Messages

Salam  ,

There is nothing fantastic about such a statement. Individuals of other denominations that would not hesitate to pronounce both you and me 'kaffir' have made similar demands. I have also heard this type of statement from Christian missionaries and those from other world faiths when critiquing their 'centuries / milennia' of scholarship.

The answer is simple. It is the strength of the argument that matters. I don't care who makes it. Furthermore, the fact that I wish to maintain anonymity is my prerogative and thus makes it futile for me to make any claims of credentials. No one will ever be able to verify them.

With all due respect, when Harun Yahyah critiques Science of Evolution and Professor Dawkins questions his credentials... then this is not about being fantastical. You are right - arguments still have to be countered - as I am doing. But, if one repeatedly sees objection and they all highlight one thing... then it is well worth questioning credentials. As was the case with Yahya Vs. Dawkins.

*** 

I do not disagree with this. However, 'phrases' have specific meanings in their languages. It is a fallacy to apply an expression from another language onto a classical text from a different language though I understand you attempted to give an analogy.

But how do you know the above is an idiomatic phrase? As I have shown - simple dictionary meanings reveal a lot about the words. Saying "twos, threes and fours" is NOT a phrase. No such phrase exists in any language.

***

The expression "mathna wathulatha waruba'a" which is better rendered " (by/in) twos, and threes and fours" is under discussion as to its best meaning.

With respect - I do not think you have bothered to read what I have already written. This is not better rendered as what you claim it is better rendered as.

These number forms have specific meanings. Please refer to the Lane's Lexicon and the actual Arabic lexicons. I have already given the meanings above! And I have already pointed to this reference also.

***

I have asserted that this expression from verse 35:1 denotes multiplicity when it makes no sense to understand wings of angels as in 2s or 3s or 4s or to limit the number of wings by this expression.

Yet - you have no reason to do so. And it makes perfect sense to understand wings of angel in twos, threes and fours. I have already explained this. You are not counter what I have already explained  you are merely repeating your self.

***

The indication is one of multiplicity also given support by the expression "He adds to Creation as He pleases: for God has power over all things" My rendition of this expression is from the Quran and not any secondary source.

There is no support to "multiplicity" in this expression. Let me put it like this: I can use this as support for my claims on THE EXACT SAME TOKEN as you have done.

Whereas I restrict to the number Quran has actually restricted to and you do not. There phrase simply says that the Almight adds - and the Almighty can just as well add to 2, 3 or 4.

***

I have been very patient and have given much time to your responses. I have also treated you with utmost respect.

Likewise.

***

I will do my best to answer queries on this forum. However, if I find that posts get unnecessarily repetitive, tedious or more importantly personal, I will curtail discussion. As I have mentioned, no one is forced to write on this forum.

This is your site.

Salam,

With respect, just because you say it isn't, that doesn't make your assertion correct.

I have provided you a logical progression theologically as to why Prophet Abraham's example would be exemplary foremost. You have simply dismissed this.

Incorrect. I have not simply dismissed this:

"There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often."

This is addressed to the common Muslim and all this say and implies is that Prophet Muhammad is a good example. The verse is general and therefore it does not specify in what exactly the Prophet Muhammad is example of.


"If we take that whatever Prophet Ibrahim is a good example of - and apply to this verses - and then limit this verse to that, then the generality of this verse is sacrificed. And that would be 100% incorrect. However if we apply the other verse [regarding Prophet Ibrahim] and do not limit then that is fine. The verse simply states that Prophet Muhammad is a good example."

Also:

I will re-iterate as you have not sufficiently addressed the objections raised against your understanding - which, I think, is fundamentally flawed.

1. You are incorrect saying that "Uswa Hasana" is defined by the Prohpet Ibrahim verse. It isn't. The exact same words are used and they are not being defined.

2. In the verse regarding Prophet Ibrahim, a specific example of Uswa Hasana is given and on the other hand the verse regarding Prophet Muhammad there is no specific example given - hence the Prophet Muhammad as a "Usawa Hasan" is not limited.

