Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Athman

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
Discussions / Re: Search Engine
« on: March 05, 2018, 03:59:38 PM »

Dear Br. Joseph,

From my side, the problem still persists.



Thanks Br. 'niaz' for your contribution, and welcome to the forum. That's really insightful!



Wa alaikumus salam,

Dear Br. shah1info,

Welcome to the forum!

Kindly ‘see’ my comments in italics to your sentiments in red highlights.

‘Thanks to both of you for your help in answering this puzzling issue. In the meantime, along with the reading of brother Joseph Islams article, I have read many articles on this issue written by a number of faithful persons and together I came up with the followings;’

Welcome. Thanks for taking your time to go through Br. Joseph’s article which stands as just a detailed summary of his views on the topic, and not as a specific ‘response’ to the focus of your inquiry. Hopefully you also found some other article(s)/thread(s) on this website that discuss the overall subject in some other respects. I also appreciate your reading of the above two responses from Br. Hamzeh and myself and that you took your time to reference various articles from others as well. That’s really commendable. I hope caution is taken when doing so to ‘filter’ and ‘discern’ from the arguments advanced those points that source primary evidence from the Qur’an and remain consistent as most cogent.

As a presumptive skeptics of Quran, that individual have argued that because verse 041:009 begin with a general description of the earth followed by verses 041:010 which elaborate the creation of the earth in verses 041:009 that a sequential series of events is being established and thus verses 041:011 and 041:012 follow the sequence. We shall see how this statement falls flat on its face in light of all the evidence!

Sure, as you may appreciate, sequence of ‘ayat’ does not necessarily translate to equivalent sequence of themes, addresses, contexts, or plot in a particular narrative or discourse of the Qur’an. Some alternate or reciprocating shifts of themes and addresses may be encountered in certain narratives, by which certain points are meant to be underscored.

First, The Ayah 41:009-41:010 appears to be in a sequential order. In the ayah 41:9 Allah is questioning us if we indeed disbelieve in his ability to create the earth in two days and if we attribute any other entities equal to him, while giving us a description of the creation of earth. In the ayah 41:10, He gave a more detailed description of the creation of mountains and creature on earth that took a total of four days. Wait it gets better, the Quran did not intend for these verses to be interpreted sequentially because if one does the math the periods add up to eight and not six (2+4+2), thus, rendering these verses a mere description of non-sequential overlapping events. Surely, Allah could count to six. Hence, because we have overlapping events we must take this into account when we try to put together an account (see below) of the creation process. The Quran does not lay down a definitive sequence of events in 41:9-12 or any other place in the Quran. For example, it does not say First he did this, Second he did this, Third he did this, Fourth he did this, Fifth he did this, and Sixth he did this, giving us the total of the 6 periods of creation mentioned in many places in the Quran (7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 32:4, 57:4, 50:38). Incidentally, each time we are told that creation is completed in six periods the word heaven always precedes the word earth.

I think I concur with the issue of sequence of events. In my view, with regards the precedence of mention of creation of earth in 41:9, and its ‘subsequent’ surface of depicted ‘stabilizers’ (rawasiyah) and the ‘provisions’ (aqwaataha) in 41:10, one may need to consider the Sovereignty and Supremacy of Allah over ‘everything (rabbul ‘alamin),’ onto which the verse (41:9) tends to draw attention.
The focus is intentionally drawn to the immediate ‘world’ (our earth), more so, the ‘mountains’ and general ‘sustenance,’ of which the 7th century Arabian audience could immediately appreciate and relate to. Then, for the ‘sky,’ in addition to making ‘seven’ of heavens and ordaining their affairs, the focus is drawn to the immediately ‘visible’ sky (lowest heaven-‘samaa dun’ya’) and how it is decked with ‘maswaabiha’ and as a ‘protection’! It is thus clear what the verses tend to focus on, confounding the disbelievers with great clear signs that none would deny and how incomparable the Originator of those signs would be! The immediate undeniable clear examples are given precedence of mention. After all, not ‘everything’ of creation is mentioned in those six ‘days’ of those verses (chapter 41), including ‘da

On the other hand, in 79:27, focus is drawn as to how the ‘complexity’ of creation of ‘heaven’ is by far greater than that of ‘man.’ In this case, ‘heaven’ thus takes precedence of mention. Some detail is given ‘after’ which the earth is said to be ‘spread.’
Therefore, in my opinion, the precedence of mentioning creation of either of ‘earth’ or ‘heaven’ has to be understood as an emphasis/focus to an underlying message/reminder to the audience, and not necessarily sanctioning order or plot of events.

