Who is "We" in quran verses?
-
Peace with you all,
when I read Quran I found a lot of verses where "We" is illustrated confused, so what do you understand under "We"?.
God is always in singular, or is that "We" maybe just a false translation.I understand that God is actually a being of flesh and bone that is composed of a plurality of members. All of these members are members of a greater body, such as the apostle Paul often speaks of when he tries to get the early Christians to recognize that they are members of the body of Christ. See Ephesians 530 where he speaks of this body in terms of a flesh and bone body.
So, when God speaks as WE or US, it is the voice of a body of unified souls all functioning together under a covenant of union to act collectively as a single identity. The Hebrew word for Eloheim also contains an implied plurality aspect as well. You could think of God as a collective of purified and sanctified souls who have become "one" (like Jesus prayed for in the intercessory prayer) and who unitedly govern in all of the affairs of mankind. An "angel" would be a single identity or a single member of that divine "body" and the entire body of angels as a whole can be understood as God.
-
Salaam,
Interesting philosophical approach Kalix guru, although I do not know if I am ready to agree that God is of flesh and bones.
God bless you
-
Peace with you all,
when I read Quran I found a lot of verses where "We" is illustrated confused, so what do you understand under "We"?.
God is always in singular, or is that "We" maybe just a false translation.If Arab people speak to a honarable people they will say 'antum' ,actually word 'antum' means 'you' in plural, the singular word is 'anta'.
Why use 'antum' rather than 'anta' because 'antum' is more honorable altough it is plural word.It's same here, why use 'we' or 'nahna' for God not singular 'ana'.Same because 'nahna' is more honorable rather than 'ana' although its plural.
-
If Arab people speak to a honarable people they will say 'antum' ,actually word 'antum' means 'you' in plural, the singular word is 'anta'.
Why use 'antum' rather than 'anta' because 'antum' is more honorable altough it is plural word.It's same here, why use 'we' or 'nahna' for God not singular 'ana'.Same because 'nahna' is more honorable rather than 'ana' although its plural.
Even the Pope and some royalties use "we" in their addresses in public speeches... rotfl
-
Salaam,
Interesting philosophical approach Kalix guru, although I do not know if I am ready to agree that God is of flesh and bones.
God bless you
Do you agree that Adam and Eve could have been created with a body of flesh and bone, which is to say that Adam would be a body of priesthood brethren united by the oath and covenant of the Melchizedek Priesthood and that Eve would be the body of church members who are the bride of Adam?
And, therefore, if Eve is the church, then that fits Paul's definition of a body of flesh and bone. This is why Adam called Eve "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" because all those who held the Melchizedek Priesthood were also members of the church. Those individuals were members of both Adam's body and Eve's body simultaneously.
So, if Adam and Eve were created in the same image and likeness of God, then the implication here is that each cycle of Creation has a new Adam that is created exactly like God. The difference being that Adam learns some things through the school of hard knocks by transgressing and falling. But, upon His redemption, He obtains the victory and enters into complete union with God and Adam becomes the God of the next round of Creation.
-
Peace with you all,
at first thanks for your answers))
@kylixguru
I don't know if I may agree your statment because I don't know how good looks like, except God's character mentioned e.g. in Quran.@Earthdom
"If Arab people speak to a honarable people they will say 'antum' ,actually word 'antum' means 'you' in plural, the singular word is 'anta'.
Why use 'antum' rather than 'anta' because 'antum' is more honorable altough it is plural word.It's same here, why use 'we' or 'nahna' for God not singular 'ana'.Same because 'nahna' is more honorable rather than 'ana' although its plural."
Great thanks for explanation, slowly but sure I am going to learn arabic language too ;D
-Nevertheless, as far as you have explained detailed the usage of personal pronoun We I don't understand why God tells for himself nahna.
-Still there are enough positions in the Quran text where is said God, when is mentioned that God had done/said somthing.
-Because of what does God need to use We only on some positions in Quran? Actually, the whole Quran is God's word but transmissed from melek Gabriel.It is confused for non Arabic speakers if the translation is exposed with We- my mother tongue is German. I suspect that the translation is focused on origin of spoken/written Arabic and so translated into other languages. In the other hand it is maybe better to translate that We to I to avoid confusion. In German language it would be possible to write all three letters in capital letters (ICH), in Englisch it isn't possible to highlighte I in the same way because that I is already in capital letter. Anyway, in my opinion, the Quran translation should consider other languages where Arabic and target language differ in menaning/s of word/s.
-
Peace with you all,
when I read Quran I found a lot of verses where "We" is illustrated confused, so what do you understand under "We"?.
God is always in singular, or is that "We" maybe just a false translation.It's the "Royal We" that exists in many languages but it can be confusing to the English speaker because this concept does not exist in the English language. In my language, Urdu, "main" is I (singular), "hum" is we (plural). If i am being humble I use the singular. If i want to exert my dominance or speak from a position of high authority over the listeners, I can use the plural we.
-
Peace be upon you, Birdy.
my mother tongue is German.
