User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 17 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 17 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
You can't even understand an answer when it is presented to you - you latch onto symptoms, do not understand the problem to be fundamentally with the wrong economic paradigms. Even kuffar like Marx provided more profound solutions than your simplistic soundbites that reiterate capitalist propaganda whilst ignoring the causes of the problem.
Nope - you again cite irrelevant text which I refuted in my response which you have ignored.
Both of these texts talk about a prophet coming or being destined - and other evidences prove he was a prophet at 40 when he first received revelation. They do not state that before 40 Mohammed was a prophet which is what you are arguing.
Please stop twisting texts which you have shown you do not understand - having been caught out fabricating texts to support democracy as none exist, you obviously are wary about doing that with these texts, and in their original form they do not support your argument whatsoever!
According to your logic is does require an exception to be stated - you now are trying to reverse your argument having found out it is a total and utter failure - and your cheap tactic of resorting to abuse does not work either.
Either accept you are wrong or prove Mohammed was a prophet before 40!
And address all my questions instead of avoiding them which is what you do when you are stuck - why did Mohammed conceal his prophethood to all in mecca before 40? What he lying or deceiving people when he first received revelation and did not know what was happening? Why did he marry his daughters to mushriks when he was a messenger of God? Why did he choose to appear naked in public requiring god to intervene?
The list of problems with your argument just goes on and on and on... the reason being it is a kufr argument!
So one again you are refusing to answer.
It is not about soundbites but about facts.
You like esoteric academic discussions where you cannot be pinned to anything.
But the reality on the ground is that specifics matter - something you have refused to address.
You have to show how these paradigms are the cause of the problem and how Islam would solve that.
Since you are pretty repetitive over where the problem is, I am sure you are more than capable of showing how it is the problem and how it can be fixed.
Unless ofcourse you are talking out of your rear end. again.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Wait, you refuted the verse of the qur'an mentioning teh second covenant with the prophets? I somehow missed that...
Just saying you did something and then repeating it like a religious mantra does not make it true.
Translate: "I do not want to accept qur'an and hadith, please stop quoting it as it will make my head explode! I am taking a position counter to yours damned be the qur'an and hadith" is that what you really wanted to say?
I did from a verse in the qur'an which mentioned that the prophets were prophets even before birth. By all means ignore the verse of the qur'an that I presented, but please do not conceal the fact that it has already been presented multiple times.
I also mentioned another hadith where the prophet
claimed being a prophet before the soul of Hadhrat Adam (as) was put into a body.
Yet when these are mentioned, you simply go "please stop twisting things" without any evidence over how they have been twisted. Here's a hint: they are not twisted. The twisted thing it your mind which refuses to accept qur'an and hadith when it does not suit your argument.
Your mantra is a polemic one where you decide your positions by being opposed to others intead of actually looking at what you actually believe.
How about you stick to your own standard here? there are aton of questions you have refused to answer. Will you do that? Do you accept the second coovenant with the souls? Which concrete steps would an Islamic state take to prevent industrial pollution compared to the situation in the UK? simple questions really, especially sionce you are so well educated and have read books on economics and finance...
More, when I do continue, you see is as conceding the earlier point, which is not the case.
As someone who feels she is infallible and inscrutible, it is surprising how often you are wrong.
Are you saying that you are one of those that believe that someone else had to tell the Prophet
what was happening to him?
You do realise the incident with Waraqa Bin Nawfil was about a confirmation which could also be presented to others?
More, the prophet
had been actively prevented from sinning as you mentioned in your quote previously - he simply could not do it. Don't you think that would have cottoned on? Then there were others who had recognised the prophet 
as a prophet during childhood etc.
Why was mu'tah allowed? Why was drinking allowed? Simply because such rules did not exist at the time. Actions became haraam as they were legislated against throug revelation.
Once again you have been concealing the answers to these questions that I have gave before. Please tell me, what do the words "kaafir" and kufr mean?
Oh yes, it goes on and on. except that you cannot mention anything other than by concealing the previous answers given to you, you concealer of truth.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
http://www.allcountries.org/maps/urban_air_pollution_maps.html
Muhammad (saw).
