The Cat wrote:Is ar-Rahman merely an epithet for Allah, or are we dealing with two different gods blended together for monotheist convenience?
The Qur'an opens with the Bismillah: Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi. Translated:
YUSUFALI: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
PICKTHALL: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
The whole sura 55 (Chr.97th) is named after ar-Rahman which then becomes a different account of the creation than that of Allah!
Otherwise, his name is concentrated in some 'Meccan' suras: 50(17th); 44(19th); 45(20th); 73(21th);41(36th); 42(42th); 77(67th).
From what we know, ar-Rahman was the divinity of Musaylima, the contemporary powerful prophet of the Banu Hanifa tribe.
Rahman is not Arabic but Syriac, and the original is Rahmono, meaning ‘the merciful’. D. B. MacDonald in the Encyclopaedia of
Islam wrote: “It is almost certain that the prophet has borrowed the sentence ‘Bism-el Rahman’ from Southern Arabia”...
Kuran 43.45 (63th): “Ask our prophets that we have sent before you: Have we created gods to worship apart from Rahman?”
This ayat is most troubling: Can Allah have the power to create an omnipotent divinity that is equal with him? Or is it an admission
that Allah created Himself? Then why would a supreme being creates another supreme being just as worthy as Him to worship? Isn't
it rather polytheism is disguise? If Allah created another divinity equaling Himself, yet separated, we're not into a one god faith!
If through ar-Rahman Allah created Himself, it logically means that He was a created creator from the first and this comes down
to a circular argument imploding the uncreated notion of Allah! Now, if Muslims maintain that Allah did not create Himself but an
emanation of Him out of the Universe set in motion then we are facing an uncreated entity, contrary to 43.45!
How can Muslims say that they worship 'one' god when the Koran states otherwise?
AhmedBahgat wrote:You stupid manipulator and piece of ignorant trash, 43:45 does not have the word CREATE, you conman:
i.e. Allah did not ASSIGN anything to be worshipped other than Himself
Dismiss yourself, conman. You have been slammed
The Cat wrote:AhmedBahgat wrote:You stupid manipulator and piece of ignorant trash, 43:45 does not have the word CREATE, you conman:
i.e. Allah did not ASSIGN anything to be worshipped other than Himself
Dismiss yourself, conman. You have been slammed
Why do you always react like an ill-educated person? When referring to God, we can say both: The Maker or Creator.
We'll say that God made (created) man out of clay, or that we'll go back to our Maker. They are simply synonymous.
Did We make, other than the Compassionate, (other) gods to be worshipped?
Since you're so childish, I'll rephrase my questioning using 'Maker' instead of 'Creator', pay attention please:
This ayat is most troubling: Can Allah have the power to make an omnipotent divinity that is equal with Him? Or is it an admission
that Allah made Himself too? Then why would a supreme being makes another supreme being just as worthy as Him to worship? Isn't
it rather polytheism is disguise? If Allah made another divinity equaling Himself, yet separated, we're not into a one god faith!
If through ar-Rahman Allah made Himself too, it logically means that He was a made Maker from the first and this comes down
to a circular argument imploding the unmade notion of Allah! Now, if Muslims maintain that Allah did not made Himself but an
emanation of Him set in motion out of the Universe then we are facing an unmade entity, contrary to 43.45!
So, all you've got to do, now, is to answer the question instead of fooling around:
How can Muslims say that they worship 'one' god when the Koran states otherwise?
Because ar-Rahman is truly another divinity, worshiped by Musaylima and the Sabaeans, among others! Did you know that?
Then, I'll have another question for you: is 'The Beneficent' or 'Compassionate' a good translation for ar-Rahman?
Isn't it, as formulated, just a redundant epithet for ar-Raheem 'The Merciful' thus 'Benevolent' & 'Compassionate'?
I suggest you get informed about comparative religions before you display more silliness...
I guess you won't....
AhmedBahgat wrote:Again you turd of a manipulator, the verse you brought in does not have the word created
Now for your questions.......
Yes the Compassionate is the best translation for Rahman
Also confused, if Rahman is not Arabic then Rahim must not e Arabic either, this is how coinfusede and manipulated you are
And what is that which you called compartative religions?
You mean all other corrupt religions
Keep it dumb, dumb
The Cat wrote:AhmedBahgat wrote:Again you turd of a manipulator, the verse you brought in does not have the word created
Now for your questions.......
I've conceded that 'Maker' could be used as well as 'Creator' when referring to God.
Yet you haven't answered my rephrasing, just eluded them once again. Try again!Yes the Compassionate is the best translation for Rahman
Also confused, if Rahman is not Arabic then Rahim must not e Arabic either, this is how coinfusede and manipulated you are
I'll fill it as soon as I can stop laughing...it may take a while!
And what is that which you called compartative religions?
You mean all other corrupt religions
Keep it dumb, dumb
Idem.
xtr00 wrote:Well looks like you don't know any thing about 99 names of Allah. One of His name is Ar-Rahmaan.
