The issue of new messengers after the messenger-prophet Muhammad.

5 views

Skip to first unread message

Truth Seeker

unread,

Apr 21, 2009, 3:25:31 AM4/21/09

to 19org

The issue of new messengers after the messenger-prophet Muhammad.

The acceptance of some men as a new messenger after the departure of
the messenger-prophet Muhammad has led to further sectarian division
of the muslims, sectarian division is warned against by verse 3:105.

Verse 4:80 - Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God. As for those
who turn away, we did not send you as their guardian. -

This verse makes clear the importance of this issue.
In this verse is stated that the deliverer of the message of God has
to be obeyed.
The believers should be able to know who is a messenger without any
reason to doubt, based on total support of the Quran. The support for
new messengers is not there, as the relevant verses of the Quran
explain.

People who accepted a new messenger after the departure of Muhammad
can have a serious problem, if this person does not follow the Quran
completely, as can be seen in the writings of some of these self-
proclaimed messengers, who are or were possibly well intended.
The followers of these men have the choice: or to disobey the order of
the Quran to obey the messenger, or to commit the unforgivable sin of
associating partners with God (shirk) according to verse 9:31 and
42:21.
If a person follows and explains the Quran perfectly, he or she does
what the Quran orders the believers to do, according to verse 3:79.
With a perfect Quran with us on earth, new messengers are not needed.

The Quran gives perfect guidance in the issue of messengership.

People who accepted extra messengers after the departure of the
messenger-prophet Muhammad adhere to the following saying: "all the
prophets are messengers, but not all the messengers are prophets".

The Quran proves that the first part of this saying is clearly wrong.

A study of the list of men that are named by the Quran as prophet
(nabi) or messenger (rasul) or as messenger-prophet leads to a clear
conclusion:
- some messengers were not prophets
- most messengers were prophets as well
- some prophets were not messengers

- Idris - prophet 19:56 - not a messenger
- Nuh - prophet 6:89 - messenger 26:107
- Hud - not a prophet - messenger 26:125
- Saleh - not a prophet - messenger 26:143
- Ibrahim - prophet 19:41- messenger 9:70
- Lut - prophet 6:89 - messenger 26:162
- Isma'il - prophet 19:54 - messenger 19:54
- Ish'aq - prophet 19:49 - not a messenger
- Yaqub - prophet 19:49 - not a messenger
- Yusuf - prophet 6:89 - not a messenger
- Ayyub - prophet 6:89 - not a messenger
- Shu'ayb - not a prophet - messenger 26:178
- Musa - prophet 19:51- messenger 19:51
- Harun - prophet 19:53 - not a messenger
- Dawud - prophet 6:89 - not a messenger
- Sulayman - prophet 6:89 - not a messenger
- Ilyas - prophet 6:89 - messenger 37:123
- al-Yasa - prophet 6:89- not a messenger
- Yunus - prophet 6:89 - messenger 37:139
- Zakariyya - prophet 6:89 - not a messenger
- Yahya - prophet 3:39 - not a messenger
- Isa - prophet 19:30 - messenger 4:171
- Muhammad - prophet 33:40 - messenger 33:40

- Adam, Dhul-l-Kifl and Luqman are not mentioned as a prophet or a
messenger in the Quran.

In total the Quran mentions:
- 11 men as a prophet and not as a messenger
- 9 men as a messenger and a prophet
- 3 men as a messenger and not as a prophet

- 20 men as a prophet
- 12 men as a messenger

It seems to be a justified conclusion that not all the prophets are
messengers as well, if the Quran mentions 12 men as a messenger and 20
men as a prophet.
The relevant verses of the Quran, as seen above, also prove that the
sunni-saying: "every messenger is a prophet" is wrong, because Hud,
Saleh and Shu'ayb are only mentioned as messengers, not as prophets.

Verse 40:78 states that there were messengers before Muhammad who were
not mentioned to him, this verse can not be seen as contrary to the
findings above.
The Quran has mentioned the men exactly as messengers or prophets or
as messenger-prophets. To say for instance that the prophet Dawud was
one of the unknown messengers would be an abrogation of the quranic
verses concerned. One should not try to change the Quran by naming
Dawud a messenger.

People who accept extra messengers, try to diminish the function of a
messenger, in contrast with the quranic meaning of the word.
They say that a messenger is just a confirmer of a previous scripture
and that only prophets can bring a religion. Verse 3:39 clearly states
that the prophet Yahya is a confirmer of the word from God. So a
prophet can be a confirmer as well.
The Quran has a another definition of the difference between the
function of a prophet (nabi) and of a messenger (rasul).
According to the verses 9:33 and 61:9 the messenger of God is a
bringer of guidance and the religion of truth.
Verse 6:90 mentions that the prophets have a guidance, for the people
to follow, verse 6:89 states that this guidance is through a book.
The bringing of a religion of truth is not mentioned together with
prophethood. This implies that the duty of a messenger is more
comprehensive than that of a prophet, both have a guidance to convey,
but a messenger is also a bringer of a religion of truth.
Prophets can be confirmers of an existing religion or can give
inspiration for a religious way of living, messengers come with a new
religion or new religious rules for their people.
Verse 2:185 mentions the Quran as a guidance.
Verse 6:154 mentions the Tawra as a guidance.
Both bringers of these, for their people, new religions where
messenger-prophets and had a double function, they had not just the
single function of a prophet.
The messengers Hud, Saleh and Shu'ayb had to give a new religion and
guidance to their people without a scripture, the other messengers had
to give a new religion and guidance by a scripture, they had the
double task of messenger and prophet.

Three variations of men who gave a guidance:
- Hud was a messenger of a religion without a scripture, but with a
new religion and Divine law for his people, they suffered great
consequences for not following his guidance.
- Muhammad was a messenger-prophet of a new religion and Divine law
with a scripture.
- Dawud was a prophet with a scripture but without a new religion or
Divine law, he was a follower of the Tawra, as far as we can know.

The quranic fact: a messenger is a bringer of a new religion and
guidance to a people through a book or without a book, is very
important in this issue.

Verse 3:81 is a verse that is often wrongly interpretated by the
accepters of extra messengers.
This verse states that God made a covenant with the prophets and that
these prophets had to believe in and support a messenger who would
confirm their previous scriptures.
Verse 3:84 clearly states that Muhammad is this messenger, according
to this verse Muhammad and his followers, have to say that they
believe in the mentioned messengers and the prophets and that they
make no difference between the prophets.
Verse 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47, 5:48 state that the Quran confirms
previous scriptures.
Verse 37:37 states that Muhammad is a confirmer of the messengers as
well.
The confirmation of previous scriptures can be a part of the duty of a
messenger, as Muhammad, Isa was also a confirmer. Isa confirmed the
Tawra according to verse 3:50 but he also had to renew the religion
for his people in allowing what was forbidden before, according to
this verse.
The duty of every messenger was to give a new religion to his people
or to partly renew the religion for his people.

Some people say that the discoverer of code 19 is predicted by verse
3:81, this is a wrong vision, since code 19 refers only to the Quran.
Over it (the Quran) is nineteen according to verse 74:30, not over
them.
The messenger mentioned in verse 3:81 clearly confirms all previous
scriptures of the prophets before, the Quran states that this
messenger is Muhammad, as can be read in verse 3:84, 2:41, 2:91, 2:97
amongst others.
The Quran does not suggest that code 19 is a confirmation of its
Divine origin.
According to verse 74:31 code 19 is there to disturb, convince and
strenghten the faith, concerning the Quran, this is different from
confirming the Quran.
The proof of the Divine origin, the confirmation of the Quran is the
absence of contradictions according to verse 4:82.

Verse 33:7 states that from Muhammad and the other prophets is taken a
covenant, accepters of extra messengers say that this verse proves
that Muhammad is the not the messenger mentioned in 3:81 but that he
is one of the prophets of this verse. This would be illogical because
of the linkage between verse 3:81 and verse 3:84, 2:41, 2:91 amongst
others.
The Quran names another covenant in which Muhammad really was a
partner as a prophet, it is the covenant of verse 3:187, the content
of this covenant is: the scriptures have to be made known to mankind
and may not be hidden.
Muhammad was not one of the prophets of the covenant mentioned in
verse 3:81, because the Quran is not confirmed in verse 3:84 by
mentioning its messenger by name.
This in contrast to the mentioning of Musa and Isa as messenger of
their scriptures.
The absence of his name in the list of confirmed messengers and
prophets in verse 3:84 gives extra proof that Muhammad is the
confirming messenger, who is mentioned in verse 3:81.

Accepters of extra prophets bring forward the argument that the
mentioning of a messenger next to the prophets means that Muhammad can
not be the messenger mentioned in verse 3:81, since Muhammad is a
prophet. This argument is not valid as can be seen in verse 3:84, this
verse mentions Musa and Isa next to the prophets, Musa and Isa were
messengers and prophets as Muhammad was a messenger and prophet. Verse
33:7 has also this kind of structure.

Another way of supporting the idea of extra messengers, is a too broad
interpretation of verse 10:47, to every nation a messenger.
This sentence is written in present tense, relating to the time that
Muhammad was delivering the message to his people, and refers to verse
36:6 and 5:19, with the advent of Muhammad, the nation that was for a
period of time without a messenger, has received one. Verses 36:6 and
5:19 clearly state that a nation can be without a messenger for
generations.
Verse 16:36 uses the past tense: for every nation there was a
messenger. With Muhammad there is a messenger for his nation after a
cessation of messengership.
For the future, the Quran refers in verse 27:82 to a creature out of
the earth (dabbatan mina el ardi) that will speak to the people who
are not certain about the signs, the verses of the Quran. The computer
is used for research of the Quran and spreading the message of the
Quran. The Quran does not speak about the persons who used the
creature out of the earth, the computer, for great discoveries about
the Quran, problably to avoid quranic support for the acceptance of
messengers after Muhammad.

The assumption that still after Muhammad there are sent messengers to
every nation or community can lead and has led to the acceptance of
numerous false messengers. False messengers have distorted the meaning
of the Quran and hereby have created sects, as history has proven. In
fact there are no special persons in every country or community, who
meet the standards of the duty of a quranic messenger: to give a
people a new religion or to give an adjustment of the existing
religion. Actually not one messenger has occurred after Muhammad, no
person could change the Quran or exchange it for another message and
claim rightfully that he is a messenger of God. The Quran is the book
given by the seal of the prophets.
The message of the Quran has been spread around the world, so through
the Quran, Muhammad is also the messenger for the world nowadays.
Before this, many nations had no guidance, that is compatible with the
verses 36:6 and 5:19.

Verse 33:40 states that Muhammad is the messenger of God and the seal
of the prophets, this verse has been referred to by the persons who
accepted extra messengers. They have tried to diminish the task of a
messenger into a confirmer of a previous scripture. The Quran shows
clearly how comprehensive the duty of a messenger is, not only to
confirm.
Since Musa all the messengers were prophets as well, they were
messengers with a scripture.
The rasul Hud was a messenger without a scripture, compared to him,
Musa was a rasulan-nabiyyan, a messenger with a scripture.
With the ruling of the Quran that Muhammad is the last prophet: there
was not, is not and will not be a messenger after him, since the Quran
is valid until the last day. The guidance is from the perfect Quran.

