Talk:Itmam al-Hujjah

message: There is written in the lead "which is used when the unveiling of truth by a Messenger of God" and then the "messenger" is defind as " Unlike prophets, messengers are assured of success. All messengers are prophets but not vice versa" and refered to Spositiop.
I don't agree with this. Although qur'an has " و ما کنا معذبین حتی نبعث رسولا" It means The God doesn't punish people untill who sends a messenger to them, but how do you find all of the "messengers" should be "prophet". For example when Mahdi emerges there is "Itmaam-i-hujjat" but he is not prophet. I think we should refer to Tafsir--Sa.vakilian 07:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have referenced this quote. Secondly, not all people believe that Mahdi is coming, as Qur'an is silent on this very issue. Even Jesus' second coming is doubted, detailed argument can be seen at Jesus_in_Islam#Second_coming. This argument can be more seriously dealt under differences between Shias and Sunnis. Because I can't find any source from Shia side that would not believe in Mahdi. But Sunni Tafsir like Tadabbur-i-Qur'an denies it altogether. This whole argument is based on Qur'anic assertion that "God and his Messengers will always prevail", as I quoted the exact verse from Qur'an on the article and it does not say that anybody else will prevail as well. I am not asserting that whether Mahdi is coming or not, but explaining with context to Jihad in Prophet Muhammad's time. But if you have secondary Shia source, you can incorporate in it. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or leave it open for all the Muslims, as this article is specifically discussing punishment of nations. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't discuss about my example. I want to say this claim (Roosol(messenger)=Nabi(prophet)) should based on Islamic scholars. I think we can't say all of the messengers are prophet. Also it means we don't see a messemger and Rasool allah was the last one.   --Sa.vakilian 09:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement implies that all messengers are prophets but not all prophets are messengers. Which means that if Muhammad is seal on prophets then he is also seal on messengers as well hence neither messenger or prophet can be after him. TruthSpreaderTalk 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you about prophet, but I told you should see Tafsirs and show that scholars says that a massenger should be a prophet and Rasoolallah was the last rasool.--Sa.vakilian 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many Muslims regard the messenger with Sharia while prophets are without Sharia. Our article even asserts that Jesus was messenger, for which Qur'an told that Jews were given with the verdict that they will pass their lives as subjugations to the believers of Jesus. This difference is because, this very term is actually coined by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to explain Jihad in Prophet Muhammad's (sws) times. But even some western sources agree with this definition of messenger. I put an external reference, which is an islamic site, but it gives the same explanation for difference between messenger and prophet. TruthSpreaderTalk 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My dear friend, I know this definition. I have a definite question. See the Ayat which I wrote above. Please show me some Tafsirs which tell this "Rasool" should be prophet too. It doesn't mean I disagree with you. I just want a good article with verifiable resources. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I atleast couldn't find in The Meaning of the Qur'an (tafsir). If I'll find such a reference, I'll put it on the article. TruthSpreaderTalk 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all the people who claimed to be messenger, said that there is seal on prophecy. But they didn't believe that all messengers are prophets so they used this excuse to claim themselves as messengers. But Qur'an says that messenger of God do prevail, which doesn't fit with their life, so they are nullified automatically.TruthSpreaderTalk 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who unveils of truth

message: The book Mizan appears to be a religious tract rather than a reliable source, and the article accordingly adopts a very distinct POV, going so far as to state what God wants and does as fact.Proabivouac 05:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This term is an Islamic term, so definitely it would have an Islamic POV. TruthSpreaderTalk 06:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Secondly, this article clearly says that this is asserted by Qur'an. So I do believe that if something is mentioned in Qur'an, it can be presented in the encyclopedia under the umbrella of Islam. And definitely, it would have its own POV. There is also one academic source, written by John Esposito, in the article, which gives the same notion. It is stated very clearly that it is Qur'an that asserts it. TruthSpreaderTalk 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mizan]]

message: move to Itmam al-hujjah or  or  for consistent transliteration (we don't want aa for ā; why the -i-?). dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: Useful to have more articles on Islamic concepts. Each view of this concept from within Islam should be carefully described. Appropriate sources would be leading Islamic writers. Itsmejudith 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the article 

message: Status of Dhimmi was initially made available to people of the book + Zoroastrians. Later it was expanded to Hindus, Sikhs and others by Muslim jurists. Should we include this info?--Aminz 10:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Dhimmi 

message: The first thing is that Christians never considered Jews as Dhimmis. Hence, stating that Qur'an considers jews dhimmi just after Jesus is absolutely wrong(they were explicitly made dhimmis in Muhammad's time, and even after Conquest of Mecca). Secondly, the verse  is not mentioned in Mizan. Rather verse 9:29 is mentioned to show the punishment after itmam al-hujjah (which happened in the last three years of Muhammad). Hence, if you really want to say that polytheists were given four months of respite, you must state that it was the final respite, and not the first one (but in any case, you need a secondary source to include it). Thirdly, I am restoring the lead section, as it should summarize the whole article, and not merely give the definition of this term (which is explicitly associated with Messengers). And finally, I am changing References to Bibliography, as now we are  not citing all the references. TruthSpreaderreply 14:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy with your current edits, but just as a comment, verse 9:29 is translated wrong in all the three translations at USC website. The verb used in Qur'an is "Qital", which means to kill. And this is why verse 9:5 is redundant in this case. But in any case, I leave both on the page. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TS, good that we agree on this. Regarding your comment, I am in no position to comment on these translations. In any case, I think we can keep both passagesl, as the first one is clearly addressed to the Meccans. I do not know whether the two were uttered by Muhammad at the same occasion. Str1977 (smile back) 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: I quote, as of 4th Feb 2014,
"Punishment comes through human hands, if the Messenger has migrated from his people to another place, where he has achieved political sovereignty and a considerable number of followers. The Messenger consolidates his power and trains his followers and prepares them for battle, so that he is able to root out the disbelievers and establish the supremacy of his religion.[6]"
I think this is problematic because this "punishment" sounds as if, given a society disbelieved after clear proof, Muslims can move somewhere else, build power and destroy the disbelieving people.  This is not the case.  
Firstly, the migration was a result of the Meccan society being hostile to the Muslims in Mecca, which the Muslims endured for some years until Muhammad (peace be upon him) received permission from God (glorified and exalted is He) to migrate to Yahtrib (Medina). The quote above makes it sound like it was all part of Muhammad's plan (peace be upon him) to "consolidate his power...and prepares them for battle," but this is not true.  First, according to Muslims, Muhammad gives the call to arms only after he (peace be upon him) was divinely inspired to do so.  This also means that if God did not say anything about Mecca, he (peace be upon him) would not have plotted to take back Mecca unless God permitted or instructed him to do so (peace be upon him).  Secondly, Mecca was being taken back, because they had been driven out of their own homes by force i.e. conditions were deliberately made unlivable, they had been persecuted. The condition to fight that Muslims learn from the incident of taking back Mecca is the fact that the early Muslims were kicked out of their own homes, not merely to punish people that disbelieve.  In fact in Islam, it is hoped that disbelievers will eventually believe, and if not, perhaps their children will.
Secondly, in Medina where it is true that the Muslims did consolidate power, they had peacefully coexisted with non-Muslims.  There were mutually agreed upon terms that protected this peace.  This is proof that Muslims should tolerate the existence of  non-Muslim groups on mutually agreed terms rather than plot their destruction (what the quoted section suggests).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.109.182 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the segment "punishment by people as of 4th Feb 2014 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Itmam al-hujjah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115065145/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/martitl2y2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Itmam al-hujjah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928205418/http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=42 to http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=42
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928041509/http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=AL%20-%20IMRAN&sno=3&tno=285 to http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=AL+-+IMRAN&sno=3&tno=285
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified