kindly define the arabic word .............ALLAH........ within arabic grammar please translate in urdu and in english arabic word allah.
faisal masood
| By: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 5/6/2010 |
i would like to give you my own answer and request the aastana team especially dr qama zaman to correct me if i am wrong.because i dont know about arabic grammar like dr qamar zaman knows
the word "Allah" has to parts:"AL"meaning "the"
and
"ilah"meaning "God" who is worshiped.
by the word "worship"i mean to obey Allah and not to obey the created things and human authorities.
so the word "ALLAH"means the being which is obeyed.
i would again reqest the aastanaa team and dear dr qamar to correct me if i have comminted any mistake.
| Comments by: bilal_khan5181 | On: 5/13/2010 |
| Comments by: PeerGee | On: 5/13/2010 |
i agreed with you the translation of Arabic word ....Allah.... is ....The God..... kindly translate in Urdu as well. Arabic word allah is pronoun or isam-a-marfa due to al or alif lam. according to Arabic grammar pronoun's definition is only within the context or siak o sabak.if siak o sabak changes the meaning will be change according to siak o sabak. so i DO NOT AGREE with your definition. in other words if i say i am The God because i am law maker. (you have to obey my law) is correct in this case the or all is my pro or isam a marfa or marfat. further more noun or isam of allah is illah just for your information in qurean God/illah is non.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 5/23/2010 |
There is so much discussion on this word Allah that one can find very exhaustive details in many books, but what ever Billal has said I agree with the explanation but what actually Ellah (الہ ) means is the ideology which you follow and obey. Peoples when they follow there wishes is called there Ellah (الہ).
| Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman | On: 5/26/2010 |
Grammatically, the term "The God" as a translation for the name "Allah" does not fit because it is not a word combining the definite article "Al" and the Arabic word "Ilah" as is popularly believed.
Reason being that the word "Ilah" begins with the letter aliph and this letter does not disappear or assimilate into the word preceding it as you would have with a noun with an irregular verbal root. The irregular verbs (and nouns stemming from them) are the ones that have Hamza, Waw or Yaa as its FIRST root letter. But the verbal root for Ilah begins with the letter Aliph and thus DOES NOT assimilate or disappear into the preceding word.
I am of the humble opinion that Allah may well be a proper name that is uniquely applied to our Nourisher and Sustainer. This is my humble understanding and Allah Knows Best.
Allah Hafiz,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 11/26/2010 |
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/2/2010 |
Please refer to the below link as it may be relevant and your participation may be advantageous!
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=40&QID=783
| Comments by: William. | On: 12/3/2010 |
It is popularly believed that the name "Allah" is a combination of the definite article "Al" and the word "ilah" which is not correct according to the Arabic grammar.
There are what is known as "strong" nouns and "weak" nouns. The strong nouns are derived from strong verbs and the weak nouns are derived from weak verbs. Weak verbs and weak nouns are the words in which the first letter of the word disappears, meaning it drops out or assimilates into the consonant letter that PRECEDES it. Weak nouns and verbs ONLY have one of two letters that make them weak if it is the initial letter of the word and those two letters are Waw and Yaa.
Strong verbs and the strong nouns that are derived from them DO NOT drop out or assimilate its initial letter into the preceding consonant. Any letter that IS NOT a Waw or Yaa is considered strong. Aliph (the first letter of the word "ilah") is a STRONG letter NOT a weak one and thus IT DOES NOT drop out or assimilate into any consonant that comes before it.
To believe that the word "Allah" is a combination of the definite article and the word ilah is to believe that the initial letter of Aliph in the word "ilah" is a weak letter and drops out or assimililates into the letter Lam of the definite article which comes before it. And this would simply go against the Arabic grammar.
The word for "The God" in Arabic can ONLY be "Al-ilah". It cannot be "Allah".
This is a very popular misconception among many, many muslims and believers in the quran.
However, having explained this, I would like to add that my understanding is always subject to be corrected and as Bilal Khan has stated I also do not know the Arabic grammar anywhere near as good as Dr QZ Saheb does.
God Bless You All.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/18/2010 |
this is very easy how to understand a proper-noun "al-illah" just try to understand the "what is proper-noun" you can check in any arabic lought, english dincry, or encyclopedia of bratin you will understand.
one thing i would say since i am using a word "allah" which is bit blunt and carved in the out thoughts i would like to replace the word
kindly translate the arabic word "al-kitab"
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/18/2010 |
I NEVER stated that I do not know the Arabic word. I said that Dr Qamar Zaman Saheb is BETTER THAN ME when it comes to the Arabic grammar and that he may have come across a piece of grammar information that I have not come across concerning the word "Allah". Please re-read my post but more carefully this time.
"al-kitab" can be translated as
1). THE Book
2). THE Document
3). THE Decree
4). THE Written Source
and even as Muhammad Asad has translated it...
5). THE Divine Writ (which strikes a better chord with me than the other translations of this term).
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/18/2010 |
We will lead you through a line of reasoning, with the explanation of each step of this careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran اللَّهِ is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathi الذي = who, La لا = not and finally illah اله. This would mean “One who is not illah”.
If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word “illah” into the translation; this word which actually is a phrase would mean “One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)”.
This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?
Why should we trust this non-sense?
These questions are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.
Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; Just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.
First of all let us analyse what traditionalists interpret this word to be?
And why they are wrong?
The word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al ال = in English “The” and illah اله, meaning “God” but in reality “a deity for adoration and worship”.
So in actuality this "Al" is a contraction of the word الذي and legitimately could be written as "Al" ال. How do we trust this assertion despite the references to the contrary from the Lexicon of Lane and Grammar of William Wright.
Let us turn to Qur'an itself for evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition “Lee” is added in to a word containing a definite article “Al” ال. Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article “Al” joins with “Lam” of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.
1. 2:1 لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ Alif of “Al” gone, lam is present and preposition “Lee” added.
2. 4:7 and 4:32, لِّلرِّجَالِ is the word same concept.
However, for the word اللَّهِ when the same preposition is added. We find that the “Lam” of the supposed definite article “Al” also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as لِلْاله (in reality one can not type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).
Example, 1:2 لِلَّهِ and 115 more places 2:22, 2:98 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.
Whereas, Allathi being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al".
Let us continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "Alif" the mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another Alif above. اللَّهِ
Shadaah has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the “Moon letters of the Arabic alphabets”. This would be a apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.
Let us analysis why it is wrong. If it were to be a correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this shadda in place once the “Al”, if it were really “Al” of definite article in the phrase is goneاللَّهِ, as in the example above of لِلَّهِ. However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this shadda is not due to “Al” of a definate article coming before the اله word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of Allathi. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already “Alif” at the start which is not considered a “Sun letter”. Hence no shadda would be added
This clearly shows that the persistence of this shaddah is due, not to the shaddah of “Al”; but in truth, indicates a real doubling of the consonants.
