Why do Muslims accept Adam as a prophet?

[tomarin]

Tomarin, Do you speak arabic? Because InJesus does, and knows what he is talking about…

I don’t speak it, and I’m aware that InJesus does. Nevertheless his assessment of the Qur’an’s standing as literature is wrong. I think he’s unable to distinguish between the content of the book and the literary style of the book. He seems to think that if someone compliments the style of the book it must mean they endorse the content of the book – therefore in his view only Muslims could ever consider it great literature. But that’s false, since Western literary scholars who study Arabic also consider it great literature.

 

[inJESUS]

No, I mean most literary scholars, not necessarily Muslims. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

it is hard for me to accept because you are not giving proof of yuor statements. When you give proof that most Christian literary scholars find it the masterpiece of all masterpieces then we’ll have something to discuss.

I don’t think that disqualifies it from being literature of a very high standard, at least compared to the rest of Arabic literature.

 

[tomarin]

it is hard for me to accept because you are not giving proof of yuor statements. When you give proof that most Christian literary scholars find it the masterpiece of all masterpieces then we’ll have something to discuss.

Please note I have always said that it is considered the greatest literary work in Arabic only. I don’t think that’s such an incredible claim. When I have time I’ll send you a quote from the introduction to the translation I’m currently reading that confirms what I’m saying.

i will refrain from arguing with you because you don’t know Arabic and haven’t read pre-islamic literature so we have few things in common rregarding this topic.

I’m not equipped to debate the relative merits of the Qur’an versus pre-Islamic poetry, obviously. It is only my contention that in the opinion of most scholars the Qur’an is considered a masterpiece of Arabic literature. (Obviously I do not think that that means it is of divine origin, either, anymore than I think Beowulf is of divine origin.)

 

[dolphinlove]

Please note I have always said that it is considered the greatest literary work in Arabic only. I don’t think that’s such an incredible claim. When I have time I’ll send you a quote from the introduction to the translation I’m currently reading that confirms what I’m saying.

But who are these scholars that you claim say the same thing?

 

[inJESUS]

I don’t speak it, and I’m aware that InJesus does. Nevertheless his assessment of the Qur’an’s standing as literature is wrong. I think he’s unable to distinguish between the content of the book and the literary style of the book. He seems to think that if someone compliments the style of the book it must mean they endorse the content of the book – therefore in his view only Muslims could ever consider it great literature. But that’s false, since Western literary scholars who study Arabic also consider it great literature.

am talking about the content and style…the book has both prose and poetry and by the Sheikh of AlAzhar’s admission, to make some rythm in some passages the content was sacrificed …in other words, content was sometimes sacrificed because of style…and by their own admission most of the book is repetitive…and by the admission of Itqan fi Ulum Al Quran, not all Quranic passages can be called eloquent…and by history’s admission, the Arabs left Muhammad’s book en masse after his death for another book which shows that Arabs back then did not consider it any divine masterpiece , not even “the” masterpiece. This “eloquence” of the Quran claim is relatively recent to cast a veil of “divinity” over the book due to shortage in other proofs.

 

[tomarin]

But who are these scholars that you claim say the same thing?

I can’t cite the name of anyone offhand because I’m not at my home right now. When I have an opportunity I’ll look it up and post the info you’re asking for – probably on an entirely new thread.

 

[inJESUS]

Please note I have always said that it is considered the greatest literary work in Arabic

only. I don’t think that’s such an incredible claim. When I have time I’ll send you a quote from the introduction to the translation I’m currently reading that confirms what I’m saying. yes i know in Arabic and by Muslims as well but by most Arab scholars? remember there have been Christian scholars before, during and after Muhammad’s time, until now…to say that most of them saw it as the arabic masterpiece is indeed an incredible claim as even many Muslims do not believe it is a masterpiece ( and are called disbelievers obviously)…

 

[dolphinlove]

I can’t cite the name of anyone offhand because I’m not at my home right now. When I have an opportunity I’ll look it up and post the info you’re asking for – probably on an entirely new thread.

