A Challenge to All Believers of Quran

good_logic

Peace bkanwar .

Your explanation is not making sense?

Verse 4171 is asking the people of the book not to say "three deities".

So when you translate " Innama Allahu Ilahun Waheed" as - ?Indeed Allah is not a one and only deity.?, it renders the verse meaningless?
It makes more sense if it is saying "There is only one GOD"?
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

bkanwar2

Peace bkanwar .

Your explanation is not making sense?

Verse 4171 is asking the people of the book not to say "three deities".

So when you translate " Innama Allahu Ilahun Waheed" as - ?Indeed Allah is not a one and only deity.?, it renders the verse meaningless?
It makes more sense if it is saying "There is only one GOD"?
Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

It will not make sense as long you would continue to evaluate it based upon a totally wrong translation. It is a simple and complete sentence of only 5 words. Rules of translation are provided. Please evaluate based upon rules of language and not upon beliefs.

Regards,

good_logic

Peace bkanwar.

Surely the whole verse has to make sense?

I do not understand how the rules work. Sorry?

Thanks for your post though.
GOD bless you.
Peace

hawk99

4171

This is a very simple sentence. Its translation should be as follows.

?Indeed Allah is not a one and only deity.?

Explanation It is a nominal sentence.

This is subject or of the sentence, it is .

This is compound of two nouns called and hence the predicate of sentence or .

Two particles written together in script. indeed, certainly and meaning ?not?. These particles when used independently govern the I?rabs of nouns in the sentences. However, the rule is that when is combined with , these lose their governing power, which is the case here.

It is a challenge to all believers of Quran to disprove, this explanation. If they are really believers then, it is an imperative upon them to do it, even as per their own beliefs. They are free to muster as much help as they like.

Regards,

Peace bkanwar2

Could you give your complete translation of verse 4/171?

God bless you

Timotheus

http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=4&verse=171

according to QAC, the ma in innama is a preventative particle. thus innama means in this context 'only'.
i believe you are incorrect in your grammar, now im no expert in arabic grammar, but i know the particle ma has many meaning depending on context. the following is from http//www.learnarabiconline.com/types-of-maa.shtml

Preventative ?

This comes after the . It is a particle and it stops these from carrying out their typical grammatical influence. In the case of especially, even the meaning is altered from ?indeed? to that of restriction. Below is an example.

Say I am only a man like yourselves.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus is a very helpful tool which tells us what the parts of speech are doing in the sentance. I would highly recommend it. )

peace.

Timotheus

also i would highly recommend the book A Grammar of Classical Arabic by Wolfdeitrich Fischer I cant remember where i got it from but you can probably google it. If you are studying the Arabic language it is also a very helpful tool, with pretty much everything you could want, if you can find it.

pg 170 item number 313

'innama is an emphatic and restrictive particle 'only'...'

bkanwar2

also i would highly recommend the book A Grammar of Classical Arabic by Wolfdeitrich Fischer I cant remember where i got it from but you can probably google it. If you are studying the Arabic language it is also a very helpful tool, with pretty much everything you could want, if you can find it.

pg 170 item number 313

'innama is an emphatic and restrictive particle 'only'...'

Thanks for reference based response, but please refer to following

When is appended to six particles ie., . It is called as . Which means it is a prohibition Ma or hindering Ma. When used with these particles it is not restrictive.

References

The Mi,ut Amil and ShurhooMi,ut Amil; two Elementary Treatises on Arabic Syntax. A Lockett, Bibliolife 1814; Book second, page 91.
Arabic Grammar. William Wright Dover Pulication 3rd edition 2005, Vol 2, page 81 Rem d.

bkanwar2

A friend said that meanings is still not clear. I agree, therefore, I am replacing the meanings of word by "one of one". Therefore, the meanings of this sentence should be

"Indeed, Allah is not one of the one deity".

Regards,

hicham9

Rather, The Divine (ALLH) is a one/single God/Deity.

bkanwar2

also i would highly recommend the book A Grammar of Classical Arabic by Wolfdeitrich Fischer I cant remember where i got it from but you can probably google it. If you are studying the Arabic language it is also a very helpful tool, with pretty much everything you could want, if you can find it.

pg 170 item number 313

'innama is an emphatic and restrictive particle 'only'...'

Thanks, again, I have Fischer for long time, re-read it, as well Wright again. The best explanation is in A Lockett as referenced. It has more to do with Orthography/spelling of text of Quran. Shadda, indicates doubling of consonants. When it is not part of measure or weight of a word. It only indicates joining of two separate words. This is the case here. Therefore, both words should be understood as independent by their own meanings and a new meaning should not have been created to support already artificially created understanding of Quran.

