌ مُطَهَّرَةٌ وَهُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ  
سورۃ البقرہ آیت نمبر ۲۵  
Give good news to those who are الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا (believer of peace) and do good deeds* that for them are the gardens under their control, whenever they were** given fruits from it they said*** this is the same what we were given before and also similar to them , and for them are the companions**** with purity and character, and they will live in it forever.  
 
* Please note that the word is " وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ" which means those deeds which produce صلاحیت i.e. capability in others, makes اصلاح i.e. produce good qualities in others, and when two people have differences makes صلاح i.e. clear the differences between them.  
 
Regards  
Waseem
Comments by: waseemameer On: 9/1/2011

 
63.Dhulqarnain: As I said in several posts to Nargis, and now to you, if there were prophets at the time of “Muhammad” and ever since then, then you are obligated to prove that claim by naming at least one prophet since the time of “Muhammad”. Nargis has admitted that she cannot do this. If you cannot do this then your claim cannot be valid, because it cannot be proven via Al-Quran, history, or current event. Do you agree?  
Moazzam!Read the link below carefully, hope,you will find the answer.  
,http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1685#COM8686  
Brother Dhulqarnai; please go through some basic terminologies prior to involve further in "discussion with no out come" but you over looked as usual. I request you again please discuss/understand the said terminologies, other wise you will not be able to understand the AASTANA VERSION, whereas we have altogethr rejected the orthodox translation based on wrong meanings of the said Quranic terminologies..  
Comments by: moazzam On: 9/1/2011

 
64.Peace Moazzam,  
 
***Go through the following verses to get involved in a very impotent discussion regarding " Khatem annabiyyeen" خاتم النبیین  
,3/164,2/129,9//128,40/34,28/59,39/71,3/101,20/134,23/32 ,14/4***  
 
Moazzam, you’re confusing/mixing up prophet with messenger. None of the following ayats makes any mention of prophets/nabiyeen. They are talking about messengers/rasools. “Muhammad’s title is not—Khatim Rasools, is it? So why these ayats, then? You see, Moazzam, as with Nargis, you are now coming to grips with the reality that your position is not accurate and now you want to make prophet/nabi and messenger/rasool equivalent terms . Prophet and messenger are not equivalent terms. As I’ve pointed out in prior posts, not all prophets (i.e. Ibrahim) were “messenger-prophets (i.e. “Muhammad”). You and Nargis know you cannot prove there were other prophets with “Muhammad” nor can you prove there are any today, because you cannot name any or point to any. Allah, The Lord of the Worlds, appoints prophets—not other prophets.  
 
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.  
 
Further more, whereas Allah has made it crystal clear in ayat 44:5 that “He is ever sending messengers”, there is no equivalent ayat in regard to prophets, hence, you cannot make just make it up and say that prophets are an ongoing/not ending process. As I said earlier in this post, all of the following ayats support khatama as ending something/closing something and not giving approval to something.  
 
44:5 A command from Us — truly We are ever sending messengers —  
 
2:129 Our Lord, and raise up in them a Messenger from among them who shall recite to them Thy messages and teach them the Book and the Wisdom, and purify them. Surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise.  
 
3:101 And how can you disbelieve while to you are recited the messages of Allah, and among you is His Messenger? And whoever holds fast to Allah, he indeed is guided to a right path.  
 
3:164 Certainly Allah conferred a favour on the believers when He raised among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His messages and purifying them, and teaching them the Book and the Wisdom, although before that they were surely in manifest error.  
 
9:128 Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, most solicitous for you, to the believers (he is) compassionate, merciful.  
 
14:4 And We sent no messenger but with the language of his 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.  
 
20:134 And if We had destroyed them with chastisement before it, they would have said: Our Lord, why didst Thou not send to us a messenger, so that we might have followed Thy messages before we met disgrace and shame?  
 
23:32 So We sent among them a messenger from among them, saying: Serve Allah — you have no God other than Him. Will you not guard against evil?  
 
28:59 And thy Lord never destroyed the towns, until He had raised in their metropolis a messenger, reciting to them Our messages, and We never destroyed the towns except when their people were iniquitous.  
 
39:71 And those who disbelieve are driven to hell in companies; until, when they come to it, its doors are opened, and the keepers of it say to them: Did not there come to you messengers from among you reciting to you the messages of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this day of yours? They say: Yea. But the word of punishment proved true against the disbelievers.  
 
40:34 And Joseph indeed came to you before with clear arguments, but you ever remained in doubt as to what he brought you; until, when he died, you said: Allah will never raise a messenger after him. Thus does Allah leave him in error who is a prodigal, a doubter —  
 
KHATMA: to seal; put a signet upon; stamp; imprint; end; complete a thing; finish. Dictionary of the Quran, by Abdul Mannan Omar, pg. 148.  
 
SEAL: to fasten or close tightly by or as if by a seal: to shut close; to keep close; to make fast; to keep secure or secret; close off something.  
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/seal  
 
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Seal  
 
All of the following ayats , 33:40 included, are using khatama as defined above and not as you and Nargis claim:  
 
MOAZZAM: the power / authority to validate / appoint.  
 
***NARGIS: verse no 40 of sura 33 is declaring that Mohammad was the seal of the prophets , which simply means He was the appointing authority of other prophets…So when this verse was revealed to prophet Mohammad there were so many انبیاء and it is a non ending continuous process . ***  
 
Allah, in sealing their hearts means their intellects/understanding are shut down/closed off/fastened tightly from His Message. Not one of these ayats even remotely fits yours and Nargis’s definition. Likewise, 3:40, fits exactly with them! Allah, with “Muhammad”, closed/fastened/sealed/put an end to/ceased—the order of the prophethood, hence, his title, Khatim Nabiyeen.  
 
2:7 Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing; and there is a covering on their eyes, and for them is a grievous chastisement.  
 
6:46 Say: Have you considered that if Allah should take away your hearing and your sight and seal your hearts, who is the god besides Allah that can bring it to you? See how We repeat the messages yet they turn away!  
 
42:24 Or say they: He has forged a lie against Allah? So, if Allah please, He would seal thy heart (against them). And Allah blots out the falsehood and confirms the Truth with His words. Surely He is Knower of what is in the breasts.  
 
45:23 Seest thou him who takes his desire for his god, and Allah leaves him in error knowingly, and seals his hearing and his heart and puts a covering on his sight? Who can then guide him after Allah? Will you not mind?  
 
If Khatim Nabiyeen means anything other than “ End of the Prophets, then you must produce a name of a prophet living at the same time as “Muhammad” and one living or has been killed presently. If you can name an individual, then he must prove how he is, in fact, a prophet of Allah. There is no other way to make your case. You cannot have it both ways, meaning, you cannot deny that “Muhmmad” was the End of the Prophets, yet, provide no proof of other prophets. Please don’t susbstitute messenger/rasool for nabi/prophet. We are only talking about prophets not rasools. Allah has already ruled on ongoing rasools in 44:5  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 9/2/2011

 
65.Dear Dhulqarnain! I request you please read my post available at the link http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1685 to get to the point answer,Again you overlooked the Quranic terminologies even to discuss/understand .It is unjustice to delebrately over look the focul point of debate and insisting at your point with out reading the relevant meterial posted by us. Remember we have all togather rejected the old/orthodox translation, and trying to present the new one which is based on Ratal alquran, tasreef, context of the verses/subject, core message of Alquran, and lexicon/grammar as well.
Comments by: moazzam On: 9/2/2011

 
66.Peace Moazzam,  
 
Good, we’ve come down to the heart and the meat of the matter, now. Don’t worry, we will get to ALL of your terminologies, but for now we will focus on just one—nabi/prophet.  
 
NARGIS: Mohammad is not a proper noun rather a character, Mohammad could be any NABI/ RASOOL who possesses the attributes of Ahmad as mentioned in verse 61/6.  
 
NARGIS:Mohammad as a NABI /RASOOL has the power / authority to validate / appoint ambiya in his time as mentioned in verse 33/40…  
 
Moazaam, although you are a brillinat individual, you’ve made no brilliant statement on this occasion. Both you and Nargis are attempting make the terms prophet/nabi and messenger/rasool EQIVALENT terms while they are absolutely not equivalent terms. The forward “/” symbol you use is another symbol for equivalency.  
 
It doesn’t matter how you define “Mohammad”. This term, along with rasool/messenger, are not the central terms of this discussion. Nabi/prophet is the central term/issue of the discussion. Let’s keep our focus; it’s an excellent discussion.  
 
Here are your problems associated with your assertions regarding nabi/prophet.  
 
1. All prophets were not “messenger prophets”. Ibrahim, Ishaq, Ayyub,, for examples, were prophets. Now, Ishmael, Musa, Jesus, for examples, were messenger-prophets. So there is no making messenger and prophet equivalent terms.  
 
2. Allah has named some of His prophets and not named others. Can you name the prophets which He did not? Can you give name to that which He didn’t?  
 
3. If you claim that Allah raised prophets at the same time as “Muhammad” and that they exist into the present, then you must at least do as Allah did and name one prophet, not all of them, just one in order to prove your case. Otherwise you have no case.  
 
4. Whoever you name, past or present, how do we know if that individual is truly a prophet without Allah verifying it?  
 
5. Suppose someone, after reading your’s and Nargis’s assertion on prophets, comes forth next week and says “ My, that sounds like me; I’m a prophet! How would you, Nargis, or anyone have certitude that that individual, is, in fact, a prophet? How will you prove it? Because unless you and that individual can prove it you have no case for onging prophets.  
 
6. Moazzam, why don’t either you or Qamar or both claim that you’re prophets? What, effectively, disqualifies you?  
 
7. Allah, in ayat 44:5, states that “He’s ever sending messengers/rasool...Now, when you and Nargis state …“prophets/nabiyeen is a non ending continuous process”, you are making the same claim that Allah is, except, you’re making it about prophets, something He which has not stated. Did Allah give you the authority to make such a claim that prophets are ongoing? If not, then you are Nargis have put yourselves on the same level as Allah with your claim. Listen, you simply cannot, per ayat 7:33, make unauthorized claims about Allah, His Angels, His Book, His Messengers, His Prophets or His Deen:  
 
7:33 Say: My Lord forbids/makes haram only indecencies,…and that you associate with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and that you say of Allah what you know not.  
 