This means inescapably, that once the phonology has been clearly explained, this word is actually a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word . Allthi, La and illah. This would further imply that the middle shaddah is suggesting “two lams” and two alifs”.
Hence, if you translated word for word, this word or more accurately phrase would mean “One who is not a deity for adoration and worship”.
| Comments by: Abdun | On: 12/18/2010 |
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/19/2010 |
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/19/2010 |
I really don't know what question your are trying to ask me as it is much too vague. You asked me what is "al-kitab" and I gave the translation into English. If I am guessing correctly, by asking what kind of "issam" it is you wish to know what "clasification" this noun would be under. Is this correct? If so, it would be considered a proper noun since it has the attachment of the definite article. Without the definite article, it would be considered what is known in strict Arabic grammar as a "nominative".
I'm not sure if I answered your question or even understood your question correctly.
God Bless You.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/19/2010 |
I see two fundamental holes in BK Anwar's explanation and the strength of the entire explanation rests on these two things.
1). Where is his grammatical evidence that the relative pronoun "alladhee" is shortened to AL? He would need to establsih the proof of this FIRST before he can continue with the rest of the explanation he gives.
2). The rule that you are speaking of where the letter Lam is doubled such as in the word "LilMutaqeen" (to the people who are mindful) has nothing to do with the letter Lam or any consonant. It is the rule of elision where the VOWELS of the first letter of a word and the last letter of the word before it ELIDE together...that is they somewhat combine. So instead of saying "Lee Almutaqeen" you say "Lilmutaqeen".
I am not against grammatical and linguistic explanations that would be considered new or radical but I at least would need to see evidence from either the quran or the grammar if not both.
I have read grammatical and linguistic explanations from Dr QZ Sb that were new to me but he always provides evidence from both the quran and the rules of grammar.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/19/2010 |
when you will translate a aya which contains arabic word "al-kitab" (in other word i do believe quran's
translator dont follow this rule. translator refers/translate al-kitab as"quran" all translator say alkitab mean
is quran. (which is wrong). in fact in quran averagely one line contains a "proper-noun" and all proper-noun
words are been wrong translated. the end result is the whole quranic translation is wrong.
you can pick soorah 2 and aya 1 (al-baqara's frist aya) issue is "al" or "the". we will go to aya 5 later on. i believe this translation will open a new kind of understanding. by the way tell me can you understand urdu?
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/19/2010 |
DAMON- Not yet, I have only begun to learn Urdu. I have spent the last two weeks learning the alphabet and script. Knowing how to read Arabic gave me a pretty good boost in this regard. I will now start working on building vocabulary and familiarizing myself with the grammar.
God Bless You.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/19/2010 |
now the question is new one tell me "why every one is after a book which is in arabic language and majority of muslim dont know the arabic languae" as a pakistani national my belief is quran is not for pakistani nation quran is only for badooooos.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/20/2010 |
ألكِتْابُ is a verbal noun, a masdar. Additonally, it is Marafa. Muaraf bil Lam. You could call it a proper noun for lake of better explanation in English. But it is really to narrow the scope of the noun to a know thing. It is at the measure of فِعْالٌ . This measure has several meanings. But in Quran, for this word it would be more appropriate to consider, used as Plural fractus.
Root of this word is ك ت ب . Which means "he wrote what he had heard or learned". Now if one were to put this meaning into measure of فِعْالٌ. it would become "Collection he wrote from what he heard or learned". Add meaning of particle "Al". Now it becomes "The collection he wrote from what he heard or learned".
Hope this helps.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/20/2010 |
Salaam, sure these are basic and fundamental questions. I think, I have references from Wright and Lane both saying that relative pronoun "alladhee" is legitimately written as "Al". Here are the links for convenience.
Wright vol i page 269 D at the bottom of the page (in PDF attachment page is 142/166).
http://www.ghazali.org/arabic/WrightArabicGrammarVol1.pdf
Lane
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000111.pdf
Now as for changing script form, with preposition "Lee" was only to prove that this Al in word Allah is not "Al" as definite article, rather "Al" of "alladhee". As in words which are made, Marfa BiLam, where preposition "Lee" is applied only "Alif" of "Al" is dropped in writing not the "Lam". However, when "Lee" is applied to word Allah, both "Alif and Lam" disappear.
It is hard to type with Arabic typewriters. But one could write with hand and scan explanation. This is what, I might do, if there is still a confusion.
Hope this helps.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/20/2010 |
You Asked: ""why every one is after a book which is in arabic language and majority of muslim dont know the arabic languae" as a pakistani national my belief is quran is not for pakistani nation quran is only for badooooos."
DAMON - I'm sorry I'm afraid that I do not understand your question. What is it your trying to ask me?
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/20/2010 |
Thank you for providing references to support your views.
I have five points that I would like to address concerning your post, but before I do I need to clarify my understanding of what I believe to be actual and functional grammar. I should have stated to you and Abdun my views and thoughts concerning what some like to call "Classical" grammar. Just so you know that I am not making this up on the spot in order to disagree with you please see my post on this matter at the following thread which I made last week. The one I am specifically referring to is third from the bottom.
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=23&QID=812
You can also see a short conversation I had with a friend named Hussein Latif about this topic at the quran institute forum back in 2008.
http://www.quraninstitute.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=474
Although I have read and studied some of W. Wright's grammar exposition I keep in mind that this book, as well as the books by J.A. Haywood, Wheeler Thackston and just about ALL grammar books coming from the "traditional muslim world" are based on the first grammar book ever written and that book is the one by the PERSIAN (zoroastrian?) Sibaweyh and it was written WELL AFTER the revelation of the quran. That's point number one.
Point number two; Because of the problems that come with examining the so named "classical" grammar, I hold much reservation about it and thus I am open only to that which is proven and observable and for me that is the grammar that can be observed either in the quran (the first ever Arabic "document") and/or in modern written and spoken usage. Had Sibaweyh's grammar book existed "before" the quran then it would be a different story and there would be no need for us to have this sort of discussion. Also, there are rules in sibaweyh's (and those who parroted their grammar books after his) that simply do not fit and in fact go against the common sense grammar of the quran and even in spoken Arabic. And make no mistake about it, the Arabic of the Quran is a "Spoken Language". It is not a special degree of language that the layman was not privy to otherwise what would be the point of it being guidance for "all the people"?
Point number three; I admit that I do use Lane's Lexicon, but it is not the only lexicon that I use and I do not accept everything that I read in Lane's simply because it is based on the thinking of the traditional muslim mindset and so one has to be careful what they swallow from the pages of Lane's. I have noticed in both the links you have provided that they both give example sentences to show that "al" can sometimes be used as "allaDhee". First of all, they both say that it is "RARELY" used this way (and I would go much further and say not at all),secondly, the examples of usage they supply are usages THAT ARE NOT NOR NEVER HAVE BEEN in popular circulation or usage among the Arabic speaking people. All one has to do to see the proof of this is to examine the written and spoken Arabic from the time of the quran onwards. And I see the whole "pre-Islamic poetry" scam for what it is so it would be pointless for anyone to try to convince me of it.
