U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-31-2015, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

From my research of the Quran, Allah condemned infidels in the worst terms for attributing Allah with partners.

However, it is noted the Quran use the pronoun 'We' to represent Allah which imply [directly and/or indirectly] Allah has partners. I counted the use of Allah in terms of 'We' appx. 454 times within the first 20 chapters. It is likely that "We" could end with 1000++ times.

Why the contradiction?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2015, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,272,269 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
From my research of the Quran, Allah condemned infidels in the worst terms for attributing Allah with partners.

However, it is noted the Quran use the pronoun 'We' to represent Allah which imply [directly and/or indirectly] Allah has partners. I counted the use of Allah in terms of 'We' appx. 454 times within the first 20 chapters. It is likely that "We" could end with 1000++ times.

Why the contradiction?
Like many languages including English and Arabic there is the concept of the Royal We were we is a singularity and not a pluaral. It is used in Hebrew and Christian scripture and legal documents by a person of Authority.

ROYAL WE:

Quote:
Non-Western usage

Several prominent epithets of the Bible describe the Jewish God in plural terms: Elohim, Adonai, and El Shaddai. Many Christian scholars, including the likes of Augustine of Hippo, have seen the use of the plural and grammatically singular verb forms as support for the doctrine of the Trinity.[7] Judaism rejects the notion of the Trinity[8] and argues instead that these cases are merely examples of the majestic plural.[9] Secular scholars consider these forms to be holdovers from early Israelite/Canaanite beliefs, before the development of monolatrism/monotheism. Similarly, the God of the Qur‘an employs the Arabic pronoun nahnu ("We") or its associated verb suffix in many verses.[10]

In China and every monarchy within its cultural orbit (including Japan, Korea, and Vietnam), the majestic imperial pronoun was expressed by the character 朕 (Old Chinese: *lrəmʔ). This was in fact the former Chinese first-person singular pronoun (i.e., "I") but – following his unification of China the emperor Shi Huangdi arrogated it entirely for his personal use. All other speakers and writers were obliged to choose some appropriate epithet (such as 愚, "This Foolish One") instead of using the former pronoun. While this practice did not need to impact the non-Chinese countries as much since their variants of 朕 were generally imported loanwords, the polite avoidance of pronouns is still observed throughout East Asia.[11] Mainland China, following the May Fourth Movement and the Communist victory in its civil war, is now the exception, its present first-person singular 我 having gradually been adopted from a common epithet expressing "This [Worthless] Body".[12]

The Mughal emperors and Sultans of Banu Abbas and Banu Umayyah used the majestic plural.[citation needed] Arabic – particularly Egyptian Arabic – continues to employ the form in diplomatic language: for instance, the proper form of address towards the President of Egypt is فخامتكم (Fakhāmatakum, "Your Excellencies").

This use is also popular among speakers of the Batangan dialect of Tagalog. Some actors and politicians, including Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, have been known to use the Tagalog exclusive form in giving interviews.

In Hindustani, Punjabi and other North Indian languages, the pluralis maiestatis is a common way for elder speakers to refer to themselves when addressing those younger than them, and also for persons of higher social rank or caste to refer to themselves when speaking to those of a perceived inferior rank or caste. In certain communities, the singular plural I (मैं) may be dispensed with altogether for self-reference, and the nosism used uniformly while speaking to a social inferior or superior.[13]

In Telugu, the royal we exists and is used amongst royalty or elite persons.

Under the teaching of some Hindu Gurus, usage of the 'I' is considered as leading to Ahamkara and discouraged in favour of using the first person plural as a 'humble I' (see the author's We). Nevertheless, this leads to potential confusion, as several Indian languages have distinct inclusive and exclusive Wes, and the listeners may consider themselves included involuntarily in actions described.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

If you desire I can go into more detail and explain it in terms of Arabic Grammar.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2015, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Like many languages including English and Arabic there is the concept of the Royal We were we is a singularity and not a pluaral. It is used in Hebrew and Christian scripture and legal documents by a person of Authority.

ROYAL WE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

If you desire I can go into more detail and explain it in terms of Arabic Grammar.
A corporation incorporated by a 'Company Act' is a singular legal person [entity]. "We" is often used to represent the company speaking about its affairs. The fact is because whilst a company a legal person, the reality and fundamental is it is actually represented by a group of humans, i.e. the Management team and its employee.

It is the same with the Royal 'We.'
When a King used the term "we" it is sign that he has forego his egoism/narcissism and the "we" imply the King recognize his proclamations to his people are from him and his Prime Minister & team.

In the olden days [>3000 years] when a King is more narcissistic, egoistic, autocratic, alpha-male, absolute it is more likely that King will use "I" all the time.

However since Allah is omnipotent and Absolute, there is no need for Allah to use the term "we".
It is of no help that the OT and NT God is doing the same as they are of the same family.
If Muhammad is a conveyer and warner, he should have expressed Allah's revelation as 'Allah said: .. this, that, ...... etc ' Allah is supposed to be an omnipotent, absolute God, there is no necessity for the term 'we' at all.

However the use of the term 'we' in addition to "us" and "ours" [many times] in the Quran support my hypotheses;
1. The Quran is based on Muhammad's or someone's thoughts and has nothing with a God.
2. God does not exists, so there is no way there is a Quran from a God but rather the Quran is man-made, thus creating the mess-up.

This is why there is an inclusion of the term 'we' which Muhammad has inadvertently combined his own thoughts with a non-existent God.
This mess-up of 'we' imply that Allah has partners somehow and thus contradict Allah's insistence he should not be ascribed partners.

This is consistent with the usual mess of starting with a false premise [e.g. God exists] and eventually down the line one has to do a lot of patching of holes that keep appearing after the previous one has been filled up.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2015, 06:39 AM
 
Location: quiet place
271 posts, read 214,167 times
Reputation: 99
it common not only in Arabic language to use that(WE) instead of (I) to indicate the High statue, even the kings nowadays use this form when they address others > e.g ( We Salman son of Abdel Aziz, king of Saudi Arabia, after reviewing the Supreme Court resolution no. 123 , decreed the following: ...............etc)

even the single speaker use this if he of high rank.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2015, 11:36 PM
 
1,244 posts, read 708,878 times
Reputation: 1196
Quote:
Originally Posted by resigned View Post
it common not only in Arabic language to use that(WE) instead of (I) to indicate the High statue, even the kings nowadays use this form when they address others > e.g ( We Salman son of Abdel Aziz, king of Saudi Arabia, after reviewing the Supreme Court resolution no. 123 , decreed the following: ...............etc)

even the single speaker use this if he of high rank.
Thanks. The meaning is not that the "We" refers to the king and his ministers like Continuum falsely claimed.

This is common in many languages, such as french, or german. Social etiquette requires to address an individual using plural when in a formal context. In french you should use "Vous" instead of "Tu" and in german "Sie" instead of "Du" or risk a social faux pas.

It should be noted that in the Bible also, plural is used to speak of God. In the first verse of the first chapter, God is called Elohim which is a plural noun. Elohim is the plural of Eloha (deity).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

In the original language : "Berecheet bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets"

Elohim is used instead of Eloha to emphasize the Glory of God.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2015, 11:55 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,736,927 times
Reputation: 1328
"We" does not indicate "High statue" it early indicates plurality... and always has!
Kind and Queens might use We because they ACT AS REPRESENTATIVES of the whole, when they decide, the whole group has already agreed to make them the decider for all... it gives the decision an air of democracy...
the same is true for why the Angel Gabriel uses the "we" in his quotes "from Allah" in the Quran, Allah is supposing that he represents ALL of Heaven, and thus in being the "King of heavenly groups" he uses "We" to refer to decisions that involve his imagined heaven (as a whole group of many beings) deciding since he is the ultimate decider for them all (just like a King or Queen for their anti-voting Kingdom).

Elohim also accidentally emphasizes the shameful Cronyism, Nepotism, and Favoritism of said imagined being (and supposed first ancestor of all beings in the ultimate ancestor-worhsip religions) and rightfully shames the Fascist monopoly of a being that was forced to represent his Slave-Servants by referring to the plurality of Heaven that it chose to serve its egoistic and meaningless vanity. Such ideas clearly represent the psyche of those that favor them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 12:41 AM
 
1,244 posts, read 708,878 times
Reputation: 1196
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
"We" does not indicate "High statue" it early indicates plurality... and always has!
This might be true in your native language, but is not in true others. My native language is french and "we" may be used by an individual to signify his greatness. An arabic speaker provided us with an example of how "we" can be used in his language by a ruler.

Unless you master the arabic grammar it may be wise not to comment on this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
Elohim also accidentally emphasizes the shameful Cronyism, Nepotism, and Favoritism of said imagined being (and supposed first ancestor of all beings in the ultimate ancestor-worhsip religions) and rightfully shames the Fascist monopoly of a being that was forced to represent his Slave-Servants by referring to the plurality of Heaven that it chose to serve its egoistic and meaningless vanity. Such ideas clearly represent the psyche of those that favor them.
Is this a rabbinic interpretation or is it your personal interpretation ? What I gave was a rabbinic explanation of the word Elohim.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 01:08 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorel36 View Post
This might be true in your native language, but is not in true others. My native language is french and "we" may be used by an individual to signify his greatness. An arabic speaker provided us with an example of how "we" can be used in his language by a ruler.

