Quote:
Originally Posted by Geshtinnanna  Upon reviewing your posts I have noticed your continual use of the word only. In face you bold it. Again how can you question the Arabic use of the word yet continue to use it as a basis for your belief? And do you originally speak Arabic? |
Good observation…
The reason for this is due to the usage of the word “innama”, as thus…
بديع السموت والأرض وإذا قضى أمرا فإنما
يقول له كن فيكون
BadeeAAu alssamawati waal-ardi wa-itha qada amran fa-
innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoonu
2.117 Originator (of) the heavens and the earth and when commanded entirely by (the) Word, so only certainly Him, He says: "Be thou." so (it) is.
And again here…
يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله
إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله
وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله
ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله
إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في
السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا
Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa
innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan
4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and certainly they say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his son, truly his what is in the heavens and in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.
The classic meaning behind the word…
إنما = “innama”
“innama” definition:
According to the grammarians, it is a compound of “inna” and “ma”, which latter prevents the former’s having any government: it imports restriction: it imports the restriction of that which it precedes to that which follows it. In other words, it is used to particularize, or specify, or distinguish a thing from other things:
it affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it, and denies it in relation to other things. Some say that it does not import restriction, but only corroboration of an affirmation, because it is a compound of the corroborative “inna” and the redundant “ma” which restrains the former from exercising government, and that it has no application to denote negation implied in restriction. It therefore seems that it is susceptible of both these meanings, bearing one or the other according as this or that suits the place. Rendered as
“only”, verily.
References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 103 – 111; 118
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 285
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 35
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 11
The classic definition quite clearly states that “innama” affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it.
Thus, in 4.171, “alhaqqi” (i.e. The Truth), is the “thing” that is being related to Jesus – which is mentioned after it.
Hence, “The Truth is
ONLY Jesus Christ”.
Not “allah”.
Likewise, 2.117 mandates that the creation of the heavens and the earth are “qada” (i.e. He finished a thing entirely by Word) is to apply
ONLY to the Son, which is the subject of this creation ayah.
Looks like the Koranic “allah” requires assistance in creating the heavens and the earth.