And your point being from posting this map=
It´s not an esoteric discussion for someone who has bothered to study economics. For someone who has never studied pretty much anything all things are abstract and esoteric.
The hypocrisy is clear as you accept an abstract entity called God which you have never seen nor can show to exist but as soon as anyone mentions anything a little more profound than your rantings you have to resort to abuse.
Your history shows that you skip important points that you can´t refute (the last debate saw a lack of response to my request to bring actual socio-political bonds that Islam provided rather than other kinds of bonds - you could not cite any but were happy to follow kufr nationalistic bonds!). Stop catching bits which interest your eye and read the entire post and refute them. But you can´t so you won´t.
Wrong! The verse you cited does not state that he was a messenger before 40 / it states a Messenger will come - where does it cite he will be a messenger befoer 40? It in no way supports your argument that he would be a messenger before 40 and receive revelation before that age which would later be abrogated. Citing irrelevant texts does not help your failed case!
Yes and you lied again. This hadith is talking about him being destined to be a prophet even before all creation and not that he was a prophet before 40. If it is destined you will have gray here and it is in the lahw mahfooz - it does not mean that you will have grey hair all your life. You need the text to state you will be destined to have grey hair all your life if you wish to make that assertion - the text sadly lacks that so does not substantiate your argument.
Sadly you have to twist these texts to get your conclusion as the texts do not say what you want them to say. You´ve been caught out red handed fabricating and twisting meanings before and without doing that your arguments have no evidence! you dare not do that now as you know you will be caught out again as a liar and fraudster! But that has already been proven so it makes little difference - feel free to distort evidences!
I have answered all questions - questions that have no relevance usually get skipped - the fact you can't see their irrelevance is your problem and not mine. Either show their relevance and I will address them - if you can't I will skip them.
Accepting or rejecting the second covenant adds or detracts nothing from our current discussion. It is a primordial matter that at best indicates what is destined to happen - it does not provide any detail of what will happen and when which is what you are arguing.
It´s like arguing because man had a primordial covenant with Allah and agreed to it a child can speak when he is born! The two matters are unrelated. Mohammed was born Mohammed and not Mohammed rasoolallah! Usuli scholars don't argue such nonsense - they argue he was a messenger from 40 and we follow revelation that came to him at that point / whether he was destined to be a messenger and at what point is a separate credal discussion. You should read books of those who have knowledge rather than start believing your own deluded fantasies!
You want things explained to you in concrete terms as you appear too dense to understand the real problem that may be clouded by a number of issues including considerable political propaganda which you have ingested. As such you want an explanation of how Islam would solve the problems capitalism creates instead of understanding the cause of the problems is capitalism and its philosophy and until it is removed such environmental and social problems will keep resurfacing around the world.
You fail to understand Islam would not create such problems in the first place - is that too abstract for you to understand? Can you not think outside capitalist and democractic frameworks and paradigms?
You need to show it rather than assert it - I understand that when your arguments are continuously rejected and refuted, you feel the need to resort to attacking the person who is refuting your understandings rather than sincerely accepting you might be wrong and changing your understanding. The fact you cannot even prove the existence of God should show how poor your thinking and understanding is. You should start with basics and build your thinking up from there. If one´s epsiteme is wrong, everything built on it will be wrong. And in your case as I mentioned earlier, has fundamental problems at an epistemological level. You are misguided and try to misguide others thinking you are doign good. Quranic verses condemn such people to hell.
You have been caught lying, fabricating hadiths, opinions, justifying kufr, supporting democracy, denying aspects of Islam, claiming to follow majority and rejecting the majority who talk about the Caliphate... You are so contradictory and poorly read that you even have to attack academic works, scholars and any learning cos you have none. Absolutely disgusting! Muslims respect knowledge and learning and follow it - in your cesspool it may sound good to attack knowledge and fabricate stuff to win arguments but noone in the real world respects such nonsense!
Firstly, please ANSWER ALL my questions rather than dodging them as you have been doing so far in this discussion.
