Summary(Important Notes) of The Stories of The Prophets- 3. The Difference Between a Prophet (Nabī) and a Messenger (Rasūl) Linguistic Meanings:- Nabi has two main root words, each giving a different meaning to the word: 1. نبوة - Nobility or a high place and also a landmark. From here, the word Nabi means someone who is respected, who Allah has raised high, and who becomes an icon for the rest of humanity. 2. نبأ - News or information. نبي is the (do/done to)فعيل version of نبأ. This means that someone who is informed and who informs others. Nabi is informed by Allah and he then informs others. Both these interpretations complement each other. In the end, Nabi is someone who is informed by Allah and he informs others. He is also respected and raised high by Allah and remains an icon for the rest of humanity. Slight note: Rasul has the conjugation of فعول and Nabi has the conjugation of فعيل. Both have the same connotation and thus add the same flavor in meaning. The flavor is “the one in whom the verb is manifested powerfully”. So, Nabi is the most informed one. Rasul comes from the root words “رسل”. Originally رسل meant to send in batches and, primarily, to send small groups of camels to get water. Then, the connotation becomes setting free and allowing to go to other locations. From there, the verb form “أرسل” became to send forth someone with something. This is how the term “رسالة”(message) was coined. Therefore, Rasul means someone who has been sent by somebody with something. One of the great scholars of the Arabic language says that a Rasul is only called Rasul if the messenger follows up on the delivery of the message. So, a Rasul is someone who has been sent a message by somebody of authority and who then actively monitors what happens to the message after it has been delivered. Conclusion of Linguistics:- Nabi is someone who knows what the rest of mankind does not know and he then informs mankind of that knowledge. Rasul is someone who has been sent with a message and he then engages in that message. Opinions of Great Scholars in Islam on this Topic:- Is there a difference between Nabi and Rasul? The majority of scholars agree that there is a difference between Nabi and Rasul. Reasons for this opinion are: (i) The fact that two different words are used. In any language, synonyms are not exactly the same in meaning and so, they just overlap in meanings but they have different origins and thus different flavors in meaning. (ii) The Qur’an seems to differentiate between them. a. Surah Hajj, Ayah 52. The “neither, nor” is seen here which indicates differences. b. Allah calls some Prophets in the Qur’an as Rasul and some as Nabi and some as both in a single Ayah. If they were exactly the same, this would have been repetitive. For example: -Surah Maryam, Ayah 50. Musa(AS) is called Rasul and Nabi here. -Surah Al-A’raf, Ayah 157. The Prophet(SAW) is described as Rasul and Nabi here. (iii) Three or Four Hadiths of the Prophet(SAW) indicate the difference explicitly. One of them is in Sahih Ibn Hibban(4th place after Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Khuzayma). This Hadith is in Sahih Ibn Hibban, Volume 2, Page no, 177. This is a very long Hadith(5 pages) and it is the famous Hadith of a Sahabi - Abu Dharr Al-Ghafari. A portion of it says 1,20,000 Nabi and, from those, there were 313 Rasul. Drawbacks of this particular Hadith- This particular chain has a person who is accused of lying. And because of this, Ibn Al-Jawzi says that it is fabricated. All the Hadith used as evidence for this have some problems with the chains and are mostly not considered authentic. So, all we can conclude is that there is no definitive number but the notion that there is a difference between Nabi and Rasul and that the Rasul is a smaller group within Nabi is found in Hadith books and so it is true. What do the scholars say about the difference between Nabi and Rasul? 1. There is no difference between Nabi and Rasul - Based on all the evidence in the previous question, this can be respectfully ignored. It is also a very minority opinion. 2. Nabi is someone who is inspired but not commanded to propagate the message and a Rasul is someone who is inspired and sent to the people and commanded to propagate the message - Many scholars including the great theologian of 11th century Imam As-Saffaarini said this. It is found in many early books and it is fairly common. The problems of this opinion: (i) Plenty of texts indicate that all the Nabi were also sent to people. The Qur’an is explicit and so are the Hadiths in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari. (ii) It is difficult to imagine that Allah inspired someone with knowledge and that person stays quiet and doesn’t preach. 3. A Rasul is the one who is sent to mankind and is communicated by Jibreel(AS) and Nabi who is communicated to in other ways than Jibreel(dreams, etc) and so every Rasul is Nabi but every Nabi is not Rasul - The 4th, 5th-century great-minded scholars like Mufassir Ath-Tha’aaribi and Al-Wahidi hold this position. The problems of this opinion: There is no shred of evidence that Jibreel(AS) did not come to the Nabi. There seems to be a lot of interpretations that Jibreel(AS) did go to every single Nabi and Rasul. 4. A Rasul has a miracle and a book sent down to him. A Nabi doesn’t have a book, rather he calls to the laws before him. 5. A Rasul comes with new laws. A Nabi upholds the previous laws. 6. A Rasul comes with a new law and order to a group that rejects him and there is a back and forth of arguments between him and the people. A Nabi comes to revive the laws given to the previous Rasul. The 4th, 5th, and 6th opinions are from more modern scholars and are modified versions of each other. These opinions are also probably the most common opinions found. They, at first glance, make sense especially if we look at the Prophets and Messengers sent to Bani Israel. The problem in this : These opinions cannot be taken for all the Prophets and Messengers. For example- (i) From a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, we know that Nuh(AS) is the first Rasul and, from Hadith in Imam Musnad, we know that Adam(AS) is the first Nabi. So if we say Nabi must uphold the laws sent before him, then Adam(AS) is a Nabi yet there were no old laws that he(AS) could uphold. (ii) The Qur’an calls Yusuf(AS) a Rasul in Surah Gafir and yet he(AS) was not given any new laws, he(AS) followed the laws that were given to Ibrahim(AS). (iii) The Qur’an calls Haroon(AS) a Rasul and yet he(AS) just followed the laws given to Musa(AS). (iv) Dawod(AS) was given a book - Zabur and yet a Hadith calls him(AS) a Nabi. 7. A Nabi is someone to who Allah gives information and then he shares the information that Allah gives to him to the people around him who are believers/who expect him/who are not rejecting him. If the Nabi is now sent to a group of people who openly reject the command of Allah, then he becomes a Rasul. A Rasul may be given a book and laws but that is not a necessary condition - The famous scholar Ibn Taimiyyah states this in his book. This makes the most sense and can be applied to all the Prophets and Messengers. And so, this is the strongest opinion but Allah knows best. This ends the entire summary. Anyone who thinks I have missed some point is welcome to reply but please give the time in the lecture when Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi talked about it so that I can be sure. JazakaAllah Khair
Question regarding the point #7. If a Nabi is sent to people who don't reject him, then, as mentioned in a hadees at 34:10, why were there Nabi who had 1 or 2 or even zero followers? SYQ even says at 34:30 that "and if nobody follows, it's not because the Nabi didn't try, it's because the people did not accept." Doesn't this go against the idea that a Nabi is sent to a population that is willing and expecting?
Jazak Allah khairun Shiekh for giving such a comprehensive explanation. I always wanted to understand the difference between the Nabi and the Rasool and now thanks to you I do.
21:56 I’m not surprised if that Hadith actually was fabricated. The very long sporadic interview style was already red-flag to me. It’s like a bad writer who wants to share information so they construct a fake “conversation” in their story that conveniently reveals everything they wanted to invent.
Jazaak Allah khair yassir I like your lectures a lot I would like to know in which chapter in quran. Allah the almighty has said dogs are napaak and no angel will come to that house if the dogs are kept pl give me.a very logical answer.
