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

Difference between "Rasool" and "Nabi"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Guest OnPoint

1. A Rasool is one entrusted to convey God's messages clearly and bring out the higher hidden to the people's understanding.

2. A Nabi is one entrusted to be a channel of a revelation from God to people in a form of a scripture.

3. A Nabi is not necessarily a Rasool and a Rasool is not necessarily a Nabi.

4. A Nabi that is not a  Rasool is one which the clear messages are established that God wants in society - and the Nabi receives a book from God for the people.

5. A Rasool that is a not a Nabi is one who is required to clarify things to the people but doesn't receive a revelation in form of scripture for the people from God.

6. Almost every Nabi has been a Rasool and almost every Rasool a Nabi.

7. The Ulil-Amr were only to take task of being a Rasool if people differed with respect to the truth and religion and became ignorant, and disputes then would have to be solved through God's book but as well a Messenger that clarifies it.

8. If people didn't dispute after Mohammad (s), there was no requirement for the Ulil-Amr (a) to become Rusul.

9. As people deviated and didn't understand Quran properly - the Imams (a) essentially were Messengers as well and had the task of conveying clear messages of God regarding Quran.  

10. Revelation as in words talked to God to people and to Imams is not necessarily all Nubuwa, Nubuwa specifically refers to that revelation which is to be entrusted as scripture to be held on to as proofs from God and insights, specifically a book from God that is a proof and miracle in itself and a lasting one.  

11. Ghadeer khum speech is part of the Resalah of the Rasool, but the exacts words all though proven in Quran, are not part of Quran.  The Resalah and Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) are interlinked, the Quran plays a vital role and the Message of Mohammad plays a vital role in clarifying Quran.

12. The Sunnah was dynamically built with the Quran and Quran was dynamically built with the Sunnah.  

13. 23 years of Nubuwa of Mohammad (s) with his Sunnah - made Islam very strong - and the Quran is foundational in this sense,  but if Imams (a) were to be Anbiya - it would probably be that divisions are worse, and that their revelations would be difficult for humans to accept as scripture and shia sects would not unite on them and Quran would lose it's prestige if revelations of Imams say they were to be Anbiya were to be disputed, and that since God doesn't force humans but wanted to put an end to the Ahlulbayts sent to humanity, in his wisdom, put an end to scripture and revelations revealed to humanity.  

14. The ending of Nubuwa is a big trial - essentially - God is not talking to humans. But the Quran is meant for all the times to come and has been written in a way to guide in all times.  However, darkness in the form of sorcery has made a trial regarding it and people are blind - hence the Imams (a) messages are essential to listen to pertaining to it.

15. Kulayni and our scholars were wrong about the Shiite sect that believed Imams to be Rusul to be out of Islam and out of Shiism, it's rather, the hadiths that Kulayni collected about the difference between Nabi, Rasool and Muhadath that frankly makes no sense what so ever.  

16. All Rusul and all Anbiya are Imams  but it's also the case than an Imam is not necessarily a Rasool or Nabi. For example, our Imams would not have been Messengers if people didn't divide and stook to the clear truths - rather - they would have been guidance and God's Guides true - and expand on knowledge and increase us in it and continue to increase us in guidance, but the clear messages would not need conveying, but rather deeper truths would have been the central role they play.  However, since divisions did occur and the truth covered by sorcery and corruption took place with translations and interpretation of Quran in the most basic essential teachings, they were Messengers as well and hence it's vital we pay attention what is left of their words. This another thing that Al-Kafi get's wrong, in that it makes Imamate something that not all Anbiya or Rusul are in some hadiths, however, in a hadith from Imam Reda (a) - it's confirmed the Anbiya and Rusul all have this station. So there is a contradiction in Al-Kafi in this respect.

17. Mursaleen is umbrella term that covers Rusul, Anbiya, and Imams. When applied to an Imam who is neither a Rasool or Nabi, it means with regards to guidance and knowledge he is sent with to guide humans to and teach them. Also the witnessing role as a witness is something that God sends. Imam Mahdi is specifically called one of these, and hence is a chosen one by God with no ambiguity in the hadiths. When applied to a Non-Nabi Rasool, it means he sent with messages to paraphrase in his words. And when a non-Rasool Nabi - it means as far that Nubuwa, he sent with scripture from God. Again, Imams who would be neither (but ours had to become Messengers because people became ignorant) - would also be sent with role of being witness (vision of people's deeds) and Guidance that plays addition to the messages established - but is additional guidance to the essential messages. Also, if you are sent with miracles, this is another thing his sent ones are sent with.