Secondly, the ahadith make it clear the confusion the Prophet suffered when he first received revelation. Unusual for someone who was already a prophet! LOL
Noone cottoned on to what happened to the Prophet(saw) before revelation as there were perfectly reasonable explanations for his life and there was nothing else to cotton onto. That is why noone claimed him, including himself, as a prophet!
Who claimed he was a prophet during his childhood? Or is this another fabrication?
Did Mohammed believe he was a prophet before 40? Which evidence shows this? Or is this another fabrication now you are struggling with citing texts?
Mutah and drinking was allowed as revelation permitted it and not due to rules not existing!
Again you avoid my questions - a prophet of God gave his daughters to mushriks - if this is abrogated, there has to be evidence that it was revelation in the first place. Are you so dense as to argue allah revealed to the prophet that he could marry his daughters to kuffar mushriks? Where is the proof for this or are you lying against allah? Nothing new I guess as you have lied before!
Please cite the scholars who say that mohammed had revelation before 40 - and that what he did was revelation and that it was abrogated later. This is just nonsense you are making up as you go along. It is not even persuasive in the slightest degree and it is very close to kufr if not kufr - I personally suspect you are even a muslim hearing all this nonsense!
All this nonsense to support your fallacious argument that exceptions have to be mentioned. Which as I cited earlier, you hypocritically do not mention in previously cited examples which you conveniently skip! LOL
I know we could get scientific on exactly what this proves but it does prove your allegations aren't watertight. I was going to find a more specific and recent chart, thinking China will be at the top, but was limited by my browsing speed. You were making a big deal of America and Europe having all polluted themselves and this chart shows their cities at least are not causing deaths on anything like the same scale as East Asia.
@joie - shhh, she read a book on economics and finance, how dare you challenge that with pretty pretty pictures!
you may also experience partial blindness from her on this issue - she will refuse acknowledge what the map shows.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
LOL! wth, are you for real?
and there you try to change the question.
Was the qur'an mentioning how there was a covenant with the souls of the prophets not enough for you? Do you need more than that?
Please stick by your own rules before trying to force them on others. Do you accept the covenants with the souls as mentioned in the qur'an?
It is a simple question that cuts out all your BS and goes to the heart of the matter.
More hot air where you actually refuse to answer the questions asked. Please stick by your own standards.
Or is it too much to ask for a concealer of truth? afterall trying to get some truth out of you is pretty dificult if it is not of conveniennce to you.
"destined"? are you once again adding words to ahadith in order to make them suit your cause? Its not the first time and as I have mentioned in other topics, people have been asking me if you really are even Muslim... they see a person with an agenda who will reject the qur'an and sunnah when it is inconvenient for you.
(I see you accept that Mu'tah was allowed before being banned... and I assume that you also agree that alcohol was too, even though you conveniently "forgot" to mention it... this should answer your questions sufficiently why actions that came before the revelationto ban them were considered allowed. You have also mentioned how the prophet
was actively prevented from doing wrong, so if marrying his daughters to the people they were married to was wrong, surely hew would have been prevented of that too? or would such thoughts be too inconvenient for you?)
I assume youy have heard the terms "Ansaar" and "Muhajiroon".
I assume you also are aware that people who fought in the battle of badr were given special rank by others.
There is also the treatment of the tribe of Hadhrat Halimah Sa'adia.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Caught out again / you can´t cite any credible scholar / disgusting! The rest of you rant has been refuted above!
Nope / you are inserting he was a prophet receiving revelation before 40 which is not stated in this hadith.
you are obviously ignorant of fiqh whereby meanings can be attached to a text if they are established from other texts and the subject matter is the same. Too many texts make clear Mohammed never claimed or asserted his messengership before 40 / you have to bring proof he did which you have not!
If you read what I wrote, I stated he said in a hadith after revelation that Allah prevented him from being naked in the instance of being naked. That is all the hadith related to. You have a problem addressing this issue and are stuck as your whole argument is bogus! BRING PROOF rather than nonsense assertions he was a prophet who had revelation before 40. NONE EXIST!