@@dawngrammar7461 brother you need to write this comment in the actual comment section so that it may get wider recognition and could get answered ....🌸 Stay blessed ✨
@@dawngrammar7461 SubhanAllah, may Allah bless you and increase you in knowledge and understanding, wassalaat wassalaam 'alaa RasoolAllah First off, the evidence for angels not entering a home in which there is a dog can be found in the following hadeeth: Abu Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (salAllah alayhi wa salam) said, “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog..." [Saheeh Bukhari/Saheeh Muslim]. Secondly, you will also find evidence for the rulings regarding the impurity related to dogs in the Sunnah. For example, in a hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim records that the Prophet (الله عليه وسلم صلى) said, “The purification of the utensil belonging to one amongst you, after it is licked by a dog, lies in washing it seven times.” [Saheeh Muslim]. While this hadeeth appears to indicate that the saliva of dogs is impure (after all, why would we be commanded to wash it off it weren't impure), there is some differing regarding the impurity of dogs. Some limited the impurity to saliva only, others considered the entire dog to be impure, etc. Allah willing, the following article from Sh. Salman al-Awdah (may Allah protect and free him) that was originally published on his website (islamtoday.com) will illustrate this in more detail: “Purifying One of Your Dishes After a Dog Laps Up Its Contents”By Shaykh Salman al Awdah en.islamtoday.net/artshow-377-3274.htm Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger said about the sea: “To purify one of your dishes after a dog laps up some of its contents, you must wash it seven times, one of them with dirt.” It is an authentic hadîth related in Sahîh Muslim. In Sunan al-Tirmidhî, it is related that the Prophet said: “You must pour out its contents and wash it seven times…” The hadîth is also found in Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan al-Dâraqutnî, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, and many other hadîth works.Its legal implications: This hadîth brings up many questions in Islamic Law. We will discuss the following: The first question: Is a dog a pure or impure animal? Scholars have three differing opinions on this matter. The famous opinion of Mâlik is that the dog is a pure animal. It is also one of the opinions given in the Hanbalî school of thought. They offer the following evidence to support their opinion: 1. “They ask you what is lawful to them as food. Say: Lawful unto you are all things good and pure and what you have taught your beasts and birds of prey which you have trained as hounds are trained. You teach them that which Allah taught you. Eat what they catch for you and mention Allah’s name over it. And fear Allah, for Allah is swift in taking account.” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 4] The argument here is that the animal captured by the dog is going to be exposed to the dog’s saliva. The fact that hunting with dogs is permissible shows that the saliva of dogs is pure, especially since we are not ordered in the verse to clean or excise the place where the dog bit down upon the animal. They argue that washing a dish seven times is purely an act of devotion that cannot be submitted to rational analysis. A believer must merely hear and obey the command to do so. The command to wash the dish does not necessarily imply that the saliva of dogs is impure. The proof for this is that there are other things which are indisputably far more impure that a dog’s saliva, but we are not commanded to wash those things seven times, once with dirt. We are not even commanded to wash away the urine of the dog in such a manner. It is also possible that the command to wash the dish seven times, once with dirt, may be on account of rabies. Ibn Daqîq al-`Id objects to this line of reasoning. He writes: “It is far better to assume that the saliva of dogs is impure, because it always better to understand the ruling rationally whenever possible, since rulings that are purely devotional are relatively rare compared to those that have a sensible reason behind them.” [Ihkâm al-Ahkâm (1/27)] Ibn Qudâmah also objects, saying: “If it was purely devotional, we would not have been commanded to first pour out the contents of the bowl. The command to specifically wash from the licking of a dog would not extend to the whole dish. Moreover, even if we were to accept this, we can understand devotional washing when it comes to our hands, but as for dishes and clothing, all that can be required is to keep them clean and free from impurities.” [al-Mughnî (1/42)] 2. The advocates of this opinion also cite the following statement of Ibn `Umar: “Dogs used to go to and fro in the mosque during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and they did not ever pour water over the area on account of it.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî] They argue that this hadîth indicates the purity of a dog’s saliva, since dogs always follow after food. Since we know that some Companions had no place other than the mosque to live, we can be sure that the saliva of dogs would sometimes fall on the mosque floor. This argument, however, is weak. Mâlikî scholars are in agreement with everyone else that the urine of dogs is impure. Since Ibn `Umar did not mention anything about cleaning up after the urination of dogs, the hadîth cannot be used as an indication of the purity of their saliva. 3. Some Mâlikî scholars compared the dog to a cat. The Prophet (peace be upon him) declared that the water left over after a cat has a drink does not become impure. The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that this was because cats are among the animals that live among people. The Mâlikî scholars argue that dogs, like cats, live among people, so they should take the same ruling as cats. 4. They also cite the hadîth that `Umar while traveling with `Amr b. al-`As and others, reached a spring. `Amr b. al-`As inquired from the owner of the spring if carnivorous animals frequented it. `Umar immediately said to the owner of the spring: “Do not inform us. We visit there water sources as they visit ours.” [al-Muwatta’ (1/23-24)] However, this hadîth has a broken chan of transmission, since Yahyâ b. `Abd al-Rahman who narrates this hadîth from `Umar never met `Umar. There are other similar hadîth, but they are also either weak or fabricated. The second opinion held by scholars is that the dog is an impure animal. This is the opinion of al-Shâfi`î. It is also one of the opinions given on the matter by Ahmad. They offer the hadîth under discussion as evidence. They argue that purification can only be done on account of some form of impurity. They also argue that we are ordered to wash the dish, even though the dog only laps at the water inside of it. This shows that the water first becomes impure and subsequently contaminates the dish. The fact that we are ordered to pour out the water shows that the saliva of the dog is impure. Since the saliva of the dog is impure, then the dog itself must be impure. The third opinion held by scholars is that the saliva of the dog is impure but not the dog itself. This is the Hanafî position. It is also one of the opinions ventured by Ahmad and the one Ibn Taymiyah declares it to be the most correct opinion. [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (21/530)] The present the following evidence: 1. They present the hadîth under discussion as evidence, since the fact that purification is needed shows that the saliva is impure. The fact that we are ordered to wash the dish repeatedly and once with dirt shows that a dog’s saliva is seriously impure. Then there is the fact that we have to discard the contents of the dish. If the contents were not contaminated with impurities, this would be wasteful destruction of food or drink. It is also clear from the hadîth that the washing is from the dog’s lapping up water from the dish and not from anything else. 2. To demonstrate that other parts of the dog, like its hair, are not impure, Ibn Taymiyah offers the following argument: “The hair of dogs and pigs that falls in water does no harm. This is according to the stronger of the two opinions held by scholars…This opinion is more supported by the evidence that indicates the purity of all hair, feathers, fur, and wool, regardless of whether or not we can eat the flesh of the animal whose skin possesses it, and regardless of whether the animal is alive or dead. This is the strongest of the two opinions held by scholars and one of the two opinions of Ahmad.” [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (21/38-39)] This opinion that limits the impurity to the saliva of the dog is the best, most balanced opinion and the one that raises the least objections.
Watch the third episode of Sheikh Yasir Al-Qadi's lecture entitled "Stories of the Prophets" to find out the difference between a Prophet (Nabī) and a Messenger (Rasūl) The summary is: The Prophet (Nabī) is the one who is sent to the believers Whereas the Messenger (Rasūl) is the one who is sent to non-believers
A prophet is the one who is sent to a community and when the community rejects him and he still continues to transfer the message he gets an upgrade and becomes a messenger And by this way Every Rasul is a Nabi but not vice versa
*On the number of anbiya and rusul* The first noteworthy hadith mentioned was in Sahih ibn Hibban where Abu Dharr al Ghifari was discussing with the Prophet SAW. Among the things mentioned was that were 120,000 prophets (anbiya) and of them, 313 were messengers (rusul). However in its isnaad is someone accused of lying, so Ibn al Jawzi considered this fabricated. A second hadith (with Abu Dharr al Ghifari) was also mentioned in Musnad Ahmad in a completely different chain. In this hadith, the number of prophets being 120,000 was not mentioned, but the number of messengers were given as 310 something. This chain contained some unknown people, which is why many considered it weak. There was a completely different third hadith with Abu Umamah (not Abu Dharr) mentioned in Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim. Abu Umamah asked Prophet SAW on the number of prophets/messengers, reply was 124,000 prophets and 315 messengers. There was also some issues found with that chain. How did the scholars reconcile between all these weak hadiths with a similar concept? - Shaykh Albani considered it saheeh (he was lax when combining weak ahadith) - Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said we don't know the # of anbiya/rusul as Imam Ahmad himself considered the Musnad Ahmad hadith as weak YQ Conclusion - While we may not know the exact number, the ahadith suggest there is a difference between anibya and rusul --- *On the different opinions around the difference between anbiya and rusul* 1. There is no difference between a nabi and a rasul, every rasul is a nabi, every nabi is a rasul (29:40) - Some ulemah (very minority) held this opinion - Dismissed opinion from linguistic, quranic, and hadith perspective (e.g. doesn't make sense to mention 2 categories if they are the same) 2. A nabi is inspired by God but isn't commanded to deliver the message while a Rasul is commanded to deliver this message (30:42) - Opinion held by Imam Al Saffarini - Textual problem: Many text mention how nabis also delivered the message to other people - Logical problem: How can one expect that someone is divinely inspired yet they keep silent about it 3. Rusul received revelation from Angel Jibril AS while Anbiya received inspiration without Jibril AS (36:33) - Many scholars of 4th/5th century hijrah held this opinion - And so this would mean every rasul is a nabi but not every nabi is a rasul 4. Rusul were sent a book/miracle but anbiya were not necessarily sent this (39:00) - Secondly, a rasul was sent to establish new shariah while a nabi would uphold previous shariah - Opinion of Imam An Nasafi 5. Rusul were sent to establish new shariah wile a nabi would uphold previous shariah (40:15) - This opinion is basically a modified version of opinion 4, just the 2nd half really - A very dominant position held by many great ulemah (past and present) 6. A modified version of the 5th opinion supported by modern scholars (41:05) - Both rasul and a nabi convey a message, but a rasul comes with a new shariah and has a back/forth between people who reject the rasul before winning over the people while a nabi simply revive/uphold/correct the shariah of the previous shariah - Problem: There are many exceptions to this definition (e.g. Adam AS, Yusuf AS, Harun AS, Dawud AS) - Adam AS was called a prophet/nabi, but didn't uphold any previous shariah while Nuh AS was a messenger/rasul - Yusuf AS was called a messenger/rasul but he followed the shariah of Ibrahim AS and didn't get a new shariah - Harun AS was called a messenger/rasul but he followed the shariah of Musa AS and didn't get a new shariah - Dawud AS was called a prophet/nabi and not a messenger/rasul as he upheld shariah of Musa AS but WAS GIVEN a book YQ Conclusion (48:10) - Mentions opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (opinion 7) - _Nabi is anyone Allah SWT communicates with directly and spreads this message to others_ - _If the nabi is sent to people who REJECT Allah SWT and the message sent, then they are a rasul_ - And a rasul generally are given a book, but that is not a condition to be a rasul - Adam AS: Was called a prophet/nabi as his children believed in him - Dawud AS: Was called a prophet/nabi as his people believed in him - Yusuf AS: Was sent to people of Firawn who rejected the message - YQ also mentions that book is not really a condition because technically every piece of revelation from Allah is like a book but its just that some had the revelation compiled in a book while some didn't
1:29- Linguistic meanings of Nabi and Rasul 11:15 Functional differences of Nabi and Rasul according to the scholars of Islam 17:02 The numbers of Nabi and Rasul, and it's implications on difference between nabi and rasul 29:40 Opinion 1 30:42 Opinion 2 36:35 Opinion 3 39:00 Opinion 4,5,6 47:55 Opinion 7 (Opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah and Yasir Qadhi's favourite opinion.)
The Difference Between a Prophet (Nabī) and a Messenger (Rasūl). There are many opinions: 1. First opinion: That there is no difference between nabi and rasul. Nabi = rasul; they are synonyms. This does not seem to be the strongest opinion, because of many reasons; of them is the verse in the Quran, "We didn't send before you either a rasul or a nabi except that..." [22:52]. Another example, "And mention in the Book, Moses. Indeed, he was chosen, and he was a messenger and a prophet."[19:51]. "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, ..."[7:157]. Which indicate there is difference between nabi and rasul. Had nabi and rasul been the same thing, this would be against the eloquence of the Arabic language to phrase something like this. It doesn't make sense to put them together in this manner. Some prophet are not called rasul, they are called nabi, for example Yahya in Quran[3:39]. So this is not the strongest opinion. 2. Second opinion: A nabi is one who is inspired by Allah with a revelation but he is not told to preach it to the people. Whereas a rasul is somebody who is told to proclaim it to mankind. The problem of this opinion. Firstly, the ayah [22:52] above clearly says that nabi is also 'sent'. Secondly, it is difficult to imagine Allah inspiring a person with knowledge, and then he stay quiet and does not preach to others. In fact the Muslims are told, "بلغوا عني ولو آية" - so even the average Muslims has to preach. How then can somebody be inspired by Allah and he doesn't preach? "...Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], "You must make it clear [i.e., explain it] to the people and not conceal it."..."[3:187]. ...Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him;...sunnah.com/muslim:1842a, this hadith show that anbiya were sent to Bani Israel. Also in Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet PBUH said, "I saw all of the prophets on the DoJ, and there was a nabi with a huge ummah, and there was a nabi and he had a small group, and there was a nabi and he had 5 people, and there was a nabi he had 2 people, and there was a nabi he had no people following him" - shows that nabis were also preaching to the people, and have followings. In another hadith, ""...Who are you?" He (ﷺ) said, "I am a Prophet." I asked; "What is a Prophet?" He said, "Allah has sent me (with a message)"....sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:438". Thus this opinion is also not the strongest. 3. Third opinion: The Rasul is the one who Jibril comes to, and the nabi his nubuwwah comes through inspiration without Jibril. The respond is that there is not seem to be any evidence. 4. Fourth opinion: The Rasul has a miracle and book. 5. Fifth opinion: A rasul is someone who has been given a new sharia (code of laws). Whereas a nabi is someone who follows the sharia of the rasul before him. Of the evidence is the hadith "The learned are the heirs of the Prophets...sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1388", al-Ulama waratshatu al-Anbiya. So Yahya is Nabi, Isa is Rasul. Yusha is Nabi, and Musa is Rasul. This opinion seems to be good but it doesn't match up to all of the examples. E.g. By this definition, Yusuf AS wouldn't be a rasul. But the Qur'an [40:34] clearly mentions Yusuf as a rasul. Another example is: If a nabi is someone who follows the sharia of the previous prophets, Adam AS would have been a rasul. But in Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet PBUH said, "The first rasul is Nuh AS." So Adam is a nabi but not a rasul. Another example is Harun is a Rasul, eventhough he followed the Shariah of Musa, " 'Indeed, we are messengers of your Lord,"[20:47]. 6. Sixth opinion: The correct opinion seems to be the one that Ibn Taymiyyah propounded. He says let's look at the linguistic meaning of nabi and rasul. Nabi comes from naba'a which means information. So a nabi is somebody who informs you what Allah wants him to inform - nabi has information from Allah and has to preach and teach - The word nabi automatically implies he is speaking to you a message from Allah. Rasul comes from arsala yursilu rasulan which means to send (a delegate/emissary/representative/ambassador). So a rasul is somebody Allah sends, generally to a nation that he is not on friendly terms with i.e. a nation that does not believe in him. Whereas a nabi teaches to a people that already accepts him. If you look at this definition, all the raw data fits into place. Did any of Adam's children reject him? No. Did any of Idris's people reject him? No. How about Nuh? People rejected him. And in Sahih Bukhari, the the Prophet PBUH confirms that he is a rasul. Yusuf AS is also a rasul because he is sent to the non-believers of Egypt. Another classic example is Yahya AS and Isa AS; two cousins, their mothers were sisters. But one is a nabi and the other a rasul because they accepted Yahya and rejected Isa. So this definition seems to be precise. Generally every rasul does have a new sharia (but this is not a rule, it's just a symptom/adjective which has exceptions). and Allah knows best.
Jazakallah for this new series. Is it true that several ambia were killed by their people but not a single Rasool as ISA alaihisalaam was lifted and saved by Allah.
Based on YQ's explanation of ibn Taymiyya, I'd argue they were both rasul, since their people openly defied them and there was that back and forth between them. I'm just a random UA-cam comment btw. My opinion holds no scholarly weight ☺
@@MB-id1uh LOL, really?!! U clearly dont know what u dont know!! Let me simplify it 4 u!!! rationally, a rasool is the 1 commanded specifically to convey the divine instructions to specific people but if he is not commanded to convey any specific message, then he remains a prophet (nabi) only.
Sheikh Qadi’s preference on this matter doesn’t make sense “ A Rasool is someone who received resistance, denial to his message and had to establish himself . A Nabi is someone sent to a people who already accepted his message. “ How about Yahya as , he was a Nabi . Was he accepted by his people . No. He was beheaded . Therefore this view doesn’t have a firm leg to stand on. All the other views also have flaws and exceptions. It is best to leave this to Allah
As salaamu alaykum,in light of this video my question to Shaykh Yasir Qadhi is; What is proper response to those who claim that ‘messengers (رسول الله )’ will come after the Prophet (S.A.W) ?
@@markward3981 Thank you brother,but when this verse is quoted, the response is always “the verse says seal of the prophets not seal of the messengers “.
@@aburayyaanabuakilah4482 You are welcome. Don't let them side step it. One recitation says Khattam , another recitation says Khattim. One means last , one means seal. So the Ayat actually says Muhammad ( peace be upon him), is the messenger of Allah and the seal of and last of the prophet . No matter which meaning one takes the dominant opinion is you will not have a messenger who is not also a prophet , so by closing the line and sealing it ...it is over , the will be no others . Please let me know if this makes it clear .
I am confused Dr Yasir Qadhi Said at the end Nabi is someone who the people wont be rejecting him or are expecting him to come, Prophet Muhammad SAW according to many narrations people were expecting him even Khadijah RA knew about a last prophet who will come so? isnt it contradicting with the first statement? i am confused
@Syed Osama The Quraish didn't expect a prophet nor did they even know what the concept of a prophet is. The jews of Medina and Waraqah ibn nawaf who was a jew/Christian expected that a prophet is to come. The Quraish rejected the prophet (pbuh) so this would prove the last opinion. I don't know exactly about Khadijah but what I know is that she wasn't expecting a prophet too but she knew that her uncle Waraqah ibn nawal believed this.
6th opinion, which is of Shykh Al Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, is most appealing. But how do we say that The Messanger is one whose message is being opposed. In the case of Musa, only few people opposed and majority accepted it. Whereas in the case of our Messanger (pbuh), there were minority who accepted islam Immediately like Abu Bakr As Siddiq, Ali Ibn Talib, Khadija, Zaid Ibn Thabit, etc. And majority were opposing. Does it mean that if only one among the audience rejects the message, The One who is sent by Allah(swt) is The Messanger.
Musa also came with the message to Pharaoh and his people who openly opposed. Also, refer to the story of the Banu Israel during their wandering and when Musa went up the mountain. They were a rebellious people who open defied the commands of Allah and argued with both Musa and Harun. A simpler way to say this would be, A rasool faces rejection from his people even if some of them believe but a nabi is sent to a believing nation to revtify their affairs and clarify the message. And Allah knows best.
@@ismailshekh6947 Quran explicitly calls Yunus/Jonah a Rasul (37:139). As for fitting with this definition, i must say that I'm not entirely aware of the situation of the people of Yunus. However, the context of Surah Yunus suggests that they initially disbelieved but then all of them believed due to which Allah removed their punishment. The fact that Allah removed the punishment suggests that they used to be punished due to their opposition to Yunus. But again, this isn't something i am entirely aware of.
@@abid4597 Indeed you are right. Qur'an gives status of Rasool and Nabi to Isma'il. وَٱذْكُرْ فِى ٱلْكِتَٰبِ إِسْمَٰعِيلَۚ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ صَادِقَ ٱلْوَعْدِ وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَّبِيًّا And mention in the Book, Ishmael. Indeed, he was true to his promise, and he was a messenger and a prophet.⁵⁴ || Maryam¹⁹
Sheikh sorry but last opinion does not fit Ayah 2:87 and the hadith. 1. "And we certainly gave Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers(Rusul). And we gave Jesus(RA), the son of Mary clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it (not) that every time a messenger came to you( O Bani Israel), with what your souls didn't desire, you were arrogant. And a party(of messengers) you denied and another party you killed". If messengers were sent to only disbelievers, then why did Bani Israel receive messengers? "Messengers came with something you didn't desire" means rasool sometimes or always had new orders or shariah for people to follow. 2. The hadith you mentioned about prophets with no followers, if nabi goes to believing people then why did they not have any followers? Only Allah knows best and seems like none of the explanation explains the topic in entirety. JazakAllah
Nice line of thought which I also thought about. Add to this Surah Zukhruf Q43v7; 'And there did not come to them any Prophet except they used to ridicule him'. If he was sent to a people who ae welcoming him, why then do they ridicule him?. I really hope Dr.Yasir Qadhi sees this and responds. May Allah reward him and us in this path. Aamin
@asleep on internet awake in life Wsalam, the first half of your explanation makes perfect sense. It could be that they reminded bani israel of the shariah of moses or some new orders too, or a new problem would have arisen so they could have brought appropriate orders from Allah SWT. But the second one is quite hard to digest. If they didn't oppose the nabi, then they should have listened to his message, i don't think one has the option to ignore a prophet. Wallah alam, i hope sheikh looks into that matter.
@@arslanmushtaq9774 asalamu alakum I think you could ignore a prophet & you don't need go out & oppose him publicly nor active in opposing the message & cause wars you get me? perhaps that's how the 1 prophet in the hadith had 0 followers allah knows best
Who else goes to sleep while listening to these stories😍......? Indeed these are the best of stories...
💯💯
I do
✋🏻
Me
Weakling 😄
Summary(Important Notes) of
The Stories of The Prophets-
3. The Difference Between a Prophet (Nabī) and a Messenger (Rasūl)
Linguistic Meanings:-
Nabi has two main root words, each giving a different meaning to the word:
1. نبوة - Nobility or a high place and also a landmark.
From here, the word Nabi means someone who is respected, who Allah has raised high, and who becomes an icon for the rest of humanity.
2. نبأ - News or information. نبي is the (do/done to)فعيل version of نبأ. This means that someone who is informed and who informs others. Nabi is informed by Allah and he then informs others.
Both these interpretations complement each other.
In the end,
Nabi is someone who is informed by Allah and he informs others. He is also respected and raised high by Allah and remains an icon for the rest of humanity.
Slight note: Rasul has the conjugation of فعول and Nabi has the conjugation of فعيل. Both have the same connotation and thus add the same flavor in meaning. The flavor is “the one in whom the verb is manifested powerfully”. So, Nabi is the most informed one.
Rasul comes from the root words “رسل”. Originally رسل meant to send in batches and, primarily, to send small groups of camels to get water. Then, the connotation becomes setting free and allowing to go to other locations. From there, the verb form “أرسل” became to send forth someone with something. This is how the term “رسالة”(message) was coined.
Therefore, Rasul means someone who has been sent by somebody with something. One of the great scholars of the Arabic language says that a Rasul is only called Rasul if the messenger follows up on the delivery of the message. So, a Rasul is someone who has been sent a message by somebody of authority and who then actively monitors what happens to the message after it has been delivered.
Conclusion of Linguistics:-
Nabi is someone who knows what the rest of mankind does not know and he then informs mankind of that knowledge.
Rasul is someone who has been sent with a message and he then engages in that message.
Opinions of Great Scholars in Islam on this Topic:-
Is there a difference between Nabi and Rasul?
The majority of scholars agree that there is a difference between Nabi and Rasul. Reasons for this opinion are:
(i) The fact that two different words are used. In any language, synonyms are not exactly the same in meaning and so, they just overlap in meanings but they have different origins and thus different flavors in meaning.
(ii) The Qur’an seems to differentiate between them.
a. Surah Hajj, Ayah 52. The “neither, nor” is seen here which indicates differences.
b. Allah calls some Prophets in the Qur’an as Rasul and some as Nabi and some as both in a single Ayah. If they were exactly the same, this would have been repetitive. For example:
-Surah Maryam, Ayah 50. Musa(AS) is called Rasul and Nabi here.
-Surah Al-A’raf, Ayah 157. The Prophet(SAW) is described as Rasul and Nabi here.
(iii) Three or Four Hadiths of the Prophet(SAW) indicate the difference explicitly. One of them is in Sahih Ibn Hibban(4th place after Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Khuzayma). This Hadith is in Sahih Ibn Hibban, Volume 2, Page no, 177. This is a very long Hadith(5 pages) and it is the famous Hadith of a Sahabi - Abu Dharr Al-Ghafari. A portion of it says 1,20,000 Nabi and, from those, there were 313 Rasul.
Drawbacks of this particular Hadith-
This particular chain has a person who is accused of lying. And because of this, Ibn Al-Jawzi says that it is fabricated.
All the Hadith used as evidence for this have some problems with the chains and are mostly not considered authentic. So, all we can conclude is that there is no definitive number but the notion that there is a difference between Nabi and Rasul and that the Rasul is a smaller group within Nabi is found in Hadith books and so it is true.
What do the scholars say about the difference between Nabi and Rasul?
1. There is no difference between Nabi and Rasul - Based on all the evidence in the previous question, this can be respectfully ignored. It is also a very minority opinion.
2. Nabi is someone who is inspired but not commanded to propagate the message and a Rasul is someone who is inspired and sent to the people and commanded to propagate the message -
Many scholars including the great theologian of 11th century Imam As-Saffaarini said this. It is found in many early books and it is fairly common.
The problems of this opinion:
(i) Plenty of texts indicate that all the Nabi were also sent to people. The Qur’an is explicit and so are the Hadiths in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.
(ii) It is difficult to imagine that Allah inspired someone with knowledge and that person stays quiet and doesn’t preach.
3. A Rasul is the one who is sent to mankind and is communicated by Jibreel(AS) and Nabi who is communicated to in other ways than Jibreel(dreams, etc) and so every Rasul is Nabi but every Nabi is not Rasul -
The 4th, 5th-century great-minded scholars like Mufassir Ath-Tha’aaribi and Al-Wahidi hold this position.
The problems of this opinion:
There is no shred of evidence that Jibreel(AS) did not come to the Nabi. There seems to be a lot of interpretations that Jibreel(AS) did go to every single Nabi and Rasul.
4. A Rasul has a miracle and a book sent down to him. A Nabi doesn’t have a book, rather he calls to the laws before him.
5. A Rasul comes with new laws. A Nabi upholds the previous laws.
6. A Rasul comes with a new law and order to a group that rejects him and there is a back and forth of arguments between him and the people. A Nabi comes to revive the laws given to the previous Rasul.
The 4th, 5th, and 6th opinions are from more modern scholars and are modified versions of each other. These opinions are also probably the most common opinions found. They, at first glance, make sense especially if we look at the Prophets and Messengers sent to Bani Israel.
The problem in this :
These opinions cannot be taken for all the Prophets and Messengers. For example-
(i) From a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, we know that Nuh(AS) is the first Rasul and, from Hadith in Imam Musnad, we know that Adam(AS) is the first Nabi. So if we say Nabi must uphold the laws sent before him, then Adam(AS) is a Nabi yet there were no old laws that he(AS) could uphold.
(ii) The Qur’an calls Yusuf(AS) a Rasul in Surah Gafir and yet he(AS) was not given any new laws, he(AS) followed the laws that were given to Ibrahim(AS).
(iii) The Qur’an calls Haroon(AS) a Rasul and yet he(AS) just followed the laws given to Musa(AS).
(iv) Dawod(AS) was given a book - Zabur and yet a Hadith calls him(AS) a Nabi.
7. A Nabi is someone to who Allah gives information and then he shares the information that Allah gives to him to the people around him who are believers/who expect him/who are not rejecting him. If the Nabi is now sent to a group of people who openly reject the command of Allah, then he becomes a Rasul. A Rasul may be given a book and laws but that is not a necessary condition -
The famous scholar Ibn Taimiyyah states this in his book. This makes the most sense and can be applied to all the Prophets and Messengers. And so, this is the strongest opinion but Allah knows best.
This ends the entire summary.
Anyone who thinks I have missed some point is welcome to reply but please give the time in the lecture when Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi talked about it so that I can be sure.
JazakaAllah Khair
The quran mentions Prophet ismaeel عليه السلام as a rasul and nabi though?
Question regarding the point #7. If a Nabi is sent to people who don't reject him, then, as mentioned in a hadees at 34:10, why were there Nabi who had 1 or 2 or even zero followers? SYQ even says at 34:30 that "and if nobody follows, it's not because the Nabi didn't try, it's because the people did not accept." Doesn't this go against the idea that a Nabi is sent to a population that is willing and expecting?
@@michaelknight3837 very good points ما شاء الله
This is a masterpiece of a lecture.
The amount of dimensions of wisdoms present in this lecture depends on how much wisdom you are seeking from it.
SubhanAllah, I remember when you went over this topic during the Seerah so many years ago. How time flies! May Allah protect and guide us all.
Such a clear explanation and easy to understand. May allah reward your efforts masha allah
Mashallah shk u are always de best speaker to me may Allah bless you
Jazak Allah khairun Shiekh for giving such a comprehensive explanation. I always wanted to understand the difference between the Nabi and the Rasool and now thanks to you I do.
😲😲😲Ibnu taymiyah always amazes us maanshaallh
Beautiful series! May Allah bless you infinitely yaa Shaikh.
Another interesting one, jazakhallahu khairan
Barak'Allahu fik, I feel like I now have a better grasp of the differences between a nabi and a rasul.
Masha Allahu May Allah reward you and make it easy for you on the day of jugdement
Barakalahu fik
21:56
I’m not surprised if that Hadith actually was fabricated. The very long sporadic interview style was already red-flag to me.
It’s like a bad writer who wants to share information so they construct a fake “conversation” in their story that conveniently reveals everything they wanted to invent.
Wow I'm literally first 😯🥳
And JazakAllah khairan Brother for such beneficial series 😊✨
Jazaak Allah khair yassir I like your lectures a lot I would like to know in which chapter in quran. Allah the almighty has said dogs are napaak and no angel will come to that house if the dogs are kept pl give me.a very logical answer.
@@dawngrammar7461 please go learn English grammar
@@dawngrammar7461 brother you need to write this comment in the actual comment section so that it may get wider recognition and could get answered ....🌸
Stay blessed ✨
@@dawngrammar7461 SubhanAllah, may Allah bless you and increase you in knowledge and understanding, wassalaat wassalaam 'alaa RasoolAllah
First off, the evidence for angels not entering a home in which there is a dog can be found in the following hadeeth: Abu Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (salAllah alayhi wa salam) said, “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog..." [Saheeh Bukhari/Saheeh Muslim].
Secondly, you will also find evidence for the rulings regarding the impurity related to dogs in the Sunnah. For example, in a hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim records that the Prophet (الله عليه وسلم صلى) said, “The purification of the utensil belonging to one amongst you, after it is licked by a dog, lies in washing it seven times.” [Saheeh Muslim].
While this hadeeth appears to indicate that the saliva of dogs is impure (after all, why would we be commanded to wash it off it weren't impure), there is some differing regarding the impurity of dogs. Some limited the impurity to saliva only, others considered the entire dog to be impure, etc. Allah willing, the following article from Sh. Salman al-Awdah (may Allah protect and free him) that was originally published on his website (islamtoday.com) will illustrate this in more detail:
“Purifying One of Your Dishes After a Dog Laps Up Its Contents”By Shaykh Salman al Awdah
en.islamtoday.net/artshow-377-3274.htm
Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger said about the sea: “To purify one of your dishes after a dog laps up some of its contents, you must wash it seven times, one of them with dirt.”
It is an authentic hadîth related in Sahîh Muslim. In Sunan al-Tirmidhî, it is related that the Prophet said: “You must pour out its contents and wash it seven times…”
The hadîth is also found in Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan al-Dâraqutnî, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, and many other hadîth works.Its legal implications:
This hadîth brings up many questions in Islamic Law. We will discuss the following:
The first question:
Is a dog a pure or impure animal? Scholars have three differing opinions on this matter.