It is for these reasons that Quran has been made so difficult to understand. Furthermore, an open debate of these issues is considered akin to apostasy or blasphemy.

imrankhawaja

my brother you need to learn Arabic although I m not expert in Arabic but today is the age of technology and the technology let us rectify the errors...
whatever you claimed we will sort out it in two parts

1 common sense with undeniable logic.

2 go thorough the topic of that verse.

regarding the first part if you deeply look at the verse it is forbidding us to say there are three gods answer of this question lies with in next part there is only one... very logical(who is the one) ...who we know as Allah by definition the creator , moreover in the end of the verse there is a definition of creator

"To Him is all that is in the heavens and the earth; and God is enough as a Caretaker."

so he is saying he is enough... ur whole challange get worthless here when he is briefing each and every single thing .matimatically when u dnt need anything meaning ur definition is matematicallly one.... hope u got the answer

imrankhawaja

Thanks, again, I have Fischer for long time, re-read it, as well Wright again. The best explanation is in A Lockett as referenced. It has more to do with Orthography/spelling of text of Quran. Shadda, indicates doubling of consonants. When it is not part of measure or weight of a word. It only indicates joining of two separate words. This is the case here. Therefore, both words should be understood as independent by their own meanings and a new meaning should not have been created to support already artificially created understanding of Quran.

It is for these reasons that Quran has been made so difficult to understand. Furthermore, an open debate of these issues is considered akin to apostasy or blasphemy.

quran is with no doubt very easy to understand whenever there is athing that Allah want us to know he detailed it ,,, for example once he was warning u about "havia" and in the very next verse he explained what is havia and similarly there is one more thing in chapter 83 see the beauty now
838 And do you know what is ?Sijjeen??
839 A numbered record.
and again on the same verse
8318 No, the record of the pious is in ?Elliyeen.??
8319 And do you know what is ?Elliyeen??
8320 A numbered record.
now a stupid person will argue about the two different meaning y even Allah mention both by number records now its a question of technology as far science they are not able to penetrate even first heaven even a near most part of first heaven so there is no point of discussing the technology of Allah but its sure whatever technology Allah have is best in the perfection and creation sijeen and elliyeen both represent number records but in different ways if u want to compare we can say my mobile and my laptop both have videos of me when I have my birthday ...its mean they both share a common feature of recording video,, but with difeerent properties and names.... so there is only one God in the shape of care taker , creator , modifier, developer, evolver, everything,,, if all oceans are ink and you will write the praises of Allah ink will runout before the words even if you double the supply of ink,,,, so my brother there is logic of saying he is not one ,,,, if he is not one then the definition of Allah didn't fit there...

hawk99

Thank you imrankhawaja, yeah a little common sense sometimes is all you need.
Likewise you don't need to be an English professor to understand English.

God bless you

imrankhawaja

Thank you imrankhawaja, yeah a little common sense sometimes is all you need.
Likewise you don't need to be an English professor to understand English.

God bless you

jazakAllah my brother , I hope Allah increase our knowledge regarding the book which revealed 1400 years ago with balanced to modern science,as well as every aspect of life whatever a human neeed to spend his/her life,, peace to all of you my bro and sisters

Timotheus

is it the 'best explanation' because it fits with your theory? USE YOUR BRAIN. God is One, is the message of the whole Quran!

Abdun_Nur

Peace all, when a mind is invested in a lie they cannot grasp the truth, so they find the truth confusing, I can explain the reason why the translation is as it is.

"Indeed, Allah is not one of the one deity"
Allah should also be translated in this sentence to make it clear.

There is no deity."

Therefore there is no god, no divine character, nothing to be personified, or anthropomorphized as a supreme ?being?, being a distinct entity.

So no entity, which is something having real or distinct existence, a thing considered as independent of other things, a separation distinct and independent from other things, this cannot exist, there can be nothing claimed a deity.

"There is only Allah." or "Only Allah."

Allah is a single consciousness as the absolute totality of what may exist, so the One consciousness cannot be independent of anything, all is the thought of the single consciousness; we ourselves are a fractal copy within that consciousness, forming the evolving nature of the matrix of consciousness itself.

A single Consciousness is an ?entirety? of all that is or may be; therefore it is absolutely impossible for an entity deity to exist.

An entity must be something other; but you cannot have something other with the entirety of everything.

?All religions are made up then??

Religions do not come into existence through the quality of their inherent truths, but through the capacity of the powerful to impose them with maintained ignorance, violence, and fear. Fear is very important in order to control and manipulate souls; the first thing to establish is fear, as souls that are not afraid cannot be controlled.

Once the hierarchy (the tree of death) of religions are in place many other hierarchies are either constructed or given the divine backing of religious hierarchy, and these constructs are perceived real, yet are nothing more than a fantasy invented to allow the few to dominate the many.