Fourth point; In order FOR ME (I can only speak for myself and no one else here at this forum) to accept that the definite article "Al" is sometimes a condensed substitute of the relative pronoun "allaDhee" I would need to see it in the following three things:
1). ALL (and not some) grammar books. Keep in mind that this information that you have found in W. Wright's grammar book is absent from J.A. Haywoods grammar book as well as Wheeler Thackston's "Classical" and Koranic grammar book. And it is certainly absent in the modern standard grammar books. For me, to hunt down that one lone book that has this "unknown" information that no other source of its kind has is almost the same as Bukhari traveling far and wide to hunt down that one lone person to become educated on the "unknown" ahadeeth that no other person have. I am not accusing you of being like Bukhari, I am merely pointing out why I wouldn't go that route.
2). Actual usage in written and spoken Arabic. For me, for Wright to be the only one with this kind of information and to supply his own sentences to prove the information is simply not good. I would like to see his information in today's (and in fact ALL) grammar books and I would certainly like to see it in...
3). The quran. I will keep searching because I realize that it may actually be there and I just haven't seen it yet, but so far, I cannot recall ever coming across anything in the quran where the definite article is used in place of the relative pronoun in question. And to say it is there because of your understanding of the word "Allah" would be the same as using hadith to prove the validity of hadith.
Fifth and final point; Even if we ignore the other four points that I have made there would still be a problem with what you are putting forth. If the word "Allah" means "He who is not a deity or object of worship" then the message of the quran itself would make no sense as there are repeated statements such as "La ilaha illa ana" and "La ilaha illa huwa" which is where we get the understanding of La ilaha illa Allah. So how would you translate these statements? "There is no deity EXCEPT he who is not a deity"? :-(
Or "there is no deity NOT EVEN he who is not a deity"?
ilah does not simply mean "deity" or "god" or "object of worship and adoration". It actually means one with authority and one who has sole right of setting laws and judgements. So if we take that authentic definition of ilah and your breakdown of allah then the phrase "La ilaha illa allah" can mean "there is no ultimate authority except he who is not an ultimate authority" or "there is not ultimate authority not even he who is not an ultimate authority"?
No matter how we flip it, change it, rearrange it, turn it upside down or inside out, and no matter what definition we apply to the word "ilah" either way using your breakdown and understanding of the construction of the word Allah, the end result is a statement that would make absolutely no sense.
However, if this is your understanding and what you will hold onto, I have no problem with that. I am still learning just like everyone else here is and who knows what my understanding on this and any other issue would be one week, two weeks, a month or a year from now.
God Bless You.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/20/2010 |
" la.....illah....ill........ allah.....muhammed.....rasool..........allah "
no....god..except..the god...kind................leader..is....the god
open invitation to criticize but no other's references, links. b short and to the point. means stay within the issue.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/20/2010 |
I only provided you the references from most widely available and respected, translated books of Grammar and Lexicon in English language.
Sibaweyh’s AlKitab although widely held in high esteem by natives, is not the first book of grammar. Collection and writing of Grammar was started by Imam Ali. At Imam’s suggestion Abu-lAswad formally started the work (d.69or101 AH). AlKhalil’s Kittab ul Ayn is the first written available book even in English. Alkhalil was also one of Sibaweyh’s teacher.
If you are really interested in topic would suggest getting all 5 vols. of Mortimer Sloper Howell “A Grammar of the Classical Arabic Language”. Not an easy read and certainly not recommended for beginners. But a must have for advance seekers.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Arabic%20language%20--%20Grammar%22
Interested in buying
http://www.printsasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=237678618
Both of us are in a situation that we know as fact that we have a book popularly known, as Quran. I am sure about myself that except for few words. I do not understand a word of its text without translations.
So question is, if this book really matters to me. What do I do? Answer is simple try to learn the language from the archives of preserved language. Then apply the principles learned to the text. This is the real knowledge. This is what I am doing. As I understand it, which of course is 180 degree opposite of, what I was made to believe. I am sharing with all to have a dialogue. But it appears no one is interested in knowledge and discussion. Everyone is content with their beliefs.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/21/2010 |
I honestly and sincerely admire your studiousness and your compassionate search for the truth. Please do not misinterpret my views and the way I have explained them. As I said at the end of my last post, my present views on this issue may change. The way I see things this year in 2010 are far different from how I had seen those same things in 2009 and the views that I had in 2009 had evolved from views and knowledge I had come across in 2008.
Like you, I too am interested in gaining the proper knowledge of The Quran and learning what I know for sure that I don't know.
Other than that, I have nothing else that I am able to contribute to this thread, but I can end my post with a quote from legendary Boxing great Muhammad Ali...
"He who has the same views of the world at age 50 as he did when he was 30 has WASTED 20 years of his life."
You and I are both striving to not fit into that category :-)
God Bless You.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/21/2010 |
I am in no position to discuss this level of grammar but I must say I find brother Damon's point very valid...even if the source of the rule is considered correct, where is the practical application of that ? Use in just one word does not seem logical. Nevertheless we shouldn't just ignore it and look for this use of "Al" else where too. It may very well help solve some unsolved mysteries. But one of the strongest points brother Damon made, it's application for the word Allah only is not enough!
jazakAllah
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 12/21/2010 |
Please, remember languages come into exsistence far before Grammars are written. Grammatical rules are really rationalization for what is already a standard. Were all these standards written by people who sopke the language? Not at all. Were later people able to define all rules? Not at all. Could there be more than one rule applicapable to one situation. You bet there are. Remember Grammar could also be rationalization of already held beliefs.
So road is not easy that you and I have decided to embark on. But, I have already rejected the easy path. From now on I want to carve my own path. If it changes from day to day, so be it.
Sister you want to solve mysteries. I find several, every few days. Here is a link for discussion about word Zaani, from free-minds which did not go anywhere. Because, people do not see or want see, what is not consistent with their held beliefs.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601843.15
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601843.30
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/22/2010 |
Brother Kanwar, did you read Dr. Qamar's write on zina? I think it's worth reading.
jazakAllah
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 12/22/2010 |
"But it appears no one is interested in knowledge and discussion. Everyone is content with their beliefs. "
Dear bro Kanwar Badar, believe me i want to learn, but i dont understand anything from what the two of you wrote. Please explain: ""It is at the measure of فِعْالٌ . This measure has several meanings. But in Quran, for this word it would be more appropriate to consider, used as Plural fractus. ""
What does it mean when it is "measure of فِعْالٌ ", and what does this mean:
Bro Damon
"""There is no deity EXCEPT he who is not a deity"? :-( Or "there is no deity NOT EVEN he who is not a deity"? ""
How would this make sense? If this means there is no authority than the one which is not to be worshipped, but to followed, then i get it.
Both of you have to explain it to me as i was 2 years old. I want to learn everything you know.
and remember : There is no bad students, its only bad teachers :-D
JACKIE CHAN SAID IT IN KARATE KID, im innocent
(meanwhile ill eat nacho's)
| Comments by: Nargis | On: 12/23/2010 |
I do not know Arabic language , so can not contribute from that angle. However, if you kindly allow me to say
a few words before such a learned participants, I will be honored.
Well this was a wonderful discussion, much needed too. Because the word ALLAH, its correct meanings
will set your True North and there on enable you to take your correct bearings from your magnetic compass,
for further journey in the direction of truth.
The meanings of Allah given by Mr Abdun as "who is not god" are more meaningful and explain the basic
theme of Quran. I PREFER THESE MEANINGS.
These meanings need better imagination/vision to comprehend.
Meanings given by Faisal "
"la.....illah....ill........ allah.....muhammed.....rasool..........allah "
"no....god..except..the god...kind................leader..is....the god"
Needs to be explained further for scrutiny and better understanding. Please discuss further, I want to know.
| Comments by: momin | On: 12/23/2010 |
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/23/2010 |
Please share your level of understanding of Arabic Grammar. So I can try to bring it, to you. Keeping in mind, I am not a teacher, but just a student, who started his juorney, before some others.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/23/2010 |
We can do it the easy way, when ever you explain something about a word, (feminine,masculine ,plural,measure of فِعْالٌ)etc, then you can explain what it is and its function in brackets, like this --> ( ) or [ ].
Like Bro Damon explained the strong and weak nouns.
deal?
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/23/2010 |
"la.....illah....ill........ allah.....muhammed.....rasool..........allah "
"no....god..except..the god...kind................leader..is....the god"
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/23/2010 |
"no....god..except..the god...kind................leader..is....the god"
:::::::::::::::::::::
Dear Masoom Sunni ,did i understand what your trying to say :
"there is no "Authority" exept the Authority led by the praised one, who is the authority?"
(If Allah means Authority, and Mohammed is the kind, praised one becaue he is elected ?)
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/23/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/23/2010 |
(Can you explain 14:4 :))?
Nargis 2
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/23/2010 |
I am actually quite happy that this thread is ongoing. I can definitely see the benefits of this thread for all involved.
Also, I wish to clarify that although Bkanwar and I may have some very minor differences of angles that we are looking at the grammar from, let me be the first to say that the presence of Bkanwar and Abdun at this forum is a HUUUUGE blessing for us. We can all learn alot and benefit greatly from the thorough and razor sharp grammatical insights that Bkanwar is unselfishly willing to share with us. I for one am proud to call him Brother.
One more thing I wish to suggest to Sis. Nargis and everyone else who are learning the grammar. I suggest that you ignore the grammatical terminologies. You don't need to know the grammar terms you just need to know "constructions" and "functions" if you know what I mean. In other words, you don't need to memorize grammatical terms such as "comparative" and "superlative" and "subjunctive" and "jussive", etc. You just need to be able to recognize the "constructions" of these types of words and what "functions" they serve.
This is just my very humble two cents.
God Bless You All.
P.S. I agree with the suggestion made by Faisal Masood when he said that we should "consult the grammar". That is something that everyone can do regardless of their level of Arabic knowledge.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/23/2010 |
Vow! The discussion was of a fascinatingly high scholarly level. I have honestly gone through word by word the theses (above) of Brother Bkanwar in a spirit to learn and grasp the underlying intricacies of Classic Arabic grammar that he has so beautifully tried to explain. Can frankly confess about two things :-
1. His depth of knowledge in Arabic linguistics is enviable. We can sure learn a lot from his scholarly prowess, hoping he would continue his association with us;
2. I already have, long time ago, agreed with his conclusion of the meaning of ALLAH:- ““One who is not a deity for adoration and worship”. For me ALLAH already was the “Absolute Power”, the “Sovereign Authority” of this Universe, or of the, as yet, theoretical “Multiverse”. And that “adoration and worship” hold no significance, or exercise no potent influence, towards the betterment of human society or civilization.
The construction he has discovered and employed for arriving at this definition of ALLAH, involves lengthy research and deliberation and has been the subject of all the above discussions. I reckon, if all participants of discussion already agree in principle with the derived meanings, then from there we can together take a fresh start onwards, leaving aside the question of HOW we grammatically arrive at our definition, one way or the other.
I fully second Brother Damon’s complimentary sentiments about Brother Bkanwar’s participation in Aastana’s open, democratic forum of Quranic learning. I must also appreciate how diligently Brother Damon defended his standpoint. His arguments (20th Dec.) enjoyed validity and authenticity and symbolized his deep insight, prudence and hard work. I also second his suggestion about “construction” and “function” (23rd Dec.) because, very frankly, it is not for ‘everybody’ to enter and master the very dry, boring, scholarly realm of classical Arabic grammar. We thank the Almighty for having such scholarly personalities in Aastana’s fold, whose valuable presence is affording great support, ease and comfort in our journey of evolution.
About Brother Bkanwar’s following remarks :
“But it appears no one is interested in knowledge and discussion. Everyone is content with their beliefs.”
I would only submit , now that he is welcomed at Aastana with us, he would soon realize that the above is not the case with us. Our quest of KNOWLEDGE is unending and irresistible. What is more important, we are striving to follow the WISDOM behind Quranic injunctions to find ways to alleviate human sufferings in the light of its cherished values, ideals and principles.
Kindly go through the “MISSION & VISION” of Aastana to have a clear picture of our ideology.
God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 12/23/2010 |
Sister Nargis, I am glad you asked a very basic question. Sounds very simple, not at all. I have not really found a real definition of parts of speech of Arabic language. However, after having read at several recourses. I can start off with very basic definitions and then build on by putting information together, from various sources.
A noun is " a word which indicates a meaning in itself not connected with one of the three times. It is that, which can be a subject of a sentence. (more later).
A verb is “a word which indicates a meaning in itself connected with one of three times. It indicates two things an accident and a time. For example قَالَ means " he said or has said', indicating act of saying in the past.
A particle is “a word that is not independently intelligible, so requires another word for its meaning. For example, لِ means "for". As we can see "for" doesn't have intelligent meaning.
However, I must warn upfront. This definition is an oversimplification. Particles are the most difficult part of Arabic language. They are not just dependent on other words, but also have multiple meanings. I would dare to say that these also impart different meanings, in different contexts, to other words that these supposedly are dependent upon for their own meanings.
More later, please comment or feel free to ask questions.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/25/2010 |
Thank you so much for explaining me. I pronounce you our grammar teacher from now on.
Another question, you said Allah means "“One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)”. "
So when it say Allah is knows, Allah is wise, Allah is al momin , Allah is alsalaam etc, does it mean
“One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God), is knower”.
“One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)”. is peace provider
“One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)”. Is wise
“One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)”. is security provider
Who or what is “One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)” ? And how is he a knower, wise, peace provider, security provider (and other attributes) ? Is it the same thing and has different "attributes", or could it be different departments in an islamic government?
hmmm
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/25/2010 |
your translation "god" is wrong. start learning arabic language ;-D
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/25/2010 |
As for so called names or attributes. I am not sure that these words represent either one. This is the only comments, I have until I have more evidence from the text. Most, if not all Quranic words understanding is not what it originally would have been. Hence, although it is a daunting task but extremely important that we spend our energies and resources to restore the book as soon as possible.
