The Scope of the Focus Particle ʾInnamā in the Qurʾān

According to traditional Arabic grammar, the particle ʾinnamā has two functions: it serves as an emphatic particle (ḥarfu taʾkīd) or as a particle of restriction (ḥarfu ḥaṣr) denoting “only.” Our research focuses on the restrictive function of ʾinnamā, particularly its scope. Scholars typically explain that ʾinnamā is restricted to clause-initial position, while it always effects the last component in that clause. Our examination raised several findings regarding this particle: First, sentences introduced by ʾinnamā are often categorical statements discussing what it takes to be a believer, an unbeliever; of being God, the Devil or the Prophet. It is therefore comparatively easy to interpret and paraphrase them as conditionals or “if... then” statements. Also, these universal affirmative or negative propositions lend themselves as premises for further deductions that might be drawn from them. Second, the scope of ʾinnamā is versatile ‒ it can be a noun phrase, a prepositional phrase or a verbal phrase followed by its direct object, a relative clause or a complete sentence. These distinctions are not always clear-cut; in some cases there is a choice between two possible domains or scopes, depending on the structure of the ʾinnamā clause. In most cases, however, the verses allow one interpretation only, which is reducible to a genuine symbolic form of modern logic notation.


INTRODUCTION The Particle ʾinnamā in Grammatical Treatises
The particle ʾinnamā is treated by the traditional grammarians.In what follows, the explanation provided by them will be presented, however, it is interesting to see the treatment of ʾinnamā does not always directly elucidate the use of the particle ʾinnamā as a restrictive particle.
In the chapter entitled hāḏā bābu ʾinnamā wa-ʾannamā, Sībawayhi (1999: vol.3, 129-130) says that the particle ʾinnamā can be placed wherever the particle ʾinna is placed.However, where one of the ʾafʿāl al-qulūb "verbs of the heart" is involved, it must be followed by ʾinnamā and not by ʾinna.For example, the sentence *waǧadtuka ʾannaka ṣāḥibu kulli ḫanān "I found you the possessor of all [that is] obscene/corrupted/wrong [in the language]" is ungrammatical, and it should be constructed as waǧadtuka ʾinnamā ʾanta ṣāḥibu kulli ḫanā "I found you the mother of foul-mouthed language" (lit.I found you as the possessor of all [that is] obscene/corrupted/wrong [in the language]).The reason for using ʾinnamā and not ʾannamā or ʾanna in such cases is that when ʾinnamā is introduced, it indicates the beginning of a new clause functioning as the second direct object of the verb waǧadtu, hence the sentence means literally "I found you as the possessor of all [that is] obscene."So ʾannamā and ʾanna and the clause which follows them cannot be direct objects.Additionally, considering the sentence ʾurā ʾannahu munṭaliqun, the clause ʾannahu munṭaliqun has the status (manzila) of a verbal noun, hence the sentence is incomprehensible because it means *ʾurā nṭilāqahu "I think/believe his leaving."Thus the sentence should be constructed as ʾurā ʾinnamā huwa munṭaliqun "I believe he is leaving." Sībawayhi also compares ʾinnamā to the conjunctive noun llaḏī because both components are followed by a conjunctive clause (ṣila) 1 and neither word operates as ʿāmil.Additionally, according to al-Ḫalīl ʾinnamā has the status of a dispensable verb (fiʿl mulġā) like the verb ʾašhadu in the sentence ʾašhadu la-zaydun ḫayrun minka "I witness/confirm that Zayd is better than you."The verb ʾašhadu, like ʾinnamā, does not operate as ʿāmil and simply stands at the beginning of the clause.
ʾinnamā is usually mentioned in a discussion of mā al-kāffa (lit.)"the preventing mā."According to the traditional grammarians, this type of mā is appended to ʾinna, ʾanna, ka-ʾanna and lākinna, hindering its operation as ʿāmil. 2 The particle mā which is appended to ʾinna has two pos-sible meanings, such as, for example, ʾinnamā ḥarrama ʿalaykumu l-maytata wa-d-dama wa-laḥma l-ḫinzīri (Q 2:173) "Verily, He has forbidden you carrion, blood, swine flesh."If mā functions as mā al-kāffa the noun that follows it will be in the accusative, so the verse can be interpreted as "Verily, He has forbidden you only carrion, blood and swine flesh."It can also be analyzed as a relative pronoun followed by a noun in the nominative, while the verse should be reconstructed as follows: *ʾinna mā ḥarramahu ʿalaykumu l-maytata wa-ddama wa-laḥma l-ḫinzīri "What God has forbidden is carrion, blood and swine flesh" (Ibn Hišām 1991: vol. 1, 450).While Sībawayhi refers to the grammatical characterization of ʾinnamā, later grammarians elucidate the Qurʾānic function of ʾinnamā as a restrictive particle.Some grammarians (not named by Ibn Hišām) say that mā al-kāffa suffixed to ʾinna is a particle of negation (nāfiya), and therefore ʾinnamā also serves as ḥarfu ḥaṣr "particle of limitation/restriction."The combination of ʾinna denoting emphasis and mā denoting negation can exist only in one case: where ʾinnamā functions as a restrictive particle (Ibn Hišām 1991: vol. 1,  501), for example, qul ʾinnamā ʾana bašarun miṯlukum yūḥā ʾilayya ʾannamā ʾilāhukum ʾilāhun wāḥidun (Q 18:110) "Say: I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me that your God is One God." 3 In conclusion, ʾinnamā consists of two elements ʾinna and mā al-kāffa, which prevents ʾinna from causing the noun following to be in the accusative.In this case, ʾinnamā can serve as an emphatic particle (ḥarfu taʾkīd) that can be translated as "indeed," "verily," or as a particle of limitation or restriction (ḥarfu ḥaṣr) denoting "only."While ʾinnamā stands at the beginning of the clause, the word or phrase affected by it is positioned at the end of the clause (Fischer 2002: 150). 4innamā can also be understood as ʾinna followed by the relative mā (Fischer 2002: 150). 5his article treats the function of ʾinnamā as a restrictive particle.Its counterpart in English is the particle only, classified by scholars as a focus particle.A brief definition of this term follows.

Only as a Focus Particle
In Western grammatical descriptions, only is classified by some scholars as an adverb of focus 6 and by others as a particle of focus. 7In the clause Only JOHN phoned the particle only is a focus device used to assign prominence or stress; John is the part to which the prominence is assigned and the verb phoned is the residue, hence is not stressed (Taglicht  1984: 1). 8 These examples show that the different interpretation of the same sentence is caused by the different location of the particle only, which in each sentence is related to a specific component, thus is stressed or has a different phrasal/sentential scope (König 1991: 7,10,11). 9Introducing a focus adverb into a sentence may cause ambiguity (Hoeksema and  Zwarts 1991: 57).Difference in focus will also alter the relevance of truth-values.Consider the two following sentences (1) John only introduced Bill to Sue (2) John only introduced Bill to Sue.In the first sentence "Bill" is stressed; in the second, the focal stress lies on "Sue".This difference means that the truth-value of either sentence will differ as well.The first indicates that if John introduced anybody at all to Sue, it was Bill, therefore the truth-value of the sentence hinges on whether Bill was or was not introduced; the second alternative holds if the lady Bill was introduced to was indeed none other than Sue (Von Stechow 1991: 38). 10

Objectives
The present study attempts to clarify what are the possible scopes of the focus particle ʾinnamā in the Qurʾānic verses and how they are determined.It should be mentioned in this context that sometimes the particle ʾinnamā can be interpreted by the Qurʾānic translators as ʾinna "verily".It is not our goal to explain in which context the interpretation of ʾinnamā as emphatic or as restrictive is motivated.We examine in this study only 52 verses in which ʾinnamā is interpreted as "only" in the two translation we mentioned previously (see footnote 3). 11s it was shown, in English, for example, a different location of the focus particle is responsible for difference in meaning; and the presence of only immediately before the focus eliminates any ambiguity.However, in Arabic the word order is irrelevant to the identification of the focal element because the particle ʾinnamā has a fixed location at the beginning of the sentence; therefore, the associated focus is not always adjacent to the particle ʾinnamā.So how can the scope of this particle be determined?
In section 1.1 We mentioned previously that Western scholars argue that the scope of ʾinnamā is always the component that stands at the end of the sentence: "ʾinnamā is an emphatic and restrictive particle "only".While ʾinnamā stands at the beginning, that which is affected by it is usually, but not always, placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis ʾinnamā hiya ḫarqāʾu ḥamqāʾu "She is only a slovently, stupid (woman)" (Fischer 2002, 170).
This general claim is clearly inaccurate because it does not explain why or how the limitative function of ʾinnamā is related to this syntactic component.A close examination reveals that in some cases there is a choice between two possible domains or scopes of this particle.We shall show that ambiguous and unambiguous cases can be distinguished.
Since we will explain the possible focus of the particle ʾinnamā in the discussed examples in terms of a natural language calculus, we would like to present the various types of this calculus in the following section.

Natura Language Calculus
Distinctions are a Qurʾānic leitmotiv, a recurrent theme throughout.Rosalind Ward Gwynne (2004: 184) writes: "If the Qurʾān may be called in rhetorical terms a single enormous contrast between God and his creation, in logical terms it is a single enormous disjunction between true belief and error".Natural Language calculus, developed in the first half of the twentieth century, is a metalanguage that helps us to view the workings of natural language from a distance, to see through the layer of syntactic idiosyncrasies by reformulating sentences according to rules considered commonly shared ways of human thinking.Sentence-or propositional logic is basically built up of symbols for ¬ "not", & "and", ∨ "or", ⊃ "conditional" and ⇒ "implication." 12hese connectors show sentences are connected -namely, their interdependence.In sentence logic, basic units are treated as "atomic"; but widening sentence logic into predicate logic by introducing the quantifiers ∀ "all" and ∃ "at least one" will enable us to analyze the inner workings of atomic sentences as well.Brackets are especially important here because they mark out how strings of words can be grouped in different ways.
This will help us to reveal the structural ambiguity of certain sentences.Lexical ambiguity arises where words have different meanings; referential ambiguity is confusion about who or what is denoted by a certain predicate anyway; structural ambiguity occurs whenever strings might represent different sentences, where one sentence could have different meanings.
The so-called Square of opposition is the traditional baseline to explain the four standard forms of categorical propositions: A: Universal affirmative propositions (All S is P); E: Universal negative propositions (No S is P); I: Particular affirmative propositions (Some S is P); O: Particular negative propositions (Some S is not P).

Universal affirmative propositions
Universal affirmative propositions are essentially conditionals which again are made by grouping a negation ¬ with an alternation ∨ or combination &.In natural language these implications can be phrased as "If A then B"; as "A only if B"; and even as "Only if B, A." They might be symbolized as (A ⊃ B); as (¬ A ∨ B) meaning (not A or B); and even as ¬ (A & ¬ B) read as "It is not the case that A and not B".These phrases and their formulae are equivalent, therefore interchangeable.Hence verse 47:19: lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāhu "There is no God except God (Allah)" is a Universal affirmative proposition that can be paraphrased as "For all x: If god x exists, then x is Allah."Given the quality G as shorthand for EXISTS AS GOD and the quality A for BEING ALLAH, formal notation will yield ∀x (Gx ⊃ Ax).
However, perhaps for rhetorical reasons the logically equivalent formula ∀x (¬ Gx ∨ Ax) read as "No God or Allah" was given preference in this verse; it means the same but sounds more strident in Arabic.Still, it would be far more circumspect but acceptable as well to formulate ¬ [∀x (Gx & ¬ Ax)] "It is not the case that for all x: There exists an x qualified as god and this x is not Allah."

Universal negative propositions
An example of a Universal negative proposition is verse 2:256: lā ʾikrāha fī d-dīni "There is no compulsion in religion."We can rephrase this into "For any x: If x is religion, then x is not compulsion," thereby making this a categorical statement of the E form.Formal notation will yield ∀x (Rx ⊃ ¬ Cx) for R: RELIGION and C: COMPULSION, or in equivalent terms ¬ ∃x(Rx & Cx) "There is no x, such that x is religion and x is compulsion."Religion and compulsion belong to different spheres which never overlap.