When you stated……“prophets/nabiyeen is a non ending continuous process”, you associated something with Allah for which you must now, via His Words/Al-Quran prove, otherwise, you’ve asserted something without authority and your assertion would then need to be withdrawn.  
 
There is no way out of this. You have no case regarding this particular terminology —Khatim nabiyeen.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 9/2/2011

 
67.Brother Dhulqarnain!  
Moazaam,. Both you and Nargis are attempting make the terms prophet/nabi and messenger/rasool EQIVALENT terms while they are absolutely not equivalent terms. The forward “/” symbol you use is another symbol for equivalency.  
Moazzam: This clearly indicating that you didn’t read our previous posts relevant to this perticulor matter.There is difference between the position of Rasool and Nabi, remember every Nabi is rasool as well, but every rasool is not nabi.Try to understand the appropriate use of symbol “/” in my elaboration, it doesn’t mean always equivalent.  
Dhulqarnain: It doesn’t matter how you define “Mohammad”. This term, along with rasool/messenger, are not the central terms of this discussion. Nabi/prophet is the central term/issue of the discussion. Let’s keep our focus; it’s an excellent discussion.  
Moazzam:Mohammad is/will be/was the rasool and khatim annabiyeen as described in verse 33/40.  
 
Dhulqarnain:Here are your problems associated with your assertions regarding nabi/prophet.  
1. All prophets were not “messenger prophets”. Ibrahim, Ishaq, Ayyub,, for examples, were prophets. Now, Ishmael, Musa, Jesus, for examples, were messenger-prophets. So there is no making messenger and prophet equivalent terms.  
Moazzam: This is the orthodox stance, we don’t accept it at all. There is only difference between Nabi and rasool.  
 
Dhulqarnain: 2. Allah has named some of His prophets and not named others. Can you name the prophets which He did not? Can you give name to that which He didn’t?  
Moazzam: You have to understand the difference between the “names(proper noun) and the eternal attributes of characters” described in Quran (as a generic tamplets), the role model of societies would be based upon these generic tamplates.(first discuss this matter if not understood) then go a head)  
Dhulqarnain: 3. If you claim that Allah raised prophets at the same time as “Muhammad” and that they exist into the present, then you must at least do as Allah did and name one prophet, not all of them, just one in order to prove your case. Otherwise you have no case.  
4: Whoever you name, past or present, how do we know if that individual is truly a prophet without Allah verifying it?  
Moazzam: I don’t see Mohammad in present up to my knowledge; Mohammad could be recognized in any society in any era by his attributes mentioned in Quran (the matter of centuries not a days), but Rasool could be many in numbers at a time, even in our societies as well (like Your and my teachers of Quran and others as well, if they qualify the qualities and attributes mentioned in quran for the prophet hood)  
Dhulqarnain: 5. Suppose someone, after reading yours and Nargis’s assertion on prophets, comes forth next week and says “ My, that sounds like me; I’m a prophet! How would you, Nargis, or anyone have certitude that that individual is, in fact, a prophet? How will you prove it? Because unless you and that individual can prove it you have no case for onging prophets.  
Moazzam: I replied the same question in above paragraph.  
Dhulqarnain; 6. why don’t either you or Qamar or both claim that you’re prophets? What, effectively, disqualifies you?  
Moazzam: The prophets are not supper human, they are just ordinary people, but Allah conceives in their mind(nuzool) the true interpretation of Alkitab on the basis of their sincerity to find out the truth while pondering into Alkitan and the observations in the universe.Rest of your question has been answered in above paragraph.  
7. Allah, in ayat 44:5, states that “He’s ever sending messengers/rasool...Now, when you and Nargis state …“prophets/nabiyeen is a non ending continuous process”, you are making the same claim that Allah is, except, you’re making it about prophets, something He which has not stated. Did Allah give you the authority to make such a claim that prophets are ongoing? If not, then you are Nargis have put yourselves on the same level as Allah with your claim. Listen, you simply cannot, per ayat 7:33, make unauthorized claims about Allah, His Angels, His Book, His Messengers, His Prophets or His Deen:  
Moazzam: The continuation of risaalat /Nabuwat has been describer in details in other threads, you didn’t bother to read at all. Because you read orthodox English translations, therefore seems confuse between PROPHET HOOD AND RASOOL.  
Dhulqarnain: When you stated……“prophets/nabiyeen is a non ending continuous process”, you associated something with Allah for which you must now, via His Words/Al-Quran prove, otherwise, you’ve asserted something without authority and your assertion would then need to be withdrawn.  
Moazzam: We have given may many references from Quran, but you never bother to even read or at least discuss at this topic. It is advised please read /go through again in details, I sure the matter will be cleared to you.  
 
Comments by: moazzam On: 9/3/2011

 
68.