Then you might be interested in joining our German speaking/ writing community at http//forum.meine-islam-reform.de/, if you did not already do so
Personally I don't think the use of the "we" in the great reading is something like a pluralis maiestatis http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural, as suggested by some of our fellows here. My personal view is that the god uses the "we" whenever powers (angels) subordinate to him are involved in the process that is described.
-
Peace be upon you, Birdy.
Then you might be interested in joining our German speaking/ writing community at http//forum.meine-islam-reform.de/, if you did not already do so
Personally I don't think the use of the "we" in the great reading is something like a pluralis maiestatis http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural, as suggested by some of our fellows here. My personal view is that the god uses the "we" whenever powers (angels) subordinate to him are involved in the process that is described.
(red colored) Yes, that too, as it was also Dr. Rashad Khalifa's contribution and explanation of the use of "we".
Peace.
-
Peace Aamer, Timur,
thanks for your thoughts. I was thinking on angels and/or some of God's beeings (who carry out/execute processes).
That's because God uses some of the following personal pronouns to name itself; "me", "I" and also "God" in Quran (so far I can remember).
God does know the best.@Timur
Thank you, I know about that German Forum)))Correction of my second post how 'good'... 'God' looks like...";
May God enrich our knowledge sun
-
Salaam,
"We" are not Allah, because Allah is alone. Please take a look at 2011-14, it uses "I" instead of "We", Allah knows how to say I )
Please note in 2011, the one who is giving us this info is someone else .- Musa was called.
- Called by whom? .
- Someone other than these two informing us about this incident.
Who are they? Who informed us? They are "WE". WE simply means US, it is not always referring to Malaaika , but sometimes yes, depends upon the context. Like for example
To Zachariyya, WE gave good tidings of a son, Yahya 197. Who are WE in this aayat? It is referring to Malaaika. Malaaika gave good tidings to Zachariyya of a son, Yahya 338-39. And also please check 1964.
I understand that WE are those who holds the authority from Allah; like power of attorney, to work on behalf of Him. And you already knew that power of attorney will not be given to anyone, but it is given to those who are very much reliable and loyal. So, WE includes Malaaika, Rooh, and others . WE is used simply to show a plural, and whom is it referring to depends upon the context.
To understand this properly, please take a look at 3949 and 398 and compare them, you will see what I as saying inshaAllah.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Peace,
Thanks for the elaboration. I agree completely. We is We and not because God wants to speak majestically.
God bless you
-
Peace with you all,
when I read Quran I found a lot of verses where "We" is illustrated confused, so what do you understand under "We"?.
God is always in singular, or is that "We" maybe just a false translation.Salaam Birdy,
From what I've investigated so far, I'm not sure right now. We could be the royal We, on the other hand it could signify something else. I also considered that We could be used to signify a 'rulership' a commanding type of action whereas Me and I is for when Allah signifies a closeness and intimacy - as He has with all of creation even when that creation turns away from Him, Allah still remains with them.
I have seen We used in terms of "We commanded..." or Our command such as 4252. Right now, to me this speaks of Allah's command. It could be there is something in the Arabic that indicates otherwise. If so, I believe this will become apparent in the rest of the message, even in a translation, as Allah is the one who bestows of knowledge.
I also felt like adding, sometimes people say that the Quran shifts from Me and I to We and Us in a verse or from one verse to the next. That is something that is easy to forget or change in the oral recitation, even by accident, it's just difficult to keep up with it and how can you be so sure if its Me or We in one particular verse as opposed to another? Apart from the poetry. Anyway, I know I mention this point a few times, so apologies for that, its just it sometimes really becomes apparent to me when reading or listening to the Quran.
-
(red colored) Yes, that too, as it was also Dr. Rashad Khalifa's contribution and explanation of the use of "we".
Peace.
Agreed
Salaam,
"We" are not Allah, because Allah is alone. Please take a look at 2011-14, it uses "I" instead of "We", Allah knows how to say I )
mmKhanThank you brother
peace
-
Peace, kylixguru.
I understand that God is actually a being of flesh and bone that is composed of a plurality of members. All of these members are members of a greater body, such as the apostle Paul often speaks of when he tries to get the early Christians to recognize that they are members of the body of Christ. See Ephesians 530 where he speaks of this body in terms of a flesh and bone body.
So, when God speaks as WE or US, it is the voice of a body of unified souls all functioning together under a covenant of union to act collectively as a single identity. The Hebrew word for Eloheim also contains an implied plurality aspect as well. You could think of God as a collective of purified and sanctified souls who have become "one" (like Jesus prayed for in the intercessory prayer) and who unitedly govern in all of the affairs of mankind. An "angel" would be a single identity or a single member of that divine "body" and the entire body of angels as a whole can be understood as God.
I can understand this position, and it makes a reasonable case, especially with regard to the aspect of unity. However, how does this position of godhood (divinity) continue after death? For example, if God is composed of flesh, blood and bone, and Adam and Eve were made in his image and likeness, then doesn't that mean God is capable of 'dying' just like us?