The Quran states in verse 3:7 that there are persons who are firmly
rooted in knowlegde and know the interpretation of the allegorical
verses of the Quran.
For instance the discoverer of code 19 has explained the meaning of
verse 74:30: over it is nineteen. Also he explained verses like: 2:1:
alif lam meem, concerning the code.
The Quran enables believers to respect some people as those who are
firmly rooted in knowledge concerning certain verses, but the Quran
does not give permission to accept those people as messengers.

Verse 2:285 - The messenger has believed in what was sent down to him
from his Lord, and so did the believers. They believe in God, His
angels, His scripture, and His messengers. We make no distinction
among any of His messengers. They say, we hear, and we obey. Forgive
us, our Lord. To You is the ultimate destiny. -

The believers believe in the messengers. The Quran provides for the
names of the messengers we have to believe in and tells us that there
were messengers before Muhammad unknown to him.
We are not dependent on modern hadeeths from human beings, to be able
to fulfill this element of the islam, otherwise we would have endless
sect-forming debates about who is a messenger and who is not and who
is the latest to follow and to obey.
The Quran is perfect and complete, we can fulfill the religion of
islam purely based on the words of the Quran, this is the way we can
and should obey the messenger, the seal of the prophets and that is
Muhammad.

Hopefully the believers see the Quran as a source of unity and as the
best defense against division into sects.

-posted by Truthseeker-

Edip Yuksel

unread,

Apr 22, 2009, 12:49:32 AM4/22/09

to 19org

Dear Truthseeker

This is a long article which requires a lengthy response. However, I
find a faulty logic in one of your basic premises:

You claim that some prophets were not messengers, yet you do not
provide a single verse to support such a claim. All you have done is
to refer to some verses where some names are described as prophets.
Well, if lack of the word messenger in such descriptions should lead
to the conclusion you are driving then, from the same verses we should
also reach to the conclusion that some prophets were not humans, some
prophets were not warners (nazeer), etc.

Peace,
Edip

Message has been deleted

truthse...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 23, 2009, 2:15:59 PM4/23/09

to 19org

Dear Edip,

if one adheres to the premise that all prophets are messengers than
you have a point, but if one reads the concerning verses without this
premise (this premise seems to be a human innovation, not Quran-based)
than we have to accept the quranic titles of the persons concerned, as
they are given by our Creator.
It is not a matter of logic here, but a matter of following the words
of the Quran.
The Quran is perfect and detailed and names for instance Dawud as a
prophet (6:89) and Hud as a messenger (26:125), because they had
different functions for their people. There is not a random
description of these men in the Quran that we, as followers of the
Quran, can interfere with.
So we should not believe that Dawud was a messenger, if the Quran
mentions him as as prophet and not as a messenger.
All the verses that name a person a prophet, messenger of messenger-
prophet support this point of view. And of course the verses
concerning the functions of prophets and messengers.
Is there a verse that calls Dawud a messenger or tells that all
prophets are messengers?
Only the messenger-prophets are sometimes mentioned as a prophet or a
messenger, because they have the double title.

As mentioned in the article, the Quran gives a clear description of
the function of a messenger, a messenger has the double function of
bringing a guidance and bringing a religion of truth, as is stated in
verse 9:33 and 61:9.
The description of a prophet is given in verses 6:89 and 6:90, to give
guidance via a scripture.
There is a clear difference: a prophet misses the functions of giving
a new religion or changing an existing religion.
Only messenger-prophets came with a written message and a religion or
a change of the religion.
So it is a matter of logic that the Quran mentions Dawud as a prophet
and not as a messenger. The Creator made Dawud a prophet and not a
messenger, because Dawud did not give his people a new religion nor
did he change his own religion, as far as we know. He gave the Zabur,
not a new Divine law.

So it still seems justified and logical to conclude, if the Quran
mentions 20 men as a prophet and 12 men as a messenger, that not all
prophets can be messengers.

I hope that you see that your analogy of prophets not being human
beings, because the Quran does not mention them as such next to being
a prophet, was not at the right place here.
A messenger has a more comprehensive task than a prophet, as the Quran
has stated.

I really hope to find more unity between the followers of the Quran,
the acceptance of messengers after Muhammad is an important issue and
has to be resolved in a Quran-based manner. We have to fight the
sectarian abuses of certain verses, because these abuses can lead and
have led to division into groups (many groups have there own
messenger) this division is forbidden, verse 3:105.

I respect your work in trying to bring the Islam again in its pure
original form.
So I invite you to contribute to the formation of a solid quranic
defense against the existence of sects and the forming of sects by
people who accept messengers after the departure of the messenger of
Islam, Muhammad.
If you accept one person as a messenger after the departure of
Muhammad, than you have opened the door for more messengers - as we
should not accept one hadeeth, because the acceptance of one, opens
the door for thousands of them.

Hopefully we find a unifying Quran-based conclusion in this important
matter. How to refind the true Islam as believers, as long we are
knowingly or not knowingly divided into groups, by accepting different
messengers?

peace,
Truthseeker

Mehdi

unread,

May 2, 2009, 5:31:15 AM5/2/09

to 19org

Dear Truthseeker,
Find hereunder my comments (text between brackets) on your topic. I
noticed that you have made many false claims that are maybe due to a
bad Quran translation that you use or a weakness in Arabic language. I
really hope that one day you will find the truth if you are a real
truth seeker.

Salam,
Mehdi

The acceptance of some men as a new messenger after the departure of
the messenger-prophet Muhammad has led to further sectarian division
of the muslims, sectarian division is warned against by verse 3:105.

{{ A2 – To be clearer, the deliverer of the message of God has to be
obeyed by accepting his message because the real issue is not the
messenger but the message that he brings}}

The believers should be able to know who is a messenger without any
reason to doubt, based on total support of the Quran. The support for
new messengers is not there, as the relevant verses of the Quran
explain.

{{ A3 – I don’t agree, verse 7:35 clearly states that there will be
messengers after Mohammad. These God’s words were pronounced by
Mohammad and addressed to all children of Adam (Mohammad and his
contemporaries, you and me, our contemporaries and future generations
until the end of the world). In 7:35, God says: “O Children of Adam,
when MESSENGERS come to you from amongst yourselves and narrate My
signs to you,…”). Why God uses the word messengers in the plural
(Rusulun plural form of Rasul) when he is talking to us? }}

People who accepted a new messenger after the departure of Muhammad
can have a serious problem, if this person does not follow the Quran
completely, as can be seen in the writings of some of these self-
proclaimed messengers, who are or were possibly well intended.

{{ A4 – Only blind people will follow fake messengers. As I mentioned
in A2, I am not interested in the human being, it is his message that
I am interested to, not because of the quality of the men who brought
it but because of the truth that I found in the message after having
putting it under the test of reason and many verifications and
validations without finding any discrepancy. }}

The followers of these men have the choice: or to disobey the order
of the Quran to obey the messenger, or to commit the unforgivable sin
of associating partners with God (shirk) according to verse 9:31 and
42:21. If a person follows and explains the Quran perfectly, he or
she does what the Quran orders the believers to do, according to
verse 3:79. With a perfect Quran with us on earth, new messengers are
not needed.

{{ A-5 It is not upon you to decide whether if a messenger is needed
or not. Messengers are not sent to explain the message. It is God who
teach it (55:1-2) and explain it (75:19 ). Sending Messengers is a
mercy from God (21-107). There only duty is to deliver the message (5 :
92; 13 :40; 16 :35) that contain good news and warnings. Sending human
messengers is one of God’s tests to identify the rejecters (17:94). }}

{{ A-6 The problem with your reasoning is that you consider the
absence of the labelling ‘Prophet’ or ‘messenger’ as an evidence of
its non existence. God never said that Idriss in only a prophet and
not a messenger. It is your interpretation based on your illogical way
of thinking that deduced this conclusion. The difference between
prophet and messenger is clearly stated in 3:81 but you failed to see
it. It’s not because some people were mentioned in Quran as messengers
that they are not prophets, and those called prophets that they are
the only prophets sent by God. Just take a look at Chapter 7:
- From 7: 59 to 7:93 it talks about Noah, Hud, Saleh, Lot and Shuayb
and the punishment of their people. Just after that, God says in 7:94
‘Whenever We sent a prophet to any town, We would afflict its people
with hardship and adversity so that they may implore’. It is clear
that God, in 7:94, is referring to Noah’s, Hud’s, saleh’s, Lot’s and
Shuayb’s people as an example of people who were punished for their
ingratitude. In this verse, God used the word PROPHET and not
messenger (right after the stories of 5 of his messengers). Hence, we
can infer that Hud, Saleh and Shuayb are also prophets of God. }}

The relevant verses of the Quran, as seen above, also prove that the
sunni-saying: "every messenger is a prophet" is wrong, because Hud,
Saleh and Shu'ayb are only mentioned as messengers, not as prophets.

Verse 40:78 states that there were messengers before Muhammad who
were not mentioned to him, this verse can not be seen as contrary to
the findings above. The Quran has mentioned the men exactly as
messengers or prophets or as messenger-prophets. To say for instance
that the prophet Dawud was one of the unknown messengers would be an
abrogation of the quranic verses concerned. One should not try to
change the Quran by naming Dawud a messenger. People who accept extra
messengers, try to diminish the function of a messenger, in contrast

with the quranic meaning of the word. They say that amessenger is just

{{ A-7 False claim. 3:84 has nothing to do with 3:81. 3:84 is a
commandment to believe in God and what He sent down to Mohammad and
the prophets before him without making discrimination between them .
Here is 3:84 : Say, "We acknowledge God and what was sent down to us
and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the
Patriarchs, and what was given to Moses, Jesus and the prophets from
their Lord. We do not discriminate between them, and to Him we
peacefully surrender." }}

Verse 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47, 5:48 state that the Quran confirms
previous scriptures. Verse 37:37 states that Muhammad is a confirmer
of the messengers as well. The confirmation of previous scriptures can
be a part of the duty of a messenger, as Muhammad, Isa was also a
confirmer. Isa confirmed the Tawra according to verse 3:50 but he also
had to renew the religion for his people in allowing what was
forbidden before, according to this verse. The duty of every messenger
was to give a new religion to his people or to partly renew the
religion for his people. Some people say that the discoverer of code
19 is predicted by verse 3:81, this is a wrong vision, since code 19
refers only to the Quran.
Over it (the Quran) is nineteen according to verse 74:30, not over
them.

{{ A-8 Another false claim. I don’t know whether you understand
Arabic language or not but ‘it” in 74:30 ( Ha’ in Arabic which refers
to a female noun) has nothing to do with Quran because the word Quran
is a masculine noun. ‘it’ refers to ‘Saqar’ that is the retribution
mentioned in 74:27. }}

The messenger mentioned in verse 3:81 clearly confirms all previous
scriptures of the prophets before, the Quran states that this
messenger is Muhammad, as can be read in verse 3:84, 2:41, 2:91, 2:97
amongst others.

{{ A-9 Quran never said that the messenger in 3:81 is Mohammad.Verses
3:84, 2:41, 2:91, 2:97 said that the Quran (throw Mohammad) confirmed
previous scripture. But the question is : Who will confirm the
Quran? }}

The Quran does not suggest that code 19 is a confirmation of its
Divine origin. According to verse 74:31 code 19 is there to disturb,
convince and strenghten the faith, concerning the Quran, this is
different from confirming the Quran. The proof of the Divine origin,
the confirmation of the Quran is the absence of contradictions
according to verse 4:82.

