Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eIqra

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. Ulemas are 99.9 percent biased towards their own fiqas/creed/sect which they have beforehand and see the quran through their own lens. In the Name of the High assalam o alaykum well, the statement above, is a biased form in and of it-self there is no absolute way to ascertain that ones perspective is un-biased, and hence when we speak of the Prophet being, ummi, we speak so with the under-standing, that he was an empty vessel filled to the brim with Divine Revelation. this is a concept that is even shared with other religions, though make an effort to make sure that they "empty" them-selves fi
  2. actually the context of the two verses is quite seperate and distinct (yes - you might be thinking, here is eIqra again, introducing his ambiguities), nevertheless, 16:21-22, are Meccan verses and were specifically with reference to the Meccan dis-belivers, since within the context of "muslims" we do ascribe to the belief of "tawassul", where we invoke other than 'Allah' with the intention that it is 'through Allah' that our supplications via the intermediary are accepted, where-as in 16:21-22, addressed to the Meccan dis-believers, quite explicit from this verse 016.022 YUSUFALI: Your Allah
  3. In the Name of the Most High assalam o 'alaykum Shaykh Usman in the last response, there were citations of several Quranic verses, and to share what was evident, these verses, as they are in your post, "Surely, the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam. He created him out of dust, then He said to him, 'Be', and he was." (3:60) "never thou wilt find a change in the way of Allah" (33:63) "therein shall you live and therein shall you die and therefrom shall you be brought forth" (7:26) "And for you there is an abode in the earth and a provision for a time" i.e. God has fixed earth a
  4. on the Sura al Anbiya 021.034 YUSUFALI: We granted not to any man before thee permanent life (here): if then thou shouldst die, would they live permanently? PICKTHAL: We appointed immortality for no mortal before thee. What! if thou diest, can they be immortal! SHAKIR: And We did not ordain abiding for any mortal before you. What! Then if you die, will they abide? i under-stand this rather differently than you do (though i agree with you as well), and notice the construct of the verse, that 1 - "min qablika" of Muhammad, no one lives permanently. now let me phrase this as follows, "Isa, be
  5. In the Name of the Most High wa 'alaykum as salams (and not AOA or WAS) i think that our discussion on 3:55 is over, since you are digressing into other avenues. as to this issue, Isa is/was a human being. as to the other points in this previous post (detail posts, as you term them!) 1 - humans needing food - the sustenance of those who were in the cave after hundreds of years? they were mortals as well. besides, i "don't" claim to know where Isa is, or where he isn't! let me jolt your memory again, the 2 Divine Attributes of Self Disclosure that are used within the context of God and Isa, you
  6. there is no Quranic evidence, none what so-ever of a "Mahdi" in the Quran. Isa, yes their and of Muhammads Contemporaries, abu Lahab, Zayd and .... so where is "Mahdi" in the Quran? i have read quite extensively on this issue, both ahlal sunna and shi'i literature. there is no, absolutely no explicit, none what so-ever reference to "a" Mahdi, "the" Mahdi, or the MGA Mahdi titled that he claimed in the Quran. you know it and i know it.[/b] Isa is there, so lets stick to Isa. here, let me give you ... 1 - Isa is alive and will return with Mahdi 2 - Isa is dead and the Mahdi/Messiah is also dead
  7. it is the context, check this site out Tawaffa for Beginners http://www.ahmedi.org/node/21 .... in any case, regards, eIqra is this one of your moments? i think that you are entitled to one, since it adds a sense of relaxation, doesn't it? when you do make contact, say eIqra said, "Hi, and we are having a ball of a time"! but, what does it mean? is it meant in the sense of mocking some one? truly, i want to under-stand, why you write as such? insha 'Allah you can clarify? eIqra
  8. In the Name of the Most High assalam o alaykum ... it depends on the context, even after-it. we agree on spiritual elevation: and i repeat it for the -third- time, what is the purpose of raf'a in the here-after, especially when you are dead, and especially when the enemy is scheming against you? think of it, and please read my responses. how many times do i have to repeat them? i understand that you are busy, but stop being so -impulsive- and spurting out this bursts of energy which either you have mentioned, i have responded to, and ... then brought back into the discussion. i am really tire
  9. In the Name of the Most High assalam o 'alaykum br Usman, here are a few questions with respect to 3:55, 1 - how do you assert that Isa died, and was raised spiritually (which would make more sense if he was living and while was in the midst of those who had dis-believed in him, and cleansed him, not cleared him) from this verse and this verse alone? 2 - how do you assert that the spiritual elevation was of any benefit even after the Crucifixtion, even though he had not died on the Cross (which was not a Jewish Custom)? according to 3:55 there is no mention of Crucifixtion, other than just "pl
  10. In the Name of the Most High assalam o alaykum this is what i wrote in post # 83, can i be more clearer than that? br Usman, is this some sort of a test? how many times, do you want me to repeat this statement of mine, i.e a prophecy, which refers to a future event, and hence Isa's return so, now make up your mind, with the statement that i bolded and under-lined: what conclusion can you draw from it? we are not on the same page. you consistently, consistently, don't even pay attention to what i am writing. what is the matter? but this is not our subject of dis-agreement: the subject of dis
  11. br Usman, as a side note and a bit of humour, you seem to have no qualms using urdu as a language here while trying to impress upon us the meaning of the arabic language. i find that quite insightful. so much for arabic lexicrographic works, which you ignore regards, eIqra
  12. when we were discussing, [ "And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die and the day I shall be raised to life (again)" (19:34) Similar words appeared for Yahya. It was said of him: "And peace was on him the day he was born, and the day he died, and peace (will be on him) the day he will be raised upto life (again)" (19:16) ] you stated, and i responded would dis-agree, there is a great difference. here is the difference 1 - one says so of him 2 - it was said of him big difference right? here is the mystery: One is uttered by God and the other by .... an
  13. i asked you a simply question, what you meant to say, in 'Do you get Confused'? this is a sarcasm of sorts, and really, yes - is a matter of shame if you invoked it in that matter. your response there-after, was taken completely out of context, and was spun to turn this into a -personal- argument. i did not engage and simply reminded you as a believer, that such adab is not correct. perhaps "ashamed" is not the right word, but "regretful" is, and i apologize if it came that way. how-ever, it gives no one any right to make this personal? explain your-self, when you stated, 'Do you ever get conf
  14. In the Name of the High assalam o alaykum ... then we ought to rest our case. as to my belief: a prophecy refers to a future event. as per my under-standing of the Quranic literature, the return of Isa is to happen. pick an english dictionary, read my posts, look uo prophecy: a prophecy refers to a future event. i am not side lining or avoiding the issue, the question posed: i stressed on the term Prophecy, and a prophecy is a term that refers to the "future", does it not? does not MGA also prophecize matters, and of-course, doesn't that mean that it is for the "future"? how clear can i be? i
  • Create New...