And the end, there is no need to answer these posts any more. He got the answers but he is not reading them. We are not here to convince, and there is no spoon feeding. He says Ibrahim is prophet but not messenger, W T *? And then the christian way of thinking, only that God is replaced by Allah and reaction after the line is waiting for a "halleluya " instead of "Jazakallah/mashallah":-

""Whoever you name, past or present, how do we know if that individual is truly a prophet without Allah verifying it""

WT4 is this ?? Look at Another judeochristianmullaish fatwah kafir attitude

:-

you are making the same claim that Allah is, except, you’re making it about prophets, something He which has not stated. Did Allah give you the authority to make such a claim that prophets are ongoing? If not, then you are Nargis have put yourselves on the same level as Allah with your claim.

?

again WT4? You don't even know what a nabi is and what a Rusool is, your here claiming that Ibrahim is a prophet not a messenger, and you know Allah? OUUUWWWH, Will Satan take my soul? Jesus won't saaaave me? No salvation for me ?---got Damn so boring and so...insignificant - still hanging there , at this level? why is not a fatwah club joined and you can sing halleluyah Naats "happy dayyyy" with mullah 's while clapping hands and rolling your head from side to side?  
 
Here people want to STUDY, put your fatwas and scary threats in your pocket and use it on people who are living in a fantasy castle & FOLLOW NAMES blindly.  
 
He doesn't want to understand and he didn't read what we wrote. There shouldn't be any spoon feeding or convincing,especially people who never answer questions or read anything. but want to kill time with their own orthodox crap. Where are the 80 lashes, they should be exercised on people who don't read and don't put any effort in understanding...That is waste of time -so the end and everyone who want to can follow their orthodox translations. If wished, people can search on the forum for the words and read through carefully. This is really boring, same thing over and over again

 
Comments by: Nargis On: 9/3/2011

 
69.Peace Moazzam,  
 
Dhulqarnain: It doesn’t matter how you define “Mohammad”. This term, along with rasool/messenger, are not the central terms of this discussion. Nabi/prophet is the central term/issue of the discussion. Let’s keep our focus; it’s an excellent discussion.  
 
Moazzam:Mohammad is/will be/was the rasool and khatim annabiyeen as described in verse 33/40.  
 
We have no disagreement there. “Muhammad”, don’t forget, was messenger-prophet.  
 
And, so, once again, we arrive at the heart of the issue.  
 
Dhulqarnain: If you claim that Allah raised prophets at the same time as “Muhammad” and that they exist into the present, then you must at least do as Allah did and name one prophet, not all of them, just one in order to prove your case. Otherwise you have no case. Whoever you name, past or present, how do we know if that individual is truly a prophet without Allah verifying it? Suppose someone, after reading yours and Nargis’s assertion on prophets, comes forth next week and says “ My, that sounds like me; I’m a prophet! How would you, Nargis, or anyone have certitude that that individual is, in fact, a prophet? How will you prove it? Because unless you and that individual can prove it you have no case for onging prophets.  
 
MOAZZAM: I don’t see Mohammad in present up to my knowledge; Mohammad could be recognized in any society in any era by his attributes mentioned in Quran (the matter of centuries not a days), but Rasool could be many in numbers at a time, even in our societies as well (like Your and my teachers of Quran and others as well, if they qualify the qualities and attributes mentioned in quran for the prophet hood).  
 
We are not talking about rasool (s), we are talking about nabi (s). They are different things, to wit:  
 
22:52 And We never sent a messenger or a prophet before thee but when he desired,...  
 
Of course, and I have already stated as much that, anyone bringing the Quran only an alone message to others is a rasool/messenger “of” Allah, but none of us can claim prophet status…unless you are willing to.  
 
Br. Moazzam, if you, Qamar, Yellow-Cow, Waseemameer, and Junaid, for examples, do not qualify for “prophethood…then who does? If you are claiming that these nabis are just ordinary folks then why has not one of them, since the time of Muhammad and right up to this day, not come forth and announced their prophet status? Why haven’t one on them, in all of this time, been identified and certified as a prophet of Allah by others? I still cannot understand what disqualifies you and Qamar and the others from this position, can you? Or, what disqualifies you and the others from at least identifying someone, past or present, who is a prophet from Allah, can you?  
 
Here, once again, is Naris’s original statement on 8/5/11  
 
NARGIS: 3:21. Verily! those who reject the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, ... announce to them a painful torment. In this verse the verbs used are not in past tense ,the verbs are یکفرون یقتلون These words can either be translated in present tense or future tense . these words can in no way be translated into past tense . So when this verse was revealed to prophet Mohammad there were so many انبیاء and it is a non ending continuous process .  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=40&QID=1576  
 
On 8/26/11, Nargis, as you have done now, admitted that she cannot name even one prophet from ANY era, past or present.  
 
NARGIS: 3:21 does NOT mention any name, so I cant produce names from myself”..  
 
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=40&QID=1618  
 
 
Moazzam: I DON’T SEE MOHAMMAD IN PRESENT UP TO MY KNOWLEDGE; Mohammad could be recognized in any society in any era by his attributes mentioned in Quran (the matter of centuries not a days), but Rasool could be many in numbers at a time, even in our societies as well (like Your and my teachers of Quran and others as well, if they qualify the qualities and attributes mentioned in quran for the prophet hood).  
 