{{ A-10 Again WRONG. 19 is address to anyone who say that the Quran is
just magic and the word of a human (74:23-24). In other word, 19 will
prove that Quran has a divine origin. }}

Verse 33:7 states that from Muhammad and the other prophets is taken a
covenant, accepters of extra messengers say that this verse proves
that Muhammad is the not the messenger mentioned in 3:81 but that he
is one of the prophets of this verse. This would be illogical because
of the linkage between verse 3:81 and verse 3:84, 2:41, 2:91 amongst
others.

{{ A-11 According to 3:81 and 33:7 Mohammad is not the messenger
mentioned in 3:81. Besides, there is no link between 3:81 and the
verses that you mentioned. }}

The Quran names another covenant in which Muhammad really was a
partner as a prophet, it is the covenant of verse 3:187, the content
of this covenant is: the scriptures have to be made known to mankind
and may not be hidden. Muhammad was not one of the prophets of the
covenant mentioned in verse 3:81, because the Quran is not confirmed
in verse 3:84 by mentioning its messenger by name. This in contrast to
the mentioning of Musa and Isa as messenger of their scriptures. The
absence of his name in the list of confirmed messengers and prophets
in verse 3:84 gives extra proof that Muhammad is the confirming
messenger, who is mentioned in verse 3:81.

{{ A-12 Wrong. Neither Mohammad nor other prophets have made the
covenant mentioned in 3:187. This is a covenant with the people who
received the book (Jews, Christians and Arabs). 3:187 starts with ‘God
took the covenant of those who were given the book…)
If you read carefully verse 3:84, you will see that it starts with
'Say, "We acknowledge God and what was sent down to us... " what was
sent down to us = Quran because ‘We’ refers to Mohammad and his
followers. So, don’t say again that Mohammad and Quran are not
referred to in 3:84. }}

Accepters of extra prophets bring forward the argument that the
mentioning of a messenger next to the prophets means that Muhammad can
not be the messenger mentioned in verse 3:81, since Muhammad is a
prophet. This argument is not valid as can be seen in verse 3:84, this
verse mentions Musa and Isa next to the prophets, Musa and Isa were
messengers and prophets as Muhammad was a messenger and prophet. Verse
33:7 has also this kind of structure.
Another way of supporting the idea of extra messengers, is a too

broad ... {{ BACK to A-1 }}

Message has been deleted

truthse...@gmail.com

unread,

May 5, 2009, 8:18:16 PM5/5/09

to 19org

Salaam Mehdi,

thank you for your comments.

I have read some interesting remarks from your side, but they
are questionable.
Your statement, that I have made many false claims seems to be
a bit too brisk. But we can see that in our arguments. May be we
come closer to the truth, concerning this issue, I hope that you are
seeking as well.

I ask you to consider if you are a part of the people who are
dividing the Islam into groups, knowingly or unknowingly, or if you
belong to the people who intend to unify the Islam.
Believers have to advice each other to try to establish unity between
the followers of the Quran, since verse 3:103, 3:105, 6:159, 30:31-32
are compelling.
Verse 3:105 warns the dividers of the religion with a severe
punishment.
Verses 30:31-32 warn the dividers that they are committing the
unforgivable sin of idol worship in being part of a group within
Islam.
Anyone who accepts messengership after Muhammad,
thereby creating division within Islam, actively or passively, is
confronted with these clear verses.
I ask you to reflect on this.

We can read some verses out of context and thereby we can create a
form of human made religion that has little to do with the harmony,
respect and righteousness were true Islam stands for, the system
prescribed by our Creator.
For instance:
We can read verse 4:34 out of context and support hereby domestic
violence.
We can read verse 2:191 out of context and support extremists who
think they are obliged to kill infidels, whatever their definition.
We can read 7:35 and 10:47 out of context and create uncertainty,
division and further disorder in the ummah concerning which messenger
is to be followed and obeyed nowadays and which one is not.
As the messenger has to be obeyed as God has to be obeyed, verse
4:80, seeing the importance of this, then this is not just an subject
for some interested people having word-games. It is one of the
essential issues for the future of the system of God that is
explained
perfectly in the Quran. Do we choose for unity in this system or do
we divide it and make it less powerful?
The by humans created uncertainty about messengership can create a
psychological terror in the hearts and minds of some well-intended
believers. Questions arise like: are we punished for missing a
messenger of God and if we found one, what is the difference between
his message and personal ideas? Garanteed fitna!
What would be the objective properties of such a person that we have
to follow and obey? What would be the gouverning-range of such a
person, the whole world or just a community.
What if he does not follow the Quran perfectly? As seems to be the
case with the discoverer of code 19, he was partially following human
made traditions.
How should we choose then between disobeying God via the Quran or
disobeying God via the so called messenger; is this an example of a
loose - loose situation?
I do not say that you endorsed the first two examples, at the
contrary, but the third example can be as detrimental as the first
two, when one considers. As seen in verse 3:105, a severe punishment
is foretold. Of course we know of the discrimination, the bloodshed
and persecution as a result of sectforming in Islam, by following
self-proclaimed messengers.
I hope you see the implications of a choice for reading 7:35 and
may be 10:47 out of context. The latter verse you did not mention.
We have to ask ourselves what is it in mankind, that we are proned to
following, obeying and idolizing human beings? As they can be for
instance in the form of ayatullah's, mehdi's, sufi-sheikhs and self-
proclaimed messengers.
The Quran clearly summons us to the mutual consultation, shoora,
verse 42:38.
Verse 3:79 tells us to study the Quran and to share the wisdom of it.
This is the system of God for the believers, the way how to develop
Islam. Who needs messengers than; the rejecters of this system?
Out of your words I can not discern if you accept the quranic
difference between a messenger and a prophet.
This acknowledgement is essential for this issue.
A messenger is according to verse 9:33 and 61:9 a bringer of the
religion of truth.
As we can see in the works of the men that are called messengers next
to being a prophet, they all came to bring a new religion to a people
or changed an existing religion.
Messengers and prophets came both to give guidance. All the prophets
had a God-given scripture with them. But only the prophets who were
messengers as well had a law-bearing scripture.
So a messenger is never just a confirmer of an existing message. But
as a part of giving a new message, he can through this also be a
confirmer of previous messages. As we have seen with our messenger-
prophet Muhammad. He confirmed via the Quran the previous scriptures,
according to for instance verses 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47, 5:48.

Verse 4:80 - Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God. As for those
who turn away, we did not send you as their guardian. - This verse
makes clear the importance of this issue. In this verse is stated
that the deliverer of the message of God has to be obeyed.

{{ A2 – To be clearer, the deliverer of the message of God has to be
obeyed by accepting his message because the real issue is not the
messenger but the message that he brings}}

Can you name me a messenger with a message that has to be obeyed, as
if one has to obey God, that came after the messenger Muhammad?
We can appreciate code 19 as a great phenomena, we can not obey a
code.
For instance the history of Saleh and the she-camel, the message of
Salih was to be obeyed, not the camel. What would there be left to
obey and follow if a code can not be followed of obeyed?
What about the difference between the Quran and for instance the so
called appendix of the Quran and other personal opinions, what and
who to obey then? Many believers are confused in this.
The Quran is complete and clear, so we should take care of additions
of the Quran by self-proclaimed messengers.

This is an interesting point, but when we read within the context
than we can see that the verses refer to the history of mankind,
so not to the time after Muhammad per se. This explains the
plural of the word messenger in verse 7:35.
The same as with verse 10:47: to every nation a messenger.
We can read verse 7:35 and 10:47 out of context and endorse the
endless division of the muslims in sects until the last day, as is
forbidden in verse 3:105.
We should read the verses within the context that is clearly given by
the Quran. The unifying context.
Muhammad had to tell his people that he is genuine by saying that he
and his message are in the tradition of the former messengers.
The context of verse 7:35 is clearly one of the tradition of
messengers since Noah.
Three verses just before 7:35 are adressing the children of Adam as
well. Verse 7:26 is about wearing clothes, verse 7:27 is about being
aware of satan, 7:31 is about the type of clothing in places of
prayer and modesty in eating and drinking. These statements are
common in the tradition of the messengers.
This part of the Quran is about Muhammad being a part of the chain of
messengers telling the people the traditions mainly as they were told
before, since Noah.
So the Quran does not clearly state that after Muhammad there will be
messengers, this suggestion comes from your own frame of reference, I
hope you are aware of that.
I see quite the contrary, the Quran endorses Muhammad as the
messenger until the last day via the Quran, since he is the seal of
the prophets.
Who could claim to be a messenger of God (someone who brings the
religion of God) and put the Quran aside or adjust the last guiding
words of God to mankind via an oral message, since Muhammad brought
the seal of the scriptures?

You do not consider yourself able to make mistakes in following self-
proclaimed messengers because of your reasoning and verification.
Assuming your verification is Quran based.
What is the message that you need then? Considering the Quran is
perfect and clear, the best source of verification.
Many members of the Qadian-, Bahai-, Sufi- and Khalifite- cults are
intelligent, well intended people. We should try to protect people
from joining sects, as we should try to discourage misguided people
to claim that they are a messenger of God. We can do this in using
the verses of the Quran within the right context. A severe punishment
is promised for the sectarians: verse 3:105.
The Quran is already around 1400 years a clear proof, as can be
read in verse 98:1-3.
Thus without considering code 19, the Quran is already mentioned as a
clear proof by our Creator.
Since the message of a messenger of God has to be obeyed we are in
problems if we do not know the right person and if we do not know the
difference of his so called pure message and his possible mistakes.
Again, we have the Quran as perfect reference, so why we need the
messenger then, what would be the message?
Code 19 is there to strenghten the faith, we are not obliged to
accept it. A believer might have the same rewards in believing in the
Quran without accepting the code, God knows alone.

{{ A-5 It is not upon you to decide whether if a messenger is needed
or not. Messengers are not sent to explain the message. It is God who
teach it (55:1-2) and explain it (75:19 ). Sending Messengers is a
mercy from God (21-107). There only duty is to deliver the message
(5 : 92; 13 :40; 16 :35) that contain good news and warnings. Sending
human messengers is one of God’s tests to identify the rejecters
(17:94). }}

The Quran has made new messengers superfluous, I try to follow the
Quran the perfect message, valid until the last day.
Again, can you name me one new messenger who did give a God-given
message with a religion of truth, containing good news? This message
has than to change the Quran, otherwise it is not a new message.
In code 19 there is no warning, it is a mathematical phenomena.