Unless you master the arabic grammar it may be wise not to comment on this topic.

Is this a rabbinic interpretation or is it your personal interpretation ? What I gave was a rabbinic explanation of the word Elohim.
As I had stated 'God' who is supposed to be the most supreme is not any earthly "ruler."

Are you saying the term "we" can be either plural or singular?
If yes, then we are introducing ambiguity into a language which is likely to cause confusions and thus not effective.
My point is since God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect in all ways, God should be in a position to avoid confusion and should have use more precise terms to avoid the possibility of contradictions and misinterpretations by others.

My argument is the Quran is not from God but from the personal thoughts of Muhammad or some others, that is why the ambiguous term "we" was used for whatever human reasons. It is because the Quran was from the thoughts of humans [never from any God] that lend itself to this possible contradiction, i.e. 'No partners but use 'we.'

Btw, don't use that immature excuse 'don't know Arabic, don't discuss', 'don't know Physics, do not discus ...' 'not a qualified doctor, don't talk medical issues' etc.
There are always many approaches to align difficulties at various levels.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 07:01 AM
 
1,244 posts, read 708,878 times
Reputation: 1196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Are you saying the term "we" can be either plural or singular?
Yes. This is true in French and in Arabic as well (see the quote from the King of KSA). I have also provided you with a biblical example in classical hebrew where a plural noun can be used to speak of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw, don't use that immature excuse 'don't know Arabic, don't discuss',
Your question tackles rules of the arabic language, yet you think people who can't even read the arabic alphabet should be able to bring their opinions ? How can you be taken seriously ? Your question is specifically directed at arabic speakers. I personally do not master the arabic language this is why I gave examples of other languages that I speak or was taught, like french and german, and an official commentary on the word "Elohim" by rabbis.

Now you can have your own views, but the matter at hand relates to objective facts, such as grammatical rules.

I know your questions are only rhetorical and not asked in good faith. I only respond because honest people in search of the truth might benefit from answers.

Last edited by Sorel36; 08-06-2015 at 07:37 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorel36 View Post
Yes. This is true in French and in Arabic as well (see the quote from the King of KSA). I have also provided you with a biblical example in classical hebrew where a plural noun can be used to speak of God.



Your question tackles rules of the arabic language, yet you think people who can't even read the arabic alphabet should be able to bring their opinions ? How can you be taken seriously ? Your question is specifically directed at arabic speakers. I personally do not master the arabic language this is why I gave examples of other languages that I speak or was taught, like french and german, and an official commentary on the word "Elohim" by rabbis.

Now you can have your own views, but the matter at hand relates to objective facts, such as grammatical rules.
Note it is not only "we" [500++ could be 1000+ times -awaiting full count] but the Quran also use "us" and "ours" to represent 'Allah.'

My point is such ambiguous rules should not be applicable to 'God' the supreme, greatest, absolute, perfect being.

When the singular pronoun "I" "my" and "mine" are readily available and when plural "we" "us" and "ours" are used instead, one can sense there is a 'slight' shift [dilution] from singular to plural. I have given examples of the use of "we' for an singular corporate entity or the case of the royal "we."

My point is there should not be any exception for 'God' singularity to be diluted or made ambiguous in any way at all.

Quote:
I know your questions are only rhetorical and not asked in good faith. I only respond because honest people in search of the truth might benefit from answers.
Truth! that is what I am seeking and in a very objective way for humanity's sake.

In the Quran, it is demanded by Allah there should not be any partners for Allah [~80 times] and mentioned appx. 55 times Allah should not have rivals, etc.
And it is because that Jews, Christians, pagans were unnecessarily accused of assigning partners and rivals to Allah as stated in the Quran, that the Quran condone their killings as they are a threat to the religion.
It is a FACT and objectively that SOME Muslims has acted upon the related verses in the Quran [plus hadiths, sira] to commit terrible evils and violence upon the "hated" non-Muslims, [infidels, kafir, kuffar] dehumanized as 'apes,' 'swine' 'asses' 'dogs' etc.

I believe the contradiction of the use of the plurals pronouns "we" "us" and "ours" to represent a perfect supreme singularity leave clues for us to investigate further into the truth of the matter for humanity sake and that is in good faith.

Your accusation of others relying on bad faith is purely due to a maligned personal psychology arising an inherent existential dilemma.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top