 
Of course you can’t see PROPHET “Muhammad”—he’s dead right along with the rest of THE PROPHETS. You see, neither you nor Nargis, by your own admissions, can bring a single name of a prophet of Allah since Muhammad, thus, making your assertion of prophets at that time of Muhammad and ongoing prophets since Muhammad, completely unfounded and without merit.  
 
The Bottonlines:  
 
Bottomline 1 Both you and Nargis have admitted that you cannot bring one single name of any prophet since “Muhammad”, period.  
 
Bottomline 2 Given that neither you nor Nargis nor any of the others, can name a prophet since Muhammad, then Muhammad, if for no other reason, is by default, the last of the prophets/al-khatim nabiyeen.  
 
Bottomline 3 Allah says that “He’s ever sending messengers” (ayat 44:5). There is no nabi/prophet in this ayat, hence, you cannot add nabi/prophet to it in order to make it appear that Allah is also ever sending nabi/prophets.  
 
Bottomline 4 Telling me to look at terminologies and other “explained things” , that you reject this and you reject that, here’s a link, orthodox translations, I just don’t understand, etc., etc., etc, will not produce/ aid you in identifying any names of any prophets past, present or future since the prophet to whom Al-Quran (suras 2-114) was given, “Muhammad”.  
 
Bottomline 5 Neither you nor Nargis nor any member here, would EVER identify ANYONE past, present or future—as a nabi from Allah, unless of course Al-Quran verified it, now would you? You wouldn’t, because bottomline…you would not be able to prove it beyond doubt. Yes? No?  
 
Bottomline 6 As Quran only and alone people we can ill-afford to bring arguments as Nargis and you have brought. We are the super-minority on the earth, hence, our arguments must be air-tight if we are to prove that the Ritualist so-called Muslims, the Jews, the Christians, and whoever else, are incorrect in their arguments. Would either of you accept an argument if your opponent could not prove it? Imagine, if you will, you and the others speaking in front of scholars, academics, professionals, and university students. How do you think you and the others would be received if you presented your assertion that, there were prophets at the time of Muhammad and ever since then, and then tell them…”but I/we can’t name even one, though”? What do you think their response would be? Well, I’ll tell you what I would say…  
 
“How can you accept and ask us to accept that there were prophets at the time of “Muhammad” and ever since then, but you cannot name even one?! What you are doing and what you are asking us to do, is to follow/accept your assertion blindly as you have no proof to back it up. Allah in ayat 17:36 makes haram/forbidden blind following, meaning, to accept anything, to believe anything, to follow anything without proof”.  
 
17:36 And do not follow that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.  
 
That would be my response to you and probably any other sound thinking individual as well, much less, scholars and academics of all walks of life.  
 
It is way past due for you and Nargis to admit that you are wrong on this issue of khatim nabiyeen/ayat 33:40 and ayat 3:21. You cannot prove your case now and you will never be able to prove it. What is so wrong in simply saying that you are mistaken on this issue?! Are you people lacking in that much ego strength?!  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 9/4/2011

 
70.Dhulqarnain: Nargis;as you have done now, admitted that she cannot name even one prophet from ANY era, past or present.  
Of course you can’t see PROPHET “Muhammad”—he’s dead right along with the rest of THE PROPHETS. You see, neither you nor Nargis, by your own admissions, can bring a single name of a prophet of Allah since Muhammad, thus, making your assertion of prophets at that time of Muhammad and ongoing prophets since Muhammad, completely unfounded and without merit.  
Moazzam: we said time and again in our previous posts, that, Allah described in Alkitab the details( their attributes, signs) to recognize the Rasool and Nabi in each era, why you are so specific to know their bio data, every one has to identify them by their qualification written in Alkitab.  
In fact, you didn’t read my post, where I given in detail the appointment (khatim) of many ambiya (commanders) by Mohammad, read the relevant post again where I interpreted the Surah ahzab(you intentionally over looked). In same manners Mohammad of the time can/will oppoint the ambiya(commanding authoreties) in his era.Because you have not the clear concept of Nabi therefore, you are confused, and will remain un clear till you read the Quranic terminologies.  
 
Dhulqarnain: Telling me to look at terminologies and other “explained things” , that you reject this and you reject that, here’s a link, orthodox translations, I just don’t understand, etc., etc., etc,  
Moazzam: Again I “ANNOUNCE” that, we have rejected all most all orthodox translations (all of them based at same patterns of myth, dogmas and rituals), therefore, we are trying to understand the true sense of the divine message (Alkitab) by Alkitab it self.  
If you will keep on embraced the rejected ones, I 100% sure that, you will never be able to understand the “AASTANA’S VERSION AT ALL”  
 
I ADVISE YOU EITHER YOU HAVE TO RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION DESCRIBED IN YOUR FOLLOWING STATEMENT, THAT, “Telling me to look at terminologies and other “explained things” , that you reject this and you reject that, here’s a link, orthodox translations, I just don’t understand, etc., etc., etc,”  
OR YOU QUIT FROM AASTANA, SAVE YOUR TIME AND THE OTHERS VALUABLE TIME AS WELL, THE ENDDDDD. THANKS  
Comments by: moazzam On: 9/4/2011

 
71.Dhulqarnain,  
Can you please elaborate on your concept of nabi?  
You did not answer my questions which I asked in thread http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?QID=1577#COM8372. I am copying/pasting the same questions below for your reference.  
 
This is what I have learnt so far.  
1) Allah is continuously sending messengers.  
2) Messengers are sent in the language of the people.  
3) Messengers don't make any mistakes.  
4) Prophets can make mistakes.  
5) Quran was revealed in month of Ramadan.  
6) Quran was revealed all at once.  
7) Muhammad was both a prophet and a messenger at the same time.  
 
I have some followup questions.  
 
a) Was Muhammad a prophet after receiving complete Quran?  
 
b) Since Muhammad received the perfect deen therefore messengers before Muhammad e.g. Jesus were delivering imperfect messages. Were they commiting mistakes?  
 
c) Did Muhammad receive message as a prophet or as a messenger?  
 
d) "This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as deen" is only a small portion of 5:3. Do we need to understand the whole ayat or the "perfected your religion" part is enough?  
 
e) 33:40 starts with "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men". Do we need to understand it or the last portion of this ayat is sufficient to understand the message?  
 
Regards,  
Waqar
Comments by: Waqar On: 9/4/2011

 
72.

How can a nabi be Allahs nabi without risala?

Moazzam:- we said time and again in our previous posts, that, Allah described in Alkitab the details( their attributes, signs) to recognize the Rasool and Nabi in each era, why you are so specific to know their bio data, every one has to identify them by their qualification written in Alkitab.  
 
In fact, you didn’t read my post, where I given in detail the appointment (khatim) of many ambiya (commanders) by Mohammad, read the relevant post again where I interpreted the Surah ahzab(you intentionally over looked).

YES that's what I said, he is not reading. I asked:- Where in the Quran does it say 33:40 is valid ONLY if names of the prophets living at the time of Mohammed are mentioned, please refer to the ayah  
 
Why didn't the Quran mention their names?  
 
Same goes with brother Waqar,brother parwez and yellow cows questions (about month ramadan...),ignored

Comments by: Nargis On: 9/4/2011

 
73.Peace Moazzam,  
 
Then here’s my final word on the matter with you since you’ve chosen to end the discussion.  
 
22:52 And We never sent a messenger or a prophet before thee but when he desired,...  
 
Messenger and prophet, according to Allah are different terms. You must grasp this difference.  
 
Like it or not, want it or not, unless you can bring a name of someone who was a prophet at the time of “Muhammad” and a name of a prophet since then, because as Nargis says…”there were so many prophets at that time and it’s a non-ending process”, then you cannot meet your burden of proof. As you cannot meet your burden of proof, then Muhammad, if for no other reason, by default, remains Al-Khatim Nabiyeen/The Last of the Prophets... it’s just that simple. Bring a name of another prophet and prove it and then he will lose that status. From my time being here, the one thing that is clear about the mindset here is this...proof is demanded by the members. So why should I be any different in that regard? I’ll conclude our, for me anyway, excellent discussion, with my Bottomline 6 statement from my prior post. Thank you, Moazzam.  
 
Bottomline 6 As Quran only and alone people we can ill-afford to bring arguments as Nargis and you have brought. We are the super-minority on the earth, hence, our arguments must be air-tight if we are to prove that the Ritualist so-called Muslims, the Jews, the Christians, and whoever else, are incorrect in their arguments. Would either of you accept an argument if your opponent could not prove it? Imagine, if you will, you and the others speaking in front of scholars, academics, professionals, and university students. How do you think you and the others would be received if you presented your assertion that, there were prophets at the time of Muhammad and ever since then, and then tell them…”but I/we can’t name even one, though”? What do you think their response would be? Well, I’ll tell you what I would say…  
 
“How can you accept and ask us to accept that there were prophets at the time of “Muhammad” and ever since then, but you cannot name even one?! What you are doing and what you are asking us to do, is to follow/accept your assertion blindly as you have no proof to back it up. Allah in ayat 17:36 makes haram/forbidden blind following, meaning, to accept anything, to believe anything, to follow anything without proof”.  
 
17:36 And do not follow that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.  
 
That would be my response to you and probably any other sound thinking individual as well, much less, scholars and academics of all walks of life.  
 
Peace,  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 9/4/2011

 
74.THANKS MR. DHULQARNAIN. Wish you the best of luck.
Comments by: moazzam On: 9/4/2011

 
75.Waqar,  
 
***Can you please elaborate on your concept of nabi?***  
 
1. Prophets are chosen by Allah and not people:  
 
2:213 Mankind is a single nation. So ALLAH RAISED PROPHETS as bearers of good news and as warners, and He revealed with them the Book with truth, that it might judge between people concerning that in which they differed…  
 
19:30 He said: I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and MADE ME A PROPHET:  
 
 
 
2. Prophets are given a book or scripture:  
 
3:81 And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and Wisdom — then a Messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you…  
 
17:55 And thy Lord best knows those who are in the heavens and the earth. And certainly We made some of the prophets to excel others, and to David We gave the Zabur.  
 