Particular propositions
Verse 72:11: wa-ʾannā minnā ṣ-ṣāliḥūna wa-minnā dūna ḏālika "And there are those of us who are upright and there are those of us who are not" combines an I proposition ∃x(Wx & Ux) where W: WE and U: TO BE UPRIGHT can be interpreted as "There is as least an x that belongs to us and this x is upright" and an O proposition

"Only" as Universal affirmative proposition
In most cases we found, "only" is based on a Universal affirmative proposition read in reverse.Linguistically, the reversal of an A proposition is marked by "only," "just," "simply" and other expressions."All who believe in Allah are Muslims" then becomes "Only Muslims believe in Allah."The A proposition informs us who can count as a Muslim (a believer in Allah); its reversal informs us who is accountable as believer in Allah (only Muslims are.)The A proposition defines the inner sense of a term, its intension; its reversal outlines, the circumference of this term, its extension.So an A proposition and its reversal are two sides of the same coin, where the obverse or "heads" shows us the inner sense of a term --its intension, and the reverse or "tails" --the extension or value of the currency.
The famous Beach Boys song title "God Only Knows" owes its word order to a grammatical usage that is out of fashion today; but we can easily see that the difference between "Only God knows x" and "God knows only x" is profound."Only God knows x" might be paraphrased as: K: TO BE KNOWN G: TO BE WITH GOD Paraphrase: "For all x: If x is known, then x is with God." Formula: ∀x (Kx ⊃ Gx) This in turn is equivalent to saying: Paraphrase: "For all x: No x is known or this x is with God." Formula: ∀x (¬ Kx ∨ Gx).
In English phrases the position of "only" within the phrase or at its outer ends clearly focuses whether the objects or the predicates are subject to enquiry.The Arabic of the Qurʾān puts ʾinnamā ("only") always at the beginning of the phrase under consideration.

CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSIS
During the analysis process we first looked at the distribution of ʾinnamā in different discourse types; those verses were classified according to their syntactic structure and content.We then discussed whether these verses allow more than one interpretation.Finally, the sentences were paraphrased and a formula was presented that aimed to be the most appropriate rendition of the meaning the original sentence intended to convey.

Actions Restricted Only to the Believers or to the Unbelievers ʾinnamā + verb + relative clause
A feature shared by all cases in this category is a general predication concerning the activities performed by the believers and the unbelievers.The second statement, which starts with the particle ʾinnamā, restricts the performance of the activity mentioned in the previous clause to those who believe.
(1) mā kāna li-l-mušrikīna ʾan yaʿmuru masāǧida llāhi 13 šāhidīna ʿalā ʾanfusihim bi-l-kufri ʾulāʾika ḥabiṭat ʾaʿmāluhum wa-fī n-nāri hum ḫālidūna ʾinnamā yaʿmuru masāǧida llāhi man ʾāmana bi-llāhi wa-l-yawmi l-ʾāḫiri wa-ʾaqāma ṣ-ṣalāta wa-ʾātā z-zakāta wa-lam yaḫša ʾillā llāha (Q 9:17-18) "It is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah, while they bear witness to unbelief against themselves.These it is whose deeds are null, and in the Fire shall they abide forever.Only he who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms (zakāt), and fears none but Allah, shall maintain the mosques of Allah." Verse 18 has two potential readings: (a) He who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms (zakāt), and fears none but Allah, shall only maintain the mosques of Allah."According to this reading, the scope of the focus particle ʾinnamā is the verb yaʿmuru and its direct object (masāǧida llāhi).If ʾinnamā would have shown a positional variability, then this reading could have been structured as: *man ʾāmana bi-llāhi wa-l-yawmi l-ʾāḫiri wa-ʾaqāma ṣ-ṣalāta wa-ʾātā z-zakāta wa-lam yaḫša ʾillā llāha ʾinnamā yaʿmuru masāǧida llāhi (Q 9:17-18) (b) Only he who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms (zakāt), and fears none but Allah, shall maintain the mosques of Allah."According to this reading, in which the particle ʾinnamā takes a wide scope (the relative clause), verse 18 could have been constructed as: *ʾinnamā man ʾāmana billāhi wa-l-yawmi l-ʾāḫiri wa-ʾaqāma ṣ-ṣalāta wa-ʾātā z-zakāta wa-lam yaḫša ʾillā llāha yaʿmuru masāǧida llāhi To determine the correct meaning in this discourse, we may use first the Wh-interrogatives test to determine the potential focused/stressed element. 14In verse 17, we are informed that it is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah.The question which poses itself is: Who, then, is allowed to tend the mosques of Allah?
Depending on the answer Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms (zakāt), and fear none but Allah, are allowed to enter the mosques of Allah, the focused constituent is marked.Second, the text is ambigious but we are guided in this case by the truth-conditional.The first reading (a) is clearly false because it asserts that he who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms (zakāt), and fears none but Allah, shall do nothing other than maintain the mosques of Allah.When reading the Qurʾān, there are various commands which those who believe must fulfill, 15 whereas, visiting the mosques is only one of the instructions.The second reading (b) is the correct one because it asserts that Nobody other than he who believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms (zakāt), and fears none but Allah, shall maintain the mosques of Allah.
Verse Q 9:17-18 shows what we call "contrastive linkage."If we identify mušrikīna as the counter-concept of "believers" we may simply call them "unbelievers"; a believer simply is all and everything an unbeliever is not, and vice versa.Verse 9:17 thus simplified has the following interpretation: B: BELIEVE M: MAINTAIN MOSQUES Paraphrase: "For all x: If x non-believes, then x does not maintain mosques." Formula: ∀x (¬ Bx ⊃ ¬ Mx) Any non-believer is proscribed from maintaining a mosque (whether he is unable to do so or just not allowed is a question soon to be discussed).From this, we can infer a so-called Contraposition, logically equivalent to ∀x (¬ Bx ⊃ ¬ Mx); terms have changed their positions, negations are negated themselves by "negatio duplex affirmat": B: BELIEVE M: MAINTAIN MOSQUES Paraphrase: "For all x: If x maintains mosques, then x believes." Formula: ∀x (Mx ⊃ Bx) Now we might wonder whether maintaining a mosque is only possible for believers.Cannot unbelievers also maintain them?The conditional ∀x (Mx ⊃ Bx) tells us that they cannot; if we read ∀x (¬ Mx ∨ Bx) we see that someone does not maintain mosques or he is a believer.So if he does indeed maintain them, he in fact must be a believer.There might be other ways of proving your faith but maintaining a mosque is a sufficient condition for being a believer; this is just one of many ways to prove it.The conditional stated as ¬ [∀x (Mx & ¬ Bx)] "It is not the case that for all x: There is an x that maintains mosques and this x is not a believer" reminds us that it is impossible to maintain a mosque and be a non-believer at the same time; by maintaining mosques, we prove that we are part of the wider group of believers.As an Euler Diagram shows, the group of maintainers is wholly contained within the superset of believers: it is a smaller circle within a wider one.So a maintainer is necessarily a believer by definition.
A conditional is made up of two terms; the first term might be called protasis, hypothesis or antecedent; the other term might be called apodosis, thesis or consequent; the focus particle indicates the direction of dependence of the two terms, how the content of one term is expounded upon by the other.Any textbook on logic stresses that conditionals are purely formal relations.Their content might often seem rather far-fetched, but once we establish a connection -e.g., between belief and maintaining mosques -the consequences are inescapable.
Another example is: (2) lā yastaʾḏinuka llaḏīna yuʾminūna bi-llāhi wa-l-yawmi l-ʾāḫiri ʾan yuǧāhidū bi-ʾamwālihim wa-ʾanfusihim wa-llāhu ʿalīmun bi-l-muttaqīna ʾinnamā yastaʾḏinuka llaḏīna lā yuʾminūna bi-llāhi wa-l-yawmi l-ʾāḫiri wa-rtābat qulūbuhum fa-hum fī raybihim yataraddadūna (Q 9:44-45) "Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day do not ask you for exemption from fighting on the path of Allah with their wealth and lives.Allah is All-Knowing of the pious ones.Only those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day ask exemption for you, and their hearts are in doubt, so they waver in their doubt." According to Rāzī (2000: vol.15, 61-62), verses 44 to 45 were revealed after the Battle of Tabūk in order to distinguish the believers from the hypocrites, who had come to the Prophet for his permission to stay at home.The believers, on the other hand, never made excuses and always went to war without any hesitation.Only those who were weak in their belief, were hypocrites, and had no faith in Allah and the Resurrection Day, argued over the question of the Holy Struggle.
The focus particle ʾinnamā underlines the contrast between the believers and the hypocrites.If the listener is informed that those who believe in Allah and the Last Day do not ask God for exemption from fighting, then the question is who does ask?The only true proposition is: Only those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day ask exemption from you.It asserts that no other than the unbelievers/hypocrites will ask God to be excused from fighting in Godʿs way.Reading verse 45 as those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day only ask exemption from you asserts that the only action performed by the unbelievers is asking for exemption from fighting in the way of Allah.However, since the unbelivers perform other actions 16 this proposition does not hold, therefore the second reading, in which the verb is focused, has no true value.This argument can be formulated as follows: We read verse 9:45 as "Only those ask, who do not believe."Turned into the obverse it might be read "For every x: If x does not believe, then x asks."B: BELIEVE A: ASK FOR EXEMPTION Paraphrase: "For all x: If x does not believe, then x asks."Formula: ∀x (¬ Bx ⊃ Ax) This step allows us to infer the Contraposition of verse 9:45, which is already expressed in verse 9:44: Paraphrase: "For all x: If x does not ask, he believes."Formula: ∀x (¬ Ax ⊃ Bx) So once again, a conditional and its contraposition are used to stress an antithesis: true faith and vacillation are mutually exclusive.
In examples one and two there are two parallel-antithetical verses.In the next example this structure is not exhibited, however the content of the verses preceding the sentence starting with ʾinnamā stands in contrast to it: (3) ʾinnamā yuʾminu bi-ʾāyātinā llaḏīna ʾiḏā ḏukkirū bihā ḫarrū suǧǧadan wa-sabbaḥū bi-ḥamdi rabbihim wahum lā yastakbirūna (Q 32:15) "Only those who, when they are reminded of our signs, fall down prostrating in obeisance and celebrate the praise of their Lord, and they are not proud and they believe in our signs." In Q 32 verses 4-9 God All-Mighty is described.It is he who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them.He directs the affairs of this world from heaven down to earth.Yet in verses 9-14 we read that despite the power of the Almighty, people still have doubts.Asking: When we are lost in the earth (i.e. when we will become dust), shall we even then be (returned) into a new creation?The disbelief of the people is also illustrated in verse 12, where the unbelievers say to God: We have seen and we have heard (what You had promised), therefore send us back (to the world) so we could do righteousness.Thus, after illustrating the features of the wrong-doers, verses 12-17 refer to some outstanding qualities of the true believers.The transition from the unbelievers to the believers is marked by the application of the particle ʾinnamā.As in examples one and two, the focus scope is also the relative clause, where there is only one true-condition: only the believers and no other than them believe in God's signs.If ʾinnamā takes VP scope (i.e.yuʾminu bi-ʾāyātinā), the resultant reading the believers do nothing other than believe in Godʿs sign would be false because as it was mentioned previously that the believers perform various actions.This explanation can be concluded by the following formula: B: BELIEVE P: PROSTRATE Paraphrase: "For all x: If x believes, then x prostrates."Formula: ∀x (Bx ⊃ Px)