3. The only objection you have raised in reply is that the specific example of Prophet Ibrahim is general of application. And that is true and was never under question. However, one cannot limit that specific example and limit the generality of this verse as that would be incorrect and illogical.

I have dealt with the issue as this is central and I have most certainly NOT dismissed it without reasoning as you have implied.

***

If the Quran is the primary source of guidance, the Quran must be used to understand best interpretation of an expression. I have done this. If you have a better elaboration / understanding of the term deriving specific guiding principles from the Quran, then please share them.

You have not done so. And I have already explained this, in some detail, above. You most certainly have not interpreted the expression "Uswa Hasana". The word in both cases is used exactly the same. In the verse regarding Prophet Ibrahim there is no more understanding of this term. All that particular verse does is give a specific example of situation when Prophet  Ibrahim [and those with him] were a "good example". And this does not "define" what "Uswa Hasana" is. The expression "Uswa Hasana" means "good example" - neither any more explanation is necessary nor is it given in the Quran.

All you have done is took that particular example and applied it to another verse - both have no correlation OTHER than the expression "Uswa Hasana" is used in both.

***

This is circular and tediously repetitive. I have already explained why the Quran and Prophet Abraham's example are necessary to understand terms.

I am sorry - but you have not. This is the crux of the argument. What you have mentioned previously - I have already countered that. ANd you have failed to counter my objections.

***

You say no specific example is given. I have clearly given you reasons why I disagree with your assertion with corroborating evidence.

It isn't given. Fact! It seems senseless to disagree with this! The example of Prophet Ibrahim is limited to that particular verse and it does not carry.

***

You simply refuse to accept this. With respect, repeating the question does not assist your challenge.

I do more than simply refuse. I give reasons. Please see above and please re-read what I have written.

***

Not really. The example has been explained by using a specific context.

Incorrect. One instance and one example of Prophet Ibrahim being a good example is given and that is all.

***

Not really. The example has been explained by using a specific context.

060.006
"There was indeed in them a good example (Arabic: Us'watun Hasanatun) for you to follow for those whose hope is in God and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly God is Free of all Wants, Worthy of all Praise"

In this context, I derived three guiding beliefs from this verse:

            (i)   Belief in God alone.
            (ii)  No worship to any other than to God.
            (iii) Complete reliance in God and firm belief in the Last Day.

The application of these beliefs are general.

From that verse! And from that verse alone! And those are the examples of "Uswa Hasana" AND NOT the definition of "Uswa Hasana"!

And that is one particular situation. It has not connection with the other verse - which simply states the Prophet Muhammad is good example.

He is a good example in how he organized the Suhabah, in walking, talking, laughing, in teaching, praying . . .  or are you saying that he is not a good example in these? And is just in what you limit?   

***

There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, "Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah . We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone" except for the saying of Abraham to his father, "I will surely ask forgiveness for you, but I have not [power to do] for you anything against Allah . Our Lord, upon You we have relied, and to You we have returned, and to You is the destination.

Furthermore - you have limited your examples to three - yet the above verse implies more:

"Indeed, we are disassociated from you"

"and from whatever you worship other than Allah ."

" We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone"

Then you have stated the verse 60:6

There has certainly been for you in them an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day. And whoever turns away - then indeed, Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.

See! Now this verse is referring back to the verse of Prophet Ibrahim - so the "good example" of this verse is limited to that verse. But they have NOTHING to do with the verse regarding Prophet Muhammad.

And here lies the answer. 



With the utmost respect you are trying to be contrary and repeating the same thing you have mentioned in your original article. And sadly, you have not really tried to understand the objections raised. 

Salam,

Yes, and that is my point. That is the form that the Quran uses, hence it is 'Quranic'. This is the form that the Prophet would have been familiar with. The Quran is in the language of the Prophet's dialect. 

What you have failed to understand is that Quran does not use this independently. To pick a phrase out of middle of sentence and using it as is - is not right.

Actually it is VERY unlikely the Prophet Muhammad [Peace Be Upon Him] would have said "Salamun" but "Salam" - Arab history of phonology shows that tanween is usually not pronounced.