Finally, could we be just friends and brothers and sisters. Instead, of teacher and students, I would rather prefer former.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/25/2010 |
Ill wait for you research. We will start too restore the book here with everyones help. I think Dr Q have given it a start plz have a look at the translation
http://www.aastana.com/quran/
http://www.aastana.com/quran/Default.asp?SuraNo=2
Dr Qamar is translating the Quran and its open for discussion or comments.
Masoom Sunny, It is said that the word Allah is not a proper noun...please have a look at our buddho's discussion , uper. Its saturday and im buddh :-D
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/25/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/25/2010 |
ok i trust tht you will say it - so here is another link. Feel free to ask me questions:-D
http://aastana.com/URDU/viewer.asp?id=51
Questins/comments on "Bismillah ka qurani tasawwur" here (tharrdhaaa) --> http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?MID=2&SID=45
ZINA / ADULTERY (tharrddaaaa)
http://www.aastana.com/urdu/viewer.asp?id=50
FAHSHAH (tharddaaaa)
http://www.aastana.com/urdu/viewer.asp?t=A&id=52
And this one is one of my favourite (double thardaaaa)
http://www.aastana.com/urdu/viewer.asp?t=A&id=43
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
http://aastana.com/URDU/viewer.asp?id=51
Its in urdu, i hope you can read urdu ?
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
This is the timeless sign conveying the knowledge from the One, who is not a deity for worship and adoration. About the abundant and effortless state of life that mankind cannot conceive by themselves, from your sustainer and maintainer. The greatest mercy: from the One.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
If Allah is the creator (but whos not to be worshipped), then he should be Allah the Al salaam/Al momin (peace/security provider) all the time. Thats not the case for the palestinians. If Allah is the one who is a deity but not to be worshipped, he has to live up to his "attributes" all the time. He cant be al momin or knower if there is a condition that humans must establish salaat in order for these attributes to be exercised
The one is the one all the time! What use would the Palestinians,Iraqi's, Afghani's, Pakistani's have of this "peace security provider" whos book is not to be understood and who himself is a "part time" Peace providing Deity whos not to be worshipped? ( or we can say God "the God")
Thats why i dont believe Allah is the "one" . Allah is different from Rabb. Rabb is Rabb constantly not just for a short amount of time. He provides nourishment to his creation ALL the time, and his blessings (security, safety, ilm etc) are not dependent on humans (until they have established salaat) In effect
Rabb and Allah cant be the same, the attributes for Allah are subject to him having such a status if we have the divine system established, but Rabb is the nourisher all the time. A murderer and his victims both share oxygen, neither are restricted from the source of nourishment.
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
If this is the condition, then our efforts wont help. Point is, the book cant be that complicated. Whats the point of a book for guidance , if the guidance is not guiding anyone? Thats why we are here, to understand the book and its message. I think we are haaarrrrrrr d pheew workinggg cough cough :-O
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
For example, if somehow I were to start believing that this earth is supported by four huge Elephants standing upon four huge turtles. Now all arguments that I will bring to prove this belief would be rationalizations for this belief. However, unless I realize that my premises are wrong. I would not get out of the same rut.
This is the situation with all of us. Our all beliefs about Allah, Prophet and Quran itself are based on current translations. Hence, we need to understand this situation and approach it with open mind. Be ready for all surprises.
For Dr. Qamar Shaib, about بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ. In Arabic script writing there are certain anomalies that one need to be aware of. Hemzet el-wasl is omitted in pronunciation at lot of place and in writing in few situation. One is this, other example is of word إبْنٌ just like when we write زَيْدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو or when particle “Lee” is added before “Al”, Hemzet el-wasl is dropped in writing as well (Ref: A Grammar of Arabic Language by E.H. Palmer; 1874, reprint 2007 Eliborn classic series).
However, there are more issue about translating بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/26/2010 |
"This is the situation with all of us. Our all beliefs about Allah, Prophet and Quran itself are based on current translations. Hence, we need to understand this situation and approach it with open mind. Be ready for all surprises."
Note : We really need to be ready for Surprises.
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 12/26/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/27/2010 |
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 12/27/2010 |
so my first objection is quran was without arraab. we must have a copy of without aaraabs. (my understanding is arraab are the most HITCH for us to understand quran. aarraab diverts the meaning and we cant find the right understanding.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/27/2010 |
Dear Faisal Masood, i seem to agree with most of the concerns u expressed in above post.
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 12/27/2010 |
What exactly do you mean/understand by word iraab?
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/27/2010 |
I read your comments on Allah not fulfilling his mandate of protecting the Muslims, in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but a mandate has two sides.
Allah has presented a system that has not been implemented anywhere on the Earth, what was established in the past has long since disappeared, Muslims now exist by name only, so you may worship and perform ritual and sacrifice from waking till sleeping every day of your life, but until you fulfil your mandate, Allah will not be inclined to act in response.
The systems of Islam "to be free of any evil at all times, without any reference to who the subject and object may be" must be understood, that is the first step, but prayer, worship and blind faith will hold you within ignorance, confusion and for the majority poverty.
| Comments by: Abdun | On: 12/28/2010 |
I think you are on to something. Some of the things you have said in your post made on the 27th mirror alot of my thoughts on many of the same things.
DEAR NARGIS 2,
I didn't call you brother because I always thought that you were a sister :-P Also, I strongly agree with you when you said..."If this book is so complicated, and no1 can understand it, then it is for no use"
God Bless You
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/28/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/28/2010 |
now al-kitab-o and and al-kitab contain 2 diffident understanding/meanings. my objection is we read and we apply the grammar rule when we translate الْكِتَابُ but we never WRITE the meanigng of ----paeesh--- on - ب -
you can check dr. qammar's translation while he translates الْكِتَابُ he never translates the paeesh on bay. in bakara if dr.qammar will translate the only arabic word الْكِتَابُ i do understand the meaning will be different.
now i am not in favor of "arrabs" on arabic words. above mention الْكِتَابُ is a example which will lead you toward on different understanding infect at bakara alkitab-o (boo) is right but other words like (al-kitabon "bon" ) leads you at wrong direction.
dr. qammar sb i have some more objections on your translation for bakar first 4 or 5 aya. but the mushkill is i cant express my understanding to explain the only method is hand written method in urdu. :-D.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/28/2010 |
مارا محمود حامد. Please identify verb, subject and object of this sentence.
Damon and Nur, sorry it is difficult to do this with English syntax. I am trying to think an example in English. If I can come up with one, I shall share.
Badar
(In English this should work okay "Killed Mahmmod Hamid", please identify verb, subject and object).
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/28/2010 |
I read your comments on Allah not fulfilling his mandate of protecting the Muslims, in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but a mandate has two sides.