The famous opinion of Mâlik is that the dog is a pure animal. It is also one of the opinions given in the Hanbalî school of thought. They offer the following evidence to support their opinion:
1. “They ask you what is lawful to them as food. Say: Lawful unto you are all things good and pure and what you have taught your beasts and birds of prey which you have trained as hounds are trained. You teach them that which Allah taught you. Eat what they catch for you and mention Allah’s name over it. And fear Allah, for Allah is swift in taking account.” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 4]
The argument here is that the animal captured by the dog is going to be exposed to the dog’s saliva. The fact that hunting with dogs is permissible shows that the saliva of dogs is pure, especially since we are not ordered in the verse to clean or excise the place where the dog bit down upon the animal.
They argue that washing a dish seven times is purely an act of devotion that cannot be submitted to rational analysis. A believer must merely hear and obey the command to do so. The command to wash the dish does not necessarily imply that the saliva of dogs is impure. The proof for this is that there are other things which are indisputably far more impure that a dog’s saliva, but we are not commanded to wash those things seven times, once with dirt. We are not even commanded to wash away the urine of the dog in such a manner.
It is also possible that the command to wash the dish seven times, once with dirt, may be on account of rabies.
Ibn Daqîq al-`Id objects to this line of reasoning. He writes: “It is far better to assume that the saliva of dogs is impure, because it always better to understand the ruling rationally whenever possible, since rulings that are purely devotional are relatively rare compared to those that have a sensible reason behind them.” [Ihkâm al-Ahkâm (1/27)]
Ibn Qudâmah also objects, saying: “If it was purely devotional, we would not have been commanded to first pour out the contents of the bowl. The command to specifically wash from the licking of a dog would not extend to the whole dish. Moreover, even if we were to accept this, we can understand devotional washing when it comes to our hands, but as for dishes and clothing, all that can be required is to keep them clean and free from impurities.” [al-Mughnî (1/42)]
2. The advocates of this opinion also cite the following statement of Ibn `Umar: “Dogs used to go to and fro in the mosque during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and they did not ever pour water over the area on account of it.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî]
They argue that this hadîth indicates the purity of a dog’s saliva, since dogs always follow after food. Since we know that some Companions had no place other than the mosque to live, we can be sure that the saliva of dogs would sometimes fall on the mosque floor.
This argument, however, is weak. Mâlikî scholars are in agreement with everyone else that the urine of dogs is impure. Since Ibn `Umar did not mention anything about cleaning up after the urination of dogs, the hadîth cannot be used as an indication of the purity of their saliva.
3. Some Mâlikî scholars compared the dog to a cat. The Prophet (peace be upon him) declared that the water left over after a cat has a drink does not become impure. The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that this was because cats are among the animals that live among people. The Mâlikî scholars argue that dogs, like cats, live among people, so they should take the same ruling as cats.
4. They also cite the hadîth that `Umar while traveling with `Amr b. al-`As and others, reached a spring. `Amr b. al-`As inquired from the owner of the spring if carnivorous animals frequented it. `Umar immediately said to the owner of the spring: “Do not inform us. We visit there water sources as they visit ours.” [al-Muwatta’ (1/23-24)]
However, this hadîth has a broken chan of transmission, since Yahyâ b. `Abd al-Rahman who narrates this hadîth from `Umar never met `Umar. There are other similar hadîth, but they are also either weak or fabricated.
The second opinion held by scholars is that the dog is an impure animal. This is the opinion of al-Shâfi`î. It is also one of the opinions given on the matter by Ahmad. They offer the hadîth under discussion as evidence. They argue that purification can only be done on account of some form of impurity. They also argue that we are ordered to wash the dish, even though the dog only laps at the water inside of it. This shows that the water first becomes impure and subsequently contaminates the dish. The fact that we are ordered to pour out the water shows that the saliva of the dog is impure. Since the saliva of the dog is impure, then the dog itself must be impure.
The third opinion held by scholars is that the saliva of the dog is impure but not the dog itself. This is the Hanafî position. It is also one of the opinions ventured by Ahmad and the one Ibn Taymiyah declares it to be the most correct opinion. [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (21/530)] The present the following evidence:
1. They present the hadîth under discussion as evidence, since the fact that purification is needed shows that the saliva is impure. The fact that we are ordered to wash the dish repeatedly and once with dirt shows that a dog’s saliva is seriously impure. Then there is the fact that we have to discard the contents of the dish. If the contents were not contaminated with impurities, this would be wasteful destruction of food or drink. It is also clear from the hadîth that the washing is from the dog’s lapping up water from the dish and not from anything else.
2. To demonstrate that other parts of the dog, like its hair, are not impure, Ibn Taymiyah offers the following argument: “The hair of dogs and pigs that falls in water does no harm. This is according to the stronger of the two opinions held by scholars…This opinion is more supported by the evidence that indicates the purity of all hair, feathers, fur, and wool, regardless of whether or not we can eat the flesh of the animal whose skin possesses it, and regardless of whether the animal is alive or dead. This is the strongest of the two opinions held by scholars and one of the two opinions of Ahmad.” [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (21/38-39)]
This opinion that limits the impurity to the saliva of the dog is the best, most balanced opinion and the one that raises the least objections.
Jazakallahu khair.. Interesting discussion in intro 👌😍
Please continue the Stories of Prophets series.
Jazake Allahu Khairan Sheikh Life changing!
Brilliant explanation shaik
Mashallah
Allah bless you. Love from Nepal.
I remember you did this in your Seerah Lectures
That was 4 opinions, now we got 6!
Watch the third episode of Sheikh Yasir Al-Qadi's lecture entitled "Stories of the Prophets" to find out the difference between a Prophet (Nabī) and a Messenger (Rasūl)
The summary is:
The Prophet (Nabī) is the one who is sent to the believers
Whereas the Messenger (Rasūl) is the one who is sent to non-believers
A prophet is the one who is sent to a community and when the community rejects him and he still continues to transfer the message he gets an upgrade and becomes a messenger And by this way Every Rasul is a Nabi but not vice versa
JAZAKALLAH KHAIR
Mashallah, very useful.
Alhamdulillah, pretty clear.
SubhanAllah
Very interesting conclusion which is unheard of. Glad to have been introduced to this opinion.
Subhan Allah
*On the number of anbiya and rusul*
The first noteworthy hadith mentioned was in Sahih ibn Hibban where Abu Dharr al Ghifari was discussing with the Prophet SAW.
Among the things mentioned was that were 120,000 prophets (anbiya) and of them, 313 were messengers (rusul).
However in its isnaad is someone accused of lying, so Ibn al Jawzi considered this fabricated.
A second hadith (with Abu Dharr al Ghifari) was also mentioned in Musnad Ahmad in a completely different chain.
In this hadith, the number of prophets being 120,000 was not mentioned, but the number of messengers were given as 310 something.
This chain contained some unknown people, which is why many considered it weak.
There was a completely different third hadith with Abu Umamah (not Abu Dharr) mentioned in Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim.
Abu Umamah asked Prophet SAW on the number of prophets/messengers, reply was 124,000 prophets and 315 messengers.
There was also some issues found with that chain.
How did the scholars reconcile between all these weak hadiths with a similar concept?