18. This is an important thing to note: Sunni and their scholars tried to bully the definitions of Nubuwa and Resalah to be inversed in this respect and even to some degree made Nubuwa into the definition of what an Imam is, and made Rasool do the definition of what a Nabi is, to argue, that all such guidance came to an end by the sealing of Nubuwa verse. However, they have no proof from Quran that this is the proper way. Look at the verses of Rusul and Anbiya and you will see Rasools convey clear messages but paraphrase in their own words, and hence "they convey the clear messages from God" while Nubuwa definition wise is not about conveying - the word itself about receiving news from God for the people or receing tidings from God for the people, that means their role as a Nabi is receiving, this refers to their role to channel scripture from God to people, but it's not their message, and hence Nubuwa is about reception.  Don't be bullied by any scholars - and Kulayni was wrong. Don't blindly follow but look at Quran usage of these terms. Also while all Nubuwa is wahy it's not the case all Wahy is Nubuwa.  There is hadith qudsi and also God talks to Pharaoh and he is not a Nabi.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Guest OnPoint said:

3. A Nabi is not necessarily a Rasool and a Rasool is not necessarily a Nabi.

If this is true, was there ever an example in history of a Rasul who wasn’t a Nabi and a Nabi who wasn’t a Rasul?

Quote

4. A Nabi that is not a  Rasool is one which the clear messages are established that God wants in society - and the Nabi receives a book from God for the people.

Proof? Especially for your claim that a Nabi necessarily receives a Book from God for the people.

Quote

5. A Rasool that is a not a Nabi is one who is required to clarify things to the people but doesn't receive a revelation in form of scripture for the people from God.

Proof?

Quote

6. Almost every Nabi has been a Rasool and almost every Rasool a Nabi.

Almost” implies at least one or some exceptions. Can you positively identify any such exception?

Quote

9. As people deviated and didn't understand Quran properly - the Imams (a) essentially were Messengers as well and had the task of conveying clear messages of God regarding Quran.  

Now you have spilled the beans that the Shi’ah deny the khatm ar-Risalah of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

Why do you read على ولى الله in your Kalimah? You should read على رسول الله (God forbid)

Qadianis were declared non-Muslim for believing in only a single new Messenger after Prophet Muhammad, so what about the Shi'ah who believe in 12 additional Messengers after Prophet Muhammad?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

10. Revelation as in words talked to God to people and to Imams is not necessarily all Nubuwa, Nubuwa specifically refers to that revelation which is to be entrusted as scripture to be held on to as proofs from God and insights, specifically a book from God that is a proof and miracle in itself and a lasting one.  

Then every Nabi must necessarily have come with a revealed Scripture? What was the Scripture revealed to Harun Nabi عليه السلام?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Guest OnPoint said:

Talut (a) is an example of a Messenger who is not a Nabi. 

Seth (a) an example of a Nabi who is not a Messenger.

What is your evidence for both these claims?

And what is the evidence that Talut عليه السلام was a Rasul?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OnPoint
Just now, Cherub786 said:

Then every Nabi must necessarily have come with a revealed Scripture? What was the Scripture revealed to Harun Nabi عليه السلام?

Harun (a) along with his sister Mariam (a) was accused of arguing with Musa (a) about his rank, and then soon died in the desert after that event.  Do you believe that about Harun (a)?

If not, then you shouldn't believe that he didn't succeed Musa (a) or that he was older then Musa (a), all which doesn't go with God's way with his chosen ones or that he died before Musa (a).  Also, due to Harun (a) and his "children"  sins per Torah and Jews, God after revealing chapters about the chosen offspring and family of Harun (a) - and the covenant of the "high leadership" which Harun (a) never really was able to take since he died before Moses (a) per Torah, was retracted. Do you believe that too. That God promises and takes a covenant with Aaron (a) and his righteous offspring - then all a sudden turns 180 and retracts it?

Harun (a) definitely was the successor of Musa (a) and had revelation. We don't have it, because, something went wrong.  Yushua ibn Noon is not mentioned in a single place in Quran yet the nation full of hard hearts don't reflect on what is said about Harun (a) in Quran and instead rely on something not found in Quran.

Also, the best way to see Mohammad (s) in the Torah today, is see Moses' (a) prayer regarding "the one who you will send" to God, and then God reminding him of Harun (a), and the knot on his tongue obviously and manifestly a parable, and not a physical knot, as the one who God will send (later to all humans) would not be able to remove the physical knot on Moses' (a) tongue if he had one. 

Harun (a) wasn't actually better in tongue and speech and more eloquent then Moses (a) at all, it was the circumstances, that Quran reveals and says to Mohammad (s) "and we know your heart is constricted by what they say", that we come to know Ali (a) and Harun (a) are allowed to be more eloquent and untie the knots and release the straightening of the heart of both, not due to naturally being better, but again, due the circumstances they are in. The "strengthening of back" - and "release of burden" - is obviously interchangeable. 