Also, what about the origination of God? In the Quran, God is also mentioned individually, with words like "I" and "Me". If this is referring to a unity, then it can be regarded as a contextual singularity, depending on the interpretation. However, it also appears to convey the idea that God, perhaps, is an individual person who works alongside a group, possibly being the figurehead (or leader) for them. If that's the case, then it raises some additional questions. For example, was there always a pantheon of divinities, or was there initially one god who had children (or something of the sort)? Did the current divinity (YHVH, Allah, etc.) inherit his position from someone else? What makes him greater than everyone else, to the degree of being called 'supreme' or 'almighty'?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words Ahmad. Peace unto you too.
I can understand this position, and it makes a reasonable case, especially with regard to the aspect of unity. However, how does this position of godhood (divinity) continue after death? For example, if God is composed of flesh, blood and bone, and Adam and Eve were made in his image and likeness, then doesn't that mean God is capable of 'dying' just like us?
My understanding is that the entire plan necessitates that God, in terms of being a body of flesh and bone, be capable of 'dying'. God keeps the very same laws that He gives.
When you look at Jehovah and Israel as marriage partners and you see that Israel was an adulterous bride and was 'stoned to death' (which was carried out when she was driven out of her promised land and scattered per Ezekiel 23) it would be unlawful for Jehovah to ever receive Israel as a bride again. However, when the husband also dies, then the woman is released from the 'law of her husband' and so she then becomes eligible to remarry anyone again. This is including her former husband if he is able to come back to life.
Therefore, in order for their to be a 'new covenant' (new marriage) between Jehovah and Israel, Jehovah had to die and to come back to life. After Jehovah's death, then Israel would be able to enter into that new marriage. This is one of the most critical things Jesus accomplished. He offered himself as a sacrifice to stand in Jehovah's place as Jehovah in order so that all of Israel would be eligible.
However, without going into too much detail, that wasn't everything that had to be accomplished. Life and death involve both physical and spiritual aspects and Jesus only carried out the physical. He was a lesser fulfillment that foreshadows the complete fulfillment yet to come. Which the Qur'an clearly points out.
If we can expect God's Word to be complete upon this subject, then we must believe that the complete fulfillment is also right in front of our noses and we just have to connect the dots to see it in plainness. As I see it, Adam is who carries it out on both the physical and spiritual aspects.
So, Israel isn't completely eligible until after Adam comes in the 6th Millennia and is cast out of the new Garden (new Jerusalem) and dies physically and spiritually, yet is redeemed from this state and regains His throne in victory. It is at this point when everything is fulfilled, contrary to what Christians think. Then, as a victorious King who overcomes both physical and spiritual death that a 'new bride' can be received on both a physical and spiritual level. Therefore, if Adam comes right at the end of the 6th Millennia, and His flesh and bone life spans almost one thousand years, what we see is Adam redeemed during the 7th Millennium as a victorious King over the Kingdom that God has given to Him. Upon Adam's redemption, He is the vehicle through which God re-creates Himself. Thus, you also have a brand new birth of a brand new cycle of Creation as well. So, you have both Day 7 (the Millennium) and Day 1 of the new cycle overlapping.
So, if we look at it in these terms, we should expect to be able to find somewhere a new flesh and bone manifestation of Adam who enters into a Garden of Eden but who transgresses and is driven out and who undergoes a period of punishment and death, but who eventually completely is transformed and redeemed and who regains all of the original and former glory He was ordained to have. And, that this body of authority shall institute and establish a governmental system that will bring in a thousand year 'golden age' of peace, for those who are in that society.Also, what about the origination of God? In the Quran, God is also mentioned individually, with words like "I" and "Me". If this is referring to a unity, then it can be regarded as a contextual singularity, depending on the interpretation. However, it also appears to convey the idea that God, perhaps, is an individual person who works alongside a group, possibly being the figurehead (or leader) for them. If that's the case, then it raises some additional questions. For example, was there always a pantheon of divinities, or was there initially one god who had children (or something of the sort)? Did the current divinity (YHVH, Allah, etc.) inherit his position from someone else? What makes him greater than everyone else, to the degree of being called 'supreme' or 'almighty'?
The context of holy writ should be looked at as being default pertaining to only a single cycle of Creation, which cycle lasts only about 7 thousand years. God has undergone self-re-creation over and over and over for billions of years, etc. As I see it, the theory of evolution starts to touch upon these questions. Religion only addresses the necessities of what it takes to carry out a single cycle, whereas science is where everything else is addressed. You are asking both a scientific and philosophical question now. For example, can Love ever die? Yes and no. Love as an absolute principle and potentiality is eternal in the literal sense. But, Love in the hearts of man can be extinguished. Only in that respect can you say that Love dies. I hope this helps clarify things some.
-
Peace kalixguru,
Very controversial idea you have, but it was nevertheless interesting to read. I do not know if I am ready to agree although the story was intriguing.
God bless you