Allah has presented a system that has not been implemented anywhere on the Earth, what was established in the past has long since disappeared, Muslims now exist by name only, so you may worship and perform ritual and sacrifice from waking till sleeping every day of your life, but until you fulfil your mandate, Allah will not be inclined to act in response.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thats exactly my point, If Allah is the one, then Allah's attributes are dependent on us. WE have to implement the system so HE can be al salaam, al momin,knower, wise,etc etc ...
seems like a system more than the Creator!!
@ Damon brother,
I dont have the deep knowledge of grammar like you and Bro Bhaknawar, but im glad you catched my point, that if this book is so complicated, no1 will understands it and no1 can understands it. Dr Qamar show us the grammar and HOW the words are used in the book. Then it makes sense and we normal genius's can understand :-D And we have to be realistic, right ?
| Comments by: Nargis | On: 12/28/2010 |
you c i dont want to go to any irrelevant wording. whatch your finger tips. : >D.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/28/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/28/2010 |
The reason I do not agree with or subscribe to the use of the 'iraab is because they are not an original (let alone natural) feature of the language which is why the early Quran manuscripts were without them and which is why they are not used in everyday language among the Arabs. And to try to bring up how media presenters, scholars, academics and the Katib in the Mosque make use of them please keep in mind that these people do this by reading from scripts, so all they need to do is know how to recognize and pronounce them when they come across them.
The 'Iraab are absolutely superflous and serve no true function. One can take any Arabic sentence with 'iraab, take out the 'iraab and the sentence would still be the same conveying its intended message. With this in mind, I would like to look at the example sentence that you have given....
"(In English this should work okay "Killed Mahmmod Hamid", please identify verb, subject and object)."
DAMON - If it's a standard Arabic sentence then "KILLED" is obviously the verb, "MAHMMOD" is the subject and "HAMID" is the object. If you wish to make Hamid the subject and Mahmmod the object you simply switch their places in the sentence. You do not need 'iraab to know this, you only need to know sentence structure, types of sentences and word order.
If 'iraab were needed and a necessary feature of Arabic and the language and those who know it could not function without them, then why are the Arabs able to read Arabic language newspapers WITHOUT them?
God Bless,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/29/2010 |
Faisal decided not to respond, but here is Urdu. Two different sentences same order of words.
مارا محمود نى حامد كو
مارا محمود كو حامد نى
Excuse me, I am using Arabic Keyboard, hence cannot type Big Ya in Urdu alphabets. But I think it is understandable.
Irrabs are very important for syntax. One cannot identify subject, object and verbs and nouns without these. In quranic text order of word does not help. There are complex sentences in Quran where orders are completely changed. Please, please and please, do not fall in the hands of those who say irrabs are not important. They are already printing Quran without these. Once such text is establish as standard, Quranic message will become more of a history. As though, it is not already.
When us common people say its not an easy book, I have all the sympathies for them. Because, I daily agonize on every word in order to get to the real meanings. But it is doable. Needs lot of collective effort though.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/29/2010 |
YOU SAID - "How about now "KILLED, MAHMOOD BY HAMID". I have not changed a single word or order. But doesn’t Subject and Objects get changed completely. "
MY RESPONSE - Again brother it comes down to knowing how to CONSTRUCT standard Arabic sentences while conveying your idea and intended message. Your above sentence (and the idea it intends to convey) also does not require the use of 'iraab and is dependent on word order, sentence construction and the correct wording used..."Qutila Mahmood '3nda Hamid." Again, NO NEED OR USE for the 'iraab.
YOU SAID - "Irrabs are very important for syntax. One cannot identify subject, object and verbs and nouns without these"
MY RESPONSE - Brother, you STATING THIS does not make it a fact. It is a mere assertion that is dsiproven EVERYDAY by the simple fact that ALL Arabs read the Arabic press "WITHOUT" the use of 'iraab (and even the harakat) AT ALL. This is just a simple, proven and observable fact my brother. Your above statement is an oft repeated statement made by the many proponents of 'iraab and other aspects of Sibaweyh's "Classical" grammar that is simply disproved everyday if we observe the Arabs reading sooooo many types of written material without the 'iraab. I honestly believe that my stance on this issue cannot be contested unless one willingly closes his eyes to some very basic and observable facts and realities.
YOU SAID - "In quranic text order of word does not help>"
MY RESPONSE - I seriously do not know where you got this idea from other than I believe you are merely repeating the assertions and statements of the proponents of the 'iraab. And where THEY got this idea from is totally beyond me as the ORIGINAL Quranic manuscripts did not....I have to repeat, DID NOT...include any sort of 'iraab at all (or harakat either). If you feel as though you cannot read Quranic text through the language itself I can only guess that it is due to a lacking of the "fundamental" areas/aspects of the Arabic grammar.
YOU SAID - "There are complex sentences in Quran where orders are completely changed."
MY RESPONSE - Again, an assertion by an 'iraab proponent that has no evidence, validity or quranic foundation to prove this.
YOU SAID - "Please, please and please, do not fall in the hands of those who say irrabs are not important. They are already printing Quran without these."
MY RESPONSE - GOOD!!! They should do this as this is HOW the original manuscripts of Quran were produced. I have said it more than once, and I'll say it again...'iraabs ARE NOT important...they are absolutely unneeded. They serve no true function or purpose other than convincing people that they are not allowed to engage in the language unless they are willing to include them somehow which I must say is a bunch of baloney...and this is the most polite way that I can put it.
YOU SAID - "Once such text is establish as standard, Quranic message will become more of a history. As though, it is not already."
MY RESPONSE - No, it will be one more SHACKLE that has been ripped off of The Quran. The Quranic message would then be FREE and the world would have a much better chance of realizing what The Quran actually says. The Quran is a book conveying an ideology and it is meant to be read and understood by the common man. It is not some high, literary, exquisit , academic masterpiece that it has been made out to be all this time. THE MESSAGE which it conveys is what is important which is why it is written in SIMPLE, everyday common Arabic. To insist on "arbitrarily" applying 'iraab to The Quran is to help do what Nargis had pointed out and that is to turn it from a simple revolutionary message to a book that no one understands and pretty much make it useless and incomprehensible. And THIS would go against its intended purpose and goal.
YOU SAID - "When us common people say its not an easy book, I have all the sympathies for them. Because, I daily agonize on every word in order to get to the real meanings. But it is doable. Needs lot of collective effort though."
MY RESPONSE - I agree that it is doable and that is by examining THE WORDS and their ROOTS. Doing that along with making use of Tasreef, applying the Quranic tool of word comparison, taking CONTEXT into account and a heavy dose of logic and common sense, yes it is certainly doable :-)
God Bless You
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/29/2010 |
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/29/2010 |
You say this, "Brother, you STATING THIS does not make it a fact. It is a mere assertion that is dsiproven EVERYDAY by the simple fact that ALL Arabs read the Arabic press "WITHOUT" the use of 'iraab (and even the harakat) AT ALL. This is just a simple, proven and observable fact my brother. Your above statement is an oft repeated statement made by the many proponents of 'iraab and other aspects of Sibaweyh's "Classical" grammar that is simply disproved everyday if we observe the Arabs reading sooooo many types of written material without the 'iraab. I honestly believe that my stance on this issue cannot be contested unless one willingly closes his eyes to some very basic and observable facts and realities".
