La ilaaha illallaah
-
Dear all, some one questioned if Allah means "one who is not at all a deity for worship/god", then explain "La ilaaha illallah"?
Above is an example where a single word or even words taken out of context of a given sentence/text could be misleading and can carry wrong meaning. These words occur in only two places in Quran. Following is one of those instances.
3735
Indeed, all of them who had been endeavoring to be great; observe, think and then express to all of them, ?there is not at all a god, except for one who is not a god?.
-
Hello brother,
Can you please elaborate on your logic? The reasoning does not appear to be coherent to me and it appears like you insert a word in the phrase which is not there. "Except who is not god". You insert a double negative.
On top of that, for one who knows the language secret knows "la" does not mean "no".
It is not direct evidence, but how the Spanish "la" works is nearly identical to (real) Arabic.
"La Familia es todo" - example
But lamers who knew nothing perverted the "la" in Arabic. "It is 'Who Is' that is 'Such Who Is'" is the real translation of "La elah ila allah".
But anyway every person seems to reject me as a madman so my input despite the real truthful account may surely be ignored.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Hello brother,
Can you please elaborate on your logic? The reasoning does not appear to be coherent to me and it appears like you insert a word in the phrase which is not there. "Except who is not god". You insert a double negative.
On top of that, for one who knows the language secret knows "la" does not mean "no".
It is not direct evidence, but how the Spanish "la" works is nearly identical to (real) Arabic.
"La Familia es todo" - example
But lamers who knew nothing perverted the "la" in Arabic. "It is 'Who Is' that is 'Such Who Is'" is the real translation of "La elah ila allah".
But anyway every person seems to reject me as a madman so my input despite the real truthful account may surely be ignored.
Be safe
AmenuelDear Brother, don't worry about what every person thinks. If you really are after the truth, it will come to you.
Please read the write up "Linguistic riddle solved for those who want to learn". It is on this very form for now years to understand spelling/orthography of so called word Allah. It indeed is a sentence/clause.
Here it is again.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599853.msg237622#msg237622
Please also provide an authentic or any other reference suggesting "la" can't meaning "not or no", and it only can mean what you say it means. I am eager to learn
Regards,
-
Please also provide an authentic or any other reference suggesting "la" can't meaning "not or no", and it only can mean what you say it means. I am eager to learn
I am the authentication including my elaborations on why this is so. The indication is after a linguistic deep analysis of the Arabic language. You have to test the argument yourself by seeing how much sense it makes when deciphering Quran in its entirety. If one is to continue to translate 'la' as no, they will never figure out Quran's real message. It is possible to make this out if they realize that Arabic letters have only one meaning each and together as a sequence they produce words and therefore there is much similarity in these words that have Alif and Lam in them (e.g. AL, ALLAH, ELAH, LA). If they can merely accept that argument they can easily proceed further into the nature of Arabic.
It is hard to prove this through hard evidence since its is long-term corruption that has been going on, but you can get hints from how Spanish is spoken with its 'la' and 'las' (in Arabic lis). I have tracked Arabic influence into Spanish. In Spanish is means all but no/not and the same is true for Arabic.
The real word for 'no' is 'ma' in Arabic, all of the time. Even in formulas such as (means roughly 'it is not' and (the no). I give you a piece of advice.
Dear Brother, don't worry about what every person thinks. If you really are after the truth, it will come to you.
Please read the write up "Linguistic riddle solved for those who want to learn". It is on this very form for now years to understand spelling/orthography of so called word Allah. It indeed is a sentence/clause.
Here it is again.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599853.msg237622#msg237622
Please you do not worry. I just say what people think so they do not have to utter it. Few people take me seriously despite that I actually print the truth right in front of their nose.
Right just as I do not defend the non-existent pride of God, I do not defend any personal pride so verily each person can themselves choose what to believe.
Be safe
Amenuel -
I am the authentication including my elaborations on why this is so. The indication is after a linguistic deep analysis of the Arabic language. You have to test the argument yourself by seeing how much sense it makes when deciphering Quran in its entirety.
I have problem with your statement in red. This is not a statement, I would ever expect from a true seeker of knowledge. This leads to subjectivity and hence divisions. Truth is always objective. Anyone, following the principles laid out should get to it without depending on the subject.
Regards,
-
Dear all, in case someone is getting deluded that an angel has started to come to me explaining the Quran. In order to dispel any such Myths. I present Linguistic (scientific) explanation or reasoning behind this translation. It is open to verification by any soul interested.
Badar
3735
Indeed, all of them who had been endeavoring to be great; observe, think and express to all of them, ?there is not at all a god, except one who is not a god?.
Syntactic Analysis
This a nominal sentence. It has Inna at the start. This imparts certain changes in iraab of its subject and predicate. Its subject gets or accusative case and predicate or nominative case.
Now let us identify Inna?s , Ism or subject, it is all pronouns are static or but due context it is accusative. Now look for its predicate, it can only be this combination used makes it past continuous . It is also a relative clause without relative noun as antecedent is indefinite, hence ?who? is added in the translation. The real sentence is .