***

And in standalone form too. Please see verse 7:46.

You share:

"Salamun Alikum" is an incomplete expression and used independently - it is not the best form.

I disagree. It is an expression and carries meaning. It is used in verses 6:54, 13-23-24, 16:32, 28:55, 39:73 and 19:47 as a complete expression.  As already mentioned, in verse 7:46, it is also used as a standalone expression.

I do not agree. I have already mentioned this above. 

Salam,

I implore you with utmost respect, please do not refer to my understanding of Arabic again. I am not going to give you a list of my credentials nor provide claims of my background, my fluency of Arabic or anything else. Neither do I share my credentials nor do I demand to ask others theirs'. I simply respond to the arguments regardless of who makes them.

Equally - with respect - if you are going to comment upon Sunni Islam and imply years of scholarship has been wrong... then why are you so afraid of your credentials being challenged? It is a legitimate question!

If something shows lack of understanding and this understanding is regarding the Arabic language - then I have to state my disagreement and state that this shows lack of understanding in Arabic. Surely the right way is to counter and explain why it doesn't! Rather than stifling this?

It is your site and forum - I accept that you have complete autonomy to dictate whatever terms you wish.

I do not accept your interpretation of the angel's wings as limiting to 4 both linguistically or contextually. The verse actually sets the context by implying multiplicity in the remainder of the verse.

On what basis? You have not given any. With the utmost respect, your simple disagreement is not good enough.

Please can you share with me clear evidence from a classical lexicon or source that the phrase "mathna wathulatha waruba'a" is limiting to four.

I am sorry - but I find the question illogical and somewhat silly. I think you are well aware that classical lexicons by their very nature ONLY deal with single words and not phrases. So how is it fair to ask the above? 

It is simple logic. One can understand this even in English.

Example:

"Butterflies have wings in twos, threes or fours"

It is understood by the above phrase that the upper limit is 4. Here it would mean 2 on each side.

Example:

"John, line up these people in twos, threes or fours"

It is understood by the above phrase that the upper limit is 4.

***

My Dearest Brother-in-Faith - I have not once made a personal remark against you. Please try to concentrate your efforts in answering the objections raised rather than taking unintended umbrage.

Salam,

Dear brother Khalid,

As-salam alaykum

Your comment:

"To imply that "As-Salamu Alikum" is not Quranic and simply Arabic is incorrect and shows lack of understanding."

If it is Quranic, then provide clear evidence of it's use in the Quran in that exact form. 'Salamun Alaikum' is the expression used in the Quran, hence it is 'Quranic'. There is nothing too complicated about this in my humble view. The fact that both expressions are Arabic is irrelevant.

I feel that the gist of the article has been completely lost in this thread which was "The best Islamic greeting is one that contains the salutations of peace."

Regards,
Joseph

I have already pointed to a verse which does use the Arabic definite article. Please see above for reference.

'Salamun Alaikum' is the expression used in the Quran

Yes - as the correct grammar form and as part of sentences - especially after the verb Qaala قال [To say].  "Salamun Alikum" is an incomplete expression and used independently - it is not the best form.

After all - it would be more to the spirit of Quran to maintain the best form of grammar, rather than otherwise!   

I feel that the gist of the article has been completely lost in this thread which was "The best Islamic greeting is one that contains the salutations of peace."

But this is something that has never been under question. And the objection raised was after all something which you have written and I found objectionable! 

Salam,

With regards 'Uswa Hasan', the Quran clearly stresses that there is already a good example in Prophet Abraham.

Yes. But the verse also gives a specific example of what Prophet Ibrahim [and his companions] are a good example in. And the verse regarding Prophet Muhammad is general and not bound by any specificity. 

***

"Of what Prophet Muhammad is good example - then that is NOT mentioned."

By default, if nothing else, Prophet Abraham's example would be implicit for Prophet Muhammad to follow.

Why by default? The two verses have no correlation with each other.

Look at what the verse states:

"There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often."

