Good news for all messengers.:)
-
Peace Br,
Where in Quran it says " Quran Alone? I know it says " God Alone" for sure.
I think it's not wrong to also read The Bible because to fully understand Quran begin to read the Bible and then the Quran. I don't know about your message to her, but what i have seen is that everything she says is quotes from either the Bible or the Quran and that is good. She not use her own words to try to create new hadiths or something.Maria
peace all
just thinking.
since the quran confirms what is in the torah, injeel & psalms would it be just perfect to just quote from the quran alone? whatever you impart from the quran, we are certain that these are also in the previous scriptures.
if we quote from the previous scriptures and after that we determine if they are not in contradiction with the quran, wouldn't it be like admitting that we can quote from the hadiths as long as they are in line with the quran?
I believe in the previous scriptures in obedience to God. I sometimes quote from them. BUT if the quran confirms what are in them, why not just focus on the quran in imparting God's message to humanity?
just my two cents...
peace jedi
O0 ramon O0
-
Peace Truthseeker11,
It can only be Lord alone in 1746 and not quran alone, according to Arabic grammar and linguistics. The translation quoted by Ahmad is incorrect. The correct translation is
1746 And we place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord alone in the Qur?an, they run away turning their backs in aversion.
The Arabic word is "wahdahu" which can only refer to "rabbaka" according to Arabic grammar, and cannot refer to "alquran"; it does not matter where the position of "wahdahu" is. If it was "wahdihi", then it would be referring to alquran.
This is incorrect. Here's what the verse says
WajaAAalna AAala quloobihim akinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-itha thakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran
If the word "alone/only" was referring to the Lord Himself, then it would come after "rabbaka", not "alquran". Therefore, the literal translation would say
And We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using THE QURAN ALONE (alqurani wahdahu), they run away in aversion.
The translation you used is grossly incorrect. There's nowhere in that verse that says "Lord alone". The position of the word "wahdahu" determines what the subject is speaking about. For example
Qaloo aji/tana linaAAbuda Allaha wahdahu wanathara ma kana yaAAbudu abaona fa/tina bima taAAiduna in kunta mina alssadiqeena (770)
This is saying "GOD ALONE", and this makes it evident that 1746 was not talking about GOD Himself, it was talking about the QURAN ALONE...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Truthseeker11,
This is incorrect. Here's what the verse says
WajaAAalna AAala quloobihim akinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-itha thakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran
If the word "alone/only" was referring to the Lord Himself, then it would come after "rabbaka", not "alquran". Therefore, the literal translation would say
And We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using THE QURAN ALONE (alqurani wahdahu), they run away in aversion.
The translation you used is grossly incorrect. There's nowhere in that verse that says "Lord alone". The position of the word "wahdahu" determines what the subject is speaking about. For example
Qaloo aji/tana linaAAbuda Allaha wahdahu wanathara ma kana yaAAbudu abaona fa/tina bima taAAiduna in kunta mina alssadiqeena (770)
This is saying "GOD ALONE", and this makes it evident that 1746 was not talking about GOD Himself, it was talking about the QURAN ALONE...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace brother Bilal
Arabic grammar is something very precise and it does not give much room for doubting which word is attached to which one...
You are arguing about the position of the word, whether it should have been right after RABBAKA if it was attached to RABBAKA... And since it is after FIL QURAANI, therefore you are advocating it must be attached to AL QURAN... This is wrong...
One of the main characteristics of arabic words is their case and this case is versy important...
RABBAKA is mansoob... (it is not rabbika/rabbouka) ... Therefore, any SWIFFAT/Adjective attached to RABBAKA should be mansoob also....
AL QURAANI is majroor... it ends with kasra(i)... it is not Quraana/Quraanou ... it is majroor because it comes after the preposition IN/Fii ... Therefore, any adjective attached to Quraan should be majroor also...
This is the basic grammar rule of SWIFA/MAWSOOF... which implies that the SWIFA(adj.) will always follow the case of the MAWSOOF... if follow the case in gender as well as plurality....
Now the famous word that is causing trouble here is WAHDAHOU...
WAHDAHOU is mansoob also.... hence, it CANNOT be attached to AL QURAANI because AL QURAANI is majroor in this phrase.... Whereas, it will attach with RABBAKA because RABBAKA is mansoob also....
So grammar-wise, ALONE is for GOD ALONE and not QURAN ALONE....
However, we do not need this verse to prove that we need to follow the QURAN alone brothers and sisters, there are so many verses in the QURAN which make us know that the only REVELATION that the messenger received is AL QURAN.... is not that enough?
Would like to get your replies...