Thats ok, when you get home and are ready to start up another thread, fire away.
Is there no internet source in the meantime you can point out is there?

 

[tomarin]

yes i know in Arabic and by Muslims as well but by most Arab scholars? remember there have been Christian scholars before, during and after Muhammad’s time, until now…to say that most of them saw it as the arabic masterpiece is indeed an incredible claim as even many Muslims do not believe it is a masterpiece ( and are called disbelievers obviously)…

Many Muslims do not consider it a masterpiece? Really?

 

[inJESUS]

Many Muslims do not consider it a masterpiece? Really?

they are called disbelievers obviously just remember that people left Muhammad’s book for another book as soon as he died…had all these Arabs known that it is a divine masterpiece that has no match, they wouldn’t have easily left it for another book…that’s history v/s wishful thinking.

 

[tomarin]

Thats ok, when you get home and are ready to start up another thread, fire away.
Is there no internet source in the meantime you can point out is there?

No, the references I’ve seen to this have all been in print.

 

[inJESUS]

Here is an Islamic scholar and Dr. saying that while some Quranic passages are highly eloquent, many are very ridiculous and low in standard and says that pre-Islamic poetry exceeds by times many of the Quranic passages…do you think those long-bearded sheikh will accept this truth? no they will keep showering the naive believers with nonsense because they have nothing else to back up their book except creating scenarios of eloquence and “science”.

“دكتور عباس عبد النور” وقلة من الكتاب والباحثين والمفكرين التنويريين ظهرت مؤخراً –كما قلنا- فرجل واضح وأسلوبه سهل ومباشر، وهو يصرح بما يريد قوله وما توصل إليه فكره من أقصر الطرق وأبعدها عن المنحنيات والتعرجات. وسوف ننقل لكم مقتطفات من كتابه، في البداية ننقل بعض آرائه العامة، ثم ننقل لكم في حلقة قادمة نقده المباشر للقرآن بوضعه للآيات المراد نقدها علي مائدة التشريح لنرى حججه ومنطقه وآراؤه النقديه للقرآن. كرجل أزهري وأكاديمي، جمع في دراساته بين الأزهر وجامعة السوربون الفرنسية معاً. عن القرآن ولغته وبلاغته يقول رأيه بصراحة في صفحة 67 من كتابه المطبوع 2004 -: في 350 صفحة من القطع الكبير: "إن المسلمين وقد رأوا الجاهليين لا يعارضون القرآن بالإتيان بمثله. اتخذوا من ذلك دليلا علي تفوق القرآن علي شعرهم وكلامهم. وبالتالي دليلاً علي إعجاز القرآن وصدق نبيه. هذه هي عقيدة المسلمين في إعجاز القرآن. وعلي كل حال. عمد هؤلاء إلى مقابلة الشعر الجاهلي القديم بالقرآن. وتهميشه. ومع ذلك فالشعر الجاهلي هو الشعر الجاهلي مهما نعق الناعقون -كما سنرى في حينه، وأرجف المرجفون. إنه يفوق مرات ومرات الكثير من آيات القرآن. إلي أن يقول: وسواء كان منحولاً –أي الشعر الجاهلي- ، كما زعم د. طه حسين في كتابه “في الشعر الجاهلي” – أو غير منحول. ويضيف بنفس الصفحة: "نجد بالقرآن آيات تفرض نفسها علي الذوق الرفيع بسرعة فائقة (ويورد بعض الآيات الدالة علي ذلك) ثم يكمل قوله في صفحة 68: (ولكن هل جميع القرآن علي نفس المستوى من الجودة والروعة والبيان؟ هيهات هيهات! القرآن ليس علي مستوى واحد من البيان وقوة التعبير. ومهما طالت لحى المتشنجين والمرجفين والمصطادين في الماء العكر فضلاً عن البسطاء من المؤمنين وضعفاء العقول. فإني أعلنها مدوية علي رؤوس الأشهاد. أن القرآن إذا كانت فيه آيات في غاية الروعة والجمال. ففيه آيات أخرى في غاية الإسفاف والتفاهة أربأ بنفسي أن أهبط إلى مستواها!

