Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. General Issues / Questions
  3. Questions/Comments on the Quran
  4. "We" vs God Alone

"We" vs God Alone

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Questions/Comments on the Quran
138 Posts 26 Posters 4.2k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • U Offline
    U Offline
    unknownuser
    wrote on last edited by
    #65

    Hi OPF

    In the above post, as well as in all my previous ones I wrote exactly what SHM wrote. You remark Very Good post for him, and mock what i typed.

    Brother! i am a little confused, confused because i fail to understand '( the reasons, as to what tickled your funny bone?

    siki

    Don't be offended, I didn't mock anything (intentionally). Remember that I said I was confused? I'm just saying, if God can take 99 names, for whatever reason, why can't he take a royal "We"?

    "come on Guys, let the sense prevail."

    Shall do.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Offline
      S Offline
      siki
      wrote on last edited by
      #66

      Leaders, royalties, or the important personalties , when started using the plural deferential form, their intent was to use it on behalf of other entities, which included in their office/ kingdom/ organisation etc. Like when the pope says , "we will do that" , he means , the Vatican , or when the Queen says/said "we shall,,,,, , " she is declaring on behalf of Monarch.

      Actually it is the commoners like you me who have misunderstood, and made it into a" Royal we", whereas, its intended use by personalties is/was exactly like what God is using in Quran ; That is spelling it on behalf of other entities involved.

      siki

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Offline
        S Offline
        Samia
        wrote on last edited by
        #67

        Peace,

        Everybody check out 812. Yoohee is in present tense and idh does not have to refer to past tense. 5110 is showing lo in it's future capacity like idhaa, or its capacity as in 'so, then' which is seen more clearly in 1747. Just to note even idhan and idhaa can be used interchangeable see the use of idha in 1518(wa maa kaanoo idhan mundhareena) and 17201 (fa idhaa hum mubsiroona)

        Godbless,
        Anwar
        You mean verses 158 and 7201

        (sorry for the late notice. I just started reading this thread today after an absence of more than a week).

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • P Offline
          P Offline
          progod
          wrote on last edited by
          #68

          Thanks Samia,

          Here it goes again

          Everybody check out 812. Yoohee is in present tense and idh does not have to refer to past tense. 5110 is showing lo in it's future capacity like idhaa, or its capacity as in 'so, then' which is seen more clearly in 1747. Just to note even idhan and idhaa can be used interchangeable see the use of idha in 158(wa maa kaanoo idhan mundhareena) and 7201 (fa idhaa hum mubsiroona)

          Godbless,
          Anwar

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • U Offline
            U Offline
            unknownuser
            wrote on last edited by
            #69

            Here's something that might help.

            050.016
            YUSUFALI It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.
            PICKTHAL We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein.
            SHAKIR And certainly We created man, and We know what his mind suggests to him, and We are nearer to him than his life-vein.

            050.017
            YUSUFALI Behold, two (guardian angels) appointed to learn (his doings) learn (and noted them), one sitting on the right and one on the left.
            PICKTHAL When the two Receivers receive (him), seated on the right hand and on the left,
            SHAKIR When the two receivers receive, sitting on the right and on the left.

            050.018
            YUSUFALI Not a word does he utter but there is a sentinel by him, ready (to note it).
            PICKTHAL He uttereth no word but there is with him an observer ready.
            SHAKIR He utters not a word but there is by him a watcher at hand.