 
3. Given some knowledge of the Unseen/given prophecies:  
 
2:33 He said: O Adam, inform them of their names. So when he informed them of their names, He said: Did I not say to you that I know what is unseen in the heavens and the earth? And I know what you manifest and what you hide.  
 
11:49 These are announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you, you did not know them you nor your people-- before this; therefore be patient; surely the end is for those who guard (against evil).  
 
 
4. Allah made a covenant with them:  
 
3:81 And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and Wisdom — then a Messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you shall believe in him, and you shall aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you.  
 
***a) Was Muhammad a prophet after receiving complete Quran?***  
 
What do you mean…after receiving complete Quran?  
 
***b) Since Muhammad received the perfect deen therefore messengers before Muhammad e.g. Jesus were delivering imperfect messages. Were they commiting mistakes?***  
 
The PART of the deen which they had was perfect. I) They didn’t have the completed deen as is discussed in 5:3; 2) The former prophets were sent to their own people, the exception being Yunus. The Last Prophet/Al-Khatim Nabiyeen, was sent with a Message both to his own people and the rest of mankind.  
 
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…  
 
***c) Did Muhammad receive message as a prophet or as a messenger?***  
 
Both. Allah defines him as one of the messenger-prophets 7:157  
 
7:157 Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel…  
 
***d) "This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Al-Islam as deen" is only a small portion of 5:3. Do we need to understand the whole ayat or the "perfected your religion" part is enough?***  
 
You may need to. I chose the part of the ayat which proved my assertion.  
 
***e) 33:40 starts with "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men". Do we need to understand it or the last portion of this ayat is sufficient to understand the message?***  
 
You may need to. I chose the part of the ayat which proved my assertion.  
 
Looking forward to your reply.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 9/4/2011

 
76.Nargis,  
 
***How can a nabi be Allahs nabi without risala?***  
 
All of the prophets conveyed a message, how could they not?, however, Allah has designated some prophets as only prophets and others as messenger-prophets. Angels were also given messages, but does that make them prophets?  
 
***Moazzam:- we said time and again in our previous posts, that, Allah described in Alkitab the details( their attributes, signs) to recognize the Rasool and Nabi in each era, why you are so specific to know their bio data, every one has to identify them by their qualification written in Alkitab.***  
 
Well, if Allah, as you say of Him, has GIVEN YOU THE DETAILS TO RECOGNIZE A PROPHET in any era, then, by all means, stop delaying an simply name just one prophet, and prove it, since the passing of the Last Prophet. What are you waiting for? What’s the problem?  
 
***In fact, you didn’t read my post, where I given in detail the appointment (khatim) of many ambiya (commanders) by Mohammad, read the relevant post again where I interpreted the Surah ahzab(you intentionally over looked).***  
 
I’m still looking for a name, because without a name you have no case. So until you provide one all you’re doing in posting conjecture and wishful thinking.  
 
***YES that's what I said, he is not reading. I asked:- Where in the Quran does it say 33:40 is valid ONLY if names of the prophets living at the time of Mohammed are mentioned, please refer to the ayah  
Why didn't the Quran mention their names?***  
 
There were no names for Allah to give, because He explained to you clearly that Khatim/Nabiyeen meant the Last Prophet. Allah, as you will notice, had no problem naming prophets in any era. It is Qamar and the rest of you, who claim Khatim Nabiyeen doesn’t mean Last Prophet. This is YOUR claim regarding an ayat in Al-Quran not Allah’s, hence, the burden of proof to bring names is rests squarely with you people and not Allah. If the ayat means what you say it does, then you must bring your borhan, meaning, bring a name. No name…no case…just conjecture/wishful thinking.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
 
 
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 9/4/2011

 
77.Mr Dhulqannain and all participants ! My dear Brother Dhulqarnain; Although you seems a traditional intellectual of Quraan , no doubt, you proved your stance/version in a most intelligently articulated way, But not new for us.  
Being a meager student /research workers of Quran, we (the Aastana teem)exploring the true message of Alkitab through “RATAL” in Alkitab itself (the way you also appreciated in your posts), it is only possible by put aside the traditional/orthodox way of translation all at once.  
For example you have been insisted to mention the NAMES OF PROPHETS other than the name mentioned in Quran or in any(present/past) era.  
Remember our version is, that, the names mentioned in Quran like( Ibraheem,Muses, yaqoob,Mohammad,Yahya, etc) are not their proper noun(bio data) ,rather الأَسْمَاءَ mean their attributes, for example as mentioned in verses 2/31-33, 22/78, 7/121.  
Because Alquran/Alkitab is beyond time and space, therefore the attribute instead of Proper noun has been described as an eternal message, it is up to the each society member to recognize the prophet of the time( by reading/observing/matching their qualifications written in Alquran), no matter the MOHAMMAD/Muses/yaqoob/ dawood etc of the time might be called by their proper name as a X,Y,Z.in their societies.  
THIS THREAD HAS EXTRA ORDINARY EXTENDED DUE TO YOUR LACK OF INTEREST IN [READING/DISCUSSING ]RESEARCH LIKE APPROACH/MENTALITY , SORRY IF IT HEARTS YOUR FEELINGS  
 