{{ A-6 The problem with your reasoning is that you consider the
absence of the labelling ‘Prophet’ or ‘messenger’ as an evidence of
its non existence. God never said that Idriss in only a prophet and
not a messenger. It is your interpretation based on your illogical
way of thinking that deduced this conclusion. The difference between
prophet and messenger is clearly stated in 3:81 but you failed to see
it. It’s not because some people were mentioned in Quran as
messengers that they are not prophets, and those called prophets that
they are the only prophets sent by God. Just take a look at
Chapter 7:
- From 7: 59 to 7:93 it talks about Noah, Hud, Saleh, Lot and Shuayb
and the punishment of their people. Just after that, God says in 7:94
‘Whenever We sent a prophet to any town, We would afflict its people
with hardship and adversity so that they may implore’. It is clear
that God, in 7:94, is referring to Noah’s, Hud’s, saleh’s, Lot’s and
Shuayb’s people as an example of people who were punished for their
ingratitude. In this verse, God used the word PROPHET and not
messenger (right after the stories of 5 of his messengers). Hence, we
can infer that Hud, Saleh and Shuayb are also prophets of God. }}
The relevant verses of the Quran, as seen above, also prove that the
sunni-saying: "every messenger is a prophet" is wrong, because Hud,
Saleh and Shu'ayb are only mentioned as messengers, not as prophets.
{{ See A-6 }}

Here you have a good point at first glance, but if you read verse 7:94
together with 7:101 then you get another picture. The Quran is very
precise.
Verse 7:101 speaks about cities who received messengers and
their people got a fast punishment, because they rejected
clear proofs. So this verse is related to the peoples of Hud, Saleh
and Shuayb. They got a fast punishment for rejecting the
message of their messengers as seen in verse 7:72, 7:78 and 7:91.
Verses 7:94-95 mention the prophets that were sent to the cities, so
their people received a God-given scripture, they got more time to
reflect, as was the case with Noah and Lut, they were for a longer
period with their people as a prophet with a scripture.
For rejecting the guidance first the people got problems so that they
would be more humble. But after this period they had better times
and could grow as a community, then after a period the disasters
came for them, for rejecting the scripture and the messenger-prophet.
Noah and Lut were both messenger-prophets.
So a people who received a scripture from a messenger-prophet
got longer time to reflect than a people who received a messenger
with clear instant signs, but without a scripture.
So because of the combination of verse 7:94 and 7:101
your argument is of lesser value. Hud, Saleh and Shuayb
were messengers and not prophets, they were without
a scripture. Lut and Noah were prophets as well as they
were messengers, they can be named in both ways.

If you read 3:81 together with 3:84 and 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47,
5:48, than I hope you see that Muhammad confirmed the previous
scriptures as mentioned in 3:81, as the messenger of the Quran, it is
the message that counts, as you said.
Acknowledged is by Muhammad in verse 3:84 that the scriptures that
were sent to him and to the previous prophets were from God, so that
is confirming the previous scriptures in the clearest sense. How can
you deny this linkage?
Can you name me another messenger of God who actually confirmed the
in verse 3:84 mentioned previous prophets? Not just one, but all
mentioned previous scriptures.

You are right in the grammar, this is not relevant here because this
verse seems to be allegorical, the first meaning is that it refers to
the - saqar -, but as verse 3:7 states there are multiple-meaning
verses. So if you stick to the grammar than you would block the
phenomena of code 19.
Only when you see the allegory, than you know that 19 refers to the
Quran, since code 19 can be found only in the Quran, as far as we
know.
The allegorical meaning can transcend the boundaries of the grammar.

{{ A-9 Quran never said that the messenger in 3:81 is Mohammad.
Verses 3:84, 2:41, 2:91, 2:97 said that the Quran (throw Mohammad)
confirmed previous scripture. But the question is : Who will confirm
the Quran? }}

How do you know the Quran needs confirmation, who told you that? As
believers we are tested in accepting the Quran as it is. God stated
that the absence of contradictions is a proof that it is from God,
according to verse 4:82, I advice you to accept this quranic fact.
As stated in verse 98:1-3, the Quran itself is a clear proof. Not
needing confirmation anymore. Code 19 is a great phenomena, but not
called a confirmation by its Creator, so we should not do that
either.

{{ A-10 Again WRONG. 19 is address to anyone who say that the Quran
is just magic and the word of a human (74:23-24). In other word, 19
will prove that Quran has a divine origin. }}

You stated that 19 refers to - saqar - and not to the Quran because
of the grammar. But you are right in seeing the allegory.
Never in 74:31 is referred to code 19 as confirming. The Arabic word
- musaddiqoon - from verse 3:81 is not used in verse 74:31 but
indeed is used in for instance verse 3:91. As proof of the linkage
between 3:81, 3:84 and for instance 3:91.
If you read the concerning parts of 74:31 - We have not made their
number but as a trial for those who disbelieve- - that those in whose
hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say: What does Allah mean
by this parable?-
So code 19 is according our Creator not a confirmation of the Quran
but a trial or puzzling allegory for the unbelievers.
We have to accept the confirmation that God gave us about the Quran,
that is the absence of contradictions, concerning for instance
science, history and consistency.
We have to be in peace with that, as believers.

[[Verse 33:7 states that from Muhammad and the other prophets is

taken a covenant, accepters of extra messengers say that this verse
proves that Muhammad is the not the messenger mentioned in 3:81 but
that he is one of the prophets of this verse. This would be illogical
because of the linkage between verse 3:81 and verse 3:84, 2:41,
2:91 amongst others.
{{ A-11 According to 3:81 and 33:7 Mohammad is not the messenger
mentioned in 3:81. Besides, there is no link between 3:81 and the
verses that you mentioned. }}

{{ A-12 Wrong. Neither Mohammad nor other prophets have made the
covenant mentioned in 3:187. This is a covenant with the people who
received the book (Jews, Christians and Arabs). 3:187 starts with

‘God took the covenant of those who were given the book…) ]]

The linkage of 3:81 and 3:84 and the other concerning verses is clear
for the believers with a unifying non-sectarian approach.
You can read the comment on A7 for the explanation.
The covenant taken from the prophets, including Muhammad, mentioned
in verse 33:7 refers to the contract of 3:187.
At first when I read 3:187 I read it in the same way as you, but
there is another more compelling way of reading this verse.
The first part of 3:187 refers to the prophets, the second part
refers to the people who received the message from their prophets.
Verse 3:81 speaks of prophets who are given a book, that is
consistent with the ones who where given a book mentioned in 3:187.
The difference is, this covenant of 3:187 includes Muhammad as
prophet and 3:81 includes Muhammad as the confirming
messenger.
You are right in saying that the people of the book - ahl el kitab -
also are referred to as the ones who are given the book - aladheena
ootoo el kitabu -.
I can not imagine that every follower of the Tawrah and the Ingeel
has had to express that he or she was a part of a covenant to
proclaim the guidance to the people and not to hide it.
To which people had they to convey the guidance, when they are the
people themselves?
Another point is that the Jewish people and christians since
centuries do not have the original and complete scriptures. How can
they fulfill the covenant?
God does not give a soul more that he/she can endure. God does not
give impossible tasks, verse 2:86.
To proclaim a complete guidance is a clear function and
responsibility of a prophet.
Part two of verse 3:187 is about the people of the book - ahl el
kitab - indeed.
The receivers of the guidance, they have disregarded it, according to
the Quran.
The covenant of the Israelites mentioned in verse 5:12 is not about
proclaiming the guidance but about accepting it, they received it
perfectly, so Musa and Aaron kept their part of the covenant of
3:187.
But the Israelites twisted and hide a part of to what they were
summoned to by their prophets. The same is the matter with the
christians according to verse 5:14 they had a perfect message
received from Isa, but they made the same fault as is mentioned
in the second part of verse 3:187 and so they were not fulfilling
their covenant.
If you read verse 33:7 an 33:8 together than you can see that the
covenant with the prophets of 33:7 has as result, that the difference
can be seen between the believers who accept the guidance and the
unbelievers. That is a consequence of receiving a guidance from a
prophet, thus the covenant of 33:7 refers to giving guidance to a
people by the prophets, thereby the connection with the first part of
verse 3:187 is explained.
If one assumes that this covenant of 33:7 is connected with the
covenant of verse 3:81 then there is a problem, hardly the prophets
that would not have given support ( via their scriptures ) for the
confirming messenger could be called an unbeliever that would be
punished severely, according to 33:8.
[[If you read carefully verse 3:84, you will see that it starts with

'Say, "We acknowledge God and what was sent down to us... " what
was sent down to us = Quran because ‘We’ refers to Mohammad
and his followers. So, don’t say again that Mohammad and Quran
are not referred to in 3:84. }}

I did not say Muhammad was not mentioned at all in 3:84, he has a
different role here than to be confirmed, he is the confirming
messenger mentioned in 3:81. That is what our messenger-prophet is
doing according to and in this verse. He confirms that the previous
prophets received scriptures from their Lord.
In 3:84 he is acting as the messenger of the Quran and actually
fulfills the function of the confirming messenger of 3:81.
I hope I made this more clear now.

Why do you not mention the fact that there can be persons deeply
rooted in knowlegde?
These persons are predicted by the Quran, verse 3:7.
You can solve this issue of sectarian division of followers of the
Quran by seeing respectable explorers and explainers of the Quran as
people who are deeply rooted in knowlegde. The Quran gives permission
for this. As contrast to following and obeying self-proclaimed
messengers. We have our own capacities (fooad) to study and share the
Quran for mutual consultation, as we are doing right now.
Verse 4:80 - Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God.-
This is the serious context we are dealing with.
Again, who is to judge who is a messenger and in what respect he is
to be followed of obeyed? Better to follow the words of the Quran,
the Quran tells us exactly which messengers we have to believe in
(2:285), they are mentioned as such. We do not need new ahadeeth for
this. Or is the Quran not complete?

Anybody can be (partly but genuinly) misguided, both the claimers of
messengership as the followers of such a person. They both need
protection against this misguidance of making division between the
followers of the Quran - verse 3:105.

I hope that you see that until now the level of knowledge of Arabic
and the possible poor quality of translations were not of any
relevance yet. But that can come, I try to be aware of that.
Hopefully you are able to see the danger of endorsing sects or the
formation of sects that are dividing Islam, by supporting the
unquranic view that there are self-proclaimed messengers of God to
follow and obey. The ummah is very divided also because of this
issue.
The question that we as followers of the Quran should ask in this is:
are we a part of the problem or a part of the solution of the issue
of sects within Islam?
The Quran is perfect and clear, through the Quran we are able to
follow and obey the prophet Muhammad. That is the messenger that we
have to be appreciative of nowadays in following the Quran, we need
no addition.
Who would like to exchange the messenger-prophet Muhammad for another
man or another group of men, to follow and obey? - verse 3:53 and
4:80 -

Salaam,
Truthseeker.

> to ...
>
> meer lezen »

9TEEN.ORG

unread,

May 13, 2009, 10:40:33 AM5/13/09

to 19org

Peace,

So you copletley ignore Gods words where he states that as long as
there are decendants of Adam there will be messengers, What did God
make a mistake when he put this in Chapter 7 verse 35 do you not
believe God when he speakes straight forward. You should read more and
maybe one day you will accept that mohmaad is not the be all and end
all. GOD is!