Ansar and muhajiroon are not sociopolitical bonds. BTW neither is the label bilal or mohammed. What a joke! It is hard to believe you are so dense to think ansaar and muhajiroon were sociopolitical bonds! Where is your proof for that= You´re just making up things as you go along!
LOL The old tactic of let´s just throw anything at the argument even if it is totally irrelevant! My God! It just shows what levels you will stoop to to justify kufr ideologies!
AND WHAT'S WITH REPEATING MY ALLEGATIONS - IT SHOWS YOU ARE LITTLE MORE THAN SHEEPISH IN YOU EMULATION! DO YOU THINK I AM AS DENSE AS YOU TO BELIEVE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU STUFF ABOUT ME! SUCH TACTICS OF DESPERATION ARE SO LAUGHABLE!
Its funny how you always find things disgusting when you get caught out.
The first revelation that the prophet
recieved was at the age of 40. But that does not mean that he was an ordinary person before then, as you yourself have shown. He was the mesenger of God waiting for when the message would arrive. He was a prophet from before birth as mentioned in the hadith, without your additional words that you have decided to manufacture.
Read the verse I quoted. Accept the verse if you are Muslim - It is from the qur'an. WHy do you reject revelation? is trying to beat me in argument that important to you that you will deny qur'an and sunnah?
The question still stands. Do you or do you not accept the verse of the qur'an I quoted?
It is simple really. The whole thing can be drawn to a close by you answering yes or no to that question.
Once again you refuse to actually answer the question.
and yes, there have been atleast three separate people who have come to me with the question on wether you are for real and questioned your agenda. You do not have to believe it if you do not want, but people have seen through what they think is a fascade.
Unfortunately I think you are all too real though because a mad up person would be far more logical.
Except that you asked for proofs of bonds and I showed them. Afterall, it was you who had mentioned that some from the ansaar and Muhajiroon had to be rebuked by the prophet
for trying to call to the bond in a way that would have caused fitnah. I am just using the information that you yourself have presented in the past (and assuming that you were being honest and will not later turn around to suggest that that was not the case).
and once again you call the actions and ways of the sahabah kufr ideology...
Here is a clue - if something is from the qur'an, sunnah and accepted as the way of the sahabahs, it is not kufr ideology.
Why do you reject the qur'an and sunnah and the way of the sahabahs when it does not suit your agenda?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Firstly you do not even know what the sources are - shame on you! Before teaching others, study! Our sources are Quran, Sunnah and Ijma al-Sahaba and not the "way of the sahabas". Lifes of the companions are examples not sources of law that can be put on par with Quran and Sunnah as both of these are revelation as is what is indicated by ijma al-sahabah.
Thus you prove yourself you follow a kufr ideology - I don't need to say anything more! LOL
Finally you should actually cite relevant texts from Quran and Sunnah and ijma al-Sahaba and not stuff that is irrelevant - it's like one saying nationalism is kufr - read "qul huwallahu ahad"! It would simply show one to be an idiot!
I challenge you again, prove Mohammed was a prophet before 40!
I quoted you a verse from the qur'an. Do you accept or deny it?
Then there is your adding of words to a hadith from Sahih Muslim - adding the word destined when there was none. I guess you have to in order to continue your argument, but with you addition of words, the hadith no longer has any meaning, which is expected as it was your aim to neuter the hadith by attaching false words to it.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The problem with your quranic verse is that it does not state the Mohammed(saw) was a prophet before 40. It simply states a prophet (unnamed!) will come - how do you conclude from that, Mohammed(saw) was a prophet before the age of 40? Break down the steps in your reasoning/interpretation.
Please cite the full hadith.
It comes from the actual covenant only involving the souls of the prophets - they weer already prophets back then.
The rest of the content over when the prophet would arrive in the world are all secondary, because for the souls to have been in that covenant, they were already chosen as prophets and it was not just something that was about destiny.
Even then, Muhammad IS the messenger of God. That is the complete story.
but, hey, if your only aim is to dig out of holes and try to claim intellectual superiority, whatever flats your boat.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Sorry but I don't follow how you conclude the above from the text of the verse you cited - for example, where does it mention souls for example, how does it conclude Mohammed(saw) was a prophet back then, how does it indicate when he would actually receive revelation...?