Grammatical/Lexical Explanation
It is combination of particle Inna meaning ?verily, truly or indeed?, followed by third person plural pronoun meaning ?them?.
It a third person plural of verb meaning ?to be?.
This is a third person imperfect verb from root ?Kaf-Ba-Ra?. It is at measure of verb form X, . The root meanings is ?he or it was or became great?. The X form of verb can add several meanings to primary root meanings. Here the X form indicates that a person thinks that a certain thing possesses in reference to himself or for his benefit, the quality expressed by the first form. Hence, meanings ?endeavoring to be great?.
This usually is a particle. But, it is a root as well and has meanings of ?behold? which means, ?see or observe?.
This is a verb from root ?Qaf-Waw-Lam?. It is a verb of mind. Since it verb of mind its meaning includes ?thinking? and then ?expressing?
There is preposition ?lee?, which means ?to?, followed third person plural pronoun meaning ?them?
This is negation particle. It used here as to deny the existence of a thing in general, because of ir?abs of it predicate is nominative and noun is accusative.
This is noun from root ?Alif-Lam-Ha?. It?s meanings are ?deity for worship. It is in accusative case due noun of ?la?.
This a particle meaning ?except or but?
Please see write up ?Linguistic riddle solved for those who want to learn?. It is in nominative case as being the predicate of ?La?. Its meanings is ?on who is not a god?.
-
The purpose for us is to be like God.
Be safe
Amenuel -
This is noun from root ?Alif-Lam-Ha?. It?s meanings are ?deity for worship. It is in accusative case due noun of ?la?.
How can you make into ?
is plus the third-person suffix which could be interpreted as 'Who/That' (i.e. it could be both a person or an inanimate object). It exists in other forms too such as and they have the same linguistic function. I translate it as "Who Is". is an emphatic form which renders "Who Is Like". The root is Alif-Lam-(Lam) and can be tracked within ancient Arabic lexicons very easily (just look for where you find examples with too). For your information, exists too such as in the verse 7195. People complicate things, is just a formula of and . Strictly based on logic it would make it 'who is'. Check the phrase "Are they/those are people (who)..." depending on the sentence layout if it is interrogatory or not.
Allah is used explanatory for the Being one should be. It is both your Rabb and you in One including everyone who is like you and your Rabb. But linguistically, does not have any more complicated meaning than as to say "who is like". Usually it is contextually given what it refers to through attributes. "Who is" could also be translated as "being", e.g. "being evil" (who is evil). Allah is meaning "Being", the state of Being something something (like).
Be safe
Amenuel -
You need some basic lessons in the science of Arabic language. Once you would, you wouldn't be asking above question.
Tsk. I have all the right in asking you the question since you do not use them properly. Well, I change myself slightly, and are related to each other, but in the grammar you suggest they are not used in the same regard.
If you do this based on traditional Arabic knowledge, then you can hardly make into since it there symbolizes 'no' while means "(such be) who". AL is a definite article as you may know as you say to me to take "some basic lessons in the science of Arabic language".
Now does not mean no but it means 'such be' and is as I wrote in correction about related with . So " Such Be - Be Such Who/That/Which - Be Such Be - Be Such Such Who/That/Which" or "Such Be - (Be Such) Who - Be Such Be - (Be Such) as Such Who" is the morphological breakdown. Your whole purpose in the faith of God is to be like Him. You were created to be in His image and the World and your Body is meant to test your capability to be like that.
does not have anything to do with 'no', that you must understand yourself even without believing in me what I wrote above. is what it is and it is AL + Heh (third-person pronoun singular), i.e. "the Who" while is "the who like".
is the Arabic word that does symbolize when something is negative (i.e. no/not). And even if you reason why traditional (erroneous) terms of as no you cannot make into no.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Tsk. I have all the right in asking you the question since you do not use them properly. Well, I change myself slightly, and are related to each other, but in the grammar you suggest they are not used in the same regard.
If you do this based on traditional Arabic knowledge, then you can hardly make into since it there symbolizes 'no' while means "(such be) who". AL is a definite article as you may know as you say to me to take "some basic lessons in the science of Arabic language".
Now does not mean no but it means 'such be' and is as I wrote in correction about related with . So " Such Be - Be Such Who/That/Which - Be Such Be - Be Such Such Who/That/Which" or "Such Be - (Be Such) Who - Be Such Be - (Be Such) as Such Who" is the morphological breakdown. Your whole purpose in the faith of God is to be like Him. You were created to be in His image and the World and your Body is meant to test your capability to be like that.
does not have anything to do with 'no', that you must understand yourself even without believing in me what I wrote above. is what it is and it is AL + Heh (third-person pronoun singular), i.e. "the Who" while is "the who like".
is the Arabic word that does symbolize when something is negative (i.e. no/not). And even if you reason why traditional (erroneous) terms of as no you cannot make into no.