Selam

Mehdi

unread,

May 15, 2009, 12:43:23 PM5/15/09

to 19org

Salam Truthseeker,

Anyone who invites people to follow only Quran is a true muslim. On
the opposite, anyone who follows his ego and man made books has
strayed from God’s path. The issue of human messenger is not a major
one for true believer since we have with us the everlasting messenger,
the Quran. Since a human messenger is after all a sincere believer, we
expect from him that he shows all the characteristics described in
Quran for believers, for example : have knowledge (3:18; 29:43,49),
understand Quran (56:79), listen to all views (39:18), not make profit
from God’s message (6:90; 36:21; 26:109-180), speak the truth
(8:7-8;25:72; 33:70; 12:70-81), etc... With the very detailed
description made by Quran regards true believers, it becomes easy to
distinguish between a true and fake believer. So, if a true believer
(according to Quran description) comes to you and proclaims that he is
a messenger of God, just believe him because, a true believer can not
be a liar. HENCE, THE IMPORTANCE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CRITERION,
THE QURAN. On the other hand, fake messengers are as easy to identify
as the sun at noon in a clear sky of a summer day, because they are
also well described in Quran. So, do not be sad when you see people
straying and following sects and fake messengers (26:3-4), everything
is done according to God’s system (4:88; 7:186; 34:20-21) and every
person has only what it deserves. God will always show us the truth
but most of us will reject it (11:17; 12:103; 13:1; 17:89; 25:30).

You have NO reason to reject Rashad’s messengership when he claimed so
because he was a true believer according to Quran. Rashad made many
mistakes as other messengers did but God never said that His
messengers are perfect. It is the idolater people who made their
messengers perfect men. As I said in my previous message Mohammad is A
(not the last) messenger of God and the last prophet (33:40). If you
think carefully about 33:40 you will see that there is an obvious
reason why the word ‘AKHIR = the last’ is put after ‘A messenger’ and
not before. Verses 7:35 and 10:47 are not read out of context because
there is no such context related to these verses. They are clear signs
addressed to all human being. If you are in doubt about God’s sign,
you are in deed in big trouble. God wants from us to reach certainty
and not be among the doubtful (2:147; 3:60; 6:114; 10:94). Hence, the
test of messengership which is one test among others.

God says that for every nation is a messenger (10:47). Prophet
Mohammad (Died in VII century) could never be the messenger to the
Aztec (IX to XVI c), Inca (XIII to XVI c) for example. According to
10:47 these nations must have received their messengers which of
course came after Mohammad.

As I said before, obeying a messenger does not mean obeying the man
who brings the message. God has never said that we must obey Mohammad
or Moses or Jesus or even Rashad but He always used the word messenger
because a messenger will not exist if there was no message. This
message is written in the book of God, the Quran. Therefore a
messenger will bring nothing from himself; he will only proclaim what
is written in the book. To obey a messenger means to ACCEPT his
message. By accepting code 19 (appreciate it with certainty not just
lip service) you obey the messenger. Rashad asserted many things that
I did not accepted ( ex: 5 daily contact prayers and the number of
their units, 2.5% for Zakat, the so called 5 pillars of islam, etc…)
because they are not Quran based.

The only verse where we see a clear distinction between ‘Prophet’ and
‘Messenger’ is 3:81 and this distinction is the book given to the
prophets. According to my understanding, a messenger is a medium
through which God spread His message to the people (42:51). If the
message is in the form of a written book (complete set of laws, news
and information) then the messenger is specifically called
'Prophet' (NABEEY = prophet and NABA’ = news came from the same root
NABA’A=to inform) otherwise we call him ‘messenger’ which is a general
term. For this reason, all the prophets are messengers and the
opposite is not always true. To be a messenger (not prophet) does not
mean that ones must receive a direct call from God. A message can be
transmitted from God to a messenger in the form of an idea or
knowledge which is then transferred by the recipient to his community.
Therefore, we can consider all true believers who strive to spread the
word of God us messengers. For this reason, God says in 10:47 that for
every Ummah (nation/community/society/population) is a messenger If
you read ‘The Apology of Socrates’, you will see that Socrates was
indeed God’s messenger to the Athenians. Socrates wrote nothing, all
what we know about him came from his disciple Plato. So, why some true
messengers proclaimed publicly their messengership even if they know
the danger of this proclamation? Because, they were simply commanded
to do it.

I see from your message that you are not appreciating God’s sign in
Chapter 74. Just take a look at 74:32-37:’ No, by the moon. By the
night when it passes. By the morning when it shines. It is ONE OF THE
GREAT ONES. A WARNING TO PEOPLE. FOR ANY AMONG YOU WHO WISHES TO
PROGRESS OR REGRESS’. After witnessing the 19 miracle, you are either
from those who progressed or those who regressed. God says that He
will not guide those who do not appreciate His signs (16:104, 40:63).

How can you prove to a sceptic that the Quran is perfectly and well
preserved since its revelation? There is ONE answer: The numerical
structure of Quran based on number 19. Because of the traditional
teaching regarding how the Quran was collected and compiled, I had
always doubted about its authenticity. It was only after reading and
analysing the work of Rashad and others on the mathematical structures
of the Quran that all doubts were removed as mentioned in 74:31.

You made many times reference to the unity in God’s system. Firstly,
ones have to define what is unity? For me, the unity must reside in
the acceptance of God and ALL His commandments with certainty and do
good works. God says that the majority of people will not believe
(12:103) and the majority of the few remaining believers will be
idolaters (12:106). The disunity among believers is a quranic fact.
Most of them are destined to hell. The purpose of the creation is only
to serve God (51:56) and not to seek being part of a group. God’s is
sufficient for his servant (39:36). The duty of all sincere believers
is to proclaim the truth. The Ummah that you are referring to has
deserted the Quran (25:30).

Here are some advices from a sincere monotheist: Be open mind and free
yourself from all traditions. Stick completely to Quran and use it to
distinguish between those who are guided and those who are not. Kill
your ego and remember that we, humans (including prophets and
messengers), are so weak and if it had not been for God's favour and
mercy, none of us would have ever been purified (24:21).

Salam,
Mehdi

Mehdi

unread,

May 16, 2009, 5:59:56 AM5/16/09

to 19org

Sorry, I just noticed that I have made an error in the second
paragraph “….there is an obvious reason why the word ‘AKHIR = the
last’ is put after ‘A messenger’ and not before.” In 33:40, it is the
word ‘Khatam’ (the last, the seal) who is mentioned and not
‘Akhir’ (the last). Even if my error does not affect my statement, it
is for me important to refer to the real word especially when it comes
from Quran.

Salam,
Mehdi

Message has been deleted

truthse...@gmail.com

unread,

May 16, 2009, 8:46:25 AM5/16/09

to 19org

Answer to: 9teen.org
from: Truthseeker

Salaam sister/brother in Islam.

We should not ignore any word of God that is given to us through the
Quran.

The best way to find the truth about messengership of a person is to
read and accept the quranic definition of a messenger.

The quranic definition of a messenger of God is according to verse
9:33 and 61:9: a bringer of guidance and the religion of truth.
When we study the list of men that are mentioned as messengers, than
we see how this definition has to be applied.
Messengers came with a religion of truth for their people, this means
that they came with a new sharia.
As said before, Musa, Isa and Muhammad for instance came as
messengers
with a new sharia.
For instance the prophets Dawud and Sulayman did not bring a new
sharia, they were followers of the Tawra, as far as we can know.
The understanding of the quranic difference between a messenger and a
prophet is essential for this important issue.

If we now read verse 7:35 again than we can see that Muhammad is
referred to in this verse, he is the last man that gave humanity a
religion of truth with a clear sharia.
Your reading of 7:35: --- as long as there are decendants of Adam
there will be messengers --- is not right.
This verse is not in future tense but in present tense. This verse
refers to a moment that Muhammad had to convince his people that he
is
the messenger of God in the tradition of the messengers before him.

Do you really think the Quran endorses the point of view that many
messengers will come and thereby divide the believers?

Again nowhere in the Quran is mentioned that a new sharia will come
to
replace or adjust the Quran, the Quran is perfect and clear.
The Quran is a message for the whole of humanity, or would you say
that some peoples have received another true religion and sharia from
another messenger after Muhammad? If so, can you provide evidence for
this?

I hope that you will appreciate the quranic definition of a messenger
and understand that no man after Muhammad rightfully claimed to be a
messenger of God.
The men who did this have divided the Islam into more groups,
as is forbidden by verse 3:105, we are warned against this by
a severe punishment, to be a part of this dividing process.

I invite you to read and follow the quranic words of verse 3:7 and
accept that there are and will be people who are deeply rooted in
knowlegde and know the meaning of verses with a multiple meaning. For
instance verse 74:30.
These men are predicted by the Quran, we can accept their discoveries
and words as free believers, without dividing the believers further
into groups, whose members often adore and follow there own self-
proclaimed messengers.

The Quran does not allow to accept new messengers. That would only
divide us into groups, this is very dangerous, for the unity of Islam
and may be for our souls, God is the Knower.

Take care and salaam,
Truthseeker

Message has been deleted

truthse...@gmail.com

unread,

May 17, 2009, 11:09:00 AM5/17/09

to 19org

Answer to: Mehdi
from: Truthseeker

Thank you again for your comments.
In the text I have numbered 6 explicit questions for you,
fore oversight, I am looking forward to your answers. For other
readers may be good to reflect on as well.

To have a meaningfull exchange of thoughts we have to agree on the
definition of the basic items.
Hereby it is important to accept the quranic definition of a
messenger
and avoid definitions that are man-made.

The quranic definition of a messenger of God is according to verse
9:33 and 61:9: a bringer of guidance and the religion of truth.
When we study the list of men that are mentioned as messengers, than
we see how this definition has to be applied.
Messengers came with a religion of truth for their people, this means
that they came with a new sharia.
As said before, Musa, Isa and Muhammad for instance came as
messengers with a new sharia.
For instance the prophets Dawud and Sulayman did not bring a new
sharia, they were followers of the Tawra, as far as we can know.
The understanding of the quranic difference between a messenger and a
prophet is essential for this important issue.

As written before verse 7:81 is a verse that is often wrongly

interpretated by the accepters of extra messengers.
This verse states that God made a covenant with the prophets
and that these prophets had to believe in and support a messenger
who would confirm their previous scriptures.

It is important to acknowledge that Muhammed is named by the
Quran sometimes as a messenger and sometimes as a prophet.
Verse 3:84 clearly states that Muhammad is the messenger of the
covenant, according to this verse Muhammad and his followers, have to

say that they believe in the mentioned messengers and the prophets
and that they make no difference between the prophets.

Verse 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47, 5:48 state that the Quran confirms

previous scriptures. Mind the Arabic word - musaddiq - , used in
verse 7:81 and the mentioned verses, another quranic proof of
Muhammad being the messenger of the covenant.
The word - musaddiq - is absent in the verses around code 19.

Verse 37:37 states that Muhammad is a confirmer of the messengers
as well.
The confirmation of previous scriptures can be a part of the duty of
a
messenger, as Muhammad, Isa was also a confirmer. Isa confirmed the

Tawra according to verse 3:50, but he also had to renew the religion
for his people, in allowing some items that were forbidden before,

according to this verse.
The duty of every messenger was to give a new religion to his people
or to partly renew the religion for his people.

Verse 3:39 clearly states that the prophet Yahya is a confirmer of
the
word from God.

So a prophet can be a confirmer as well. So hereby the process of
confirming does not make the difference between a prophet and a
messenger.
They both can have that assignment as well.
So your assumption that a messenger is just a confirmer is not
supported by the Quran at all.
This point of view is created by for instance self-proclaimed
messengers who searched for a verse to support their claim of
messengership.
Verse 10:47 and 7:35 have also been abused, it is clear what the
sectarian agenda is of people who read these verses out of context.

Question 1:
Are you willing to accept the quranic definition of a messenger,
or do you see a messenger just as a confirmer and hereby imply that
Hud, Saleh, Musa, Isa and Muhammad were just confirmers?

Another issue is: the discoverer of code 19 can not be the messenger
of the covenant of verse 7:81, because code 19 refers to the Quran
only and verse 7:81 mentions a messenger who would confirm
the previous scriptures of the prophets.

Question 2:
How did the discoverer of code 19 confirm the Tawra, the Zabur
and Ingeel for instance, since he claimed to be the messenger of the
covenant, confirming the scriptures of the previous prophets?
For me it is clear that the messenger of the covenant is Muhammad
as verses 3:84, 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47, 5:48 clearly prove.
Again mind the word - musaddiq - used in the verses 3:81 and
for instance 2:91. This word is not used in verses around code 19.
It is great that you appreciate code 19, but making the discoverer
of it a messenger of the covenant can block good believers from
accepting this mathematical phenomena as well. The code 19 has been
drawn into sectarian discussions about messengership.
So if you want to support the message of code 19 then you better
can take it out of sectarianism, and see the discoverer as someone
deeply rooted in knowlegde, verse 3:7.
Actually the bringer of code 19 is Muhammad, the Quran and
with it the concerning verses about the code, came to us via the
heart
of the last messenger and prophet. The signature of code 19 was
already in the Quran. We can not know if Muhammed or other people
with
knowledge knew about the code, we can not exclude this, neither can
we speculate about why this knowlegde remained hidden for the
masses of believers for a long period.
The man who discovered or rediscovered this phenomena could not claim
that it is was his sign. As if someone of the Thamud would have
discovered an extra amazing special property of the she-camel that
was
with Saleh as a sign of God, it would still be the sign of the
messenger
Saleh, not of the discoverer of the special property of the camel.
The discoverer of the special property would surely not be a
messenger
for this. Both during the life-time of Saleh or when it was found
many
centuries later via computer-added genetic research.
Code 19 is still a sign of the perfect prophethood of the messenger-
prophet Muhammad. The Quran has been delivered by Muhammad
in the most perfect way possible in those days. If code 19 would have
been found by a follower of Muhammad during the life-time of
Muhammad,
nobody could have claimed messengership next to Muhammad. As
can not be done centuries later for discovering the code.
We should respect the discoverer of the code for his great findings,
but we should not make him a messenger of the covenant for this.
The discoverer has shown an extra dimension, the mathematical
dimension of the Quran, hereby the believers can be inspired in
another way by the great sign that came via Muhammad, the Quran.
If you see the discoverer of code 19 as a messenger of the covenant,
supported by all the prophets, verse 3:81.
How is it possible then that his points of view on the salaat,
zakaat and hadj were not according to the Quran?
He even, problably unknowingly, invited the believers to commit
the unforgivable sin of shirk, to follow his ahadeeth and
the concept of millat Ibrahim as a source next to the Quran.
The self-proclamation of being the messenger of the covenant
is surely one of his human mistakes as well, as detailed reading
of verse 3:81 proves.
Humans make mistakes.
Human messengers make no mistakes in bringing the sharia,
we have to believe in the messengers, verse 2:285.
The content of the message, and with it the sharia was brought
by the real messengers in a reliable way. As humans they could
make mistakes in the way of spreading the message or in dealing
with the message, but the message itself was perfect in the realm
of sharia.
The duty of a messenger is according to the Quran to bring
a sharia, not to confuse the believers in this, as has
happened clearly.
Again we can not obey and follow a code (which sign belongs to
the prophet Muhammad), as we can not obey and follow a she-camel.
We have to obey the content of the guidance of the messenger,
that is amongst others the sharia.

Question 3:
How can you explain if someone is supposed to be
the messenger of the covenant and thereby should have been
supported by all the prophets, that he misses many important issues
of the sharia that are already clearly described in the Quran?

You wrote:

--- The issue of human messenger is not a major

one for true believer since we have with us the everlasting

messenger ---

Is is not for you to decide if this is major issue, as you know
the Quran warns in several verses against dividing the Islam
into groups, verse 3:105 warns us with severe punishment.
Verses 30:31-32 state that this issue can be a form of shirk,
the unforgivable sin.

I ask you to reflect on this.

I ask you not to be in denial about supporting the division of Islam
by supporting one or more self-proclaimed messengers.
As said before, there has been discrimination, bloodshed, fear
and great disorder because of the sectarian division.
So it is a major issue.

You wrote:

--- So, if a true believer (according to Quran description) comes

to you and proclaims that he is a messenger of God,

just believe him because, a true believer can not be a liar. ---

As you said, the discoverer of code 19 made many mistakes,
why should you believe him in this issue of messengership?
Any true believer can make mistakes, so why should we just
believe him in this decisive matter?
How can you judge that someone is a true believer? This belongs
to the knowledge of our Creator. I hope for the believers truly the
best,
but a human being can not have true knowlegde in this.

You wrote:

--- God says that for every nation is a messenger (10:47). Prophet

Mohammad (Died in VII century) could never be the messenger to the
Aztec (IX to XVI c), Inca (XIII to XVI c) for example. According to
10:47 these nations must have received their messengers which of

course came after Mohammad. ---

Again, this verse you read out of context. It is in present tense,
refering to Muhammad being in the tradition of messengers since
Noah.
To all the nations have been sent messengers, the ones that are
mentioned in the Quran by name and the messengers that were
sent before Muhammad that were unknown to him, verse 40:78.
It is conjecture to say that the Aztecs have received their messenger
after Muhammad. History has not proven that after Muhammad there
was any quranic messenger. The absence of proof is not evidence of
absence of course, but we have to face the facts that we only know of
self-proclaimed messengers who brought sectarian confusion to the
believers.

Question 4:

Can you give me the name of one or more messengers after Muhammad
who brought a perfect quranic sharia and replaced of adjusted the
Quran?
This should have been done via a purely oral message, since Muhammad
is the seal of the prophets, so there can not be new prophetic
scriptures.
As believers we have to accept that before Muhammad there have been
sent messengers to all nations, in all continents.
That we can read from verse 10:47 and 40:78.
At the other hand there have been generations of peoples without a
messenger, as verses 36:6 and 5:19 clearly state.
Nowadays in all continents the message of the Quran has been brought,
so many people are free to make up there mind. But the sectarian
division of followers of the Quran can be a strong barrier, we should
be aware
of these barriers and try to take them away.

You wrote:

--- Therefore, we can consider all true believers who strive to
spread
the word of God as messengers ---

Take care of not making your own definitions about important items
in Islam. I ask you again to see the list of men who are named as a
messenger in the Quran.
There is structural difference between quranic messengers like for
instance, Saleh, Musa, Isa and Muhammad and at the other hand
the missionaries of Islam, who often spread a mixed message of the
Quran and the so called sunnah.
I advice you to accept the quranic definition of a messenger:
a bringer of guidance and the religion of truth and not to follow your
own ideas.

You wrote:

--- For this reason, all the prophets are messengers ---

Question 5:
How can you adhere to this ahadeeth: when the Quran mentions 20 men
as a messenger and 12 men as a prophet?
This is a matter of simple counting and logic.

I ask you to respect the functions of the mentioned men given by
our Creator and not to follow your own desires in this.
Dawud and Sulayman were prophets and not messengers.
Why do you give the title of messenger to missionaries of Islam while
this title was not given to the prophets Dawud and Sulayman by
our Creator? Did for instance Dawud not spread his guidance to the
people?

I ask you to reflect on this.

You wrote:

--- I see from your message that you are not appreciating God’s sign

in Chapter 74. Just take a look at 74:32-37:’ No, by the moon. By the
night when it passes. By the morning when it shines. It is ONE OF THE
GREAT ONES. A WARNING TO PEOPLE. FOR ANY AMONG YOU
WHO WISHES TO PROGRESS OR REGRESS’. After witnessing the
19 miracle, you are either from those who progressed or those who

regressed.---

This assumption is not correct, but I try to see code 19 in the right
perspective, without the human-made distortions of messengership
of the discoverer or the assumption that code 19 is a confirmation of
the Quran.
These two issues have led to sectarian behaviour of many well
intended
believers.
You can read my previous answer for quranic evidence.
To say that the Quran needs confirmation is a denial of the quranic
verses concerned.
May be it is even arrogant to assume that the Quran needs
confirmation
when the Quran states that the absence of contradictions proves that
it is from our Creator. Our Creator knows best.

You wrote:

---You made many times reference to the unity in God’s system.

Firstly, ones have to define what is unity? For me, the unity must
reside in
the acceptance of God and ALL His commandments with certainty and do
good works. God says that the majority of people will not believe
(12:103) and the majority of the few remaining believers will be
idolaters (12:106). The disunity among believers is a quranic fact.
Most of them are destined to hell. The purpose of the creation is
only to serve God (51:56) and not to seek being part of a group. God’s
is
sufficient for his servant (39:36). The duty of all sincere believers
is to proclaim the truth. The Ummah that you are referring to has

deserted the Quran (25:30).---

Unity of course is the absence of division into groups and cults.
Again, the believers are warned by severe punishment if they support
this unquranic division, verse 3:105.
Every active claimer of messengership after Muhammad or passive
follower of a self-proclaimed messenger is a sectarian, because they
follow more than the Quran, they follow human-made assumptions
and support the division of the believers into groups and cults.
Unity and progress in Islam is based on mutual consultation,
verse 4:80.
Sectarian division is found in accepting self-proclaimed messengers,
from who the sectarians claim that they would make a better world
and explain everything to the believers.
As said before, many believers are waiting for the mehdi or a
messenger, in the mean-time there can be just stagnation.
The system of Islam is built on democracy not on following and
obeying a leader, but many people like to surrender themselves
to a human leader and do not want to think themselves. Hereby
they often imagine that they kill their ego. May be they are hurting
their souls severely.
A great game of Iblis, as far as I can see.

I hope that you are aware that you contribute to the disunity of the
followers of the Quran by accepting and promoting a self-proclaimed
messenger after Muhammad and that you aware of being in a group.
If you open the door for one extra messenger you may have opened
the door for more of them, for you and for others. Be aware of not
being too self-assured that you have the perfect way to decide who is
a
fake-messenger. You have proven to me already that you have missed
some points in this matter.
I ask you not to be too self-assured about your way of Islam as a
contrast to the ummah in saying that the ummah will go to hell, we
are all part of the ummah and every believer has to develop his of
her
ego, not to kill but to develop the ego, the soul.
This is another issue, about the three stages of the nafs - the ego.
We should all be in the balance of fear, respect, love and hope
towards the Creator.
And always be open to new developments of the soul.
For instance in developing from a (partially) sectarian towards a
unifying muslim, a monotheist without the burden of accepting
dividing ahadeeth as a source next to the Quran, about messengership
after Muhammad.
Without the burden of supporting the division of Islam into groups
and
cults, by accepting the unquranic principle of messengers after
Muhammad.
You know better if this applies to you.

Question 6:
How do you"know" that the discoverer of code 19 is a messenger when
you just have the Quran as source for the religion?
Nobody could get to "know" and accept this without accepting
human-made assumptions, ahadeeth, as a source next to the Quran.
Is the Quran really complete and clear for you?