And when Allah took the covenant of the Prophets: That I have given you of the Book and Wisdom. Then there shall come to you a Messenger (Muhammad) confirming what is with you, you shall believe in him and you shall support him to be victorious, do you agree and take My load on this? They answered: We do agree. Allah said: Then bear witness, and I will be with you among the witnesses.
My aim is to ensure a correct understanding of this verse is rendered.
Where are souls mentioned?
How do you know it was souls of the messengers?
Where is Mohammed mentioned in this verse?
How do you know this verse is referring to Mohammed?
Where is it mentioned when he will become a messenger?
Where is it mentioned when we are to recognise him to be a messenger?
etc
Quite important answers you have extracted from this verse but I can't seem to see how they are extracted from this verse...
[qs:3:81]
The arabic is "annabiyeena" in the verse
It is not limited to one prophet but to them all. Those be the words. It does not say potentials, or destined to be prophets, but actual prophets already.
The issue was never one of when the revelation was received, but if the prophet
was a prophet before receiving the revelation - which he 
was as shown by this verse.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I am surprised you have avoided answering all my questions. Maybe you can reconsider them and provide an explanation. - could you please address them point by point, carefully explaining how you derive your conclusions from this verse.
You have previously mentioned your conclusion - I am not asking you to reiterate it.
I am simply asking you to articulate your reasoning that takes the words of the verse to your conclusion.
Have you read any of the tafsirs on this verse?
Have you read the several pages of Razi's elaboration which includes a linguistic analysis?
Firstly the Arabic term al-nabiyeen which you are understanding as prophets has alternative meanings. Razi for example says in Arabic usage it may refer to the prophets, their peoples or their children - to determine which it refers to he provides several proofs for each usage and concludes it refers to their peoples eg O prophet (nabi) when you divorce your women... (talaq 1) has usage here of nabi to include the ummah/peoples. This raises the question, why are you asserting it refers to the prophets taking the covenant? A literal translation may imply that (and can be misleading to a non-Arab) but the actual arabic doesn't according to mufassireen and also companions.
Are you aware of Ibn Abbas's narrations about the alternative wordings of this verse (similar to ayat 3:187) and his explanation that the covenant was taken "alaa qawmihim" on their peoples and not on themselves?
Secondly, each prophet(saw) will be dead when Mohammed(saw) comes and Allah is well aware of this - how are they expected to follow or support Mohammed(saw) if that is who is mentioned in the verse as the annonymous prophet? The only ones who can fulfil the covenant are the followers of the prophets - thus this verse implies through the use of the term alnabiyeen their followers - the linguistic device is termed kinaayh - why do you not accept this meaning?
Thirdly, the term alnabiyeen is preceded by al al-tareef - al of al-tareef has many functions and usages in Arabic. You have picked one out of all the possibilities - maybe you can explain why. Are you aware of this point as the entire meaning can change depending on the one you pick?
Fourthly, you appear to understand the verse as one coherent whole - however the verse potentially switches the use of the damaair halfway leading to potential fragmentation of the verse and its potential meanings. Why do you ignore the other implications of the damaair and stick to the meaning you have adopted? How do you refute the other meanings?
Fifthly you seem to understand the term alnabiyeen and the covenant as one process rather than as a possible series of serial or sequential processes with each messenger in relation to successive prophets. Maybe you can explain why? Or in other words, how do you know the messenger that is to come is to be Mohammed (which you have inserted into the verse and is not there originally!)
I look forward to a detailed reasoned response.
I am surprised to answer a single question. Wait, I am not. It is afterall your way.
The majority of your questions are irrelevant. When the prophethood was declared was irrelevant as the question is was the prophet
a prophet and the qur'an talks about the covenant with the prophets.
Are you saying that all toehr prophets were prophets by then, but prophet Muhammad
was still only destined to be a prophet? if so, what is your evidence.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
My questions are relevant as you have used a Quranic verse to make a questionable conclusion and are now:
- inserting new words into quranic verses which are not there - mohammed, souls...