Second, it is interesting to note that Surah 41:9-12 is probably the most descriptive Surah with regard to the creation of the Universe. However, the statement that creation was completed in 6 periods is never reiterated at the beginning of 41:9-12 or any other place in this chapter. Consequently, the statement appears seven times in the Quran, thus suggesting that these verses were not intended to be viewed as A COMPLETE SEQUENTIAL ACCOUNT (see below) of creation. If it were, one would expect the statement to appear again at the beginning of verse nine or at the very least somewhere in the chapter, but it doesn’t; you wonder why?

I do concur.

Third, the translation of the Ayah 41:009-41:010 as given above, started with the word “Then”, an incorrect translation of the Arabic word “Thumma”. In the given context it should rather be “So” or “And” or "Moreover". So, the Ayah 41:009-41:010 is not sequenced to the Ayah 41:011-41:012. In the Ayah 41:011 Allah directed Himself to BOTH the heaven and the earth asking BOTH of them to come into being. Here in this ayah the creation of the heaven and the earth is in a sequential order.

Again,‘In my humble view, if 79:30 is to be taken literally to mean a subsequent event that comes after that of ‘heaven’ in 79:27-29, it can as well be read in tandem with 41:11 which has an implication of the heaven already in a ‘dukhaanun’ (smokeless) form when Allah ‘turned’ to it making it to seven possibly with the earth (65:12)’ Otherwise, ‘spread earth’ (dahaha) would possibly refer to the preparation (‘spreading’ ready)  of the earth’s ‘surface’ and for ‘stabilizers (rawasiyah)’ and ‘sustenance,’ making it a subsequent stage in creation, hence the ‘earth’ already in an evolutionary process and not necessarily starting ‘after’ heaven. The preparation (‘spreading’) being the subsequent event while the ‘earth’ itself evolving simultaneously with the ‘heaven’ (41:11, 65:12).

Fourth, the earth could not possibly be the first thing created in the sequence because 79:27-30 states that in no uncertain terms beyond a shadow of a doubt that Allah created the heavens before the earth. Hence, these verses are not a sequential account of the 6 periods of creation and thus must be viewed both jointly and severally in relation to the whole Quranic account of creation. The word "Then" in verses 2:29 and 41:11 is "Thumma" again comes into play in these verses; it can mean "And" or "Also" or "Moreover." Many translators of the Quran incorrectly use the word "Then". The sentence structure clearly breaks and the facts are separate accounts. So, we can conclude that there is no contradiction between 41:9 - 41:12 and 79:27 -79:32.

Again, in 2:29, focus is drawn to whatever is created for ‘man,’ hence in this case, the immediate ‘earth’ in which we live finds precedence of mention over heaven(s), also supported by the reminder to the narrative of Adam being sent on ‘earth,’ in the next verses. All these, as a series of reminders. On the other hand, as regards whether the ‘heaven’ was created before the earth (79:30) or whether both evolved simultaneously (41:11, 65:12), my view is as shared above.


Though not quite contented with the above explanations, at this moment I have some satisfaction with it. May ALLAH (swt) guide all of us.

I would highly appreciate any comments, feedback on it.

Best regards,

And Allah knows best.




Sure. I find the article you provided actually interesting. It provides deep insights into that subject in some specific details.




Wa alaikum as salaam,

I think I can part some brief understanding of the subject in question despite it being addressed to Br. Joseph. This is also in respect for his humble perspective in the article shared above by Br. Hamzeh, among other articles/threads. I hope this shall be taken with the sincere intentions it is presented.