Not only the verses about Harun (a) prove him to be the successor, it shows, it's not solely about guarding the message and keeping people on track, but allowing knowledge to flow, that the founders (Moses (a) and Mohammad (s)) found due to the propaganda (what they say) and ignorance of the people, not able to expand everything in their hearts to the people.

Anyways, there can be a whole topic about Harun (a) and the dark magic that wishes people not to see his station and emphasis in Quran. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OnPoint
14 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

What is your evidence for both these claims?

And what is the evidence that Talut عليه السلام was a Rasul?

Talut (a) - because of the verses that come after "these Messengers..." that implies the recent ones mention contextually which was Samuel, Talut, and Dawood were examples of Messengers (peace be upon them).

And because we see people are ignorant and only a few stood with Talut (a), so he would have to revive the truth and deliver the message.

As for Seth (a), the proof is Adam (a) message was well known enough as there was very few people alive, and so there was no need to clarify the message to people after him so to revive the truth and deliver the messages.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Guest OnPoint said:

Harun (a) definitely was the successor of Musa (a) and had revelation. We don't have it, because, something went wrong.

In other words, your entire argument is based on speculation, but you don’t have any textual proof.

BTW, everyone accepts that Harun Nabi died in the lifetime of his brother Musa Nabi عليهما السلام and that the latter’s successor was sayyidina Yuwsha bin Nun عليه السلام. This isn’t only accepted by Jews, Christians and Sunni Muslims, but Shi’ites too.

You are the first person I know of who has dissented from something that is agreed upon by virtually all Jews, Christians and Muslims, that too based on speculation and to validate your beliefs, and not any actual textual proof.

Quote

Talut (a) - because of the verses that come after "these Messengers..." that implies the recent ones mention contextually which was Samuel, Talut, and Dawood were examples of Messengers (peace be upon them).

I assume you are referring to 2:253. It is again speculation on your part to assume Talut عليه السلام is included in the Apostles referred to in that Ayah. Also, it is not necessary according to Arabic grammar that تلك is referring to individuals that have been mentioned in the preceding Ayat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Respected Shi’ah members should carefully consider what Guest OnPoint has written. I find it quite interesting because although he has gone against the official line of your madhhab in arguing that the twelve Imams were Messengers of Allah, and that Prophet Aaron عليه السلام succeeded Prophet Moses عليه السلام after his death instead of Prophet Joshua عليه السلام, his positions are the logical conclusion of Twelver philosophy.

I argue that in your dogma, the twelve Imams are ascribed with functions and characteristics which are exclusive to Nubuwwah/Risalah. Guest OnPoint has realized this, and therefore come out and openly said that the twelve Imams are in fact twelve Messengers of God.

Secondly, Guest OnPoint has realized that the Shi’ah argument regarding Hadith al-Manzilah being a proof of sayyidina Ali’s كرم الله وجهه linear succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم can only be conceivably true if Prophet Aaron عليه السلام succeeded his younger brother Prophet Moses عليه السلام upon his death, and not Prophet Joshua son of Nun.

The Shi'ah should realize that they should either accept Guest OnPoint's new beliefs so as not to invalidate the Madhhab, or else abandon the Madhhab altogether.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

This whole thread is a joke. ^^

A Nabi is a messenger of Allah, one who brings important news (naba) from Allah.

A Rasul is a Nabi who besides being a messenger also had a risalah (a book/code of conduct) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, starlight said:

This whole thread is a joke. ^^

I agree. But from a Shi’ah perspective, I think it deserves serious consideration.

Quote

A Nabi is a messenger of Allah, one who brings important news (naba) from Allah.

A Rasul is a Nabi who besides being a messenger also had a risalah (a book/code of conduct) 

I agree that Nabi and Rasul have different definitions based on the linguistic meanings of these terms. Nabi connotes receiving news (naba) and Rasul connotes conveying a message (risalah).

My question is, on what basis have the Ulama, traditionally, made this distinction that not every Nabi is a Rasul. I can understand the fact that Risalah necessitates Nubuwwah, because how can someone be a Messenger of God unless he has received Prophetic revelation from God. But I don’t understand how it can be said that it is not necessary every Prophet is a Messenger, meaning it is not necessary every Prophet is charged with delivering a Message to the people which contains the divine revelation he received from God.

I find no basis for the idea that not all Prophets were Apostles of God in the Quran itself. I believe that every Prophet is necessarily a Messenger, and every Messenger is necessarily a Prophet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Respected Shi’ah members should carefully consider what Guest OnPoint has written

Why should we? The Ayatullah ul Udma Guest OnPoint has just mentioned his views like you mention your views on different threads. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...