ʾinnamā + definite noun + relative clause
In this group ʾinnamā functions as a restrictive particle while still retaining an emphatic connotation.The main distinction between this group and the foregoing is the lack of any contrast between the two issues addressed.
(4) ʾinnamā t-tawbatu ʿalā llāhi li-llaḏīna yaʿmalūna s-sūʾa bi-ǧahālatin ṯumma yatūbūna min qarībin fa-ʾulāʾika yatūbu llāhu ʿalayhim (Q 4:17) "Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil out of ignorance and then repent soon.So these are they to whom Allah returns (mercifully) and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." In verse Q 4:16 repentance is always an option, as it is stated that when the women are guilty of lewdness, their husbands should call to witness four of them (Muslims) against these wives; then if they testify, the husbands shall detain the wives in the houses until death takes them away or Allah makes some way for them.However, when two of the wives commit lewdness they should be punished, but if they repent and amend, then the husband should turn aside from them.
Verse 4:17 adds that only those who do evil out of ignorance and repent immediately afterwards can expect forgiveness.This restriction is further strengthened by verse 18, which states that repentance will not save those who do evil deeds until death, then finally say: now I repent.
If ʾinnamā in Q 4:17 would have interacted with another foci, namely with both the NP at-tawbatu and the PPʿalā llāhi, then the meaning of the sentence would have been clearly different, stating that those who do evil ignorantly and then repent will only achieve repentence with Allah and nothing else other than that.However, this statement becomes false when we consider, for example, Q 25:69-70, where it is stated that on Judgment Day the chastisement will be doubled to the unbelievers.If they will repent, however, believe and do righteous deeds, Allah will not only accept their repentence but He will also change their evil deeds into good deeds.
The following conditional shows us how the consequent "being misled" is the necessary prerequisite for the antecedent "to repent"; remorse and repentance depend on the insight of having been led astray, of erring in our ways of striving for a goal which in itself is honorable: R: REPENT M: MISLED Paraphrase: "For all x: If x repents, then x has been misled."Formula: ∀x (Rx ⊃ Mx) In Q 4:17 verses 15, 16 and 17 are linked lexically by the repetition of words and verbs derived from the root of twb (tābā, tawwāb, tawba, yatūbūna, tawba, tubtu).Since the lexeme repentance is already presupposed and can be regarded as old information, the focus of ʾinnamā must indicate new information. 17This new information is provided by Universal affirmative propositions (all S is P); they allow Analytical judgments, laying bare in P what is hidden in S.
A similar example is: (5) ʾinnamā l-muʾminūna llaḏīna ʾiḏā ḏukira llāhu waǧilat qulūbuhum wa-ʾiḏā tuliyat ʿalayhim ʾāyātuhu zādathum ʾīmānan wa-ʿalā rabbihim yatawakkalūna (Q 8:2). 18Only the believers are those whose hearts quake when Allah is mentioned, and when His Signs are recited to them they increase in faith, and they trust in their Lord (alone)." In Q 8:1 it is stated that the people ask Muḥammad about the spoils.He answers that the spoils belong to Allah and the Messenger; so the people should be in awe of Allah, and set aright the relations between themselves, and obey Allah and His Messenger if they do believe (ʾin kuntum muʾminīna).Q 8:2 is thematically related to the previous verse not only lexically (i.e. by the appearance of the word muʾminīna), but it concerns the essence of belief emphasizing that true believers are only those who manifest specific rites.Semantically, there is only one relevant interpretation of Q 8:2, which is Only the true believers are those who, when Allah's name is mentioned, their hearts quake, and when His verses are recited to them their faith grows, and who put their trust in their Lord.In this case, there is no need of certain tests for determining that the potential foci of this sentence is the believers (al-muʾminūna).If the foci would have been the relative clause, then it would have been asserted that the believers are defined by three actions only: when Allah is mentioned, their hearts quake; when His Signs are recited to them, it increases them in faith; and in their Lord (alone) do they trust.However, when reading Q 8:3-4 such a statement becomes false, since additional rites which must be manifested by the believers are mentioned: Believers are those who establish prayer and spend in charity and benevolently out of what Allah has given them as their sustenance.Q 8:1-4 shows that faith is the ability to confirm and submit to the command of God and that faith is not static and reduced to only a few acts which have the same quality.
B: TO BELIEVE A: TO BE REMEMBERED OF ALLAH H: TO HAVE A QUIVERING HEART R: TO HEAR RECITALS F: TO BE FAITHFUL T: TO TRUST This whole formula is just an enumeration of conditions that must be met in full for one to count as a believer; he who will meet al. of them is a believer.

ʾinnamā in conditional clauses
Several verses remind us that man is in a certain predicament; he cannot escape the results of his actions, whatever he does: (6) qul yā-ʾayyuhā n-nāsu qad ǧāʾakumu l-ḥaqqu min rabbikum fa-mani htadā fa-ʾinnamā yahtadī li-nafsihi waman ḍalla fa-ʾinnamā yaḍillu ʿalayhā (Q 10:108). 19"It should be O people! the Truth has come to you from your Lord.Therefore, whomever is guided, he is guided only to his own advantage, and whoever strays, he strays only to his disadvantage; and I am not a warden over you." The Prophet's duty is only to bring God's message to the people, so it is up to them whether or not they accept it, but Q 11:108 affirms that whatever we do, we do it to ourselves.In Q 4:110-112 three transagression against the Divine law and their consequences are mentioned: First, whoever does evil or acts unjustly to himself then seeks forgiveness of Allah, shall find Allah Forgiving, Merciful (verse 10); The second path is mentioned above in Q 4:111; Third, whoever commits a fault or a sin, then accuses an innocent of it, he indeed burdens (himself) with the calumny and a manifest sin.
These three verses teach that injustice towards people affects only those who commit it and no one else."To be guided towards" is an example of a Binary relation: some x is guided toward some y.To explain the concept of Binary relations, the example most often found on the Internet is "x loves y." Person x might love person y L(x,y), might be loved by y L(y,x), or might love himself L(x,x).If he only loves himself, all persons y he might ever love are identical to himself only.Binary relations can also contrast Oneness against the Infinite.According to Anselm of Canterbury, God is "a being than which none greater can be conceived."If we write Gxy: "x can be thought of as greater than y," and g: God, we derive the formula: ∀x (¬ Gxg) (Schamberger and Hardy 2018: 176).This bears a striking resemblance to "Allāhu akbar," where Gxy: "x is greater than y" and g: God combine to form ∀y (Ggy).
G: GUIDED Paraphrase: "For all y: If x is guided toward y, then x is identical to y." Formula: ∀y (G(x,y) ⊃ x = y) If we understand yaḍillu as the exact counter-concept of yahtadī, we can shorten it to ¬ G, formulating the latter part of verse 10:108 in just the same way as ∀y (¬ G(x,y) ⊃ x = y).
(7) wa-man yaksib ʾiṯman fa-ʾinnamā yaksibuhū ʿalā nafsihi wa-kāna llāhu ʿalīman ḥakīman (Q 4:111)  "And whoever commits a sin, he commits it only against his own self and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." S: TO SIN AGAINST Paraphrase: "For all y: If x sins against y, then x is identical to y." Formula: ∀y (S(x,y) ⊃ x = y) (8) wa-man ǧāhada fa-ʾinnamā yuǧāhidu li-nafsihi ʾinna llāha la-ġaniyyun ʿani l-ʿālamīna (Q 29:6)  "And whoever strives hard, he strives only for his own self, verily Allah is self-sufficient, above (need of) the Worlds."S: TO STRIVE Paraphrase: "For all y: If x strives for y, then x is identical to y." Formula: ∀y (S(x,y) ⊃ x = y) According to Ṭabarī (1992: vol. 10, 122-123), it is stated in Q 29:6 that whoever struggles against his enemies struggles only against his own self because by doing so he ultimately strives for Godʿs mercy.The verb already presupposed may be regarded as the residue, while the part which is made prominent by the focus particle ʾinnamā is the prepositional phrase (li-nafsihi, ʿalayhā, ʿalā nafsihi, li-nafsihi).Thus, the identification of the prominent component in the sentence is associated not only with true-conditional but also with the information structure.Namely, if a specific component was already mentioned previously, then the focal stress lies only on the so-called new information which is positioned in all examined cases at the end of the clause.

