Messengers and Prophets (Rasool & Nabi)

[Link]

a Messenger.

“I am to you a Messenger worthy of all trust."

Okay but Quran says he was contemporary of Ibrahim (a) and "so believed in him (Ibrahim) Lut...". Also, see Surah Hijr, he was a contemporary. So where does this leave your theory?

 

[Link]

Regarding verse 20:47, you can check translations: Ayah Ta Ha (Ta Ha) 20:47

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@Link

You might want to consider this verse:


وَأَخِى هَـٰرُونُ هُوَ أَفْصَحُ مِنِّى لِسَانًۭا فَأَرْسِلْهُ مَعِىَ رِدْءًۭا يُصَدِّقُنِىٓ ۖ إِنِّىٓ أَخَافُ أَن يُكَذِّبُونِ ٣٤

"And my brother Aaron is more fluent than me in speech, so send him with me as support, verifying me. Indeed, I fear that they will deny me." 28:34

Aaron, was sent, at the request of Moses. But was not sent, because God wanted to send him, to convey a direct message from God.

In this sense, Aaron was sent with Moses. Thus, Moses was sent as Messenger of God, and Aaron was sent with Him as His assistant.

Thus, when they went to Pharaoh, they are both sent ones. Moses is sent, to convey Message of God, and Aaron was sent as helper.

Also, consider this Hadith;


قَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ تَسُوسُهُمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءُ، كُلَّمَا هَلَكَ نَبِيٌّ خَلَفَهُ نَبِيٌّ، وَإِنَّهُ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي، وَسَيَكُونُ خُلَفَاءُ فَيَكْثُرُونَ."

Translation: Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "The Israelites used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would succeed him. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number."


Question: can you find a Hadith that says, Aaron, Messenger of God (رسول الله)؟



Also, you might want to consider that, Jesus also sent His disciples to spread His teachings. For this reason, they are called Messengers of Jesus.

This can be seen from Acts 1:26 in the original Greek language of the New Testament is:

Καὶ ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος ἐπὶ Μαθθίαν· καὶ συνκατεψηφίσθη μετὰ τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων.

Transliteration:
Kai edōkan klērous autois, kai epesen ho klēros epi Maththian; kai synkatepsēphisthē meta tōn hendeka apostolōn.

Translation (New International Version):
"Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

The Greek word "ἀπόστολον" (apostolon) is the accusative singular form of "ἀπόστολος" (apostolos). The literal meaning of "ἀπόστολος" (apostolos) is "one who is sent" or "a messenger."

The term comes from the Greek verb "ἀποστέλλω" (apostellō), which means "to send off" or "to send away." In the context of the New Testament, "apostolos" refers to someone who is sent with a specific mission or commission, particularly the twelve apostles who were sent by Jesus to spread his teachings.

 

[Link]

The problem is with your definition. Haroun (a) being a Messenger alongside Musa (a) as a helper is not a problem with my definition. The Quran is going to be consistent with definition to show what is meant.

Haroun (a) is stated to be a Messenger. This helps me define what a Messenger is because I don't come imposing my view on the Quran. I learn from the Quran what the proper view is.

Disciples were Messengers too, but not chosen Messengers by God. Remember Fatima (a) famous speech to companions when Fadak was taken away from her, she tells them the companions were meant to be Messengers to the nations of the world.

Companions and disciples are messengers, but not Messengers sent by God nor are they infallible in conveying the messages nor are they a definitive authority pertaining to the messages.

Simon (a) is not pre-chosen before coming to this world. Simon (a) like Salman Farsi (a) gained Isma in this world, same with Zainab (a).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Okay but Quran says he was contemporary of Ibrahim (a) and "so believed in him (Ibrahim) Lut...". Also, see Surah Hijr, he was a contemporary. So where does this leave your theory?

My take is, Lut and Abraham were sent to two different Tribes or people.

.According to Islamic tradition and the Quran, Ibrahim was sent to his people who practiced idolatry, while Lut was sent to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who were known for their immoral and sinful behavior, particularly homosexuality and other transgressions.

Therefore, they were sent to different communities with distinct challenges and messages tailored to the specific sins and behaviors of those they were sent to guide and warn.

Both were Messengers and Prophets.

For example in Bahai Faith, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, who are fulfillment of the Mahdi and Christ, are contemporary. But both were not Messengers at the same time. First the Bab was the Messenger and Baha'u'llah, was a believer and follower of the Bab. Later, once the Bab was Martyred, some years later, Baha'u'llah's mission begun as a new Messenger.

Whether or not, Abraham and Lut were Messengers at the same time, I cannot tell. It could be that, Lut was appointed as a Messenger after Abraham had left the world. So, while they were contemporary, their mission as Messengers was not at the same time.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

It's not that it's different, it's that it contradicts the Quran in a clear way.

How clearly does it contradict? You are talking, but you are not saying anything. There is nothing for me to consider in your explaining.

The Bible and Quran both have contradicting verses within themselves. Anyone that says otherwise is ignoring the facts. Like some people might try to just ignore the dark sayings of the messengers, and only focus on the good sayings. But if the dark sayings are seen as saying exactly the same things as the light sayings, then there is no contradiction, there is light in the darkness.

Contradicting speech is clearly not a reason to reject Baha'u'llah as a messenger.

 

[Link]

Whether or not, Abraham and Lut were Messengers at the same time, I cannot tell. It could be that, Lut was appointed as a Messenger after Abraham had left the world.

It can't be, because Ibrahim (a) was talking about Lut's (a) people destruction while Lut (a) was sent to them.

 

[Link]

How clearly does it contradict?

I've shown in other threads. To show here would make the thread way off-topic.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I've shown in other threads. To show here would make the thread way off-topic.

Another deflective answer of hollow words from you. By the 6th post of this thread you are calling Bahai texts a fabrication. By the 10th post you are calling Baha'u'llah a liar.

Do you think your claims in this thread should go unquestioned.

So where is your thread that holds the answer to what a messenger is not. Point me to it.

 

[Link]

Another deflective answer of hollow words from you. By the 6th post of this thread you are calling Bahai texts a fabrication. By the 10th post you are calling Baha'u'llah a liar.

Do you think your claims in this thread should go unquestioned.

So where is your thread that holds the answer to what a messenger is not. Point me to it.

My posts were off-topic so my bad on that.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

My posts were off-topic so my bad on that.

If you are not able to identify and clearly explain an imposter, then it is clear that you don't know what a messenger is. Therefore everything that you say about messengers will all be based on assumption. The difference is what stops you from just making things up.

You can't know the Quran unless you know the difference. Because without knowing the difference you can only assume Muhammad is not an imposter.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It can't be, because Ibrahim (a) was talking about Lut's (a) people destruction while Lut (a) was sent to them.

How do you know Lut was sent to them at that time?

Lut could've been among them, but, His mission as Messenger had not started yet.
Remember, the process is, Allah makes Him a Prophet before making Him a Messenger. So, at the time, He could have been a Prophet, and not a Messenger yet. How can you tell?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Regarding verse 20:47, you can check translations: Ayah Ta Ha (Ta Ha) 20:47

Yes, saw various translations. Some of them translate as like this:

:So go to him and say: 'The two of us have indeed been sent by your Lord. So let the children of Israel come with us, and do not oppress them. We have come to you with a token from your Lord. Peace on him who follows the way of guidance"


So, not necessarily both are Messengers to function as a Messenger. But both are sent together to Pharaoh.

But let me ask you a technical Arabic question.

See verse(18:60):
وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِفَتَاهُ لَآ أَبْرَحُ حَتَّىٰٓ أَبْلُغَ مَجْمَعَ ٱلْبَحْرَيْنِ أَوْ أَمْضِىَ حُقُبًۭا

Translation (Yusuf Ali): "And when Moses said to his servant, 'I will not cease (traveling) until I reach the junction of the two seas or continue for a long period.'"

In this verse, the dual form for بحر is بحرين، meaning, two seas.

Based on this, the Dual form of رسول is رسولين

So, if Allah meant to say, both Aaron and Moses, are two Messengers, why He did not say رسولين؟


فَأۡتِیَاهُ فَقُولَاۤ إِنَّا رَسُولَا رَبِّكَ فَأَرۡسِلۡ مَعَنَا بَنِیۤ إِسۡرَ ٰۤءِیلَ وَلَا تُعَذِّبۡهُمۡۖ قَدۡ جِئۡنَـٰكَ بِءَایَةࣲ مِّن رَّبِّكَۖ وَٱلسَّلَـٰمُ عَلَىٰ مَنِ ٱتَّبَعَ ٱلۡهُدَىٰۤ

20:47

What is the wisdom that, Allah said رسولا instead of رسولين ?
Can you tell exactly why? I don't want theory or guesses. I want a sure knowledge.

Another example of dual form is:

(55:53):فَبِأَىِّ ءَالَآءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ

Translation (Yusuf Ali): "So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? (both) of you."
Based on this form, two Messengers would be رسولان، not رسولا.

 

[Link]

How do you know Lut was sent to them at that time?

Lut could've been among them, but, His mission as Messenger had not started yet.
Remember, the process is, Allah makes Him a Prophet before making Him a Messenger. So, at the time, He could have been a Prophet, and not a Messenger yet. How can you tell?

For one Allah (swt) says he does not punish unless he sends a Messenger. And another is that when he tells them he is their Messenger yet they can and were destroyed, it means not after.

 

[Link]

Yes, saw various translations.

You are a resourceful guy. Why don't you look it up. Tell me what you find. Every time I explain something to you in Arabic you think I'm dishonest.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

For one Allah (swt) says he does not punish unless he sends a Messenger. And another is that when he tells them he is their Messenger yet they can and were destroyed, it means not after.

No, I mean, how old was Abraham when, Lut became a Messenger? Do you know?
Was Abraham sent in the fire yet or not?

 

[Link]

No, I mean, how old was Abraham when, Lut became a Messenger? Do you know?
Was Abraham sent in the fire yet or not?

It was before Isaac was born.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It was before Isaac was born.

See, as you already know, I don't believe Jesus was not killed, or Abraham did not die in the fire. They were human beings with respect to their body.

By not getting killed, is meant, their Cause did not die, but was exalted. The word of God which was light, did not diminish.

So, they threw Abraham in the Fire, He did not die, but the Fire turned to garden. By "Garden", is meant the Faith of God. Its likeness is, the Religion of God, is like a good Tree, that gives Spiritual fruits, which is food for the soul.
Abraham sacrificed His life, but instead, a Garden appeared. Now, although they physically killed Him, yet the Ummah of Abraham, rised, and continued to spread His teachings. It was as if, Abraham was alive in His Ummah.

 

[Link]

Quran has Isaac and Ismail born after that event though.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Many times, when the Holy Books speak of birth of Prophets, they are not talking about their birth physically from their mother. It means, the beginning of their mission, as a Prophet.
Issac mission started after Abraham passed away.