My response, unless one realizes that current spoken Arabic and Quranic Arabic are completely different languages there is not way one will be able to understand Quran. If this was possible all Arabs would have perfect understanding. You and I wouldn't need to be having discussion or wasting time. Arabic is language with lots changing layers. Oriental’s only talk about Diglossia. There are numerous glossias in the language.
You say this, "I seriously do not know where you got this idea from other than I believe you are merely repeating the assertions and statements of the proponents of the 'iraab. And where THEY got this idea from is totally beyond me as the ORIGINAL Quranic manuscripts did not....I have to repeat, DID NOT...include any sort of 'iraab at all (or harakat either). If you feel as though you cannot read Quranic text through the language itself I can only guess that it is due to a lacking of the "fundamental" areas/aspects of the Arabic grammar.
My response is one need to understand linguistic as a subject and science. Spoken languages develop first. In fact out of thousands of spoken languages today, only handful is written. If one were to depict history of spoken language of mankind on the face of clock. The written language will some at 11:50. Implying, man has only learn to write very recently. Hence, scripts have evolved over time. Such is the case with Quranic script, nothing unusual. However, it does bring the serious question could there have been mistake in this process. Most certainly, if there wouldn't be that would be a surprise.
You say this "GOOD!!! They should do this as this is HOW the original manuscripts of Quran were produced. I have said it more than once, and I'll say it again...'iraabs ARE NOT important...they are absolutely unneeded. They serve no true function or purpose other than convincing people that they are not allowed to engage in the language unless they are willing to include them somehow which I must say is a bunch of baloney...and this is the most polite way that I can put it".
My response. No please no. To trace back a detective needs all the marks to get back to original and all the evidence. In a case, original tracks are erased no way back.
You say" No, it will be one more SHACKLE that has been ripped off of The Quran. The Quranic message would then be FREE and the world would have a much better chance of realizing what The Quran actually says. The Quran is a book conveying an ideology and it is meant to be read and understood by the common man. It is not some high, literary, exquisit , academic masterpiece that it has been made out to be all this time. THE MESSAGE which it conveys is what is important which is why it is written in SIMPLE, everyday common Arabic. To insist on "arbitrarily" applying 'iraab to The Quran is to help do what Nargis had pointed out and that is to turn it from a simple revolutionary message to a book that no one understands and pretty much make it useless and incomprehensible. And THIS would go against its intended purpose and goa."
Believe me irrabs are not the shackles. The real shackles are our own incompetence, blind belief, corrupt and hypocrite scholars and clergy. Illiteracy, arrogance, inability to recognize our own limitation, I can go on and on for list of shackles, it unlimited.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/29/2010 |
MY RESPONSE - It may be almost impossible FOR YOU to get an understanding. I understand it just fine WITHOUT the 'iraab and if I were to share with you (as you put it) my "analysis and reasoning" you will STILL insist on trying to find a way to make the 'iraab have a function when I have already PROVED TO YOU that they are NOT NEEDED.
Please forgive me if this sounds somewhat harsh, but I can't help but feel that you cannot admit being incorrect about somethings. You are trying desperately to force a square into a circle. To be (somewhat brutally) honest with you, what you are doing is saying that someone who is wearing an obviously red shirt is really wearing a green shirt and instead of realizing that it's red and that you were incorrect, you are saying if you put on the right shade of sunglasses and make him stand under a tall tree at the sun's zenith, you can see that it's a green shirt......
My dear brother Badar, you have THREE things against you and you assertion. I have pointed out these three things already and you have not addressed them (nor attempted to).
1). The ORIGINAL/OLDEST FOUND Qurans were written.....WITHOUT THE 'IRAAB
2). The Arabs themselves all read WRITTEN Arabic such as newspapers, magazines and books WITHOUT THE 'IRAAB.
3). Arabic ALWAYS WAS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a spoken language and the Arabs DO NOT use 'iraab in normal everyday speech.
You have not even attempted to address these points because they are simply irrefutable. To continue this would turn this thread into the kind of back and forth arguments one can see at the free-minds forum. I used to go there some years ago and I have seen NUMEROUS threads where people go at it about this classical grammar thing and in 20 pages of threads on the grammar one can notice that the MESSAGE and PURPOSE of The Quran has been missed and overlooked. While in heated, senseless and neverending debates, no one addresses the MESSAGE of The Quran.
I can this thread turning into that. I seriously have no idea why anyone would feverishly insist on ignoring the message and the "mubeen" Arabic of The Quran and focus on arbitrary rules that Sibawayh had came up with. The Quran says it is "mubeen". The message is "mubeen" and the language it is written in is "mubeen" and the insistence of the 'iraab (and other so-called "classical" grammar rules) makes BOTH of these statements false and thus would make The Quran false.
If you wish to walk the 'iraab and Sibaweyh path, more power to you. I prefer to know what The Quran says and focus on its message and not on endevours that would take me away from that.
Please do not misinterpret this post if it came off as being stern. I have nothing whatsoever against you brother :-)
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/29/2010 |
YOU SAID - "unless one realizes that current spoken Arabic and Quranic Arabic are completely different languages there is not way one will be able to understand Quran. If this was possible all Arabs would have perfect understanding. You and I wouldn't need to be having discussion or wasting time. Arabic is language with lots changing layers. Oriental’s only talk about Diglossia. "
MY RESPONSE - If you are willing and able to wash your mind of the rules sibawaeyh IMPOSES on The grammar of The Quran you could VERY EASILY notice that the "differences" between the Arabic of The Quran and the spoken variety aren't nearly as vast as you have been led to believe. Arabic is Arabic. There may be different dialects and different ways that many Arabs would pronounce the same words, but it is Arabic nonetheless. And I'll repeat for your benefit, Arabic has ALWAYS BEEN (as it is today) a SPOKEN language just like all other HUMAN languages people use for verbal communication.
YOU SAID - " one need to understand linguistic as a subject and science"
MY RESPONSE - Let's pause right here! This is your first mistake. It is one thing to learn Arabic in order to to be able to read the ARABIC Quran, but it's another thing when you turn "IT" into an academic adventure instead of trying to understand its message. That's mistake number one and it just goes downhill for you from there on and hence...
YOU SAID - " it does bring the serious question could there have been MISTAKE (emphasis added by me) in this process. Most certainly, if there wouldn't be that would be a surprise. "
MY RESPONSE - Really no need for a response, you pretty much said it for me except the mistake BEGINS with upholding Shaykh Sibaweyh.