 

[tomarin]

Here is an Islamic scholar and Dr. saying that while some Quranic passages are highly eloquent, many are very ridiculous and low in standard and says that pre-Islamic poetry exceeds by times many of the Quranic passages…do you think those long-bearded sheikh will accept this truth? no they will keep showering the naive believers with nonsense because they have nothing else to back up their book except creating scenarios of eloquence and “science”.

I’m aware that in the history of Islam some Muslims have taken issue with whether the Qur’an is as beautiful or consistent or logical as pious Muslims claim it to be. I just don’ t think that those dissenting views are typical of most Muslims.

 

[inJESUS]

I’m aware that in the history of Islam some Muslims have taken issue with whether the Qur’an is as beautiful or consistent or logical as pious Muslims claim it to be. I just don’ t think that those dissenting views are typical of most Muslims.

of course not because not all dare speak their minds and not all bare to even think that they might be wrong and not all are honest enough to stop fooling their people that is why you read responses by non-Arab Muslims who praise the eloquence of a book they cannot even read in Arabic…thats because most religious leaders stuff heads with nonesense to cover the incoherence and disunity and meaningless passages of the Quran…so they keep repeating about “eloquence” and conjured up “scientific” discoveries that non-Arabs and the naive can swallow. The problem in all this is that they believe this is the best thing God could do…it is indeed a tragedy but thank God many are waking up…actually en masse in here in the ME…thank God the time of threats and ignorance is finishing and the media is uncovering what many have been trying to cover for centuries…

 

[inJESUS]

As to why is Adam considered a prophet, that’s what i’d like to know as well…does any Jewish or Christian apocrypha mention Adam as a prophet?

 

[meedo]

What exactly did he prophesise according to the Quran? Or Abraham, Lot and Moses for that matter? It is very difficult to stay interested in reading the Quran being tedious and disjointed in many places but I would like to know what do Muslims know of these prophets without having to rely on our “corrupted” Bible or the Torah?

Hello,

i am an arab muslim.

The word ‘‘prophet’’ is an English word.

The word in arabic is ‘‘Nabi’’ ‘‘نبيّ’’ , This word arrives from the 3 letter root word ‘’ Na Ba A’’
‘‘ن ب ا’’

The root word translates to mean ‘’ report’’ .

So you can say that the orígin of the word doesn’t really necessitates a prophecy. I is more of that the man in question is someone tha ‘‘reports’’ on behalf of God. Or brings reports from God.

A derivative of the word is some times translated to in to mean ‘’ prophecy’’ ‘’ نبوءة’’ . however it can also be used to just mean prophethood and not a prophecy.

The understing of of who is a prophet in Islam is mostly to be that a person who recieves revelation from God and is ordered to teach to his people what God wants from them.

The act of giving a prophecy is not a necessity not from the understanding of the function of a prophet and not from what the original meaning of the word ‘‘Nabi’’ in arabic means .

The problem is that in English . This is the only word that is used to refer to almost the same function.

Hope that helped.

Meedo

 

[dzheremi]

So, then can we ask what it is that Adam reported of the will of God, and who exactly he would have been reporting it to (Eve, I suppose…?), as he was the first human? I’d still like to see an answer to this, and no amount of dancing around triliteral roots constitutes an answer.

 

[meedo]

Here is an Islamic scholar and Dr. saying that while some Quranic passages are highly eloquent, many are very ridiculous and low in standard and says that pre-Islamic poetry exceeds by times many of the Quranic passages…do you think those long-bearded sheikh will accept this truth? no they will keep showering the naive believers with nonsense because they have nothing else to back up their book except creating scenarios of eloquence and “science”.