Regards
-
Peace WayFinder,
You are arguing about the position of the word, whether it should have been right after RABBAKA if it was attached to RABBAKA... And since it is after FIL QURAANI, therefore you are advocating it must be attached to AL QURAN... This is wrong...
One of the main characteristics of arabic words is their case and this case is versy important...
RABBAKA is mansoob... (it is not rabbika/rabbouka) ... Therefore, any SWIFFAT/Adjective attached to RABBAKA should be mansoob also....
AL QURAANI is majroor... it ends with kasra(i)... it is not Quraana/Quraanou ... it is majroor because it comes after the preposition IN/Fii ... Therefore, any adjective attached to Quraan should be majroor also...
This is the basic grammar rule of SWIFA/MAWSOOF... which implies that the SWIFA(adj.) will always follow the case of the MAWSOOF... if follow the case in gender as well as plurality....
This is incorrect, especially in this instance. There are plenty of scriptures that use the words "GOD ALONE", and in all of them, the word "wahdahu" is used directly after the subject ("allah". In this case, the word "wahdahu" is used after the subject of "al-quran". This is the clearest way to interpret the meaning of the statement. It would be grammatically correct to say "rabbaka wahdahu", so why wasn't this used instead of "alqurani wahdahu"?
WAHDAHOU is mansoob also.... hence, it CANNOT be attached to AL QURAANI because AL QURAANI is majroor in this phrase.... Whereas, it will attach with RABBAKA because RABBAKA is mansoob also....
So grammar-wise, ALONE is for GOD ALONE and not QURAN ALONE....
This is wrong as well, and I already showed you from 770 what "GOD ALONE" looks like. If the verse was stating "the god alone", it would say "allaha wahdahu", not "alqurani wahdahu". If you wanted to convey the message of "LORD ALONE IN THE QURAN", it would say "rabbaka wahdahu fee alquran", not the other way around. The positioning of certain words can make a huge difference in the message being conveyed - if the words are rearranged, the sentence says something completely different.
However, we do not need this verse to prove that we need to follow the QURAN alone brothers and sisters, there are so many verses in the QURAN which make us know that the only REVELATION that the messenger received is AL QURAN.... is not that enough?
We're instructed to believe in all the messengers and the scriptures, not just Mohammed's revelation. However, you are correct in the Quran proclaiming it's singularity in religious doctrine when it comes to submitters, especially when GOD said it is 'complete, perfect, and fully detailed' (619, 38, 114, 115; 5045). It confirms the previous scriptures, and it also supercedes them, becoming the only source of religious guidance for us that we need...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
WAHDAHOU is mansoob also.... hence, it CANNOT be attached to AL QURAANI because AL QURAANI is majroor in this phrase.... Whereas, it will attach with RABBAKA because RABBAKA is mansoob also....
So grammar-wise, ALONE is for GOD ALONE and not QURAN ALONE....
Peace all
I agree with Wayfinder grammer analysis.
Here is one of the verses that confirms his analysis(
When Allah is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are filled with disgust and horror; but when other than He are mentioned, behold, they are filled with joy! (39-45)However, we do not need this verse to prove that we need to follow the QURAN alone brothers and sisters, there are so many verses in the QURAN which make us know that the only REVELATION that the messenger received is AL QURAN.... is not that enough?
You are right, Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) recieved one book--The Quran. But also, the prophet was ordered, as well the believers, to say
( (
Say "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in what was given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we submitt(84) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost. (3-85)
Peace
-
Peace Belalhammad,
I agree with Wayfinder grammer analysis.
Here is one of the verses that confirms his analysis(
When Allah is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are filled with disgust and horror; but when other than He are mentioned, behold, they are filled with joy! (39-45)That is another case of word-confusion. That verse (3945) clearly says "allahu wahdahu", or "GOD ALONE", and if anything, it proves my point even moreso. The words "alqurani wahdahu" (1746) translate to "the quran alone"...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Belalhammad,
That is another case of word-confusion. That verse (3945) clearly says "allahu wahdahu", or "GOD ALONE", and if anything, it proves my point even moreso. The words "alqurani wahdahu" (1746) translate to "the quran alone"...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Ahmad
The good news is both meanings are confirmed by Quran; thus, there is no dispute
May God Bless you All. handshake -
Peace Belalhammad,
That is another case of word-confusion. That verse (3945) clearly says "allahu wahdahu", or "GOD ALONE", and if anything, it proves my point even moreso. The words "alqurani wahdahu" (1746) translate to "the quran alone"...
Peace,
Ahmad, I need to ask you a question so I can understand what you mean
If the verse to say " And when you recite Allah, using THE QURAN ALONE (alqurani wahdahu), they run away in aversion", Do you mean that we, as believers, we should ignore when God is mientioned in the Bible and Torah?