Descriptions of God All-Mighty
The image of God in the Qurʾān is described in a variety of statements, each having its unique features.The clauses starting with the focus particle ʾinnamā assert God's hegemony over others.God is the master of Judgment day, He is the only ally and only He will bring the Signs.ʾinnamā followed by a verb or a noun followed by the noun Allah (9) qāla ʾinnamā yaʾtīkum bihi llāhu ʾin šāʾa wa-mā ʾantum bi-muʿǧizīna (11:33)  "He said: Only Allah will bring it to you, if He wills, and you will not be able to frustrate (it)." In 11:32 the people are addressing Noah, asking him to bring them what he had promised, namely divine punishment. 20Noah replies that the punishment for their behavior is not his doing but depends upon the will of Allah only, so no human can do anything to prevent it.
We propose the following interpretation: "Allah will bring x only if Allah wants x." B: BROUGHT BY ALLAH W: WANTED BY ALLAH Paraphrase: "For all x: If x is brought by Allah, then x is wanted by Allah." Formula: ∀y (Bx ⊃ Wx) (10) ʾinnamā waliyyukumu llāhu wa-rasūluhū (Q 5:55)  "Only Allah and His Messenger are your allies."Q 5:55 concludes this thematic section by forbidding any relation with the Muslims' opponents: Jews and Christians (mentioned in verse 51), those who have hesitation and doubts regarding God (mentioned in verse 52), and those who have turned away from Islam (mentioned in verse 54).Verse 55 states that the alliance is due to God and His Messenger only: Y: TO BE ALLIED A: TO BE WITH ALLAH M: TO BE WITH A MESSENGER Paraphrase: "For all x: If x has an ally, then x is with Allah or Allah's messenger or both." Formula: ∀x (Yx ⊃ (Ax ∨ Mx)) The symbol ∨ for "logical disjunction" or alternation, derived from Latin "vel," tells us that the consequent would only be false if neither Allah nor his messenger were allies.Wright (1971: Vol.I, p. 109  § 194(a) and p. 148 § 247(b)) translates ism al-waḥdati as "Nomen unitatis vel individualitatis," and also ʾasmāʾ al-kaṯrati as "Nomina Abundantiae vel Multitudinis," to indicate in each case the non-exclusivity of the two meanings; they even might both be true.(11) qul ʾinnamā l-ʾāyātu ʿinda llāhi wa-mā yušʿirukum ʾannahā ʾiḏā ǧāʾat lā yuʾminūna (Q 6:109) "Say: Signs are only with Allah.And what should make you know that when they come they will not believe?"Q 6:109 refers to a group of unbelievers who asked the Prophet to show miracles so that they might believe in God.The Messenger replied that miracles are only worked by God, not according to wishes of men: S: TO BE A SIGN A: TO BE WITH ALLAH Paraphrase: "For all x: If x is a sign, then x is with Allah."Formula: ∀x (Sx ⊃ Ax) (12) yasʾalūnaka ʿani s-sāʿati ʾayyāna mursāhā qul ʾinnamā ʿilmuhā ʿinda rabbī yuǧallīhā li-waqtihā ʾillā huwa (Q 7:187) 21 "They ask you about the Hour (of Resurrection) when it will set in.Say: Its knowledge is only with my Lord.None but He can manifest it at its time." According to Rāzī (2000: vol.15, 67), the Jews or the infidels of Qurayš had asked Muḥammad about the time of Resurrection.His answer was that nobody except Allah could know when it would occur.

K: TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOUR
A: TO BE WITH ALLAH Paraphrase: "For all x: If x is knowledge of the Hour, then x is with Allah."Formula: ∀x (Kx ⊃ Ax) To conclude this section, ʾinnamā retains its restrictive function.The examined clauses starting with ʾinnamā are not ambiguous, having only a single syntactic-semantic focus.This is for two reasons: first, in most of the examined verses there is a lexical linkage between two sentences: that which begins with ʾinnamā and that which precedes it.
For example, in Q 5:55 the word ʾawliyāʾ "allies" (plural form of waliyy) appears in Q 5:51: yā-ʾayyuhā llaḏīna ʾāmanū lā tattaḫiḏū l-yahūda wa-n-naṣārā ʾawliyāʾa "O you who have Faith!Do not take the Jews and the Christians for allies."In Q 7:187 a referential link is achieved by the anaphoric pronoun -hā in ʿilmuhā which refers to the lexeme as-sāʿati.The repetition of the lexemes is relevant for the identification of the focal element because in such cases ʾinnamā highlights only the new information in the utterance.
Secondly, theoretically the sentences are open to more than one interpretation.For example, in Q 6:109 both the NP and the PP can be stressed, therefore the resultant readings are: Both sentences state that the signs are with Allah, but while (a) asserts that no one other than God manifests the signs (b) asserts that God has only the signs and nothing else.Of course this notion is false because we know from other verses that God is all-encompassing.

ʾinnamā followed by a verb
The focus particle ʾinnamā in the following case is directly adjacent to its focus expression, the verb.
(13) ʾinnamā ḥarrama ʿalaykumu l-maytata wa-d-dama wa-laḥma l-ḫinzīri wa-mā ʾuhilla bihi li-ġayri llāhi (Q 2:173) 22 "He has forbidden you only carrion, blood, swine flesh, and whatever has had another (name) than Allahʿs invoked upon it." 23n Q 2:172 it is stated: "O you who have Faith!eat of the good things We have provided you with, and be grateful to Allah, if Him it is you worship."According to this verse certain edible things are lawful to eat, but in verse 173 we read that there are some excluded things and Allah has forbidden the people carrion, blood, swine flesh or the flesh of any animal slaughtered.However, in cases of emergency, the things forbidden under normal conditions may be permissible.
In this case there is a general statement concerning food.In the sentence containing ʾinnamā, ʾinnamā is followed by a syntagm X (l-maytata wa-d-dama wa-laḥma l-ḫinzīri wa-mā ʾuhilla bihī li-ġayri llāhi), which might have been a possible member of y (ṭayyibāti mā razaqnākum "the good things we have provided you"), but of which the membership is then explicitly excluded.
To convey the idea that carrion, blood or swine flesh are prohibited --not all items bundled together but each and ev-ery one of them, the formalization uses a ∨ "or" instead of & "and."So the formula (¬ A ∨ B) in full is (¬ forbidden ∨ (carrion ∨ blood ∨ swine)): "Nothing is forbidden uneless it is carrion or blood or swine."