- are providing tafsirs of a verse contradicting those of the classical scholars
- do not understand the use of kinayah and take words like al-nabiyeen in a most literal fashion whilst Allah has used it in other verses in other ways
- you are contradicting tafsirs and explanations of the companions like ibn abbas
As I said the questions are to clarify how you derive your conclusions and your only reply to the research I present from one of the greatest mufassiroon is "it is irrelevant" whilst yours apparently is relevant.
I REST MY CASE. YOU CAN WAFFLE ON A MUCH AS YOU LIKE - YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT OUT AGAIN AND ANYONE WHO CHOOSES TO READ THE DISCUSSION ABOVE WILL SEE IT.
Thank you for your time - I would like to say I benefitted in this discourse but I sadly didn't.
So you are saying that when the verse is referring to prophets, it is not referring to prophets?
Gymnastics eh?
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, English Translation
By all means. I think people can make up their own mind. I hope you've decided to go for good.
Such a think requires an open mind. Besides your only point was to try and win an argument and also get yourself out of the previous hole when you had no concrete steps in the topic about environmentalism - I ahd even given you a platform, use the UK, a dirty capitalist system and show if the dirty capitalist system was replaced with Islam what would be the difference in the industrial policies that would change or not any effect of pollution.
You refused to answer, claiming it was beyond me to understand what you would have answered.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Good. What would have benefited you is evidently not to anyone's taste.
Finally an attempt at answering my questions.
However if you read my questions they are not saying the verse is not referring to prophets, they clearly state the term can mean one of three possibilities - why do you pick it means prophets? Please try to espond to the arguments and not straw men arguments.
The Ibn Kathir cut and paste is not your source as he does not state anything about:
- souls
- Mohammed being a prophet before the age of 40
- talks about a man coming in the future who should be followed
It in fact undermines your argument as it argues Mohammed would come in the future. Razi's tafseer which is far superior, detailed and critically analyses the verse much more fully than the half page Ibn Kathir rendition actually poses more questions and possibilities in relation to this verse with evidences which I would like you to address as you are bringing a disputed verse to "prove" Mohammed was a prophet before 40.
My questions are reposted below:
Where are souls mentioned in this verse?
How do you KNOW it was souls of the messengers and not peoples or their children?
Where is Mohammed mentioned in this verse?
How do you know this verse is referring to Mohammed? Which AUTHENTIC traditions are you using to assert this?
Where is it mentioned when he will become a messenger as the text states he will come in the future at some point?
Where is it mentioned when we are to recognise him to be a messenger at which point we are to emulate him and take from him?
Additionally,
Firstly the Arabic term al-nabiyeen which you are understanding as prophets has ALTERNATIVE meanings. RAZI for example says in Arabic usage it may refer to the prophets, their peoples or their children - to determine which it refers to he provides several proofs for each usage and concludes it refers to their peoples eg O prophet (nabi) when you divorce your women... (talaq 1) has usage here of nabi to include the ummah/peoples. This raises the question, why are you asserting it refers to the prophets taking the covenant? A literal translation may imply that (and can be misleading to a non-Arab) but the actual arabic doesn't according to mufassireen and also companions.
Are you aware of Ibn Abbas's narrations about the alternative wordings of this verse (similar to ayat 3:187) and his explanation that the covenant was taken "alaa qawmihim" on their peoples and not on themselves? COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAVE TAKEN YOUR INTERPRETATION INSTEAD OF THESE ALTERNATIVES AND WHY YOU FAILED TO MENTION THESE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS? THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS TRYING TO ATTACK ME FOR HIDING INFORMATION - YOU APPEAR TO BE DOING IT HERE BUT I WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN.
Secondly, Razi argues each prophet will be dead when Mohammed comes and Allah is well aware of this - how are they expected to follow or support Mohammed if that is who is mentioned in the verse as the annonymous prophet? The only ones who can fulfil the covenant are the followers of the prophets - thus this verse implies through the use of the term alnabiyeen their followers - the linguistic device is termed kinaayh - why do you not accept this meaning and argument?