This is addressed to the common Muslim and all this say and implies is that Prophet Muhammad is a good example. The verse is general and therefore it does not specify in what exactly the Prophet Muhammad is example of.

If we take that whatever Prophet Ibrahim is a good example of - and apply to this verses - and then limit this verse to that, then the generality of this verse is sacrificed. And that would be 100% incorrect. However if we apply the other verse [regarding Prophet Ibrahim] and do not limit then that is fine. The verse simply states that Prophet Muhammad is a good example.

What do you mean by default?

***

Therefore, Prophet Abraham's example may have been expressed in a limited context but its application would also have been general.

Yes. However but that limited context is not applicable to this verse at all. There is no correlation between the two.

***

Now I do not dispute that Prophet Muhammad would not have been a good example for his people. After all, he had many roles which I have discussed in reference [1] below. However, to assert (as traditionalists do) that this 'good example' is  to be found in secondary sources written by fallible men, not canonised until centuries after the prophet's death as 'authoritative', then we are back to the same basic contention of 'authority' of these sources. Hence, my original request that we deal with our fundamental difference of approach first as many contentions will stem back to the original question of 'authority' of secondary sources. I trust that you will see my point with respect.

Sadly this is off topic and does not have anything to do with the objection I have raised.

***

It is also my humble position that the prophet's practices would have been tied with the specific circumstances he was presented. In different circumstances, he would have applied the Quran's guidance to different circumstance and the outcomes may have been different. I have discussed this in another article shared as reference [2] below.

Again, this also does not answer the objection I have raised.



I will re-iterate as you have not sufficiently addressed the objections raised against your understanding - which, I think, is fundamentally flawed.

1. You are incorrect saying that "Uswa Hasana" is defined by the Prohpet Ibrahim verse. It isn't. The exact same words are used and they are not being defined.

2. In the verse regarding Prophet Ibrahim, a specific example of Uswa Hasana is given and on the other hand the verse regarding Prophet Muhammad there is no specific example given - hence the Prophet Muhammad as a "Usawa Hasan" is not limited.

3. The only objection you have raised in reply is that the specific example of Prophet Ibrahim is general of application. And that is true and was never under question. However, one cannot limit that specific example and limit the generality of this verse as that would be incorrect and illogical.

***

I implore you to give this another go.

Thank you for replying.

Salam,

From my humble experience, it has never been an easy task even from a well-argued academic perspective to challenge traditional scholarship. If it is not the argument, then it one's academic institution, if it is not the institution, then it is the credibility of the teachers that one has learnt from, if it is not that, then it is motives, background, race or colour. To refute an argument, anything goes, even the most derogatory form of Ad Hominem.

This is admittedly not restricted to traditional scholarship. You will have noted my discourses with Quranists too.

However, my point stands... and is completely valid. If you are going to challenge centuries old understanding and scholarship then you must bring something really good and be of excellent caliber. And if you do not have sufficient authority over Arabic then the likely chance is that it is you who is incorrect...

I could easily argue, that if the Quran wanted to say marry only up to 4 wives, it too could have used a more exact, explicit expression.

And I would argue that this is what Quran does imply by changing the type of numbers used. And this is exactly how these numbers are meant to be understood. As it is the Quran that actually does limit the number to 4 wives.

***

However, I would still assert that the primary place to understand a term or a phrase is the Quran foremost. The same expression used in verse 4:3 is also used in verse 35:1 where the meaning is arguably 'multiplicity'.

I am sorry, I actually did intend to address this verse . . . which I will do so now. Again the meaning is NOT multiplicity - here the number are even more exacting:

الحمد لله فاطر السماوات والأرض جاعل الملائكة رسلا أولي أجنحة مثنى وثلاث ورباع يزيد في الخلق ما يشاء إن الله على كل شيء قدير


[All] praise is [due] to Allah , Creator of the heavens and the earth, [who] made the angels messengers having wings, two or three or four. He increases in creation what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. [Q 35:1]

The verse makes it clear that angels have wings two, three or four. Once cannot understand this as meaning that angels have more than 4 wings. Here the only shade of meaning left is that these number imply:

2 and 2

3 and 3

4 and 4

That is multiples of the same number. The classical lexicons make this clear. I implore you to at least view Lane's for the word Muthana.