In my humble view, if 79:30 is to be taken literally to mean a subsequent event that comes after that of ‘heaven’ in 79:27-29, it can as well be read in tandem with 41:11 which has an implication of the heaven already in a ‘dukhaanun’ (smokeless) form when Allah ‘turned’ to it making it to seven possibly with the earth (65:12)

Br. Ilker states below from a thread as referenced [1] below:

‘In 41:11 ALLAH (swt) talks about the sky above, while it was not yet ready and maybe not completed its final stage, but already there, existing ! While it was smoke ! Then in 41:12 He says He "ordained them seven heavens". This is quite fascinating   ’

Therefore, though 41:9-10 describes the creation and determination of ‘sustenance’ on earth foremost, 41:11 has an implication of an already evolving heaven hence a concurrent creation in situ if not preceding it at all (79:30).

In the whole process of evolutionary creation as described by the Qur’an and as Br. Joseph’s article tries to clarify this, over the 6 epochs, I find it a reasonable approach if a provision for a critical-path-analysis criterion is allowed into trying to understand the whole idea of overlapping events of the evolution of various ‘creations’ and those happening side by side (41:9 with 41:11-12). This is in a view to have in mind that besides the creation of the heavens and the earth together with its sustenance, there’s still the making of various creatures (dabbah) existing in them (42:29) hence their possible subsequent sustenance in their corresponding earth-like habitable celestial bodies (65:12).

The direct mention of ‘our earth’ as appears in many of those Qur’anic references and as frequently attached to the ‘heavens’ in general, not singling each earth-like celestial body as reference or rather collectively ‘earths,’ would in my opinion, owe to the fact that the primary audience of the verses/Qur’an are on ‘this earth.’ Thus, a primary attention drawn to what primarily surrounds one, of the immediate world (‘our earth’) is arguably most convenient. On the other hand, it’s unwarranted to argue for an expectation of furnishing details of how sustenance was determined in those other earth-like celestial bodies or rather for those other 'dabba' in 42:29, as well as would be an unwarranted interpretation to restrict that period of determination of sustenance described in 41:10 (4 eons) to just simply be attributed to ‘our earth.’ Rather, ‘the earth’ as a primary reference with the heavens was created in 2 eons as well as the sustenance and the ‘rest’ in 'the earth' and the other earth-like celestial bodies was determined in 4 eons.

In my humble opinion, in the evolutionary creation, various overlapping events do exist and thus the ‘decree’ for the start of one of them would not necessarily be after the end of another, regardless of the eons taken, rather some simultaneous overlapping ‘parts’ would arguably be in situ.

Hopefully that helps in some way, God willing.

And Allah knows best.


[1]. What was created first the heavens or earth 79:30

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Verse 4:65
« on: February 09, 2018, 05:02:29 PM »
Wa alaikum as salaam,

Dear Br. Student,

I think this question was post-answered by Br. ‘Hassan A’ in another thread [1] months later as captured below. Hopefully you took notice of this. I’m only citing the same response as personally, it seems satisfactory and to avoid it appearing unattended to.

‘Salaam Hassan3000,

Although your question is directed at brother Joseph I would like to share with you my humble response.

I believe, as brother Joseph alluded to in one of his articles, that the directive here was, first and foremost, to the contemporaries of the Prophet who were the direct addressees. It is they who were being instructed to submit to the judgement of the prophet.

Secondly, if the verse you've cited is read in conjunction with verse 60:12 then it becomes clear that submission to his judgement is only allowed when his judgement is shown to be fair, just and right and in-line with the book of Allah (the Quran)
This understanding is also reinforced by the directive: "and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged" in the verse you cited.

Furthermore, I believe that albeit they are the same person, a distinction must be made between 'Muhammad the messenger / prophet' and 'Muhammad the man / husband / father'.
Muhammad, in his capacity as a man / husband / father, would not have (in his general judgement) been 'infallible / flawless', and made occasional mistakes / errors, as clearly noted from these Quranic verses: 9:43, 80:1-10, 66:1. These minor errors / mistakes were, however, invariably pointed out to him, and thus rectified, through divine revelation. Judgments made by Muhammad (pbuh) in his capacity as a man / husband / father must be accepted only when they are shown to be just [/b]and right and in-line with the book of Allah (the Quran).
Whereas Muhammad, in his capacity as a messenger / prophet, (entrusted to deliver the Quran) would NOT have made any mistakes / errors, as he was under divine guidance / influence (53:3-4; 69:44-48; 15:9).
Therefore, I believe the verse you cited was asking the contemporaries of the Prophet to accept (and act upon) the judgement of Muhammad (pbuh) made in his capacity as a prophet, and sense those judgments were made by Muhammad in his capacity as a messenger / prophet (which meant he was under divine influence) they must'v be right and just.

