Can someone please clarify the wording in 17:46
-
When you go back to verse 1742, you find the root of this verse (46)
"Say If there were other gods with Him as they say ..."
The translation would be what brother Tanweer mentioned God aloneThe only important thing to make the two verses differ in meaning is the vocalization of "wahdahu or wahdihi", not the position of words. The Arabic sentence is not structure sensitive.
itha thakarta rabbaka fil quraani wahdahu wahdahu (alone) is related to rabbaka
iha thakarta rabbaka fil quraani whdihi wahdihu is related to alquraaniIt does not matter where you put wahdahu after rabbaka/Allah or after alquraan. What matters is its grammatical vocalization which determines its function.
Correction The whole part in italics is wrong. Please ignore it. The "wahdahu" is always in the accusative as it is always considered "condition ", not adjective.
Peace
how you write
whdihi
same using Kesra or adding Yah
Peace.Please see above correction.
-
Peace Samia and WayFinder,
bravo bravo
-
According to Arabic grammar, "wahdahu" in 1746 can refer only to "rabbaka"/your Lord.
-
By cross referencing in alquran, "wahdahu" is always used for God.
-
There is no such thing as "wahdihi" so it cannot be "wahdihi" in 1746 referring to alquran.
-
The context of 1746 of "tawheed" and similarity with 1741 also points out to "wahdahu" referring to "rabbaka".
HENCE 1746 CAN ONLY BE TRANSLATED AS "LORD ALONE".
-
-
Correction The whole part in italics is wrong. Please ignore it. The "wahdahu" is always in the accusative as it is always considered "condition ", not adjective.
Please see above correction.Peace
ould you please explain more. and anybody kows when and who did vocalization of Quran
here is oldest one do not have vocalization.
http//www.bibleprobe.com/othmankoran.jpg
http//www.irfi.org/articles/articles_401_450/oldest_quran_in_the_world.htm
peace -
Peace to all,
Weren't we just having this same conversation in another thread?
HENCE 1746 CAN ONLY BE TRANSLATED AS "LORD ALONE".
If 1746 was translated directly as "Lord alone", it would read like this "rabbaka wahdahu fee alquran", just like all the other verses mentioning the worship of "GOD alone", attaching the word "wahdahu" to "GOD" or "Lord". Instead, however, 1746 says "rabbaka fee alqurani wahdahu". Do you think this wording by GOD was coincidental? I don't believe the Lord to be a god of coincidences, so I believe that He intentionally attached the word "wahdahu" to "alquran"; this was not a mistake. Do you feel differently?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace bro
Yes I do feel differently ) ...
As I pointed out, WAHDAHOU is always being used as HAAL in the QURAN... And grammar-wise, context-wise as well as per the global usage of WAHDAHOU in the QURAN, it has always been attached to ALLAH because the deen of AR-RAHMAAN is to worship him ALONE....
As far as translation goes... You CANNOT translate the verse as QURAN ALONE... However, as I pointed out in the other thread... The 1746 is a little different in the sense that firstly WAHDAHOU is not directly after RABBAKA and secondly, RABBAKA is being used in this verse whereas in all the other verses ALLAH is used... Again this is not coincidence... the meaning is far bigger... And we can DEDUCE logically by this difference in the phrase composition that it LORD ALONE is SUPPORTED through the QURAN ALONE....
Again, this is deduction/interpretation but not direct word for word translation.... Literal translation is LORD ALONE...
Allah knows best...
-
Peace WayFinder,
Yes I do feel differently ) ...
So, you feel that GOD made a mistake with the wording?
Literal translation is LORD ALONE...
The simpler way of stating "Lord alone" would be "rabbaka wahdahu". So, why are the words "rabbaka fil alqurani wahdahu" instead of "rabbaka wahdahu fil alquran"? Wouldn't this be more logical? Do you think GOD made a mistake in this verse?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace WayFinder,
So, you feel that GOD made a mistake with the wording?
Sincerely brother... Did you really think I mean this?
The simpler way of stating "Lord alone" would be "rabbaka wahdahu". So, why are the words "rabbaka fil alqurani wahdahu" instead of "rabbaka wahdahu fil alquran"? Wouldn't this be more logical? Do you think GOD made a mistake in this verse?
Peace,
Ahmad
Bro, who said there is a mistake in this verse... it is only you saying this... This verse has no mistakes and is 100% correct grammatically... I already gave an explanation on this phrase composition several times now... I do not know why some bros are brickwall brickwall like this...
Forcing a meaning on some verses WILL NOT WORK.... Sorry for that bro.... However, you should read my most recent post before this one and you will get a better understanding of what I want to say....
If you keep doing it this way, people will not believe because the TEXT is not saying what you are implying... Believe me, I know what I am advocating, here in my country, books have been written to REFUTE those who follow QURAN ONLY... and one of their strong points is this verse and its WRONG translation by Quran Aloners.... I am saying it again, there are so many other verses which STATES CLEARLY that the QURAN is the ONLY revelation to be FOLLOWED... No need to force meanings into them, so use these plain verses instead... It will be much better....
Allah knows best
-
Peace WayFinder,
Forcing a meaning on some verses WILL NOT WORK.... Sorry for that bro.... However, you should read my most recent post before this one and you will get a better understanding of what I want to say....
I'm not talking about forcing a meaning on anything, and I'm not talking about grammatical application. I'm talking about the direct, literal translation. In all the other verses, the word "wahdahu" appears directly after the subject, GOD Himself. However, in this verse, it doesn't appear this way. So, based on clear verses from the Quran in all the other instances, GOD says
Allahu wahdahu
Allahu wahdahu
Allahu wahdahu
Allahu wahdahu
Allahu wahdahuIn the instance of the word "rabb" in place of "allah", it would say "rabbaka wahdahu". So, even based on the other well-defined verses, it would present a clearer message by saying "rabbaka wahdahu fee alquran" (lord alone in the reading). Instead, though, it says "rabbaka fee alqurani wahdahu".
rabbaka wahdahu fee alquran ----- rabbaka fee alqurani wahdahu
So, if these two meanings are the exact same thing, if GOD was presenting a clear message, which according to the quran He was, then why wouldn't He state the first instead of the second? The second statement produces a grouping of the words to fit this arrangement
-rabb (lord or master)
-fil (in/within)
-alquran (the reading)
-wahdahu (alone)Why would GOD place such an unclear statement in His clear book (299; 2216; 241; 3443; 467)? Why would GOD arrange the words in a way in which they say "alquran wahdahu" (quran alone) instead of "rabbaka wahdahu" if He was referring to "your lord alone"? Wouldn't this cause confusion?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Why would GOD place such an unclear statement in His clear book (299; 2216; 241; 3443; 467)? Why would GOD arrange the words in a way in which they say "alquran wahdahu" (quran alone) instead of "rabbaka wahdahu" if He was referring to "your lord alone"? Wouldn't this cause confusion?
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Bro Ahmad
I do not know if it is only me.... but I DO NOT SEE ANY CONFUSION in this verse.... And it is VERY CLEAR too... So why confusion? Arabic language is not about the position of the words.... clever positioning of the words might be used to put emphasis or attract your attention on something... However, the grammar is very rigid and positioning of the words usually will not distort an intended meaning....
The composition of this verse is done in such away to arouse our attention on the QURAN ALONE also.... I do not argue that at all....
However, translating word for word will mean GOD ALONE.... I think this case should be closed....
Allah knows best
-
Peace WayFinder,
Arabic language is not about the position of the words.... clever positioning of the words might be used to put emphasis or attract your attention on something... However, the grammar is very rigid and positioning of the words usually will not distort an intended meaning....
This is not about Arabic grammar, though, brother. GOD, who is all-knowledgeable, knew that the reading would be translated into other languages, including English. The direct context of "rabbaka fee alquran wahdahu" refers to the "quran alone". What you should have said is, "Arabic language is not ALWAYS about the position of words." Sometimes, an Arabic translation is completely based on the position of words. For example, if you substitute the word "rabbaka" (your lord) for the word "allah" (the god), you would have this statement
"itha thakarta allaha fee alquran wahdahu", or if you mention the god in the quran alone
If you wanted to say "the god alone in the quran", it would be "allahu wahdahu fee alquran". So, are you saying there's no difference in these two statements? The fact is they are completely different, and they are relaying two different messages. One says "the god alone", and the other says "the quran alone". If your statement is correct, then how would you cite this in Arabic "your Lord in the Quran alone"?
The composition of this verse is done in such away to arouse our attention on the QURAN ALONE also.... I do not argue that at all....
At least we agree on this. May GOD guide us all to understanding His message...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Brother
So this case is closed, I proved my point and you proved yours... My stand on this issue remain the same is the best according to my knowledge... However, I do support your view also... And both view will still lead to GOD ALONE through QURAN ALONE group
May Allah increase us in knowledge....
Ma'salaam
-
Peace WayFinder,
My stand on this issue remain the same is the best according to my knowledge... However, I do support your view also... And both view will still lead to GOD ALONE through QURAN ALONE
Indeed, brother, we are in agreement on this.
May Allah increase us in knowledge....
Yes, and He is the knowledgeable and wise. GOD willing, may He lead us all to agreement.
Peace,
Ahmad