[qadianism] Re: Al A'raf: 35
By umaraadil @excite.com

I am a past lecturer in rhetoric. Since you have asked me to consult some
professor of logic, I will. I will consult myself. I find that I am right.

You have lost the argument. Al A'raf 35 does not in any way refer to mirza,
contrary to your original claims. It refers to a message-bearing prophet, a
Rasul, not the "non-message bearing prophet" that you claim mirza to be.
What is there about this that you do not understand?

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:52:31 -0800 (PST), Abdul Aziz wrote:

> Mr. Mcklosky: There is nothing that I can do to make you see true reasoning
> process. You only want to stick to your point even though it is logically
> untenable. Please go and ask some professor of logic as to who (you or me)
> is right.
> >To the qadianis:
> >
> >After exposing your improper use of Al A'Raf: 35 as a means of support
> >your claims of mirza's prophethood, it was my expectation that you would
> >have the courtesy, in a scientific spirit of inquiry directed towards the
> >truth, of acknowledging your serious error in being misled by your
> >translation of Rasul as "prophet". More, that you would now concede that the
> >Holy Qur'an contains no permission to believe in mirza. Alas, I have been
> >disappointed on the second point, although you at least grudgingly
> >acknowledge the first point: At least you accept the translation. 
> >
> >But what is there not to accept in the logic? The ayat does not give
> >permission to believe in any forthcoming "messageless prophet" and even you
> >acknowledge that mirza was not a message-bearing prophet.
> >
> >The sura should be read in its entirety. From the many historical references
> >that Allah has given us in Sura Al A'Raf you will see that it commands us to
> >believe in those Rasul who have come before Muhammad (S.A.W.), and by
> >inference to accept Muhammad, too.
> >
> >It certainly has nothing to do with mirza.
> >
> >On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:51:51 -0800 (PST), Abdul Aziz wrote:
> >
> >> Mr. Mcklosky: I accept your translation but not your logic. Do you agree
> >> that, in command mode, the Quran is for the Muslims and those non-Muslims
> >> who will be alive during and after the life of prophet Muhammad (SAS)? If
> >> the word whenever is problematic and it gives Quadianis an opportunity to
> >> twist its meaning what about your kind of pious people. How do you
> >certify
> >> yourself to be non-manipulative? You state that it is for a prophet
> >coming
> >> from among yourself. I agree but how does it mean that no prophet will
> >> appear after Muhammad (SAS)? Give me a clear explanation please..
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >Umar Aadil Abdul Rahman McKloskey wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> Al A'raf 35 (Translation of the Meaning):
> >> >> 
> >> >> O ye Children of Adam!
> >> >> Whenever there come to you
> >> >> <Rasul> from amongst you,
> >> >> Rehearsing My Signs unto you -
> >> >> Those who are righteous
> >> >> And mend (their lives),-
> >> >> On them shall be no fear,
> >> >> Nor shall they grieve.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >I don't know where you got this translation from but I am quoting
> >> >Pickthall.
> >> >
> >> >"O children of Adam! If messangers of your own come unto you who narrate
> >> >unto you my revealations, then whoever refrain from evil and amends,
> >> >there shall be no fear com eupon them nor shall they grieve"
> >> >
> >> >In your translation, the word "whenever" is problematic which is easily
> >> >manipulated to the advantage of the quadianies and, from my knowledge of
> >> >the Quadianies, they certainly will do that .  It by no way refer to any
> >> >other future messanger.  Rather it refers to "messanger of your own" for
> >> >prophet(pbuh), a human being and children of Adam, and tells that
> >> >whoever listens to him has nothing to worry.  The matter of the fact is
> >> >that Koran never addresses the Arabs but the "Children of Adam" or
> >> >"Mankind".  The whole of Quadianie propaganda is a sheer fraud and
> >> >manipulation.

eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/qadianism