- Shaykh Albani considered it saheeh (he was lax when combining weak ahadith)
- Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said we don't know the # of anbiya/rusul as Imam Ahmad himself considered the Musnad Ahmad hadith as weak
YQ Conclusion
- While we may not know the exact number, the ahadith suggest there is a difference between anibya and rusul
---
*On the different opinions around the difference between anbiya and rusul*
1. There is no difference between a nabi and a rasul, every rasul is a nabi, every nabi is a rasul (29:40)
- Some ulemah (very minority) held this opinion
- Dismissed opinion from linguistic, quranic, and hadith perspective (e.g. doesn't make sense to mention 2 categories if they are the same)
2. A nabi is inspired by God but isn't commanded to deliver the message while a Rasul is commanded to deliver this message (30:42)
- Opinion held by Imam Al Saffarini
- Textual problem: Many text mention how nabis also delivered the message to other people
- Logical problem: How can one expect that someone is divinely inspired yet they keep silent about it
3. Rusul received revelation from Angel Jibril AS while Anbiya received inspiration without Jibril AS (36:33)
- Many scholars of 4th/5th century hijrah held this opinion
- And so this would mean every rasul is a nabi but not every nabi is a rasul
4. Rusul were sent a book/miracle but anbiya were not necessarily sent this (39:00)
- Secondly, a rasul was sent to establish new shariah while a nabi would uphold previous shariah
- Opinion of Imam An Nasafi
5. Rusul were sent to establish new shariah wile a nabi would uphold previous shariah (40:15)
- This opinion is basically a modified version of opinion 4, just the 2nd half really
- A very dominant position held by many great ulemah (past and present)
6. A modified version of the 5th opinion supported by modern scholars (41:05)
- Both rasul and a nabi convey a message, but a rasul comes with a new shariah and has a back/forth between people who reject the rasul before winning over the people while a nabi simply revive/uphold/correct the shariah of the previous shariah
- Problem: There are many exceptions to this definition (e.g. Adam AS, Yusuf AS, Harun AS, Dawud AS)
- Adam AS was called a prophet/nabi, but didn't uphold any previous shariah while Nuh AS was a messenger/rasul
- Yusuf AS was called a messenger/rasul but he followed the shariah of Ibrahim AS and didn't get a new shariah
- Harun AS was called a messenger/rasul but he followed the shariah of Musa AS and didn't get a new shariah
- Dawud AS was called a prophet/nabi and not a messenger/rasul as he upheld shariah of Musa AS but WAS GIVEN a book
YQ Conclusion (48:10)
- Mentions opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (opinion 7)
- _Nabi is anyone Allah SWT communicates with directly and spreads this message to others_
- _If the nabi is sent to people who REJECT Allah SWT and the message sent, then they are a rasul_
- And a rasul generally are given a book, but that is not a condition to be a rasul
- Adam AS: Was called a prophet/nabi as his children believed in him
- Dawud AS: Was called a prophet/nabi as his people believed in him
- Yusuf AS: Was sent to people of Firawn who rejected the message
- YQ also mentions that book is not really a condition because technically every piece of revelation from Allah is like a book but its just that some had the revelation compiled in a book while some didn't
1:29- Linguistic meanings of Nabi and Rasul
11:15 Functional differences of Nabi and Rasul according to the scholars of Islam
17:02 The numbers of Nabi and Rasul, and it's implications on difference between nabi and rasul
29:40 Opinion 1
30:42 Opinion 2
36:35 Opinion 3
39:00 Opinion 4,5,6
47:55 Opinion 7 (Opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah and Yasir Qadhi's favourite opinion.)
Al hamde li Allah. الحمد لله
Al hamde li Allah
Assalamu alaikkum Jazakallah khair Sheikh
Salaam from Nottingham Uk
وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته
Is it me only who goes to sleep while listening YQ?
The Difference Between a Prophet (Nabī) and a Messenger (Rasūl).
There are many opinions:
1. First opinion: That there is no difference between nabi and rasul. Nabi = rasul; they are synonyms. This does not seem to be the strongest opinion, because of many reasons; of them is the verse in the Quran, "We didn't send before you either a rasul or a nabi except that..." [22:52]. Another example, "And mention in the Book, Moses. Indeed, he was chosen, and he was a messenger and a prophet."[19:51]. "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, ..."[7:157]. Which indicate there is difference between nabi and rasul. Had nabi and rasul been the same thing, this would be against the eloquence of the Arabic language to phrase something like this. It doesn't make sense to put them together in this manner. Some prophet are not called rasul, they are called nabi, for example Yahya in Quran[3:39]. So this is not the strongest opinion.
2. Second opinion: A nabi is one who is inspired by Allah with a revelation but he is not told to preach it to the people. Whereas a rasul is somebody who is told to proclaim it to mankind. The problem of this opinion. Firstly, the ayah [22:52] above clearly says that nabi is also 'sent'. Secondly, it is difficult to imagine Allah inspiring a person with knowledge, and then he stay quiet and does not preach to others. In fact the Muslims are told, "بلغوا عني ولو آية" - so even the average Muslims has to preach. How then can somebody be inspired by Allah and he doesn't preach? "...Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], "You must make it clear [i.e., explain it] to the people and not conceal it."..."[3:187]. ...Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him;...sunnah.com/muslim:1842a, this hadith show that anbiya were sent to Bani Israel. Also in Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet PBUH said, "I saw all of the prophets on the DoJ, and there was a nabi with a huge ummah, and there was a nabi and he had a small group, and there was a nabi and he had 5 people, and there was a nabi he had 2 people, and there was a nabi he had no people following him" - shows that nabis were also preaching to the people, and have followings. In another hadith, ""...Who are you?" He (ﷺ) said, "I am a Prophet." I asked; "What is a Prophet?" He said, "Allah has sent me (with a message)"....sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:438". Thus this opinion is also not the strongest.
3. Third opinion: The Rasul is the one who Jibril comes to, and the nabi his nubuwwah comes through inspiration without Jibril. The respond is that there is not seem to be any evidence.
4. Fourth opinion: The Rasul has a miracle and book.
5. Fifth opinion: A rasul is someone who has been given a new sharia (code of laws). Whereas a nabi is someone who follows the sharia of the rasul before him. Of the evidence is the hadith "The learned are the heirs of the Prophets...sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1388", al-Ulama waratshatu al-Anbiya. So Yahya is Nabi, Isa is Rasul. Yusha is Nabi, and Musa is Rasul. This opinion seems to be good but it doesn't match up to all of the examples. E.g. By this definition, Yusuf AS wouldn't be a rasul. But the Qur'an [40:34] clearly mentions Yusuf as a rasul. Another example is: If a nabi is someone who follows the sharia of the previous prophets, Adam AS would have been a rasul. But in Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet PBUH said, "The first rasul is Nuh AS." So Adam is a nabi but not a rasul. Another example is Harun is a Rasul, eventhough he followed the Shariah of Musa, " 'Indeed, we are messengers of your Lord,"[20:47].
6. Sixth opinion: The correct opinion seems to be the one that Ibn Taymiyyah propounded. He says let's look at the linguistic meaning of nabi and rasul. Nabi comes from naba'a which means information. So a nabi is somebody who informs you what Allah wants him to inform - nabi has information from Allah and has to preach and teach - The word nabi automatically implies he is speaking to you a message from Allah. Rasul comes from arsala yursilu rasulan which means to send (a delegate/emissary/representative/ambassador). So a rasul is somebody Allah sends, generally to a nation that he is not on friendly terms with i.e. a nation that does not believe in him. Whereas a nabi teaches to a people that already accepts him. If you look at this definition, all the raw data fits into place. Did any of Adam's children reject him? No. Did any of Idris's people reject him? No. How about Nuh? People rejected him. And in Sahih Bukhari, the the Prophet PBUH confirms that he is a rasul. Yusuf AS is also a rasul because he is sent to the non-believers of Egypt. Another classic example is Yahya AS and Isa AS; two cousins, their mothers were sisters. But one is a nabi and the other a rasul because they accepted Yahya and rejected Isa. So this definition seems to be precise.
Generally every rasul does have a new sharia (but this is not a rule, it's just a symptom/adjective which has exceptions).
and Allah knows best.
Very helpful
I like the fifth and fourth opinion
Wonderful. Thank you.
Jazakallah for this new series. Is it true that several ambia were killed by their people but not a single Rasool as ISA alaihisalaam was lifted and saved by Allah.
Assalamoualaikum sheikh I love you for the sake of Allah
Im attached to Sheikh YQ’s voice. I almost always doze off when listening to him.
Alhamdulillah. I'm third. Jazaakumullah.
Was Luqman a Nabi? Wa Laqad 'Ātaynā Luqmāna Al-Ĥikmata "Indeed, We blessed Luqmân with wisdom" (31:12)
He addresses this in the beginning of episode 5 in this series brother
Bismillah
Beautiful. Masha’Allah. What about Yunus and Lut?