            050.019
            YUSUFALI And the stupor of death will bring Truth (before his eyes) "This was the thing which thou wast trying to escape!"
            PICKTHAL And the agony of death cometh in truth. (And it is said unto him) This is that which thou wast wont to shun.
            SHAKIR And the stupor of death will come in truth; that is what you were trying to escape.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A Offline
              A Offline
              alalmakt
              wrote on last edited by
              #70

              Peace everyone,

              1984 - 1986
              Yusuf Ali Translation
              So make no haste against them, for We but count out to them a (limited) number (of days).
              The day We shall gather the righteous to (God) Most Gracious, like a band presented before a king for honours,
              And We shall drive the sinners to Hell, like thirsty cattle driven down to water, -

              Pickthall Translation
              So make no haste against them (O Muhammad). We do but number unto them a sum (of days).
              On the day when We shall gather the righteous unto the Beneficent, a goodly company.
              And drive the guilty unto hell, a weary herd,

              Freeminds Translation
              So do not be impatient; for We are preparing for them a preparation.
              The Day We gather the righteous to the Almighty as a delegation.
              And We drive the criminals to Hell as a herd.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S Offline
                S Offline
                siki
                wrote on last edited by
                #71

                20-11 to 20-23

                When he came to it, he was called, "O, Moses.

                "I am your Lord; remove your sandals. You are in the sacred valley, Tuwa.
                "I have chosen you, so listen to what is being revealed.
                "I am GOD; there is no other god beside Me. You shall worship Me alone, and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) to remember Me.
                "The Hour (end of the world) is surely coming; I will keep it almost hidden, for each soul must be paid for its works.
                "Do not be diverted therefrom by those who do not believe in it - those who pursue their own opinions - lest you fall.
                "What is this in your right hand, Moses?"
                He said, "This is my staff. I lean on it, herd my sheep with it, and I use it for other purposes."
                He said, "Throw it down, Moses."
                He threw it down, whereupon it turned into a moving serpent.
                He said, "Pick it up; do not be afraid. We will return it to its original state.
                "And hold your hand under your wing; it will come out white without a blemish; another proof.

                "We thus show you some of our great portents.

                Any comments on the above?

                See, how the speech changes from , "I" to "He" and then to "We"?

                what i think , "This "I "part is direct revelation from lord straight to Mohammad's heart, bypassing all intermediary/controllers

                Then the speech is taken over by someone else, may be "Gabriel", and that is why at the end it converts to a we.

                siki

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P Offline
                  P Offline
                  progod
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #72

                  Sikki Peace,

                  You said

                  There is no Royal we in God,s language.

                  This worries me brother. Do you beileve that Classical Arabic is God's language? Or that the Classical Arabic language in the Quran is God's langauge? Classical Arabic is a human language and the Quran is God's message revealed in this very human language. So, do you really believe that Classical Arabic is God's language? Please don't think this, this is the cause of much trouble and misunderstanding amongst Muslims. The message is God's not the language.

                  Godbless,
                  Anwar

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S Offline
                    S Offline
                    siki
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #73

                    Sikki Peace,

                    You said
                    This worries me brother. Do you beileve that Classical Arabic is God's language? Or that the Classical Arabic language in the Quran is God's langauge? Classical Arabic is a human language and the Quran is God's message revealed in this very human language. So, do you really believe that Classical Arabic is God's language? Please don't think this, this is the cause of much trouble and misunderstanding amongst Muslims. The message is God's not the language.

                    Godbless,
                    Anwar

                    I agree with you and there is no doubt regarding the issue, i admit, that i worded the sentence casually. However i maintain that Quran can not have a Royal we.

                    siki

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • N Offline
                      N Offline
                      nerspi
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #74

                      selam

                      1985 The Day We gather the righteous to the Almighty as a delegation.

                      well that says it all.

                      there is one thing still bothering me
                      1850 And We said to the angels "Yield to Adam." So they all yielded except for Satan, he was of the Jinn, so he disobeyed the order of his Lord. Will you take him and his progeny as allies besides Me, while they are your enemy? Miserable for the wicked is the substitute!

                      1851 I did not make them witness the creation of heavens and Earth, nor the creation of themselves. Nor do I take the misleaders as helpers.

                      who was not the witness? angels or satan?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • E Offline
                        E Offline
                        Elke
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #75

                        paece nerspi,

                        question should be the angels (alone) or both (the angels and satan). Second would be my guess.