In simple words, All Beautiful Names Belong to Allah, and you can call Him but whichever name you want.
Quran
[17.110] Say: 'Call upon Allah, or call upon the Merciful; whichever (Name) you call upon, to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. ....
Hope this will remove the confusion.
The oldest dated inscription, of the year 385 (A.D. 270), mentions 'Athtar, Shams and other heathen deities, while the inscriptions of 582 (A.D. 467) and 573 (A.D. 458), so far as they can be read, contain no name of a heathen god, but do speak of a god Rahmanan - that is, the Hebrew Rahman, " the compassionate " (Arabic, al-Rahman), agreeably with the fact that Jewish and Christian influences were powerful in Arabia in the 4th century.
AhmedBahgat wrote:And what is that which you called compartative religions?
You mean all other corrupt religions
Keep it dumb, dumb
Only when you tax me of being confused and dumb while making typos all over. The joke was on you, this once again!AhmedBahgat wrote:So, let me see, your refute is based on a typo?
AhmedBahgat wrote:Allah did not ASSIGN anything to be worshipped other than Himself
AhmedBahgat wrote:Yes the Compassionate is the best translation for Rahman
yeezevee wrote:dear Q you paste too much of SILLY STUFF without using YOUR OWN SENSES and without any input from you. That is useless as an individual dear Q..
yeezevee
In Akkadian Adad is also known as Ramman ("Thunderer") cognate with Aramaic Rimmon which was a byname of the Aramaic Hadad. Ramman was formerly incorrectly taken by many scholars to be an independent Babylonian god later identified with the Amorite god Hadad.
The term Al-Rahman is often interpreted in classical Arabic dictionaries to mean "Gracious" or "Beneficent". This is not in line with how the attribute is used in the great reading, where for example, in 19:45 we hear prophet Ibrahim say to his father, a rejecting idol-worshiper, "I fear you would be struck with the wrath of Al-Rahman." The word Al-Rahman in 19:45 is more likely to invoke fear of retribution as opposed to hope of benefit or grace. The Abraha inscription confirms the meaning of Al-Rahman as used in the great quran to mean an attribute that conveys power: The Almighty. Both physical archaeological evidence (as opposed to hearsay) and the great reading are in perfect match on how people at the time of the prophet must have understood the meaning of Al-Rahman. (...)
So it seems that only Al-Rahim was translated and the early post-quranic Arabs totally neglected to translate Al-Rahman. We see the same phenomena on bilingual North Arabian papyri, for example in early Arabic-Greek texts the word "Rahman" is not translated. This proves that even after the revelation of 17:110 the people of Northern Arabia were still confused about the meaning of Al-Rahman and hence didn't translate it.
Q wrote:Allah alone can perform such a ‘hamd’ or praise and He does so with a name that is the name of the manifestation
of His glory at the stage of self. In other words, He praises Himself with some of His names at this stage.
Ibn Rushd wrote:So Rahman would be closer theologically to Shaddai.
El Shaddai (Hebrew: אל שדי) is one of the Judaic names of God. El Shaddai is translated as God Almighty. The term may mean "God of the mountains," referring to the Mesopotamian divine mountain. The term was one of the patriarchal names for the tribal god of the Mesopotamians[1] In Exodus 6:3, El Shaddai is identified with Yahweh. The term appears chiefly in the Torah. This could also refer to the Israelite camp's stay at Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments.
Shaddai was a late Bronze Age Amorite city on the banks of the Euphrates river, in northern Syria. The site of its ruin-mound is called Tel eth-Thadyen: "Thadyen" being the modern Arabic rendering of the original West Semitic "Shaddai". It has been conjectured that El Shaddai was therefore the "god of Shaddai" and associated in tradition with Abraham, and the inclusion of the Abrahamic stories into the Hebrew Bible may have brought the northern name with them (see Documentary hypothesis). (...)
It is often paraphrased in English translations as "Almighty" although this is an interpretive element. The name then refers to the pre-Mosaic patriarchal understanding of deity as "God who is sufficient." God is sufficient, that is, to supply all of one's needs, and therefore by derivation "almighty"........
Q wrote:The Cat wrote:First, we've got Allah swearing upon things that He had created, thus inferiors to Him:
:
FYI/E
http://www.al-islam.org/enlightening/52.htm
AhmedBahgat wrote:I have posted what that ignorant freak named pussy cat allged about Allah's other name "Al-Rahman", along with my slam dunk to his crap, and his is what a knowledgeable Arabic speaker from Bahrain said to me: Mahmoud Darwish said to Ahmed on facebook: That was a piece of cake, I can't even consider his argument and it should not be counted as a slam dunk. If you insist, it can be treated as internet junk
Robots can not argue , they are only programed to do certain repetitive tasks, such as going to Bahrain to learn Arabic and translate Quran from some other continent ..Now, come on AhmedBahgat and argue like a man,
Return to The Quran and Hadith
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests