I BEGIN IN THE NAME OF THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

@lagoshia. Peace and Pardon my late response

you have said:

LagosShia:

i will try to explain to you and inshaAllah you will understand.i see your sincerity otherwise i would have simply laughed at your supposition that we are told to follow the Quran alone.

the contentious part of the verse is:

"wa iza zakarta rabbaka *fil Qur'ani wah'dahu* walaw alaa adbaarihim nufura"

now ask yourself this:why was this verse revealed and why did the people described therein used to turn away in aversion?

first,let me translate that part of the verse in the way i believe is correct and in the way you mistranslated it.

my way :
*And when you mention your lord, in the Quran, alone*, they run away in aversion.

the above is the word for word translation verbatim i have given on my own.

your way:
*And when you preach your lord,using the Quran alone*, they run away in aversion.


let me now clarify the points:

1.) there is no where in the verse that indicates that the people turned their face because it was the Quran alone that was "used".

2.) a literal translation of the verse shows that it is when Allah in the Quran is mentioned alone that they show opposition.

3.) this is a clear case of tense and context.you can either say THE ALONE part refers to "Allah only" or "the Quran only".

i asked a question:to who was this verse addressed? this verse was addressed to the polytheists who had many gods and not to a muslim or any muslim or sahaba who believes in only One God (Allah).the polytheists turned away because Allah in the Quran is mentioned alone.therefore it is not because Allah was only mentioned in the Quran but Allah alone is mentioned in the Quran unlike their belief in many gods.so this is the context of the verse.if we go to hadith we also see places where Allah is mentioned alone and in fact i can say no one else besides Allah.are we to reject that because Allah must only be mentioned in the Quran alone/only? i dont think so.

I had asserted here>>>https://www.nairaland.com/802617/questions-muslims-those-who-want/11



That scriptural mistranslation is largely responsible for doctrinal garb. I also stated that the current doctrine on which islam is hinged upon is as a consequence deliberate mistranslation of the Quran by the tradition muslims translators in other to conceal the imminent contradiction between what they practice/believe. And i maintained that todays islam has got nothing whatsoever to do with what the Quran teaches or what muhammad ever preached.

And also, that the so called Hadith/sunnah are satanic innovation skillfully attributed to prophet muhammad. They defame his person, they are blasphemous,contradict common sense and totaly negate quranic principles.

Mr logoshia, you would agree with me that: in order for our religious doctrine to be accurate, it is critical that the scriptures which they are based upon must and should be clearly and accurately translated. Threre cannot be a compromise, because we are talking about either eternal grace or eternal damnation.

From our discussion, i claimed that the Quran prohibits using other sources outside of it as religious guidance. Meaning; Quran alone is sufficient for our guidance. I asserted that there were enough evidence from the quran itself to suggest this position, and provided just one of such verses which i deemed sufficient. However, i brought that one verse into view in order to demonstrate that the current Quran translations of the verse(except the one i have and newer translations) were deliberately mistranslated to conceal the contradiction between the current islamic doctrine/belief and the Quran.


HERE is my translation:

[17:46] We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. *And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone*, they run away in aversion.[Rashad Khalifa’s Translation]

HERE is Yours:

[17:46]And we place sheilds over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness.* And when you mention your lord alone in the Qur’an, they turn back in aversion*.[Sahih international]

I do recognize that no two translation can be exactly thesame. However, they must convey thesame meaning and present the correct context for it to pass as correct. This is very true, especially if the verse in contention directly affects the crucial aspects of our established doctrine.
Now, i did highlight to you that your translation is incorrect, just as many other popular Quran translations. I am glad that the Arabic is well preserved.

The part in contention i have placed in asterisk above. And here is the arabic transliteration again:

“Wa iza zakarta rabbaka*fil Qur’ani wah’dahu*”

You subsequently translated the asterisked part based on your own understanding, and this is what you wrote:

“And when you mention your lord, in the Qur’an alone, they run away in aversion”.

Now this, is in fact very correct too. However, you went further to claim such rendition makes no difference than that of your original translation from Sahih international. But i disagree totally.

Here is what you said:
I will provide detailed explanation, but first, let me address your points:

ANSWERS :

To 1&2 above:

>>>Your failure in understanding the verse stems from the fact that when you read the Quran, you do not consider that the Quran may be addressing you in particular.

The other reason i suppose is the cause to why the muslims do not understand the quran is that they tend to consider the quranic verses in isolation of each other, and not in view of the entire quran or at least the complete chapter in which the verse under consideration is.

To 3 above:

I disagree with that. There is a huge difference between “mention your lord alone in quran” and “mention your lord in quran alone”. My complete response will be given in “PROOF” part.

Who are the they you are talking about? I know you are trying to use the usual tactic the islamic apologist use. You are trying to indicate that the verse is referenced to a specific group in the past. Even if true, it is there in the Quran for a reason. This is because the quran says it is a reminder for the people(7:2 etc), and also guidance and mercy(16:64 etc). In view of this, whatever we find in the quran is to be taken as is.


PROOF:


The words in 17:46 sound out a clear message yet this too was manipulated by the scholars who find it hard to devote all the religion to the name of God alone.

The correct translation of 17:46 is as follows:

“when you mention your Lord in the Quran alone”

However, the mentioned scholars interpret this verse by changing the order of key words to mean:

“when you mention your Lord alone in the Quran”

By changing the order of the words they categorically change the meaning of the verse as indicated. This clear manipulation can easily be exposed in the light of the Quran. We have no less than five solid pieces of evidence to confirm the correct meaning of 17:46:

1- The key word “alone" (wahdahu) is deliberately placed by God after the word “Quran” and not after the words “your lord”.

if God wanted to say (if you mention your Lord alone in the Quran) God would have placed the word “alone” after “your Lord” and not after “Quran”.

2- The key word “alone" (wahdahu) appears in the Quran a total of 6 times. In five of these occurances the word 'wahdahu' is placed after the word God, but only in 17:46 does this word come after the word Quran. Considering the word 'rabak' (your Lord) appears in 17:46 God could have placed the word 'wahdahu' after the word 'rabak', (if that was the intended meaning) just like God has done in all the five other accurances. But the deliberate placing of this word after the word Quran confirms that God wants to say Quran alone, and not God alone. The five other occurances where the word 'wahdahu' comes after the word God are 7:70, 3:45, 40:12, 40:84 and 60:4.

3- God tells us in the Quran that the book is clear, easy to understand and has no ambiguity:

“An Arabic Quran, without any ambiguity” 39:28

"A.L.R. These are the signs of the clear book" 12:1

"We have made it (the Quran) easy to understand and in your own tongue (language) may you take heed." 44:58

God being the All Knower, knows that this verse will be subject of deliberate manipulation, and for that reason alone God would not place the word “alone” after the word “Quran” when God really wants to say “your Lord alone”.

Only the ones who trust God and believe that the Quran has no ambiguity will have this certainty. On the other hand, those who disbelieve God’s words in (39:28, 12:1 and 44:58) and believe their scholars and Imams who tell them that the Quran is very difficult to understand, they will not see the simple meaning in 17:46. This is a key issue in understanding the Quran.

The hypocrites will say things like: “Oh, but in the Arabic language we can place words in different orders”! That may be true, but the bottom line is that God knows all the grammatical allowances of the Arabic language, but it is more important for God to give us a direct and simple meaning rather than to give a disputed meaning just because the grammatical variations of the Arabic language allow it.

I stress once again that this understanding can only be attained by those who believe (39:28, 12:1 and 44:58).

4- Further to the above, let us assume for a moment that the correct meaning is:

“if you mention your Lord alone in the Quran they run away in aversion”

If we stop for a moment and consider this meaning we find that it is a physical impossibility to read the Quran and mention the name of God alone! The Quran is full of other names: messengers, angels, etc even SATAN self. So by simply reading the Quran we must mention all the names written in the book (whether we like it or not), they cannot be omitted.

But it is possible to mention, commemorate and praise God by using the Quran alone.

So the false meaning which they attempt to inject in 17:46 is not feasible. They think they are clever, they think they can get away with it, but God is more clever and their corruption is naïve and is always exposed by God.

5- If we read 17:46 one more time, we can clearly see that from the beginning of the verse till the end, the subject is the Quran:

"We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion." 17:46


oya carry go. rebut.

Lagoshia et al. Where art thou?

mind you, this na just one verse.

One other critical verse i would want us to look at also is 33:56. This one of the most abused verse of the quran due to wrong interpretation. The muslims use this verse to idolize muhammad against his will. I think the right candidate to discuss that with is Tbaba. But lets wrap up this one first.

you have your terrorist only section awarded by your slave, the great Yoruba owner of nl.
please take your mat over there.

@Logic mind: What will you call igbo who marries Yoruba?

Sweetnecta: @Logic mind: What will you call igbo who marries Yoruba?

nothing. love is mysterious.
but i will pity that person.
this question is however going to derail the thread.
my views about ofemmanus are well documented in the racists and tribal section.

I am one of those ofemmanus with an igbo wife. some of my Yoruba friends have igbo wives, too.
Infact, I will organize the invasion of Yoruba men to snap up igbo women for wives; while we shall make many Yoruba women marry igbo men.

Now that will eat you up like cancer. I hope the shock will not kill you off.

again, you derail thread but i'm not surprised because that's the way oily soup infected brain functions. nothing is in its rightful place.

Usisky radicality to Islam is quite good. i rather listen to him anytime. p.s: where is lagoshia?

@Usisky

brother,you are making an issue out of nothing.using a thousand words to convey an idea does not make the idea true.

the contentious issue based on that verse is:did those people mentioned in the verse turn away in aversion because Allah in the Quran is mentioned alone or because Allah is mentioned in the Quran alone/only? i dont think Allah is mentioned in the Quran alone or only.

also,those people did not turn away in aversion because only the Quran mentions Allah which in itself is not true.they turn away in aversion because in the Quran Allah is mentioned alone and their "gods" are shun and spoken against.

it is very simple.you dont have to repeat yourself making your claims over and over.my explanation you quoted in the OP still stands for the verse.you should review it.if you don't,then i pity you.you know very well that when that verse was revealed there was nothing like hadith books.so i wonder why you would think your explanation is right.people who were polytheists were opposed to tawheed and thus when Allah alone is mentioned in the Quran,they turn away.it is not because only the Quran is used or because Allah is mentioned in the Quran alone/only.

^^^Thanks for your comprehensive "rebuttal".

"those people"? So the polytheist don't exist no more? Let me prove to they still exist.

let me test the argument put forth by the said verse.
Mr lagoshia, is it ok to advocate God using the quran alone and nothing else?

if you agree, then u are exempted from the category suggested by the verse.

if not. I can't help but say the Argument advanced by the said verse has been confirmed.

sallam

usisky: ^^^Thanks for your comprehensive "rebuttal".

"those people"? So the polytheist don't exist no more? Let me prove to they still exist.

let me test the argument put forth by the said verse.
Mr lagoshia, is it ok to advocate God using the quran alone and nothing else?

if you agree, then u are exempted from the category suggested by the verse.

if not. I can't help but say the Argument advanced by the said verse has been confirmed.

sallam

those people (polytheists) still exist today and the verse stands as witness against them.but then when the verse was revealed,there was nothing as written hadith books talkless of fabricated hadiths.so the verse doesn't negate the use of hadiths as we presently know.

i have nothing against using the Quran alone to preach about Allah (swt).i believe using hadith (not false ones) is still aimed at the same purpose as using the Quran and to give details where needed.i see also nothing wrong with that.i dont think you should see something wrong with that (people referring to authentic hadiths in agreement with the Quran) and make a sect of it.what muslims should do is to show maturity and shun the false hadiths only.honesty and sincerity is required here.

Sallam lagoshia.

pls do continue to note that the idea of us having this dicussions and similar is not to ridicule or mock ones belief. If anything, my own intention is to purge islam of any falsehood that crept in through the backdoor and to restore it to its pristine purity as praciced by muhammad and his good companions.

From the foregoing argument we had on verse 17:46, i will still reitrate that the translation of that verse as seen in most quran translation is wrong. And that it was deliberately so, in order to conceal the truth such a verse wishes to proclaim- that the quran should be the only source for advocating God.

U have just mentioned something from the thread we both visited a while ago. Mr lagoshia, do u in all honesty believe in Hadith/sunna? Do want us to have an extensive discusion on that? Pls reply. If u agree, then we would have to initiate a new thread for that. Now mr lagoshia, give me your final stand on my allegation against the deliberate mistranslation of the verse in question So we may discuss another.

PS: i am no quranist, i am a submitter(muslim in arabic) and i can prove my case for adopting that name.quranist are deviant sects whose got nothing to do with what i promote. Even though they appear similar in views, we not the same.

i have stated my understanding of the verse in question earlier and i stick to that.the Quran is the main source for Muslims and other sources which are used must agree with the Quran.they must compliment and agree with the Quran and not contradict any Quranic verse.

i do accept hadiths that are "sahih" or validated through scholarly scrutiny.i also follow the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) as demonstrated by him and the teachings of the 12 Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) who are the rightly guided caliphs.