Be safe
AmenuelBro Peace,
Al and La are only related that these have same consonants. This the only relationship. However, the order these are written in, imparts totally different meanings to these consonants.
Al, is a definite article usually. However, it is also used as contraction for word "Allathi".
La is used as negative of the future and indefinite present, as prohibitive particle joined to the jussive. It has another use of denying a thing in general or as a group or class. This last one is determined based upon ir'aabs of its subject and predicate in negative sentences. It has been used in this sense in above verse translated.
La has its equivalents in Hebrew as well Aramaic that I can not type here.
Please remember languages exist first and are natural phenomenon, whereas rules are developed to explain language to non natives.
Regards,
-
Bro Peace,
Al and La are only related that these have same consonants. This the only relationship. However, the order these are written in, imparts totally different meanings to these consonants.
Al, is a definite article usually. However, it is also used as contraction for word "Allathi".
La is used as negative of the future and indefinite present, as prohibitive particle joined to the jussive. It has another use of denying a thing in general or as a group or class. This last one is determined based upon ir'aabs of its subject and predicate in negative sentences. It has been used in this sense in above verse translated.
La has its equivalents in Hebrew as well Aramaic that I can not type here.
Please remember languages exist first and are natural phenomenon, whereas rules are developed to explain language to non natives.
Regards,
-
? Your god is a One/Single God;
thusly, they who acknowledge not the Ending, their hearts/minds are in denial,
and conceited/haughty they are. ?
CU
Sureh 1622Thanks Bro, for closing all the doors of learning and paths to getting to the truth. You have it all. May Rabb bless you.
Regards,
-
Sorry but "there is no god except the one who is not a god" makes no sense whatsoever, neither on its own, nor as far as context is concerned!
I suspect u're trying to foist your Atheistic position on the Qurn.
instead of "the one who's not a god/deity" ~ try the one who's not a thing/object.
Salute
-
Hicham,
I acknowledge the Rabb/God, but not the word Allah/Elah as god.
bkanwar2,
Al, is a definite article usually. However, it is also used as contraction for word "Allathi".
Sorry. I can still cannot agree with your statement. What kind of contraction are you talking about? and are other words. means "is such as". Arabic is an exact language that should be used formally without carelessness in speaking/writing it. Spoken correctly without carelessness and no one can misunderstand what you say taken they know its principle.
Al and La are only related that these have same consonants. This the only relationship.
Al and La are very related to each other since every letter in Arabic and the Semitic languages carry their own meanings.
However, the order these are written in, imparts totally different meanings to these consonants.
Yes. "Such Be" instead of "Be Such". Arabic is very special in that its language is a little like mathematics or building with LEGO.
Be safe
Amenuel -
bkanwar2,
Sorry. I can still cannot agree with your statement. What kind of contraction are you talking about? and are other words. means "is such as". Arabic is an exact language that should be used formally without carelessness in speaking/writing it. Spoken correctly without carelessness and no one can misunderstand what you say taken they know its principle.
Amenuel
Peace Bro,
To understand this issue refer to Arabic Grammar by William Wright Vol. 1 Page 269, D at bottom of Page. If you don't have this book. Please refer to following link. Go on right side and click "learn Arabic" tab and you will find scanned copy.
http//www.studyquran.org/
Reference2 William Lane Lexicon click on page 111. Read right third column.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/Regards,
-
Thanks but I know Arabic already. And I have Lane's lexicon.
Another problem is that the whole knowledge about Arabic in the world's is victim of grave misconception. That means language schools in Arabic is to no avail for people. It is tragic but that it how things are. One has to investigate and analyze Arabic detached and independently from scholarly works.
It is a severe accusation, but sadly this is how the situation really is. Some people had the power to manipulate a whole language. The often differing definitions in lexicons is one sign of it. It is probably so that someone or some people found Quran and it was a foreign language and they did not know how it was to be understood, they invented a language based on incorrect inferences and so a whole generation began to speak and use a language improperly.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Thanks but I know Arabic already. And I have Lane's lexicon.
Another problem is that the whole knowledge about Arabic in the world's is victim of grave misconception. That means language schools in Arabic is to no avail for people. It is tragic but that it how things are. One has to investigate and analyze Arabic detached and independently from scholarly works.
It is a severe accusation, but sadly this is how the situation really is. Some people had the power to manipulate a whole language. The often differing definitions in lexicons is one sign of it. It is probably so that someone or some people found Quran and it was a foreign language and they did not know how it was to be understood, they invented a language based on incorrect inferences and so a whole generation began to speak and use a language improperly.
Be safe
AmenuelPeace bro, let us not make it more complicated for common folks that have no knowledge of language. Let us talk about facts. We can't change the past or what people did in past.
Did you find your answer or not? Don't these references support my position? Please answer in Yes or No, only.
Do you have any reference, beside your self claimed authority of the Arabic, to counter these references? If you do, please share on this forum.
Regards,