                        lk

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • N Offline
                          N Offline
                          nerspi
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #76

                          peace

                          were there witnesses when God was creating humans?

                          i thought based on 1851 there were not any witnesses, so why do i hear people say that there were angels participating.

                          or is 1851 talking about creating something other then humans?

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • J Offline
                            J Offline
                            Jack
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #77

                            peace nerspi

                            i think 1851 is referring to the just the jinns, watch the wording carefully

                            1850 And We said to the angels "Yield to Adam." So they all yielded except for Satan, he was of the Jinn, so he disobeyed the order of his Lord. Will you take him and his progeny as allies besides Me, while they are your enemy? Miserable for the wicked is the substitute!

                            1851 I did not make them (satan and his progeny) witness the creation of heavens and Earth, nor the creation of themselves. Nor do I take the misleaders as helpers.

                            the misleaders would be referring to the evil ones thus 'angels' excluded.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • P Offline
                              P Offline
                              progod
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #78

                              Peace,

                              I looked in Muheetul-Muheeti under Jinn and it has alot of meanings (even jannatun does)

                              Jannatun (from jannatul-laili) cover/darkeness
                              Jinnun dhulmatun (darkness), ikhtilaatudhalaami(covering/coming of darkness), most (mu&thamanaasi=jinnunaasi (most people).

                              Al-jinnu the angels (al-malaa'ikatu) just like Jinnatun (ka-jinnatin)
                              As it concerns the youth or besides the youth (ashabaabu wa ghairuhu) it means the first(or best) and the most recent/youngest (awwaluhu wa hidthaanuhu(plural of hadeeth meaning recent/new))
                              As it concerns plants it's flowers or its blossoms (wa anabtu zahruhu wa nawruhu).
                              Jannatun a garden with palms and trees
                              the expression laa jinna = laa khafaa'a (there's not hiding (it), nothing hidden)
                              and baitujinnin= below a snowy mountain and the description is jinaaneeyun.

                              Strangely enough I didn't read anything about spirits.

                              Godbless,
                              Anwar

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • M Offline
                                M Offline
                                maxq
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #79

                                Anwar, keep up the good work bro!

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • M Offline
                                  M Offline
                                  Mazhar
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #80

                                  In Urdu language too "I" and "We" is used by one person, when giving command, instructions, orders or telling about some thing big done by him. Some people commonly use "We" instead of "I" even in ordinary conversation.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    siki
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #81

                                    In Urdu language too "I" and "We" is used by one person, when giving command, instructions, orders or telling about some thing big done by him. Some people commonly use "We" instead of "I" even in ordinary conversation.

                                    Brother! i recommend , that you go through the whole thread.(for royal we)

                                    siki

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • U Offline
                                      U Offline
                                      unknownuser
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #82

                                      Just to revisit this thread, can it be said that if the quran uses its own grammatical constructs, that it is wrong?

                                      In 7156, either the case is made for a trinity, or polytheism, or simply, there is a royal We in use. Since when did other books restrict quranic grammar?

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        Samia
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #83

                                        Just to revisit this thread, can it be said that if the quran uses its own grammatical constructs, that it is wrong?

                                        In 7156, either the case is made for a trinity, or polytheism, or simply, there is a royal We in use. Since when did other books restrict quranic grammar?

                                        The quraan was revealed in a spoken language. Spoken Arabic does not respect grammar.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • U Offline
                                          U Offline
                                          unknownuser
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #84

                                          The quraan was revealed in a spoken language. Spoken Arabic does not respect grammar.

                                          The quran itself disagrees with that? I.e. in 121-2, 413. But more importantly, 4612 is related to the topic, mentioning Moses directly and again, describes it as a book, not just a recital. Evidently it is primarily a book.

                                          So why the hubbub, either way? You have one God equated with a plural, and your answer is that it doesn't follow grammar, why the different case for the other instances of "We" or "Our"?

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users