That is my humble understating. Any critique is welcomed.

Hopefully this is acceptable.





Wa alaikum as salaam,

On my part, from a humble individual view and understanding of the overarching Qur’anic perspective, I concur with your analogy above and do appreciate how the Divine predestination and an individual’s free-will overlap, with a slight caution to link accountability of an individual’s actions to the former, rather to the latter.

I also note that the same has to be appreciated of failures, as accredited of successes again with an accountability tied to individuals. All these, still in the widest remit of Allah’s wisdom and omniscience.




Islamic Duties / Re: The Friday Prayer
« on: January 24, 2018, 05:05:56 PM »
Wa aleikum as salaam Br. Mohammed,

You shared:

I wish to bring your kind attention here
The verse (62:9-10), commanding that
“If it was called to the Prayer from the Friday/gathering’s day, so hasten to Allah’s reminder...”
But what actually following by the people are against this, they are conducting a speech/religious speech and the content of the speech are usually from sources other than the Qur’an. How can we sit and listen for such things when Qur'an commanding us to hasten to ‘perform the Prayer when the time is reached/ called.’ I feel it will be better if people want, they can conduct the speech either before the time starts for the Prayer or after the Prayer.

I hope the following excerpt from a thread [1] below, by Br. Joseph, goes some way to address your underlying question.

“Salamun Alaikum.

Whenever we approach the Quran for guidance, believers should attempt to take the best meaning from what they hear (39:18) and then implement the best course of action to the best of their abilities (64:16).

It is not the intention of the Quran to prescribe specific ritual pedantics for the Friday congregation (Jummah). That a tradition has developed which includes a 'Khutba', where religious and political matters of a community are discussed is not out of kilter with the emphasis laid by the Quran to 'congregate' on a particular day (Friday in this case), by leaving one's trade (wadharul -bay'(a)). 

It is useful to note the Arabic word 'Jummah' inherently means to collect or gather, to unite, to assemble, to resolve or decide upon a matter or agree upon an opinion. Therefore, a day of the week that was known as 'Jummah' and with which the Quran was familiar, has strong implications that this day was a well known day of the week for the Arabs where the community met to congregate.

Despite the ritualised content with questionable value we find in today's 'Khutbah', this does not undermine the need for an appropriate sermon(Khutbah) from a Quranic perspective, certainly if religious and political matters are to be discussed. This is clearly within the scope of the Quranic verses and the Arabic terms used (62:9).

Furthermore, today's community need not be considered in a restrictive 7th century Arabian context. Today's community of Muslims are billion + and part of a world-wide brotherhood with today's communication methods owing to technology. Therefore 'community' issues should not only be considered at a local level, but should also focus on a global level as well. 

Therefore in light of the Quran, a believer's participation in the 'Jummah' is clearly prescribed and arguably 'obligatory'. This would include participation of any sermons / discussions that the congregation undertakes.

"O you who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of God, and leave off business: That is best for you if you but knew!"

I hope that helps, God willing.

You respectfully share:

From a Qur’anic point the calculation of time is, in terms of day (depending sun), month ( depending moon) and year (12 months). Nowhere had I found as Qur’an says a calculation of time in terms of week/a 7 day cycle. So the present day week system might be a human finding for ease of time calculation just like man found devices like clocks and watches for measuring time. Therefore I interpret the verses 62:9-11 speaks about the day on which people/ancient Arabs used to gather for selling their commodities like food, garments etc. and this may be once in a month or twice, thrice or days with one day interval (~15 days per month) etc. So the verses reminds the importance of keeping The Prayer (Swalah) on time even in these busy business days, may be because of the ardent human desire towards the temporal earthy earnings. From this we can understand the significance of keeping The Prayers on time in normal days.

From my humble perspective, I agree with your view that it could possibly be out of the ardent desire by man that there arose a need to have some extra standard frame of time reference in terms of weeks apart from the day, month and year system which the Qur’an basically and outrightly recognizes. However, on the other hand, I find it not of the Qur’an’s intention to debase or somehow ignore some popular pre-existing time system, with week as another time construct, rather, it indirectly acknowledges a well-known (proper noun) special day in the week known as Yaum al Jumu’ah for the believers to Congregate for prayers, as explained by Br. Joseph in the thread [2] below, hence some indirect appreciation for the pre-existing week scheme, at the time of its revelation .

Hopefully that helps God willing.




[1]. Is the Friday Khutbah Obligatory?

[2]. meaning of gumua

General Discussions / Re: 5:38 how many hands?
« on: January 13, 2018, 09:06:49 PM »
Salaamun Aleikum,

From my humble perspective, ‘yad’ in the singular, ‘hand,’ could symbolically refer to ‘power,’ as in (57:29,67:1,3:733:26,17:29,23:88) or simply ‘hand’ in the literal sense. ‘Yada’ with a prolonged ‘fatha’ literally referring to ‘two hands’ could metaphorically refer to ‘power’ as in 38:75, with respect to a ‘single individual,’ or ‘means/sustenance’ as in 111:1. ‘Aydi’ with a prolonged ‘ya’ could mean ‘strength’  as in (38:17,38:45) you quoted above or also metaphorically as ‘power/might’ as in 8:70 and symbolically as power in (48:24,30:36). This is with a plural connotation to the number of referees to that power.

In another terms, if the power or hands are attributed to individuals more than or equal to two in number, then ‘aydi’ is used as in many of the Qur’anic verses making use of the word. This is irrespective of whether it is one hand of each individual or both. If the address is an individual, his/her hand is referred to as ‘yad’ or rather his/her two hands are referred to as ‘yada.’

As a distinguishing example, consider 38:75 referring to Allah in His Singularity as contrasted to 51:47 or 36:71 referring to Him in majesty or with the angelic assembly.

On the other hand, ‘qatta’a’ as verb form II used in 12:31 and 7:124 which you quoted above somehow has a connotation of intensity of the physical ‘cutting’ in various specific respects e.g, dividing (7:160), cutting into sections (12:31) etc, as similarly used in (7:160,12:50,47:15,22:19,5:33,20:71,13:31) for some physical and symbolic ‘cutting off’.

However, ‘qata'a,’ of verb form I, used in the verse in question, 5:38, has some sort of variant connotations depending on context, with possible symbolic nuance of ‘cutting off’/terminating as in (3:127,7:72,9:121,15:66,27:32) and a physical literal ‘cutting off’ one as used in (69:46,59:5) and as supported by context as detailed by Br. Joseph in the article(s) above, in 5:38.

It is somehow interesting to note how the Qur’an deliberately uses ‘qata'a,’ instead of ‘qatta’a’, in 5:38, given the slight nuance imparted by the use of each.

Therefore, contextually from the foregoing narratives of chapter 5, considering the nuance with which ‘nakalan’ comes with, as similarly used elsewhere in the Qur’an and in support with what is inferred in the next verse 5:39 regarding repetitiveness of the act, I find the interpretation of literal ‘cutting off’ of hands in 5:38 as most cogent. A slight possible emphasis/addition could be on the range of the hand-cut which is not mentioned but inferred from the possibility of there being other alternatives in the case of 5:33 hence in this case either upto the wrist, elbow or shoulder, depending on the gravity of the ‘fasaad,’ which could possibly be determined by the punishing authority. A similar elucidation is somehow given in 5:6 in the case of ablution.

With the detailed analysis by Br. Joseph in the article(s) above, I concur with how the phrase 'faqta’u aydiyahuma' has been interpreted in the article(s)

Hopefully that somehow helps God willing.



General Discussions / Re: 5:38 how many hands?
« on: January 13, 2018, 05:44:15 PM »
Dear Br. HOPE,

Wa aleikum as salaam,

Notwithstanding your focus on the linguistics of the terms employed in the verse, I hope the following article and threads somehow address some of the verses in question for the topic and go out of way to argue for what seems to be the crux of what the directives are given the way they are in the Qur’an, with a notable emphasis on the word nakalan to argue against any other interpretation of the phrase faqta’u aydiyahuma, among others.

Hopefully that somehow gives some little insight.



Waalaikum as salaam,

Dear Br. miracle114,

I do appreciate your wishing for me the best. Thanks for the kind appreciation.

Dear Br. ilker,

Am humbled that my thoughts were somehow of some help to you. Thanks for your comments.

May Allah increase us all in knowledge Insha Allah.



Dear Br. miracle114,

Salaamun Aleikum,

It is clear from the context of 9:24 that the believers were not to take as allies those among their fathers and brothers who preferred disbelief to belief (9:23) lest they themselves become wrongdoers (dhwalimun). This would, in my humble opinion, imply that except those family folk that insist on disbelief, at the very worst, one’s family members still hold a higher value with regards to individual responsibility, especially in the context of 33:6.

This is in no way abrogated by the fact that a true believer’s love for Allah automatically overrides love for any other besides Him (2:165). However, so that this is sincerely practically manifest, we ought to adhere to the Prophet’s teachings, 3:31. This could honestly be by way of beseeching the Qur’an for the same as stated in my earlier response, quoted below:

'With us today, we can only follow the Qur’an, in essence, similarly following the Prophet as did those believers during the Prophet’s time, and as you put it, obeying Allah and the Prophet.’

In my humble opinion, to insist that love emotions should only be meant for Allah [Prophet(s) exclusive] and some closely related folk, like one’s family, is unwarranted. That the love for the Prophet (tied together with that of Allah and His Cause) in 9:24 was just meant to be exercised by those believers contemporaneous to the Prophet is not an explicit directive to rule out. Just because we were not present during those times or that the Prophet isn’t in our midst doesn’t mean that we are not to love the Prophet by honoring his Qur’anic teachings from Allah, upholding his high moral character as depicted by the Qur’an or follow him by way of the Qur’an so that Allah can suffice us, 8:64.

Truth when realized, comes with it a great responsibility of upholding. Being conscious of this at the very best would actually exquisitely make a believer appreciate the exclusive role of firstly prioritizing the truth with which Islam comes with hence upholding that truth through obeying Allah and the Prophet, in such a manner explained above, be it against oneself, parents, etc.,4:135. It is in such a context of understanding at which the idea of the love of Allah and the Prophet overriding all can be acknowledged.

Thus, in my humble opinion, the love, in purpose (in the absolute sense), for Allah, the Prophet and Allah’s Cause (9:24), comes first. This is irrespective of the time in which a believer lives, contemporary or non-contemporary to the Prophet’s time.

On one hand, a responsibility is tied to one towards their family. On the other, relative love emotions are evoked with respect to some field of concern. Interpreting such evoked emotions and subjecting them to a restrictive context of Allah alone and somehow kinfolk would just sound inconclusive. Rather, the love for the Prophet is just interpreted in the manner of that for Allah, and that for His Cause, that is, absolutely in purpose, upholding the Qur’anic truth. This should however not be confused with 2:165, for the exclusive love for Allah translates to love for the Prophet (following his teachings from the Qur’an) and love for striving in His Cause.

On the whole, trying to exempt oneself from the idea of having love for the prophet(s) and that one could only possibly exercise some love for him/them if they were contemporaneous to the prophet(s)’s time(s) would just sound dismissive.

Those are my thoughts Insha Allah.

I hope that somehow helps God willing.



General Discussions / Re: Prophets who are guaranteed janna
« on: January 05, 2018, 05:26:04 AM »
Salaam Br. miracle114,

Possibly, at the outset, the verse you are referring to is this:

Say, "I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner."(Qur'an, Al-Ahqaf 46:9)

In my humble opinion, firstly, the statement from which your first underlying concern comes is given as a statement to the Prophet by Allah, to profess as a response to those disbelievers who were bent on denying his message from Allah and attributing it to concoctions. In context, that would surely serve to be a humble reply considering the pressure and constant diatribe from those disbelievers. Just a no-new clear warner conveying the message as revealed (53:3-4) and unaware of what awaits him or them, being a similar fallible being. This also best captures the fact that he wouldn't have controlled what to befall him once he would have surely invented anything of what he was passing on as Qur'an, as in 46:8, which possibly partly alludes to what Allah warns in 69:44-47.