***

Therefore in my humble opinion, no secondary source can provide precedence over a primary interpretation that is derived from the Quran.

Yet showing another usage is not showing interpretation. And in this instance, this is a question of language and looking at meanings of these number forms.

This is critique of the follow article by Joseph Islam:

Marrying 4 wives in Islam

http://quransmessage.com/articles/four%20wives%20FM3.htm

A general point:

Dearest Mr. Joseph Islam has not liked me questioning his Arabic credentials, but here is the problem:

1. I have read many of his articles and they show a weakness of understanding the Arabic language. Now, there are not major glaring errors, but a shade here and nuance there can make all the difference.

2. When the author differs from an issue from Traditional Islam relating to the Quranic Arabic and the Arabic language in a wider context, then there is a lack of care. For Arabic language and linguistics he is dependent on Traditional Islam - whose scholars have safe-guarded the language and transmitted it to us. And if you are going to differ from countless brilliant scholars and their understanding - then you should have real good reason.



This issue relates to the verse 4:3

وإن خفتم ألا تقسطوا في اليتامى فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء مثنى وثلاث ورباع فإن خفتم ألا تعدلوا فواحدة أو ما ملكت أيمانكم ذلك أدنى ألا تعولوا

And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. 

Although the verse relates to Orphans - but herein is clear permission to marry up to 4 women.

***

The author states:

It is interesting to note that the verse that is usually read to acknowledge polygny up to a maximum of four wives isn't really sanctioning a number nor is it encouraging multiple marriages. Legitimate enquiries do arise, why 'four', why not 'five' 'six' or 'three'? Why not leave it open to the individual to assess their means and ability to make a decision? Why the use of a seemingly arbitrary number of 4? These are quite pertinent questions.

Simple answer. Quran has restricted it to four.

***

It can clearly be read, that the main focus of the verse is to prohibit any form of injustice occurring by compromising the 'orphans'. Verse 4:127 seems to elaborate further by indicating that this was possibly due to men not giving the orphans prescribed portions due to desire of marriage.

The main 'draw' of verse 4:3 is not necessarily to stipulate a number of wives but rather, to keep men away from compromising the orphans.

Yet, the permission of marrying up to four women is general and not restricted.

***

We note the Arabic term "mathna wathulatha waruba'a" (Literally: (by/in) twos and threes and fours) which seems to simply denote a multiplicity. The exact same phrase is used in 35.1 when describing the wings of angels and its multiplicity.

The author alleges that there is no upper limit of marriage to 4 women but the indication is of multiplicity and he further cites the verse 35.1.

He further states:

Therefore, if the phrase "mathna wathulatha waruba'a" ((by/in) twos and threes and fours) is examined with the phrase read in 35.1, one concludes that verse 4:3 is not advancing a 'limiting allowance' to marry up to 4 wives. Rather, its purport seems to be focused in to drawing away from any potential injustice to the orphans by asking the believers to marry other believing women in whatever numbers.

The contention is that Quran has not used normal numbers but another form of word roughly translated as twos, threes and fours. But what does it mean to marry in "twos"? In this form it does not make much sense. And this the author took to mean multiplicity rather than set upper limit.

However this form of number also denote:

"two at a time"

or

"three at a time"

or

"four at a time"

and the limit is four. If the Quran had wished to imply multiplicity then there are words aplenty to choose from and much more clearer.

If one wishes to act upon EXACTLY what the Quran stated then one has to accept the limit Quran set is 4 at a time.

And why use this form of numbers?

This makes clear that one can have up to 4 wives in a single instance. For example:

If someone has four wives and one passes away then he can marry another wife. Although he has had 4 wives but in a single instance he is allowed to marry up to form.