Based on YQ's explanation of ibn Taymiyya, I'd argue they were both rasul, since their people openly defied them and there was that back and forth between them. I'm just a random UA-cam comment btw. My opinion holds no scholarly weight ☺
What about Lūt? He was a prophet but his people rejected him.
Is it only me or there is a annoying distortion in recording?
NO its fine
There is a knocking in the audio. Do you hear it, too?
Time-stamp (ignore)
~30:00
~Go to lecture 4
There was a tapping sound in the middle of the seerah,
I don’t know whether anyone else noticed it or not
i thought that there is an insect in my room 😂
I’m confused. If a nabi is one who is accepted by his people, how can some be both a nabi and rasool?
a nabi is someone who is accepted by people and when people reject him the Nabi becomes a special kind of Nabi called a Rasul
13:00 'gas' and 'petrol'
Reference about no new rules were not provided pls?
But Abraham's people rejected him but he's never called a rasul.....
As far as i know.....every Rasool is a Prophet, but not every Prophet is a Rasool!!
Thats an explanation to keep it simple but not entirely correct.
@@MB-id1uh LOL, really?!! U clearly dont know what u dont know!!
Let me simplify it 4 u!!! rationally, a rasool is the 1 commanded specifically to convey the divine instructions to specific people but if he is not commanded to convey any specific message, then he remains a prophet (nabi) only.
@@farzanak8107 did you watch the lecture brother
@@MB-id1uh My dear bro, I dont need 2!! what I stated is my own theological conclusion!!
4 more refer 2 Sahih Bukhari, #3340
May Allah bless u!!
@@farzanak8107 ameen
But your last definition doesn't fit the description that all Rasul are Nabi
Sheikh Qadi’s preference on this matter doesn’t make sense
“ A Rasool is someone who received resistance, denial to his message and had to establish himself . A Nabi is someone sent to a people who already accepted his message. “
How about Yahya as , he was a Nabi . Was he accepted by his people . No. He was beheaded .
Therefore this view doesn’t have a firm leg to stand on. All the other views also have flaws and exceptions.
It is best to leave this to Allah
Just curious, who’s the Qari in the beginning of the video?
Deluded
Read Book of Allah with care
Surah Anam verse 80 _92
As salaamu alaykum,in light of this video my question to Shaykh Yasir Qadhi is; What is proper response to those who claim that ‘messengers (رسول الله )’ will come after the Prophet (S.A.W) ?
السلام عليكم
Quran 33:40 ...
@@markward3981 Thank you brother,but when this verse is quoted, the response is always “the verse says seal of the prophets not seal of the messengers “.
@@aburayyaanabuakilah4482
You are welcome. Don't let them side step it. One recitation says Khattam , another recitation says Khattim. One means last , one means seal. So the Ayat actually says Muhammad ( peace be upon him), is the messenger of Allah and the seal of and last of the prophet . No matter which meaning one takes the dominant opinion is you will not have a messenger who is not also a prophet , so by closing the line and sealing it ...it is over , the will be no others . Please let me know if this makes it clear .
@@markward3981 May Allah reward you beloved.
@@aburayyaanabuakilah4482
Ameen and for you.
I am confused Dr Yasir Qadhi Said at the end Nabi is someone who the people wont be rejecting him or are expecting him to come, Prophet Muhammad SAW according to many narrations people were expecting him even Khadijah RA knew about a last prophet who will come so? isnt it contradicting with the first statement? i am confused
@Syed Osama The Quraish didn't expect a prophet nor did they even know what the concept of a prophet is. The jews of Medina and Waraqah ibn nawaf who was a jew/Christian expected that a prophet is to come. The Quraish rejected the prophet (pbuh) so this would prove the last opinion. I don't know exactly about Khadijah but what I know is that she wasn't expecting a prophet too but she knew that her uncle Waraqah ibn nawal believed this.
@@monaa.6148 ahhhh makes sense thank you so much
So by this definition which I see most fit, does that mean Khidr and Dhul Qarnayan were anbiya. Both had knowledge from Allah
6th opinion, which is of Shykh Al Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, is most appealing.
But how do we say that The Messanger is one whose message is being opposed.
In the case of Musa, only few people opposed and majority accepted it. Whereas in the case of our Messanger (pbuh), there were minority who accepted islam Immediately like Abu Bakr As Siddiq, Ali Ibn Talib, Khadija, Zaid Ibn Thabit, etc. And majority were opposing.
Does it mean that if only one among the audience rejects the message, The One who is sent by Allah(swt) is The Messanger.
Musa also came with the message to Pharaoh and his people who openly opposed. Also, refer to the story of the Banu Israel during their wandering and when Musa went up the mountain. They were a rebellious people who open defied the commands of Allah and argued with both Musa and Harun.
A simpler way to say this would be, A rasool faces rejection from his people even if some of them believe but a nabi is sent to a believing nation to revtify their affairs and clarify the message. And Allah knows best.
@@aronora4636 Alhamdulillah,
Very good response.
I have one or I should say two questions. What is Younus(Jonah)? Prophet or Messanger?
@@ismailshekh6947 Quran explicitly calls Yunus/Jonah a Rasul (37:139). As for fitting with this definition, i must say that I'm not entirely aware of the situation of the people of Yunus. However, the context of Surah Yunus suggests that they initially disbelieved but then all of them believed due to which Allah removed their punishment. The fact that Allah removed the punishment suggests that they used to be punished due to their opposition to Yunus. But again, this isn't something i am entirely aware of.
What about Ismail (as)? Why is he referred to as a Messenger?
@@abid4597 Indeed you are right. Qur'an gives status of Rasool and Nabi to Isma'il.
وَٱذْكُرْ فِى ٱلْكِتَٰبِ إِسْمَٰعِيلَۚ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ صَادِقَ ٱلْوَعْدِ وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَّبِيًّا
And mention in the Book, Ishmael. Indeed, he was true to his promise, and he was a messenger and a prophet.⁵⁴ || Maryam¹⁹
Anyone know is there any website that compile yasir qadhi lectures notes?
Thats a link to notes for his seerah series
email me at muhammad.umar.ismail.23@gmail.com a friend of mine tried to make some notes of his series :)
Sheikh sorry but last opinion does not fit Ayah 2:87 and the hadith.
1. "And we certainly gave Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers(Rusul). And we gave Jesus(RA), the son of Mary clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it (not) that every time a messenger came to you( O Bani Israel), with what your souls didn't desire, you were arrogant. And a party(of messengers) you denied and another party you killed".
If messengers were sent to only disbelievers, then why did Bani Israel receive messengers? "Messengers came with something you didn't desire" means rasool sometimes or always had new orders or shariah for people to follow.
2. The hadith you mentioned about prophets with no followers, if nabi goes to believing people then why did they not have any followers?
Only Allah knows best and seems like none of the explanation explains the topic in entirety.
JazakAllah
Nice line of thought which I also thought about. Add to this Surah Zukhruf Q43v7; 'And there did not come to them any Prophet except they used to ridicule him'. If he was sent to a people who ae welcoming him, why then do they ridicule him?.
I really hope Dr.Yasir Qadhi sees this and responds. May Allah reward him and us in this path. Aamin
@asleep on internet awake in life Wsalam, the first half of your explanation makes perfect sense. It could be that they reminded bani israel of the shariah of moses or some new orders too, or a new problem would have arisen so they could have brought appropriate orders from Allah SWT.
But the second one is quite hard to digest. If they didn't oppose the nabi, then they should have listened to his message, i don't think one has the option to ignore a prophet. Wallah alam, i hope sheikh looks into that matter.
@@abdullahgbenusola533 i agree with you, the verse you quoted also contradicts the last explanation, i hope Sheikh sees this.
@@arslanmushtaq9774 asalamu alakum I think you could ignore a prophet & you don't need go out & oppose him publicly nor active in opposing the message & cause wars you get me? perhaps that's how the 1 prophet in the hadith had 0 followers allah knows best
@@maganhassan2627wsalam, i get your point and it could be true but such indifference seems highly unlikely. Wallah Alam
Why you talk in so complicated way that we don’t understand well
RESPOND TO MUFTI ABU LAYTH
Barakalahu fik