Descriptions of the Prophetʿs Actions
In the clauses categorized in this section ʾinnamā is followed by a verb and a relative clause as its direct object.We wish to develop the hypothesis that in such structures the focus particle can have different semantic scopes, but this does not necessarily mean that the semantics changes accordingly.In example 14 we read that some of the unbelievers asked the prophet why he himself had not worked a miracle and brought it to the people. 24He replied: (14) wa-ʾiḏā lam taʾtihim bi-ʾāyatin qālū law-lā ǧtabaytahā qul ʾinnamā ʾattabiʿu mā yūḥā ʾilayya min rabbi (Q 7:203) "And when you do not bring them a sign, they say: ʿWhy do you not choose one?Say: I follow only what is revealed to me from my Lord." The sentence starting with ʾinnamā might be interpreted as follows: In this case the focus scope is the verb and its direct object (the relative clause).
An additional example is (15) wa-lā taziru wāziratun wizra ʾuḫrā wa-ʾin tadʿu muṯqalatun ʾilā ḥimlihā lā yuḥmal minhu šayʾun wa-law kāna ḏā qurbā ʾinnamā tunḏiru llaḏīna yaḫšawna rabbahum bi-l-ġaybi wa-ʾaqāmū ṣ-ṣalāta (Q 35:18) 25 "And no one laden bears the burden of another; and if one heavy-burdened calls for his load to be carried, not a thing of it will be carried, even if he be a near kinsman.You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer." With llaḏīna yaḫšawna rabbahum bi-l-ġaybi as focus, it means that the prophet warns only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer.He does not warn anybody else.However, if the scope of the focus particle is the complete clause (i.e., including both the verb and its direct object tunḏiru llaḏīna yaḫšawna rabbahum bi-l-ġaybi) two meanings are possible: (a) The prophet only warns those who fear their Lord in secret and maintain prayer.He takes no other action.True, one of the prophet's roles is to warn the people of Judgment day; however, in the Qurʾān he is also addressed among other things as announcer (bašīr) and warner (Q 2:119), as witness (šāhid) and bearer of good tidings (mubaššir) (Q 33:45).(b) The prophet only warns those who fear their Lord in secret and maintain prayer.He does not warn those who doubt and perform no ritual.This meaning is similar to the case where the relative clause (not including the verb tunḏiru) is focused and indicates that the prophet warns only those who fear their Lord in secret and maintain prayer.Therefore, we may establish the following rule: When ʾinnamā is immediately followed by a verb and its direct object, its scope can be either the verb and its direct object or only the direct object.Both possibilities yield the same meaning. 26(16) fa-ʾin ḥāǧǧūka fa-qul ʾaslamtu waǧhiya li-llāhi wa-mani ttabaʿani wa-qul li-llaḏīna ʾūtū l-kitāba wa-l-ʾummiyyīna ʾa-ʾaslamtum fa-ʾin ʾaslamū fa-qadi htadaw wa-ʾin tawallaw fa-ʾinnamā ʿalayka l-balāġu wa-llāhu baṣīrun bi-l-ʿibādi (Q 3:20) 27 "So if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself (totally) to Allah, and whoever follows me.And say to those who have been given the Book and the unlettered ones: ʿDo you (also) submit yourselves?ʿSo if they submit then indeed they are rightly guided, and if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery of the message, and Allah is well aware of the servants." In Q 3:20 there are two phrases that can be focused by the particle ʾinnamā.When the prepositional phrase is focused (ʿalayka), then it it meant that if the people turn back, then only upon you is delivery.As it seems, this reading does not make any sense, because the relation between the clauses is unclear.However, when the noun phrase (albalāġu) is focused the clause means that if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery.Namely, if the people refrain and do not accept Islam, there will be no harm to the prophet because he is the Messenger of Allah and his duty is only to convey the Message and to attract their attention to the way of right and guidance.His duty is not to impose his message in any case.
O: TO BE AN OBLIGATION W: TO DELIVER A WARNING Paraphrase: "For all x: If x is an obligation, then x is to deliver a warning." Formula: ∀x (Ox ⊃ Wx)

Description of the Devil's Actions
The Qurʾān describes the Devil as a creature full of guile who leads the people astray.We would pay particular attention to Q 3:155.This verse is about the people who escaped from the Battle of ʾUḥud.The defeat on that day was caused by the Devil who had misled the believers.These representations are not only satisfactory from the point of view of common-sense, but they are also true.In the first reading (a) it is presupposed that something or someone made the people slip; the question is who did it?By focusing the word š-šayṭānu, the Devil is indicated as the agent.In the second reading (b) it is preposed that the Devil attended on the Battle of ʾUḥud; now the question is what has he done there?
Furthermore, one reading does not contradict the other, namely in the previous cases it was shown that the sentence can have a true value only if the other sentence does not hold.However, in Q 3:155 the first reading is true and the second reading also holds.So, how can that be explained?Usually, the context helped us in determining what is true and what is false, yet Q 3:155 speaks about a specific event that took place in the past, where there is no evidance that the Devil on that day took actions other than making the people slip; therefore, interpreting Q 3:155 as the Satan only made them slip on that day is also acceptable.
The classic Modus ponens is verse 2:24: fa-ʾin lam tafʿalū wa-lan tafʿalū fa-ttaqū n-nāra llatī waqūduhā n-nās-u wa-lḥiǧārat-u ʾuʿiddat li-l-kāfirīna: "If they don't do x, they will meet the fire.They donʿt do x.Therefore, they will meet the fire."A mere fragment of Modus ponens is verse 4:82: ʾafa-lā yaddabbarūna l-qurʾāna wa-law kāna min ʿindi ġayri llāhi la-waǧadū fīhi ẖtilāfan kaṯīran "Do they not, then, ponder over the Qurʾān?Had it been from someone other than Allah, they would have found in it many inconsistencies."Completely spelled out, it would run thus: "If x is not from Allah, then they will find contradictions in x.They will not find contradictions in x.Therefore, x is from Allah." We might be tempted to assert that there are indeed contradictions in the Qurʾān, but this would not disprove the claim that x was not from Allah; so-called Affirming the consequent is a common fallacy.Still, two other points deserve attention.First, the opponent in the debate might apply Modus ponens, reading the verse "If x is not from Allah, then they will find contradictions in x.This x is not from Allah, therefore we find contradictions in x."The opponent could doubt the authenticity of the Qurʾān and still count as a believer; the burden of factual proof would remain with the prophet.Secondly, if the original conditional is put into Contraposition: "If they won't find contradictions in x, then x is from Allah," the empty formality of conditionals as such stands in the open; common sense tells us that not finding contradictions will not mean that there aren't any.
In the last two sections 2.3 and 2.4 ʾinnamā function as a restrictive particle.A feature that is shared by all verses in these two groups is that they are preceded by a statement which concerns the prophet or the devil.The clause with ʾinnamā introduces a statement that qualifies them, and additionally it clarifies the relation between the clauses.In Q 7:203 (example 14) the unbelievers ask the prophet why he did not choose by himself one of the signs?The reason is explained by the clause: I follow only what is revealed to me from my Lord.In Q 35:18 (example 15), it is explained that in the Hereafter the burden of everybody is on their own shoulders and it does not harm others.The clause following ʾinnamā explains that this warning can be only understood and accepted by the believers.And in Q 3:155 (example 17) the turning back of the people was caused by the Satan.Namely, ʾinnamā implies a cause-and-effect relation.