And this, I think, is a better understanding of why the Quran used this form of numbers. However there is room for the interpretation the author has understood, and there is some support for it within Traditional Islam. However, on balance, for the reasons outlined, I do not think it is the best interpretation.

Salam,

In the Abraham-naming theory, it is as follows:

1) Abraham named you (i.e. followers of this) al muslimeen from before
AND
2) Abraham named you al muslimeen in this (creed/millat)

How do explain parts 1 and 2? i.e. this millat is the same as Abraham's so why does it differentiate? In case my point is still not clear one simply needs to answer how Abraham named us from before AND how Abraham named us in this millat.

If one can explain that without giving Abraham omnipresent-like attribute, I'd welcome an explanation.

I do not know how one arrives at your 2nd proposition if you read the verse 22:78 to mean Prophet Ibrahim is the one naming us Muslims. The verse is not difficult to understand. Prophet Ibrahim simply named his lineage and believers as Muslims -- in his time.

Verse:

And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him.

He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty.

[It is] the religion of your father, Abraham.


Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people.

Ibrahim named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger [Prophet Muhammad] may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people.

So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah . He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.

***

I do not see your confusion. 

[primary]

As-salam alaykum

With respect dear brother Khalid, we all start from a common ground, a common belief. Whether you are Sunni / Shi'a, Quran-centric, Quranist or whatever label one wants to call themselves, we all agree with the fact the Quran is the book of God and the primary source of Islam.

So any discussion should emanate from there with the Quran as the criterion. Hence my invitation to discuss the crux of our difference on the thread already shared.

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1089.0

You kindly share:

"There is difference between having a different perspective on something and being outright incorrect."

I totally agree. However, as I am sure you will appreciate, Who is correct / incorrect needs to be proved. If someone is starting from the conclusion that 'they are correct no matter what' then no fruitful discussion can ever occur as their sole intention will be to prove themselves right.

You kindly share:

"And the difference between "Quran only" and "Quran and Hadith" is a matter of fundamental basic difference. Keeping this in mind - I hope we have lively and fruitful discussion."

I hope so too dear brother and I am looking forward to it (time permitting and God willing). Hence the thread that I have shared. I have recently had a 'not so pleasant' experience with an individual from the Salafi school of thought, hence I remain very reluctant to get into any unnecessary arguments and I have asked the moderators to remain vigilant.

You share:

"Having said the above, I ask you to, please review your article on اسوة حسنة most carefully. The verse relating to Prophet Ibrahim does not give meaning to the term اسوة حسنة at all."

Of course I will. Please give me time to take a look at your contentions which in due course I will respond to Insha'Allah.

Regards,
Joseph

Salam,

Thank you for the kind reply.

I totally agree. However, as I am sure you will appreciate, Who is correct / incorrect needs to be proved. If someone is starting from the conclusion that 'they are correct no matter what' then no fruitful discussion can ever occur as their sole intention will be to prove themselves right.

And furthermore when discussing the language aspect of the Quran then our reliance to determine who is correct is based upon:

1. Quran.

2. Logic [Correct reasoning]

3. Linguistics - such Arabic lexicons*, syntax, semantics, etymology, pragmatics, phonetics and etc.
   
* here it is valid to use Hadith Corpus as a source of general or otherwise history - even the fabricated hadith.

***

I will take any further general discussions about Hadith and it validity to the suggested thread. However, leave this open for your article about Uswa Hasana.

I look forward to all further replies.

Salaam.

Please correct me if I am wrong:

"Salaamun 'Aalaikum" is, after all, an innocent, or pious act of dittoing from the Qur'an. There is nothing wrong with it linguistically too. (Let us respect individual leanings regarding pious preferences.)

"Assalaamu 'Alaikum", is true, as a matter of course.

In all humbleness, I appreciate with thanks, your pointing out Verse (19:33).

Looking forward to blessed and productive exchanges in future,

And, with great regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

There is nothing wrong with it linguistically too.

Yes there is. Salamuk Alikum by itself would not become a meaningful Arabic sentence as such - it is a phrase. This is why when used independently -

As-Salamu Alikum - is normally used.

But the real contention is this:

To imply that "As-Salamu Alikum" is not Quranic and simply Arabic is incorrect and shows lack of understanding.

But - if someone wishes to use "Salamun" that is not problem. I prefer to use "Salam" alone.   



So to sum up the real issue is saying that: "As-Salamu Alikum" is Arabic and not Quranic. And trying to portray the "Salamun Alikum" as more quranic.

Salaam.

"We, Sufi/Sunni believe that the Prophet Muhammad [Peace Be Upon Him] had legislative and other powers granted by Allah"

Please explain what you meant by "legislative and other powers".

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Legislative power - to encode something into law.

Other powers - we believe the Prophet Muhammad - although has physically passed away - however is source of spirituality and a form of life of which we have no perception of. 

Salam khalid,
These are the male persons with their female partner where the terminous "Imraat" is used.



3:35 إFemale  and Imraan
12:30 Female the royal of egypt
28:9 Female and the ruler of egypt
66:10 Female and Lot/Noah
11:69-72Female and Abraham

It is recognizable that these Person follow a ministry in an advanced age,also the Prophet Muhamad (pbuh) female Partners are mentioned in the quran but with other terminous not with the word"Imraat".

I dont know at what age the prophet was when the ayats where revealed but we can assume that the persons above had to be older than the Prophet when he demised.

wa salam

Salam,

Yet, none of this alludes to the age of women. The 'Imrat simply means a woman. It gives no other indication. Alleging age of woman based on the alleged age of Husband - that just seems far-fetched. And look at what you say:

It is recognizable that these Person follow a ministry in an advanced age

Yet your examples are not all about Prophets. And the only one we know was in old age is Zakariyah. The only thing we can determine is that the word Imrat - does not refer to a girl but to a woman [beyond the age menstruation and having reached adulthood].

Also to imply someone of old age - added adjectives are used:

فأقبلت امرأته في صرة فصكت وجهها وقالت عجوز عقيم

And his wife approached with a cry [of alarm] and struck her face and said, "[I am] a barren old woman!" [51:29]



Therefore - the only meaning possible for the word "Imrat" is woman.

Dear Joseph  ,

Given the fact that I have chosen to remain anonymous, any personal claims that I may make of my academic background will be futile.

It is not the question of your academic background as such, but one of understanding. When one disagrees - the language is bound to be contentious. I have challenged your understanding of the matter . . .

As this is your site - then you have complete autonomy to dictate the terms. However, it is up to you to engage in such debates and challenges. You do not have to - if you do not wish to do so. As you have this open forum - and seem open to a lively debate then I take it you are open to your work being critiqued. I apologize of any offense caused, as this is not my intention.

Furthermore, one's credentials have no exclusive bearing on the truth of an argument. 

True. However, two scientists talking science and a scientists versus a non-scientist is a different matter altogether. When you simply re-iterate your former position without addressing the objections posed, then that does show lack of understanding.



This is not matter of over-whelming importance - but mild gripe. I think, it is not right to say that "salamun" is Quranic expression and "al-Salamu" isn't. And there is no other way of saying this - but this does show a lack of understanding. 

You say with regards my statement that "This is simply conjecture on your part. You have no way of knowing."

Given that the Quran has been revealed in the language of the Prophet and his contemporaries and the Quran uses this expression, I do not accept that this is conjecture.

But you have no way of knowing whether the Prophet simply used "Salamun" or the correct independent version "As-Salamu". Also the Quran has been revealed in the Arabic language and as will ALL languages there is difference between literary and spoken dialects.

Quran uses the expression is correct grammar mode. And when it is right - as I have shown Quran also uses "Al-Salamu" also. Hence, it is incorrect to say "Salamun" is the correct Quranic expression.

Also, Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Yes, I standby what I said. From using Quran alone, your argument is conjecture.



Thank you for your patience

Dear khalid salam,

In some countrys it is not unusual to greet just with salam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R_fn9TPj7o

Yes, but they adopt Arabic expression into their language - Urdu does that a lot.