You still have to ask yourself if you contribute to the serious issue
of dividing Islam in groups/cults, by promoting messengership of a
self-
proclaimed messenger. In accepting this messengership of a man after
Muhammad you belong to a cult or group within Islam, I can not see it
otherwise.
Even if you are aware of most of his mistakes.
Your assumption of messengership of the discoverer of code 19 can
only be hadeeth-based.
Many other members of the ummah are also divided by their different
hadeeth-systems, also they belong to groups or cults. So I see no
structural difference here in accepting ahadeeth.
Let it be one or thousands, the principle matters.

I advise you to accept, God knows best, the safe quranic way and see
the discoverer of the code as someone (partly) deeply rooted in
knowlegde, this is allowed according to verse 3:7.
This is a part of the unifying system of Islam, not to follow and
obey
subjective messages of self-proclaimed messengers, but to study the
Quran and inform the other believers, sometimes based on knowlegde
of people that are predicted in verse 3:7.
I advise you to free yourself from your partially sectarian attitude
and I hope that you may experience the gift of being a believer who
is
totally free from the influence of human manipulations, appreciating
code 19 in a non-sectarian way.
As far as I can see you have already made great steps in following
the Quran alone.
May be this step can be another one.

Take care and salaam,
Truthseeker.

Edip Yuksel

unread,

May 17, 2009, 1:55:59 PM5/17/09

to 19org

Dear Truthseeker:

Though I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I would like to list
some of my reasons for rejecting the orthodox belief that closes the
door of messengership by confusing and/or conflating the words RaSuL
with NaBiY

1. Rasul (messenger) delivers a message, either a message revealed to
him (which would make him also a Nabi) or a previously revealed yet
ignored or distorted message.

2. Nabi (prophet) receives a message and delivers it. Since every
person receiving a message for public (as opposed to personal), is
also expected to deliver it, thus making him a Rasul (messenger).

3. God sends messengers to the children of Adam.

4. God sends messengers and warners as a divine mercy to every nation
in their native language.

5. The Quranic expression pertinent to this issue is "Muhammad is
God's messenger (rasul) and final prophet (nabi)" but NOT "Muhammad is
God's final messenger and prophet" as claimed by those who wish to
close God's mercy after Muhammad's departure.

6. God made covenant with prophets regarding a particular messenger
(3:81).

7. Muhammad was a prophet and he is specifically mentioned as one of
those prophets who made the covenant (33:7). (There is no reason to
claim that the covenant in 33:7 to be a different one than the 3:81).

8. There is only one case where the finality of messengership (rasul)
is mentioned in the Quran and those who wanted to end God's mercy
(messengers) were criticized (See 40:28-56).

9. A careful and honest reading of those verses (40:28-38 and
40:39-56) will give you exactly the name of the messenger prophecized
in 3:81 and what would happened to him and the characteristics of
those who opposed him.

Peace,
Edip

Peace,
Edip

Message has been deleted

truthse...@gmail.com

unread,

May 22, 2009, 6:31:45 PM5/22/09

to 19org

Anwer to: Edip
from: Truthseeker

Salaam Edip,

Thank your for your remarks.
I know this is a sensitive issue for you, so I respect that you give
the opportunity for a quran-based discussion on this subject.

My intention is to support unity between followers of the Quran and to
prove that code 19 can be appreciated in a non-sectarian way.
I have noticed that many believers are not willing to see this
mathematical phenomena because they think that a part of the deal is
to accept Rashad Khalifa as a messenger in the line of Isa and
Muhammad.

This effort is about sharing a way to appreciate code 19 without a
sectarian approach.
It has nothing to do with denying signs, or denying the mercy of God
in giving the children of Adam the real human-messengers.

I am concerned about that some very respectable active Quran-alone
advocates are at the same time destabilising the perfect system of God
by promoting the opinion that after Muhammad there still are sent
messengers that the believers have to follow and obey.
Thereby creating real uncertainty and even fear in the ummah about who
is the messenger to follow and obey nowadays.
All the believers would have to be alert always everywhere to be able
to judge if a messenger-claimant is reliable. Rashad Khalifa would not
pass the test, because he missed important elements of the sharia that
were already described clearly in the Quran.
The acceptance of messengers after Muhammad has only led to further
cults and groups and strive within Islam. We have seen that the result
of this is discrimination, bloodshed and more chaos within the ummah.
Contrary to the message of the Quran, to establish a solid tolerant
universal democratic system, based on mutual consent, not in following
and obeying self-proclaimed messengers.
As you have noticed, even some followers of Rashad have named
themselves messenger of God, so do we have to obey and follow them as
well? What is the criterium then?

In my text I have 7 questions for you.

The development of Islam by the believers is described in the Quran.
42:38 - the mutual consultation (shoora) is prescribed, so our Creator
has prescribed for the believers a universal democratic system for the
development of the several levels of Islam.-

3:79 - believers have to study the Quran and share their knowledge.-

42:21 - warns against following people instead of following the
Quran.-

Question 1
Would a system based on numerous local messengers after Muhammad, that
have to be obeyed, as God has to be obeyed, not be contrary to the
democratic and emancipating system as prescribed in the Quran?
The Quran has no contradictions, verse 4:82.

Question 2
How can believers know that they have to follow and obey Rashad
Khalifa, as God has to be obeyed (verse 4:80), without accepting the
ahadeeth of Rashad about his messengership?

If one accepts the Quran as perfect and complete this is an
impossibility.
Or we accept the messengership of Rashad and admit that the Quran is
not complete.
Or we accept the Quran as complete and perfect without needing human-
made sources beside the Quran and see for instance Rashad as someone
deeply rooted in knowledge, these persons are in general predicted by
the Quran in verse 3:7. The believers are free to accept the
explanation of the people with deeper wisdom, we do not have to follow
and obey them as God has to be obeyed. So we can easier disagree with
Rashad about some issues of the sharia. Without the risk being
disobedient to the messenger. Eventhough Rashad told that we should
follow the Quran above his writings, still many believers are in a
dilemma concerning this issue.

You wrote:
1. Rasul (messenger) delivers a message, either a message revealed to
him (which would make him also a Nabi) or a previously revealed yet

ignored or distorted message.---

Actually you seem to blend the words rasul and nabi here, since you
say that if a messenger has a message revealed to him he would be also
a nabi.
Also restoration or spreading a forgotten message could only on the
basis of a revelation, not on human initiative.
Then it would be logic to state that no messengers could have a
revealed messages, since they would be prophets as well, after
Muhammad since Muhammad is the seal of the nabi's.
This would endorse my point that I would like to share.

But the Quran has another definition of a nabi/prophet.
According to verse 6:89 a prophet has a God-given scripture with him.
So your assumption that a rasul becomes a nabi because a message is
revealed to him seems not to be quran-based.
A messenger of God is a messenger who brings a message of God, when
this happens via a scripture then this messenger is a prophet as well,
as we see in the case of Musa, Isa and Muhammad.

The complete definition of a human-messenger of God is according to

verse 9:33 and 61:9: a bringer of guidance and the religion of truth.
When we study the list of men that are mentioned as messengers, than
we see how this definition has to be applied.
Messengers came with a religion of truth for their people, this means
that they came with a new sharia.

For instance Musa, Isa and Muhammad came as messengers with a new
sharia.
For instance Sulayman is referred to as a prophet, we do not know of
any new sharia rules that came via him, as contrary to the messenger
Musa and the other messengers.
If a messenger has a God-given scripture, than the messenger is also a
prophet.
You are right in saying that a messenger can also restore a previous
message, in any way he is a bringer of a (partly) new sharia for his
people.
The message of a messenger has always implications for the sharia.
Another quranic proof of the messenger as sharia-bringer is the ruling
that the messenger has to be obeyed as God has to be obeyed, verse
4:80.
The believers can do this only if they have to follow instructions of
the messenger concerning the religion, this can be either a new sharia
for a people or an adjustment or restoration of a sharia.

The understanding of the quranic difference between a messenger and a
prophet is essential for this important issue.

Question 3
Isn't is better to rely on the quranic definition of human-messengers
and prophets and not to follow man-made assumptions in this important
matter?

I did not read any counterargument yet to discard the quranic
definition of both a messenger and a prophet.
I just have read of some people that stated that these both duties of
men sent by God could be blended.
The Quran is very precise so we should not blur this distinction.
Why would the Quran name Sulayman a prophet only and Saleh a messenger
only and Muhammad a messenger-prophet. This is only because these men
had three different ways of giving a guidance to their peoples.
- Sulayman brought a scripture but not a sharia-change.
- Saleh brought a religion, with sharia without a scripture.
- Muhammad brougth a scripture with a sharia and a confirmation of
former prophetic scriptures.

You wrote:
2. Nabi (prophet) receives a message and delivers it. Since every
person receiving a message for public (as opposed to personal), is

also expected to deliver it, thus making him a Rasul (messenger).---

A messenger gives a sharia and a prophet only if he is a messenger as
well, according to the Quran, as described above in point 1.

You wrote:
3. God sends messengers to the children of Adam. ---

Surely this has been done:
Verse 10:47 is in present tense, so it refers to the moment that
Muhammad had to convince his people he was in the tradition of the
messengers, since Noah. From this verse you can not say that there
will be messengers after him.

To all the nations have been sent messengers, the ones that are
mentioned in the Quran by name and the messengers that were sent
before Muhammad that were unknown to him, verse 40:78.

As believers we have to accept that before Muhammad there have been
sent messengers to all nations, in all continents.
That we can read from verse 10:47 and 40:78.
At the other hand there have been generations of peoples without a
messenger, as verses 36:6 and 5:19 clearly state.
Nowadays in all continents the message of the Quran has been brought,

thus many people are free to make up their mind.

But the sectarian division of followers of the Quran can be a strong
barrier, we should be aware of these barriers and try to take them
away.

You wrote:

4. God sends messengers and warners as a divine mercy to every nation

in their native language. ---

You put it in present tense, verse 10:47 is in present tense from the
perspective of Muhammad, not from our perspective. We were not present
then.
In having a mind-experiment in agreeing in your way of reading this
verse, then we get naturally questions of these kind:
1. Why do you bother to spread the message of the Quran alone in other
languages than Arabic, if every nation receives a messenger and
thereby a message in their native language, may be you are interfering
with the local messengership?
2. Who is the messenger for Turkey nowadays for instance, who the
Turkish people have to find, obey and follow?
3. How can we recognise such a messenger, what is the objective
criterium?
4. What would be the content of the message, compared to the available
translations of the Quran?
5. How would the new message interfere with the perfect Quran?
6. What could happen to the local communities of muslims if some of
the members accept the new messenger and others not?
7. How could a messenger give a pure oral message nowadays with all
the new media surrounding us? The message can not be in written form
because then the messenger would become a prophet, this is not
possible since Muhammad is the seal of the prophets.
8. What would be the new local sharia? Since the quranic definition of
a messenger is: a bringer of guidance and the religion of truth, to be
obeyed as God has to be obeyed.
9. What would be the effect of new messengers on the unity of the
total ummah?
10. Would fake-messengers get more chance to influence innocent
believers?

Verse 4:80 - Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God. As for those
who turn away, we did not send you as their guardian. -

This is the sincerity of this subject, we can not make any speculation
about this.