Thirdly, the term alnabiyeen is preceded by al al-tareef - al of al-tareef has many functions and usages in Arabic. You have picked one out of all the possibilities - maybe you can explain why. Are you aware of this point as the entire meaning can change depending on the one you pick?
Fourthly, you appear to understand the verse as one coherent whole - however the verse potentially switches the use of the damaair halfway leading to potential fragmentation of the verse and its potential meanings. Why do you ignore the other implications of the damaair and stick to the meaning you have adopted? How do you refute the other meanings?
Fifthly you seem to understand the term alnabiyeen and the covenant as one process rather than as a possible series of serial or sequential processes with each messenger in relation to successive prophets. Maybe you can explain why?
Hopefully you can address these pertinent questions rather than state they are irrelevant - if you think they are irrelevant, maybe you can provide reasons for why you think they are irrelevant.
Why would those questions even come up when we are talking before even their birth?
If a prophet is a prophet even before birth, that kind of precludes the question around the age of 40.
What difference does it make if it was souls or not? The questions seem like an attempt to evade as they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. But I guess you need to evade as otherwise it may hurt your pride.
Choose either one. It still requires the prophets to be prophets. None of the explanations take away the prophethood of the prophets. None of them deny that the prophets weer prophets at the time - they all still require the prophets to be prophets.
But still, this is subterfuge trying to change the topic You have used this in the past too - offer a long discussion on a hadith or a verse that still does not agree with your position in the hope that people will find the discussion interesting enough to ignore the hole you had dug yourself into.
None of what you write afterwards going into the details of different parts of the verse with different variations of understanding actually changes the basic facts - I am not arguing whether it was the prophets themselves personally who took an oath, which is the common understanding, or if it was their nations. I am saying that it is saying they were prophets back then. None of your arguments denies that basic point, it just tries to hide it in a haystack.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It makes a major difference as:
- you have imposed your understanding on the text which is problematic,
- you have hidden the fact there are other understandings, conflicting with the allegation you were making to me
- you have again inserted words like soul, mohammed etc into the text which are not there
- you have ignored more realisitic and probable meanings of the verse which you cite
That is the point of the questions which is apparent for anyone who reads them.
Your difficulty is you can't refute them as the answers are not readily available via a quick google search - you do this on all matters that require analysis and some research. Google may be good for bringing up some info, but it fails badly in such cases.
The different meanings of the verse would undermine your argument:
- if covenants were taken with the prophets, which prophets was it taken from? Some or all? This is determined by the al al-tareef
- were covenants taken sequentially or all at once - this would determine whether they were taken when someone was a prophet or when they were destined to be a prophet in this life and were not prophets in this life
- whether such a covenant was taken by the peoples/children of earlier prophets about the next prophet or not
- whether the verse even refers to mohammed or successive prophets, one after the other
- what the verse means when it says a prophet will come - will he be a prophet from birth, from some fixed point/event or from when he received revelation...
etc
All of which cause problems for your particular interpretation and its acceptability.
Even the tafsir you have cited contradicts the explanation you have been arguing - which leads me to ask whose tafsir is it if anyone's? Yours? Are you a scholar, specifically a mufassir? What is your study of Islam?
To allege this is attempting to change the subject appears unusual and maybe even meaningless - what subject am I moving onto in your opinion?
Do ANY of the different understandings change the fact that the prophets would be prophets then? No.
The verse calls them prophets. Adding words of destiny is a false game as there is no such word in the verse and you have not shown any historical mufassir talk about "destined to be prophets" or "destined to be prophets's nations". If it was all at once or one after the other, or bunches at a time, it is all irrelevant as that does not change the point I am making.
However we can assume that this was not after the deaths of the people, whoever they were, as then asking them to follow someone who will be sent to earth later on if they are alive in his time will be illogical. So that leaves before birth, at some point. Unless you are now going to argue that this happens during a persons life and that the verse is not talking about the past...
I thought we were seeing the new improved HMD who would be able to accept flaw in her views and actions, but I guess its just a show - You are what you do. Your actions define you just like my actions define me.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Pages