The reason I'm saying this is because your translation can be understood that God's name is only mentioned in the "Quran Alone". -
peace all
there is no conflict.
God orders us to believe in all the scriptures, and we must obey without much ado. However, it is more than enough to impart God's message to humanity using the quran alone. after all, the quran confirms the previous scriptures. Since it confirms the previous scriptures, it follows that whatever is in the quran is in the previous scriptures.
it does not work the other way around though. we still have to determine if what is "now contained" in the previous scriptures is in the quran.
may God increase our knowledge.
peace.
ramon
O0 O0 -
Peace Belalhammad,
If the verse to say " And when you recite Allah, using THE QURAN ALONE (alqurani wahdahu), they run away in aversion", Do you mean that we, as believers, we should ignore when God is mientioned in the Bible and Torah?
The reason I'm saying this is because your translation can be understood that God's name is only mentioned in the "Quran Alone".No, that's not what I'm saying. GOD's name is mentioned plenty of times in the Torah, and it is proclaimed in the Gospel as well. This is an undenied fact. However, since the Quran confirms and supercedes the previous scriptures, "alqurani wahdahu" is the only source we need for religious guidance. This is emphasized in the preceding verse as well
He is glorified by the seven universes and the earth and who is in them, and there is not a thing but it glorifies His praise, but you do not understand their glorification. He is Compassionate, Forgiving. And when you study the Quran, We place between you and between those who do not believe in the Hereafter an invisible barrier. (1744, 45)
GOD's name is glorified in the Torah and Gospel, but it is also glorified throughout the universe. This can even be used as indirect evidence of the number "19" being used throughout the creation, viewed by some as "GOD's signature". So, everything proclaims GOD's glory and reminds us of our great creator. However, in 1746, it speaks of us mentioning Him in "alqurani wahdahu", making this the only source of religious guidance we should use.
Peace The Seeker,
God orders us to believe in all the scriptures, and we must obey without much ado. However, it is more than enough to impart God's message to humanity using the quran alone. after all, the quran confirms the previous scriptures. Since it confirms the previous scriptures, it follows that whatever is in the quran is in the previous scriptures.
it does not work the other way around though. we still have to determine if what is "now contained" in the previous scriptures is in the quran.
I agree with you - the Quran is more than enough as a religious source. The Quran recites the previous scripture, and that's how it's confirmed. It doesn't mean we have to examine the Torah to see what it says, and then to follow those things, though. None of that is necessary. Everything we need from the Torah and Gospel is contained in the Quran, and in this sense, following the Quran IS following the Torah and the Gospel. May GOD lead us to understand His scripture. Surely, He is the most knowledgeable and wise.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Belalhammad,
That is another case of word-confusion. That verse (3945) clearly says "allahu wahdahu", or "GOD ALONE", and if anything, it proves my point even moreso. The words "alqurani wahdahu" (1746) translate to "the quran alone"...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace brother Bilal
I want to make my position clear... I believe that the only source of deen is Al-Quran alone and no other books should mingle with it...
That said... I still disapprove your translation of the above verse since Grammar-wise it is INCORRECT... Arabic grammar is derived from the Quran itself... So it cannot be incorrect... The translation you are giving (quran alone) is more of YOUR INTERPRETATION of the verse and NOT THE WORD FOR WORD translation...
However, I AGREE with your interpretation too... The words has been ARRANGED by ALLAH the MOST-WISE to convey both message at the same time... QURAN ALONE through the direct wording/translation and GOD ALONE through the interpretation/reference... I think you should agree on this one...
I give you another instance of similar double meanings from the Quran...
22 ZAALIKAL KITAABOU LAA RAYBA FIIHI HOUDAL LIL MOUTAQEEN
You can translate this verse in 2 ways...
- This is the book in which there is no doubt, guidance for the moutaqeen
- This in the book that has no doubt; in it there is guidance for the mutaqeen
It depends to which word you are attaching the preposition IN/FII ...
Though they both convey the same message...
So bro Bilal, I think you should always give correct word for word translation first, that is grammatically correct, then you share interpretation/opinion and insights separately.... peace
Regards
-
This is how it should have been written it it was attached to Al-Quraani...
Peace
Oldest copy of Quran has no punctuation sign as vowels. Don?t you think that due to believing in Hadith just by changing E to O which is not effecting word structure causing such situation?
Peace. -
Peace
Oldest copy of Quran has no punctuation sign as vowels. Don?t you think that due to believing in Hadith just by changing E to O which is not effecting word structure causing such situation?
Peace.Peace bro...
Did I spoke about hadith?? I was only talking about arabic grammar and the rules... But no worries, I do not take fixed positions, infact I am doing some more research on this and will share my findings GW...