Religious fantasy is most needed where there is a lack of individuality, a lack of original unique thought, a mind that lacks such development tends towards fanaticism, this substitutes the excitement that experiencing unique thoughts generates, exchanged for the excitement of their obsessional focus, a psychosis that hypnotizes their mind, and can through that focus shut down the mind to all higher emotions of empathy, compassion, kindness and unconditional love, and even render wicked actions undisturbed by their conscience. The individual soul can rise to infinite heights of consciousness, but not if they choose conformity to the thoughtless multitude; to devote your mind to conform to any hierarchy of control, belief or exchange, drives consciousness ever deeper in to a state of mindlessness dominated by status and separation.

All Gods are the fantasy of either the fantasist or the fanatic, a polished vanity they present as their persona, the fantasists desire for power, and ambition, ravenously fed from the fanatics fear and cowardice, and their hypnotized perceptions.

In the perceptions of your Earthly life truth is attacked, reason ridiculed, love, compassion and empathy considered a weakness, violence glorified, hate justified, murder rationalised, theft sanctified, life monetised, in the 'worlds' of the soulless creatures, the upper-world of the soulless is dominated by thirteen elite families who are beyond any accountability, the under-world of the soulless beasts are protected by the upper-world, the commercial world of the slave souls is sandwiched between the two soulless worlds, and all the Earth suffers.

Every soul is all creation in a drop. Creation is perceptual thought; the only thing that is real is consciousness itself. This single consciousness is built fractally, repeating consciousness yet remaining one. Each new fractal consciousness begins as a simple copy, but grows through densities of perception. Each fractal form grows by embodying ever more copies of consciousness within its own consciousness as companions, fractals expand by embodying fractals, and these form the larger fractal. It?s only when a consciousness is in harmony that it may become a companion to a higher fractal form, meaning souls who are harmonised by complimentary beliefs, common aspirations and an emotional unity. If considered from the other perspective, as fractal consciousness descends in ever more compact form, so the awareness they experience is of lower densities of perception, the evolution of all fractal consciousness is to flow to higher densities of thought infinitely, as they themselves attract and embody other companion fractal consciousness, but what may evolve may also devolve. Fractals should rise upward growing in consciousness through fractal connection; these integral connections are the companions of the soul.

Each soul is unique, each drop of an infinite ocean, we are the jewels of creation each drop, we are the most cherished each drop, but within that infinite ocean each drop must grasp truth as a rudder, reason as a compass, love as a destination, sadly many souls refuse to see, hear, think, accept or evolve, and so many suffer.

organic growth in consciousness is not a set progression, each evolves in a unique way, the song is evolving not the body, every song is unique, and every soul shapes their own song. Some songs harmonise better with some souls and not so well with others, for those in harmony you can become synchronous companions; there?s no hierarchy in consciousness just variety, the very essence of all creation is infinite diversity. A soul who called himself Adams correctly stated. ?If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.? True leaders act anarchically, they are copied because their example demands it, their council is sort out, never imposed, they are the trail blazers, the truth backers, the defenders of the weak and oppressed, such a leader is a Muhammad Rasul.

The pervasive conscious ocean sings, and all other conscious fields of thought are likewise harmonic songs in synchronisation with the manifesting ever building fractal field of all conscious thought, every soul exists as a fractal form of the conscious entirety, the expression of that consciousness is thought, which can be perceived as a form of energy, all energies are simply thought, a unified field of creative thought; an infinite field of consciousness if you like. Imagine consciousness is the ocean; that is you. Imagine a single drop of that ocean is your emotional heart; that is you. Imagine conceptually an atoms worth of that drop is your perceptual mind; that is you, you contain the entire ocean in a drop, held within an infinite ocean; that is the unity of soul.

bkanwar2

Dear all, someone asked for translation of whole 4171 verse. I am obliged to do it to avoid blame that I am taking bits and pieces out of context. A legit and valid objection. Below is whole translation.

Regards,
4171

O people, those who have fled from learned collection of principles. Neither you shall be immoderate and exceed limit in your mode of conduct nor shall you utter lies against one who is not at a deity for worship; except what is suitable according to requirements of wisdom, justice and reality. Certainly, those who are not sincere friend, made mode of conduct an object of accusation, departed the message of one who is not at all a deity for worship; furthermore, its (collection of learned principles) proposition thrown away at time of departure, along with its vital principle. Therefore to secure and safeguard with, one who is not at a deity for worship, you do not be slackers, utterers of lies. Desist, it is better for you. Indeed, one who is not a deity for worship is not one of one deity. One is free from one?s own origination. For one, whatever, is in the skies and the earth is enough witness for one who is not at all a deity for worship.

mmmm