Bismika Alllahuma

최근에 우리는 새로웠던 것에 소개되었다, 즐거운 논쟁 낱말 "ahad (유엔)"에 관하여 선교사에 의하여, 즉. 선교사를 인용하기 위하여, 낱말의 사용 ahad:

… Quran가 걸작인에서 멀리 다는 것을, 또는 아랍 능변의 작은 뾰족탑 보여준다. 알라의 본질과 관련되는 아주 결정적인 원본에 있는 낱말의 틀린 사용은 신이 Quran의 저자가 아니다 명확한 증거이다.

이 결과를 달성하기 위하여는, 선교사는 낱말은 "1개"를 의미하지 않는다는 것을, 그러나 "것" 주장하는 기독교 아라비아 사람 polemicist에서 온라인 원본을 인용한다. 요구하는 무엇을 진실한가? 우리는 뒤에 오는 것 의 insha' 알라에 있는 이 주장에 응답하는 것을 노력한다.

"Ahad" 평균 "는 것의" 진짜로?

선교사에 따르면:

굉장하게, 운문 1의 실제적인 아랍은 알라가 것살다는 것을 밝히지 않으며, 그러나 문자로 알라가 1의다는 것을 밝힌다. 이것은 문장에서 것 사용된 낱말 때문에, 즉 ahad를 위해 이다.

실제로인 그들의 극단적인 백치 및 무지 깜짝 놀라게 하고 있는" 무엇이 실제로 형용사인 낱말 "ahad"의 의미 "에 관하여 이 계산서에서, 대명사인 "1개와 반대로의". "ahad"의 의미를 뒤트는 그들의 성급에 있는 선교사는 이 2개의 명백한 반대 사이에서 구별하지 못했다!

첫째로, 시키십시오 저희를 언급한다 설치한 의미를의 "ahad사전 권위에 의해 설치되는". 그의 정의에 있는 Hans Wehr는 저것을 말한다:

¹

의미의 "주의하십시오ahad" 변화한다에서 "1개"에 "누구", 그러나 확실하게 그들 전부 형용사 "것"인, 동일한 의미에 동의하십시오 아닙니다 대명사 "것의"! 일라이어스 & 일라이어스는 또한 그들의 따르는 입장에 있는 Wehr로 일치한다:

²

그러므로 우리는 설치했다 저것을 "ahad(유엔) "것"와 토론이 다만 거기 멈춰야 한ㄴ다는 것을" 참으로 의미한다. 그러나, 선교사는 그가 평균을 "요구하는 운문의 명부를 집계했다,1개의 ",' Qur anic 원본에서 일어나기. Hence, to add a further blow to the missionary propaganda, we produce the following entry from a Qur’anic concordance which distinguishes between the word “ahad” and “ihda“, accompanied by the Qur’anic verse numbers in where they occur.

³

It is indeed clear from the above that the missionary have no case to follow. “Ahad” does indeed mean “one” and it occurs frequently throughout the Qur’anic text. Whereas the word “ihda” (which means “one of”) occurs only twice in the Qur’an.

What About “Wahid”?

The missionaries have charged the following regarding the usage of the word “ahad“:

In every single case, ahad is used to refer to one of something, to one member of a specific group. None of the examples used this word to mean one, alone, single etc.

Ironically, this allegation of the missionary is only true for the very word which the missionary is trying hard to promote, i.e. “wahid“! The following entry from Wehr shows the definition of “wahid“:

⁴

Has the missionary confused himself? The above entry clearly states that wahid can mean “…each one of them” or “every one of them” which certainly shows that it can refer a member of a specific group. What is the missionary trying to say and what exactly does he want to achieve by this pointless polemic?

With regard to the missionary allegation that “wahid” is a better substitute for “ahad”, we say that the missionary have certainly never heard this Sura’ being recited when he made this idiotic claim. To listen to Sura’ al-Ikhlas, we implore our readers to download and listen to the Sura’ recitation by Sheikh Abdul Rahman As-Sudais here [ .mp3 format]. Readers can easily note how the Sura’ is structurally pronounced and the overall tone of the Sura’ is rhythmically consistent in the usage of the word “ahad“. Hence this missionary polemic is dismissible and can now be discarded as nothing more than inflated nonsense.

“Echad” and the Missionary’s Folly

In their futile attempt in trying to “determine” the origin of ahad, the missionary made the following laughable claim:

One possible, and even probable, explanation as to why Muhammad, or the author of the Quran, used the word ahad is because of his interaction with the Jews. Muhammad may have heard the Jewish Shema, the monotheistic creed of faith found in Deuteronomy 6:4, recited which uses the word echad to refer to Yahweh?s unity.

Any student of the Semitic languages will be gaping in awe at this sweeping statement. It is known that Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages, hence there are many words in both languages which share the same language. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ lexicon exhibits this understanding with the following entry:

⁵

Please note that the BDB have included ahad in its entry of “echad”, and both are identified as adjectives. Unfortunately for the missionary, there is no meaning “one of” recorded by this celebrated lexicon.

With regard to the word echad, Strong’s concordance also agrees with the BDB:

⁶

Conclusions

In his summary, the missionary made the following fatutous claim:

In any case, Muslims are in a dilemma. Since the data shows that the literal rendering of Sura 112:1 is that “Allah is one of,” the question remains one of what? Is he one of many gods?

We had shown in the above that the missionary is confused between an adjective (”ahad“) and a pronoun (”ihda“), two different Arabic words that have little correlation to each other and certainly the latter does not exist in Sura’ al-Ikhlas (Qur’an, 112). Hence from where did this missionary got his “literal reading” from if the word “ihda” is non-existent in the above-mentioned Sura’? Certainly the missionary is hard-pressed to provide such evidence apart from his blinkered view of Islam. It is indeed understood that God is, as explained by Ibn Katheer in his interpretation of Sura’ al-Ikhlas:

“He is the One and Only without equal, nor any minister or partner, nor any like or parallel; and this description cannot be applied to anyone save Allah(T) because He(T) is Perfect in all His Attributes and all His Actions.”⁷

It is also equally obvious that the missionary is desperate enough to “read into” the Qur’anic text for evidence of the non-existent Trinitarian doctrine as held by Christians. Worse still for the missionary, we have shown from his own Bible that the Hebrew echad (which is also an adjective) is understood as “one” and is synonymous with the Arabic ahad, and its accompanying interpretation from Jewish scholars. There is no room for a Trinitarian interpretation for “echad“, and likewise, there cannot be any form of the pseudo-monotheistic Trinity in its sister equivalent, “ahad“.

And only Allahu Ahad knows best.

1. J.M. Cowan (ed.), The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Spoken Language Services, NY, (1976) [back]
2. Elias A. Elias & Edward E. Elias, Elias’ Pocket Dictionary Arabic/English, Elias Modern Publishing House, Cairo (right column) [back]
3. Ahmad Ibrahim, Al-Qur’an Malay-English Dictionary: Denoting Books and Verses, Pustaka Bina Insani, Kuala Lumpur (1989), p. 18 [back]
4. J.M. Cowan (ed.), ibid. [back]
5. F. Brown, S. Driver and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: Withh An Appendix Containing The Biblical Aramaic, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts (2001) [back]
6. James Strong, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Tenessee (1996) [back]
7. Sameh Strauch (transl.), Selected Qur’anic Verses Explained From The Tafseer of At-Tabari, Ibn Katheer & Ibn Al-Qayyim, IIPH, Riyadh (1999), p. 130 [back]