Concerning 68:3, I believe that's typical of how Allah reprieves the Prophet in the Qur'an whenever He deems apt. As a favour, he was not a madman, 68:2, and out of His favour for him, He consoles the Prophet promising him uninterrupted reward so he just was to carry on with his mission and leave whatever said about himself by those disbelievers in the hands of Allah.

In any way, this is not atypical of the Qur'an to promise the Prophet [a man approved of God (9:128), of high moral character (68:4, 33:21) and best living exemplar amongst his contemporaries (21:107)] uninterrupted reward given that any true believer who does good deeds is also promised the same great reward described by the same words. (41:8, 95:6, 84:25)

In general, as an additional reference, the prophets are collectively referred to be a party/companions with which any believer is promised to be part of, amongst those favored, as captured in the following verse.

And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger - those will be with the ones upon whom Allah has bestowed favor of the prophets, the steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs and the righteous. And excellent are those as companions.(Qur'an, An-Nisa 4:69)

Hopefully that helps in some way, Insha Allah.



Salaamun Aleikum,

Dear Br. HOPE,

Respectfully, I think your perspective is just same as Br. ilker’s on the subject, as well as is mine. To quote his statement above, he said:

“Of course all of humanity are asked to follow the prophet. He doesn't need to be alive today to be followed. He followed the Quran...”

As I understand from his statement, believers are taught from the Qur’an to generally follow the Prophet, by way of the authoritative Qur’an. As for those believers contemporary to his time, he was a living exemplar (notwithstanding the prevailing Qur’an in their midst) among them, as had been any of the past prophets/messengers to their Ummah. With us today, we can only follow the Qur’an, in essence, similarly following the Prophet as did those believers during the Prophet’s time, and as you put it, obeying Allah and the Prophet.

From my understanding of his respectful input, I don’t think Br. ilker was in any way referring to something else apart from the Qur’an where we are meant to extract truth regarding emulation of the Prophet’s way of spiritual life.




General Discussions / Re: Daawah and 16:125
« on: January 04, 2018, 08:47:58 PM »
Salaam Br. miracle114,

In my humble opinion, from the grammatical structure of the verse, it is a direct address to the Prophet noted by the phrases ‘...sabili rabika...’ and ‘...inna rabbaka huwa...’ The next verse to this, 16:126, however addresses the believers in general with regards equivalence of requital or else exercising patience. This in anyway is not strange of the Qur’an as Br. Joseph respectfully put it as quoted: “This is also not atypical for the Quran that switches audience, address and context to support an underlying message.”

However, in my humble opinion, I understand that such a directive lends heed to any reader of the Qur’an, who seeks to extract religious obligations, as a believer. Verses such as 3:104 and 3:110 are however explicit in that respect, with a direct obligation tied to those who follow the Prophet amongst believers regarding inviting towards Allah (12:108).

Indeed Allah knows for sure who strayed (6:111) is and who is guided, as the verse in question says, for He is the one who oversees that (35:verse eight) so one should just do their best in calling towards Allah and leave the rest to Him. 18:29 and 10:108 among other verses make it clear that one is just expected to convey the message and that guidance is not upon themselves to manage. Even the Prophet, in particular, was reminded about this, 28:56.

And We will turn away their hearts and their eyes just as they refused to believe in it the first time. And We will leave them in their transgression, wandering blindly. (Qur’an, Al-An’am 6:110)

In my humble opinion, the verse above as you referred to in your question just explains (and answers the rhetorical question in 6:109) how the disbelievers wouldn’t believe even if the sign called for (6:109) would come, just as even if angels would have been sent or even if the dead would have spoken to them, 6:111.

Therefore, believers have an obligation to invite towards Allah not worrying about the impact of their sincere efforts in doing so, in the long run hoping for the best out of it. For those ones whose hearts are bent on denying plain truth, Allah is witness to them and He is the One to judge their case, at His own discretion.

Hopefully that helps Insha Allah.



Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10