CONCLUSION
ʾinnamā in the Qurʾān serves as a focus particle which can be translated as "only."Clauses including ʾinnamā are used in discourses where the quality of being a believer, an unbeliever, God, Devil or Prophet is elaborated.Believers are only those who, when reminded of God's signs, will fall down (example 3); who, in committing a sin, only do so against themselves (example 7); only God knows when Judgment Day will occur (example 11) and the prophet follows only what is revealed to him (example 14).These are categorical statements, either Universal affirmative propositions or Universal negative propositions.
The main issue, which was discussed in this study, was the part that is focused by ʾinnamā.Traditional grammarians and Western scholars agree that the component affected by the focus particle ʾinnamā is always positioned at the end of the clause, as in qāla ʾinnamā yaʾtīkum bihi llāhu (Q 11:33) "He said: Only Allah will bring it to you" (see example 9), where the NP Allah is focused.However, this is overly general therefore inaccurate assumptions probably derive from the fact that no attention is paid to prominent conceptions in research on focus particles such as focus, scope and ambiguity, and no attempt was made to define exactly which components are affected.Is it the final word, the final phrase or the final clause?
Thus, three findings should be highlighted: First, the scope of ʾinnamā can be NP, VP, PP or VP followed by its di-rect object, a relative clause or a complete sentence.Second, logically, only one interpretation of the sentence preceded by ʾinnamā can be accepted because any other interpretation would be false.For example, in verses referring to the believers, as in Q (9:17-18) the scope of ʾinnamā is the subject, i.e., the relative clause.If the verb would have been focused it would have indicated that the believers are required to perform only one action, to maintain the mosques of Allah.Such a statement is false.Alternately, if we consider example 2, ʾinnamā yastaʾḏinuka llaḏīna lā yuʾminūna bi-llāhi wa-lyawmi l-ʾāḫiri (Q 9:44-45) "Only those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day ask exemption for you," it would be false to interpret this clause as "those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day only ask exemption for you."The true meaning of an ʾinnamā-clause is context-dependent.
Third, it is not the position of the focused component that helps us determine the foci; rather, there are strict factors which affect the interaction between the focus particle and the focused part: (a) If one of the syntactic constituents stated in the ʾinnamā-clause has been mentioned before, then the focused part is the new information.In example 1 (Q 9:17-19) the verb yaʿmuru and its object occurs twice: in verse 17 (mā kāna li-l-mušrikīna ʾan yaʿmuru masāǧida llāhi) and in verse 18 (ʾinnamā yaʿmuru masāǧida llāhi man ʾāmana bi-llāhi).Since this verb is regarded as old information, the relative clause which is stressed by the particleʾinnamā is regarded as the new information.Or in example 8 there are two verbs derived from the root ǧhd: wa-man ǧāhada fa-ʾinnamā yuǧāhidu li-nafsihi (Q  29:6).The scope of ʾinnamā in this case is the PP and not the already knew VP.(b) In verses referring to the prophet's actions or to the devil's actions, there are two optional scopal reach.When the ʾinnamā-clause is structured by VP and there is a direct object/indirect object, the focus scope can be either the direct object or the VP and its direct/indirect object because they yield the same meaning.

END NOTES
Focus particles have several syntactic and semantic properties.The syntactic position of the focus particles in the sentence varies, as can be seen in the following examples: (a) Who phoned Mary?Only John phoned Mary.(No one else phoned her.)(b) What was done to Mary? John only phoned Mary.(Nothing else happened to her.) (c) What was John doing?John only phoned Mary.(He did nothing else.)(d) John phoned whom?John phoned Mary only.(He didnʿt phone anyone else.) (a) The signs are only with Allah.(b) Only the signs are with Allah.(a) if x are signs, then x are with Allah (b) if x are with Allah, then x are signs

(
(a) The prophet follows only what is revealed to him from his Lord and he does not follow anything else.(a) "For all x: If the prophet follows x, then x is revealed by Allah."(a) ∀x (Px ⊃ Ax) According to this interpretation the stressed component is the relative clause mā yūḥā ʾilayya min rabbi.(b) The prophet only follows what is revealed to him from his Lord and he takes no other action.(b) "For all x: If x is revealed by Allah, then the prophet follows x."(b) ∀x (Ax ⊃ Px) "Verily those of you who turned back on the day (of ʾUḥud) when the two troops met, only Satan made them slip because of something they earned.The first sentence asks an extensional question: who made them slip?The second sentence seeks to answer an intensional question: what caused the slip?
"There are two possible representations for Q 3:155: (a) With š-šayṭānu as focus it is meant that it was only Satan who made them slip and no one else.⇒ B: Therefore: "Satan made them slip for x." Formula: A ⊃ B, A ⇒ B