Regards
-
Peace WayFinder,
The problem is that vocalization marks were added to alquran later and are purely man made. So the dispute is not whether wahdahu can be attached to alqurani because it cannot. The dispute is whether it is "wahdahu" or "wahdihi". The context is used also to determine the correct meaning, so in such a case of dispute over the vocalization marks, the context is what determines the true vocalization.
If you go through my previous post and see the context of 1746 that I quoted, it is crystal clear that in 1746 it can only be "wahdahu" meaning Lord alone, and not "wahdihi" meaning Quran alone. The whole passage is about "tawheed"/oneness of God as opposed to other gods besides Him. This is also supported when you compare 1741 with 1746 which are similar implying Lord alone.
-
Peace bro...
Did I spoke about hadith?? I was only talking about arabic grammar and the rules... But no worries, I do not take fixed positions, infact I am doing some more research on this and will share my findings GW.
RegardsPeace
I did not mean you I say in general that simply by changing a wovel outside of word the meaning of it can be change. Like Motaham or Motahem I can not remeber but one is accused of guily person and other one means proved guilty.
GW when you finish your search and let truth seekers witness fact.
Peace. -
Peace WayFinder,
The problem is that vocalization marks were added to alquran later and are purely man made. So the dispute is not whether wahdahu can be attached to alqurani because it cannot. The dispute is whether it is "wahdahu" or "wahdihi". The context is used also to determine the correct meaning, so in such a case of dispute over the vocalization marks, the context is what determines the true vocalization.
If you go through my previous post and see the context of 1746 that I quoted, it is crystal clear that in 1746 it can only be "wahdahu" meaning Lord alone, and not "wahdihi" meaning Quran alone. The whole passage is about "tawheed"/oneness of God as opposed to other gods besides Him. This is also supported when you compare 1741 with 1746 which are similar implying Lord alone.
Peace
Here you read Christians criticism showing how the meaning of words can be changed by altering the letters same shape like Ba Tah Sa or Jeem .Hah, kha ??ra za ?.but their claim has no base when code 19 in those 29 chapters sealing words .
But vocalization is not protected by code as later was added to Quran.
What would be wrong if we write Wahidi ?
I am learning .
Peace. -
Peace
Here you read Christians criticism showing how the meaning of words can be changed by altering the letters same shape like Ba Tah Sa or Jeem .Hah, kha ??ra za ?.but their claim has no base when code 19 in those 29 chapters sealing words .
But vocalization is not protected by code as later was added to Quran.
What would be wrong if we write Wahidi ?
I am learning .
Peace.These guys are totally neglecting that the main form of preservation was through memorization... When we have hundreds or thousands of people reciting the very same text and they all tally to one another... then putting the diacritics on the alphabets is not a big deal at all... Memorization of the holy quran is still a very common practice in the muslim ummah till now and we have tens of thousands of huffaaz(memorisers) walking on the face of this earth... Will they neglect this fact ?
-
Peace WayFinder,
That said... I still disapprove your translation of the above verse since Grammar-wise it is INCORRECT... Arabic grammar is derived from the Quran itself... So it cannot be incorrect... The translation you are giving (quran alone) is more of YOUR INTERPRETATION of the verse and NOT THE WORD FOR WORD translation...
What exactly do you mean by saying that Arabic grammar is derived from the Quran?
The words has been ARRANGED by ALLAH the MOST-WISE to convey both message at the same time... QURAN ALONE through the direct wording/translation and GOD ALONE through the interpretation/reference...
I agree with the message of GOD ALONE, but I still have to disagree on your translation. You may be correct, though, in saying that possibly GOD, who is the most wise, placed these words together to refer to both meanings. However, in the message saying "QURAN ALONE", it is still alluding to this fact, since the Quran proclaims the message of worshipping GOD ALONE...
Peace Truthseeker,
If you go through my previous post and see the context of 1746 that I quoted, it is crystal clear that in 1746 it can only be "wahdahu" meaning Lord alone, and not "wahdihi" meaning Quran alone. The whole passage is about "tawheed"/oneness of God as opposed to other gods besides Him. This is also supported when you compare 1741 with 1746 which are similar implying Lord alone.
This is also incorrect. I already posted 1744 and 45, and they are speaking of the universes glorifying GOD, and they lead up to Him mentioning the Quran, saying that He places a barrier between those who read it with understanding and those who reject it's message. If 1746 was saying "Lord alone in the Quran", it would say "rabbaka wahdahu fee alquran". So, if GOD was speaking about another reference to the Lord alone (or God alone), then why doesn't He say this? Instead, He attaches the word to the Quran, saying "rabbaka fee alqurani wahdahu". Why do you think this is done?
Peace,
Ahmad