I ALSO ADMIT LAKE OF CAPABILITY ON MY PART TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND  
 
 
Comments by: moazzam On: 9/5/2011

 
78.Dear Dhulqarnain! Read the divine message (Alquran/Alkitab) in new horizon and dimensions (presented by Aastana) then compare it with rest of all (the orthodox interpretations/translations) already presented in Muslim Ummah.  
Don’t put your efforts to justify the ORTHODOX, rather be vigilant to know the truth by Judgement and analyzing the AASTANA’S VERSION under the auspices of “Alkitab itself”, upon the laws of nature, and up to the rules of lexicon/grammar, the possible positive change /out come in mankind at large, NOTHING ELSE, it will only be possible when you will be ready to abscond from the ORTHODOX TRANSLATIONS.  
A HUMBLE ADVICE FROM A SCANTY STUDENT OF ALKITAB.  
 
Comments by: naeem sheikh On: 9/5/2011

 
79.Moazzam, welcome back. I enjoy our conversations.  
 
***Mr Dhulqannain and all participants ! My dear Brother Dhulqarnain; Although you seems a traditional intellectual of Quraan , no doubt, you proved your stance/version in a most intelligently articulated way, But not new for us.***  
 
All praises due to Allah, but thank you for your kind words.  
 
***Being a meager student /research workers of Quran, we (the Aastana teem)exploring the true message of Alkitab through “RATAL” in Alkitab itself (the way you also appreciated in your posts), it is only possible by put aside the traditional/orthodox way of translation all at once.***  
 
Come, come, Dear Maoz, you are no mere meager student, you are a master of Al-Quran! No false modesty allowed.  
 
***For example you have been insisted to mention the NAMES OF PROPHETS other than the name mentioned in Quran or in any(present/past) era. Remember our version is, that, the names mentioned in Quran like( Ibraheem,Muses, yaqoob,Mohammad,Yahya, etc) are not their proper noun(bio data) ,rather الأَسْمَاءَ mean their attributes, for example as mentioned in verses 2/31-33, 22/78, 7/121.***  
 
Yes, I know this is your version/position and I would now like to explore your version. You, and the others, have declared that the so-called proper names of prophets mentioned in Al-Quran, are not, in fact, their actual names, as say given by their parents. Okay, well, now you have to prove this! You have made a declarative statement , and, as such, the BURDEN OF PROOF now rests with you. Now, you presented me with 3 ayats, which, ostensibly, prove your assertion. I don’t see it, so, please, using the ayats you gave me, PROVE that those names are not actual birth names as given by their parents.  
 
***Because Alquran/Alkitab is beyond time and space, therefore the attribute instead of Proper noun has been described as an eternal message, it is up to the each society member to recognize the prophet of the time( by reading/observing/matching their qualifications written in Alquran), no matter the MOHAMMAD/Muses/yaqoob/ dawood etc of the time might be called by their proper name as a X,Y,Z.in their societies.***  
 
This is simply your opinion and conjecture, unless, you can prove those names are not actual birth names.  
 
Also. please provide the ayats where Allah says--  
 
" it is up to the each society member to recognize the prophet of the time( by reading/observing/matching their qualifications written in Alquran".  
 
Once again, you have made a declarative statement and now the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you.  
 
You see, sooner or later, hopefully anyway, the following ayats are going to have real meaning for you:  
 
7:33 Say: My Lord forbids/make haram... that you associate with Allah that for which He has sent down NO AUTHORITY, and that you say of Allah WHAT YOU KNOW NOT.  
 
17:36 And FOLLOW NOT that of which thou hast NO KNOWLEDGE...  
 
These ayats make it cyrstal clear that it is haram to say anything (that is, conjecture or give opinions) of Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, His Prophets, and His Deen without absolute proof which He provides in His Quran/His Words.  
 
2:185 The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed, a guidance to men and CLEAR PROOFS of the guidance and the Criterion...  
 
So, you have three declarative statements to prove:  
 
1. The name of the prophets are not actual birth/bio names.  
 
2. It is up to the each society member to recognize the prophet of the time( by reading/observing/matching their qualifications written in Alquran),/prophets are an onging process.  
 
3. Prophets existed along with "Muhammad".  
 
Need names for # 2 and 3.  
 
Almost forgot, thank Allah for the edit feature:  
 
 
PROPHETS AND PROPER NAMES/NOUNS  
 
PROPER NOUN: A name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with initial capital letters.  
 
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=proper+noun&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=YNtkTtmrCuq80AGO6K2kCg&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7d86af9665111856&biw=1280&bih=878  
 
The names you gave me as not being proper names/nouns:  
 
IBRAHIM: accusative masculine proper noun → Ibrahim  
 
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=22&verse=78  
 
 
MUSA: nominative masculine proper noun → Musa  
 
ISA: nominative proper noun → Jesus  
 
YAQUB: genitive proper noun → Yaqub  
 
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136  
 
 
HAROUN: genitive masculine proper noun → Harun  
 
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=7&verse=122  
 
Looking forward to your proofs.  
 
Dhulqarnain-  
Comments by: DHULQARNAIN On: 9/5/2011

 
 AASTANA.COM © 2005-2010