“دكتور عباس عبد النور” وقلة من الكتاب والباحثين والمفكرين التنويريين ظهرت مؤخراً –كما قلنا- فرجل واضح وأسلوبه سهل ومباشر، وهو يصرح بما يريد قوله وما توصل إليه فكره من أقصر الطرق وأبعدها عن المنحنيات والتعرجات. وسوف ننقل لكم مقتطفات من كتابه، في البداية ننقل بعض آرائه العامة، ثم ننقل لكم في حلقة قادمة نقده المباشر للقرآن بوضعه للآيات المراد نقدها علي مائدة التشريح لنرى حججه ومنطقه وآراؤه النقديه للقرآن. كرجل أزهري وأكاديمي، جمع في دراساته بين الأزهر وجامعة السوربون الفرنسية معاً. عن القرآن ولغته وبلاغته يقول رأيه بصراحة في صفحة 67 من كتابه المطبوع 2004 -: في 350 صفحة من القطع الكبير: "إن المسلمين وقد رأوا الجاهليين لا يعارضون القرآن بالإتيان بمثله. اتخذوا من ذلك دليلا علي تفوق القرآن علي شعرهم وكلامهم. وبالتالي دليلاً علي إعجاز القرآن وصدق نبيه. هذه هي عقيدة المسلمين في إعجاز القرآن. وعلي كل حال. عمد هؤلاء إلى مقابلة الشعر الجاهلي القديم بالقرآن. وتهميشه. ومع ذلك فالشعر الجاهلي هو الشعر الجاهلي مهما نعق الناعقون -كما سنرى في حينه، وأرجف المرجفون. إنه يفوق مرات ومرات الكثير من آيات القرآن. إلي أن يقول: وسواء كان منحولاً –أي الشعر الجاهلي- ، كما زعم د. طه حسين في كتابه “في الشعر الجاهلي” – أو غير منحول. ويضيف بنفس الصفحة: "نجد بالقرآن آيات تفرض نفسها علي الذوق الرفيع بسرعة فائقة (ويورد بعض الآيات الدالة علي ذلك) ثم يكمل قوله في صفحة 68: (ولكن هل جميع القرآن علي نفس المستوى من الجودة والروعة والبيان؟ هيهات هيهات! القرآن ليس علي مستوى واحد من البيان وقوة التعبير. ومهما طالت لحى المتشنجين والمرجفين والمصطادين في الماء العكر فضلاً عن البسطاء من المؤمنين وضعفاء العقول. فإني أعلنها مدوية علي رؤوس الأشهاد. أن القرآن إذا كانت فيه آيات في غاية الروعة والجمال. ففيه آيات أخرى في غاية الإسفاف والتفاهة أربأ بنفسي أن أهبط إلى مستواها!

The person you are quoting has not completed his bachelor in Al Azhar . Whatever further studies he did later was in non religious studies. From his biography that i read in his book he seems to be of a not stable character and always heavy in debt for some reason!! he would ask God to give him great help and if God doesnt omn the spåot then it was bad bad God !!! These are not the signs of a good believer whatever his fath. Oh and i am sure you read the part where he insulted christianity right?

 

[meedo]

So, then can we ask what it is that Adam reported of the will of God, and who exactly he would have been reporting it to (Eve, I suppose…?), as he was the first human? I’d still like to see an answer to this, and no amount of dancing around triliteral roots constitutes an answer.

He would report to his offspring at least . And that is enough for the definition to fit him.

I was not aware that my previous answer constituted dancing around for you. what exactly is the defenition of ‘‘not dancing around’’ ?!

 

[dzheremi]

To appeal to the semantics of related Arabic words (and conclude that there is some sort of “problem” with English in its rendering of the Arabic) is what I am talking about. While it is arguably less commonly used in this manner, English “prophet” does retain the sense of an intermediary between God and humanity, in addition to its other meaning of one who sees the future, so your appeal to the differences between Arabic and English falls flat (link). Sorry if this seems like nitpicking or me picking on you. I guess after posting here for a while I’ve become less willing to listen to arguments that essentially boil down to “it’s an Arabic thing; you wouldn’t understand”, because so far they’re generally very weak. I commend you for showing us about Arabic anyway.

Back to the topic: So it appears that Islam means prophet of the “intermediary” type, rather than the “forseer” type. Does Adam count as one such intermediary? I am not so sure. Can we say that he had an encounter with God, with some sort of specific message inherent in that encounter which he was then to communicate to humanity? Is this what Adam did, according to Islam?