For me, Muhammad is the messenger for all nations, as history has
proven, the (translated) Quran is available in all the continents. So
Muhammad is the messenger for Turkey and the other countries, in the
past, present and future.
I do not see any added-value in your point of view concerning this
issue, this point of view has proven to be a great source of unrest,
uncertainty, pain and even violence within the ummah.

Question 4
Can you give me the name of one or more messengers after Muhammad who

brought a perfect quranic sharia?

This should have been done via a purely oral message, since Muhammad
is the seal of the prophets, so there can not be new prophetic

scriptures, anywhere in the world.

Verse 16:36 uses the past tense: for every nation there was a
messenger. With Muhammad there is a messenger for his nation after a
cessation of messengership.
For the future, the Quran refers in verse 27:82 to a creature out of
the earth (dabbatan mina el ardi) that will speak to the people who
are not certain about the signs, the verses of the Quran. The computer

is used for research of the Quran, discussions about the verses of the
Quran, as we are doing now and spreading the message of the Quran.

The Quran does not speak about the persons who used the creature out
of the earth, the computer, for great discoveries about the Quran,
problably to avoid quranic support for the acceptance of messengers

after Muhammad. The Quran helps us hereby to avoid sectarian
behaviour, while accepting code 19.

Question 5
Why does the Quran refer for the future to a creature out of earth,
the computer that will help the people who are not certain about the
signs -ayaat- of the Quran and not to messengers to all nations who
would come to give explanation about the signs?

For the past tense before the mission of Muhammad and the present
tense, during the time of the presence of Muhammad is referred to
messengers, for the period after Muhammad is only referred to the
computer as a medium for the people to receive knowlegde about the
signs, the Quran has predicted this perfectly.
Another proof of the perfection and completeness of the Quran,
concerning the revelations in the past, present and future.

You wrote:
5. The Quranic expression pertinent to this issue is "Muhammad is
God's messenger (rasul) and final prophet (nabi)" but NOT "Muhammad is
God's final messenger and prophet" as claimed by those who wish to

close God's mercy after Muhammad's departure. ---

God's mercy is in the Quran, good efforts are made by spreading the
message of the Quran alone, but that does not make those people
messengers in the quranic sense.
New prophetic scritures are not to be expected because Muhammad is the
seal of the prophets, it is very unlikely that an oral message of a
person would replace or adjust the Quran.

Your assumption that I belong to them who would wish to close the
mercy of God is far from the truth.
I do not see any mercy of God in the division of believers into the
Qadani, Bahai and Khalifite cults, as a result of accepting messengers
after Muhammad. We can see the discrimination, separation of families,
the bloodshed and persecution. Where is the mercy in this?

This issue of messengership is a sincere test for the believers. I
hope you are aware of verse 3:105 and verses 30:31-32.
Verse 3:105 warns dividers of Islam into groups with a severe
punishment.
Verses 30:31-32 state that belonging to a group in Islam is tantamount
to the unforgivable sin of setting partners to God - shirk -.
To endorse division of Islam can have serious consequences for the
soul.

Supporting messengership after Muhammad can only lead to sects and
cults within Islam, I advice you not to be in denial about this.
I really hope that the believers can bring themselves to safer
grounds, concerning this matter.
We should spread a unifying message of Islam not a dividing one,
unfortunately I see that you spread a dividing message.
I can not see it otherwise, reading your message.

You wrote:
6. God made covenant with prophets regarding a particular messenger
(3:81).
7. Muhammad was a prophet and he is specifically mentioned as one of
those prophets who made the covenant (33:7). (There is no reason to
claim that the covenant in 33:7 to be a different one than the 3:81).

---

Your opinion: "there is no reason to claim that the covenant in 33:7
is different from 3:81", seems not to be according to the Quran.

There are 4 clear quranic reasons for this.

1.

Verse 3:84 clearly states that Muhammad is the messenger of the
covenant, according to this verse Muhammad and his followers, have to
say that they believe in the mentioned messengers and the prophets and
that they make no difference between the prophets.
Verse 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47, 5:48 state that the Quran confirms
previous scriptures. Mind the Arabic word - musaddiq - , used in verse

3:81 and the mentioned verses, another quranic proof of Muhammad being

the messenger of the covenant.

The word -musaddiq- is absent in the verses around code 19.
So Muhammad is the messenger of the covenant of 3:81 not one of the
supporting prophets.
Muhammad is both adressed as a messenger and a prophet in the Quran.

2.
Verse 3:81 mentions that the messenger will confirm the scriptures
that are with the prophets of this covenant. Code 19 refers to the
Quran alone, not to the scriptures of the previous prophets who were
part of the covenant.

3.
It is a really wrong assumption that the Quran needs confirmation by
anyone after the departure of Muhammad.
Our Creator has stated in verse 4:82 that the absence of
contradictions in the Quran is the proof of its Divine origine.
And also verses 98:1-3 state that the Quran itself is a clear proof.
So it would be rather obstinate to say that the Quran was confirmed
centuries later, when God already declared the Quran itself a proven
Divine sign.
God does not have shortage of words, as you know of course.
Code 19 is a great phenomena but is not called a confirmation by it's
Creator, as said above, we can not find the Arabic word -musaddiq-
related to the code in the Quran, this is only "possible" via an abuse
of verse 3:81.
Muhammad is the messenger of the covenant of 3:81 since the word -
musaddiq- is used in the verses 2:41, 2:91, 2:97, 3:3, 4:47, 5:48, a
confirmation that Muhammad is the confirmer of the previous scriptures
of the prophets, who had to support the messenger Muhammad according
to verse 3:81.

4.
The covenant of verse 3:187 relates to the assigment of the prophets,
not to hide their scriptures for their people. This covenant should
not be ignored in this issue of messengership.

Verse 3:81 speaks of prophets who are given a book, that is consistent
with the ones who where given a book mentioned in 3:187.

The difference is, this covenant of 3:187 includes Muhammad as a

prophet and 3:81 includes Muhammad as the confirming messenger.

Muhammad has kept his promise of spreading the scripture of Islam in
the best way, since his message can be known in all continents.

Question 5
How did the discoverer of code 19 confirm the Tawrah, the Zabur and

Ingeel for instance, since he claimed to be the messenger of the
covenant, confirming the scriptures of the previous prophets?

Question 6
How can you explain that if someone is supposed to be the messenger of

the covenant and thereby should have been supported by all the

prophets concerned, that he misses many important issues of the sharia

that are already clearly described in the Quran?

Messengers can make mistakes, of course beause they were humans, but
the human-messengers gave a perfect sharia to their people as Musa,
Isa and Muhammad did. They did not miss the most essential parts of
the sharia as can be read in your writings about Rashad Khalifa as
well.
How to obey and follow the messenger then? We can not follow and obey
a mathematical phenomena. As the people of Thamud could not obey and
follow the she-camel. They had to obey the message of their messenger
Saleh, not the sign of God, the she-camel.

Rashad even, problably unknowingly, invited the believers to commit

the unforgivable sin of shirk, to follow his ahadeeth and the concept
of millat Ibrahim as a source next to the Quran.

That seems not to be the meaning of being a messenger of God.

You wrote:
8. There is only one case where the finality of messengership (rasul)
is mentioned in the Quran and those who wanted to end God's mercy
(messengers) were criticized (See 40:28-56).
9. A careful and honest reading of those verses (40:28-38 and
40:39-56) will give you exactly the name of the messenger prophecized
in 3:81 and what would happened to him and the characteristics of

those who opposed him.---

You say it rightly, we know of only one case were finality of
messengership is mentioned, that was the moment of the departure of
the messenger-prophet Joseph. This was done by the people of Egypt
then.
Both the Jewish people and the Meccans were not questioning the
principle of messengership, according to the Quran. But they had
difficulty in accepting the right one in the right way sometimes. The
same is happening nowadays.
Self-proclaimed messengers are followed and obeyed by scores of
misguided believers and thereby setting them as partners next to God
in following these persons in accepting one or more of their ahadeeth
as a source next to the Quran.

Logics dictate that at a moment the last messenger would be on the
earth a period before the last day arrives, this logic statement would
be contrary with the way you read verse 40:34, that there would be no
last messenger.

For me the last but lasting moment of messengership is the period of
the human messenger Muhammad, his message is protected perfectly by
our Creator and made known over all continents.
So the messengership of Muhammad is not final, it remains via the
Quran until the last day, God knows best.
Characteristics of people who reject the signs of God are described in
verse 40:34-35, we are not allowed to reject the signs of God, indeed
we should be careful in this matter.
The best way to do this seems to be to follow the Quran alone, to
appreciate code 19 and to avoid sectarian division. Who denies the
signs of verses 3:105 and 30:31-32? I advice the believers to be very
aware of these signs.

The way you read these verses is influenced by your frame of
reference.
The Quran should be read without accepting any ahadeeth, it is highly
probable that you would not have read these verses in this way if you
had not accepted the ahadeeth of Rashad about the messengerhip of
Rashad.
The Quran is complete and clear, we are not allowed to use sources
next to the Quran to explain for instance verses that are clearly
referring to the tradition of the sharia-bringing messengers.
The last sharia-bringing messenger was Muhammad, we do notknow of a
person that gave a purely oral message after Muhammad concerning the
sharia of Islam, a written message would be impossible, since the
messenger-prophet Muhammad is the seal of the prophets.

The continuing mercy of God can be Godwilling found in following the
Quran in the purest way.
Code 19 is a test for the believers, as is the self-proclamation of
messengership of the discoverer of it.
We have to be appreciative of code 19 that is one part of the test.
But the other part of the test seems to be that we have to accept code

19 in a non-sectarian way.

This allegory may be interesting to reflect on:
Imagine that the remains of the she-camel, that was the sign of the
messenger Saleh, are found and a scientist discovers via computer-
aided genetic research that this animal had unique features, thereby
helping some of the believers to accept the history about the Thamud
in a litteral way.
Could the scientist claim that the unique features of the she-camel
are his sign and could he thereby tell the world rightfully that he is
a messenger in the quranic sense who has to be obeyed?
Or are the features of the camel still belonging to the sign given to
Saleh?

Question 7
I ask you to consider Rashad Khalifa as a person deeply rooted in
knowledge, according to verse 3:7. For this the Quran gives clear
permission. What do you have to lose in this?
Since your understandable critisism on Rashad's findings on the
sharia, you would no longer have the dilemma anymore of having to
disobey the messenger while you should obey him as God has to be
obeyed, or to commit -shirk- in following man-made ahadeeth, just one
or more.

This discussion is very relevant and was started because I am
concerned about the sectarian division that is unfortunately found
with the followers of the Quran alone.

I hope the believers will choose to be on probable safer grounds
concerning this issue and will not take the possible risk to be
accountable, because they contributed to being divided into groups by
accepting one or several self-proclaimed messengers after Muhammad,
verse 3:105.

In following the Quran the believers are following and obeying the
messenger of God, the messenger Muhammad and thereby obeying God as
well. In this the mercy of God can be found.
Not in obeying self-proclaimed messengers and thereby creating sects.
Which person could rightfully claim to be another messenger to be
followed and obeyed as if one obeys God, with a perfect Quran already
with us?

I am looking forward to your answers to my questions.