YOU SAID - "No please no. To trace back a detective needs all the marks to get back to original and all the evidence. In a case, original tracks are erased no way back. "
MY RESPONSE - Bro, you CAN'T be serious?? You prefer a makeover above the ORIGINAL??? Really brother?? This is actually becoming sad for me to look at.
YOU SAID - "Believe me irrabs are not the shackles. The real shackles are our own incompetence, blind belief, corrupt and hypocrite scholars and clergy. Illiteracy, arrogance, inability to recognize our own limitation, I can go on and on for list of shackles, it unlimited"
MY RESPONSE - NO, I will NOT believe you, nor do I believe Wright, Thackstone, Palmer, Howell or Sibaweyh. You mentioned "incompetence, blind belief, corrupt and hypocrite scholars and clergy. Illiteracy, arrogance,"...well what is will you get when you uphold arbitrary and DISPROVED things above that which is PROVED and obvious for all to see? Please ponder on your very own words of BLIND BELIEF. Because of your inability to disprove the three PAINFULLY obvious points I raised is why I say I am done. I know you will not be able to refute them because they really are 100% irrefutable. So no need for me to continue with another typical "free-minds" style senseless debate ;-)
Again, I wish to reiterate, if you wish to pursue the Sibaweyh and W. Wright path, then more power to you. My concerns are the MESSAGE of the "mubeen" Quran and how I can apply the mechanics of it :-)
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/29/2010 |
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/29/2010 |
now the issue is i am not in favor of irrabs on arabic words.
you are in favor of arrabs on arabic word.
my point is why dont you take the example from quran bakara aya 2
ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ
وہ کتاب ہے کہ جس میں کوئی شک نہیں متقی بننے کے لئے ہدایت ہے۔
above mentioned arabic and translation is takht-ta-y-mashaq. :-D
i am putting a objection on it above mentioned translation is wrong due to irraabs on words,
if you agree with dr qammar's translatin it will be considered this is your translation. if you dont agree first strat YOUR translation from.
الم
ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ
and kindly keep in mind i will drag you in bakara's aya 1,2,3.4,5 total 5 aya you will see the differences (karnama) of placement of the irrabe on arabic words.
things cont be finalize until we take the actual word/s then sentence and then the whole siakosabk. you/i will NOT past any blue links from other internet site. if you are in favor of irraabs it menas you have done your study and if i am not in favor of irraabs it menas my study is done. now the the time is to translate the real stuff.
i realy wish dr qammar is monitoring us very closely. and hope this is with dr sb's permission. if dr sb Wishes it can be stop right now.
faisal.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/29/2010 |
I'll give you the MINUTEST of examples with two words...
1) A BOOK and 2) THE BOOK. I'll put the 'iraab in brackets for easy recognition.
WITH THE 'IRAAB:
Kitab(un) is A BOOK and Al-Kitab(u) is THE BOOK.
WITHOUT THE 'IRAAB:
Kitab is, guess what, A BOOK and Al-Kitab is (surprise, surprise) THE BOOK.
NOTHING CHANGES!! The meaning of each word remains the same.
This is just a very tiny example that you can apply to the entire language. The meaning and intended message is conveyed as long you properly follow the rules of sentence structure and word order.
I like how you use your mind and do your own thinking dear Faisal, but my sincerest advice to you is to focus on the message and content of The Quran and learn only what is actually a natural and inherent feature of the language in order to do so.
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/29/2010 |
this blog is open to everybody to express whatever he wants to put ,and so you are welcome.No permission is needed.
The beauty of Aastana .com is that nothing is blocked on its Blog .
| Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman | On: 12/29/2010 |
your statment is Kitab(un) is A BOOK and Al-Kitab(u) is THE BOOK.
you are using 2 kind of words kitab and alkitab i will translate without irrabs
(kitab stands for ----kitab---) and (al-kitab stands for ----- the book-----)
if you say Kitab(un) is "a book" then tell me what is -----kitab(u)-----please note i am using only issam nakara. in your statment you are using (kitab) is issam nakara. al-kitab is issam a marfaa with ال. in other hand my objection regarding irrab is not even been discussed in your arguments.
faisal
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/29/2010 |
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/29/2010 |
this is my wish--- if i have quoted a aya with translation why others DONT put objection/s on it or if i have objection on others translation and pin point the wrong translation. tell me why arguments or talkshawlk suddenly stped and never took place?
one other option is you can offer me 1:1 but the issue is why 1:1 it should be the whole soorah (1). you c my point is i never refuse any one but the issue is a single aya or word. words only understand able with whole saiakosabak. single word cant explain any thing. full sentence & sentences can help to understand then whole siak-o-sabak will be the whole story which you/me will understand.
we are in a deep mud which is created by us we are trying to translate the quran which is in arabic and we study araic in english language and we apply those rules while we translate quran. and dont forget the blend of farceee arabic words also exist in urdu language.
any way thanks i will looking your reply.
faisal
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 12/29/2010 |
2:1 آلمّ
Arabic has only two kinds of sentences broadly. This is a verbal sentence. There is no irrabs on it but certain other marks. First Alif (calling it alif just for ease, I am sure you know technical difference between Hemza and Alif), has medda and Miim has Shadda. Keeping the knowledge of these signs in mind this word actually is أالمم . Its root is going to be ألم. The reason it appears like أالمم, because it is at the measure of 9th form of verb أفْعَلِّ.
Please, replace Faa,Ayn,Lam, Lam with Hemza,Lam,Miim and Miim. When another Hemza is added at the start, like it is in this measure. Hemza of root becomes silent. In script when two hemzas are combined together a Medda is place over these. When other alphabets are combined a shadda is placed to indicate duplication of consonant letters. Hence, we get آلمّ .
This is a verbal sentence. Root meaning of Alif-Lam-Miim, from Lane “He/man suffered, was in pain”. Now 9th form of verb is used to denote intensify of the verbal action.
Once we add this verbal form meaning to root it becomes “Man (mankind), has intensely suffered/pained”.
Peace, shall continue with next verse as time permits.
Badar
(Is there a way, I can make font bigger on this forum, as Arabic show very small, hard to recognise Harkaat)
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/30/2010 |
In my post to you I was not trying to claim that the 'iraab are necessary or needed, I was trying to show you how I agree with you that they are NOT necessary and they are NOT needed. WITH or WITHOUT the 'iraab the MEANINGS of the words stay the same...they do not change at all. And if the 'iraab cause NO CHANGE in the MEANINGS of the WORDS then they serve absolutely no purpose.
It is your decision rather you want to deal with 'iraab or not. But I wish to caution if you choose to play the..."back and forth classical grammar game"...by the time you come to a consensus on the Basmalah and look up to see how the rest of the world has progressed, you'll see that the party is already over and you missed it :-)
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 12/30/2010 |
2:2 ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ
Now, I am going to analyze word by word and in the end final translation. I am not going to comment that what it is not justified from grammatical point of view, just to keep discourse simple and short. But that will be open for discussion.
ذَلِكَ
This word actually is a phrase, consisting of a noun of indication ذا followed by preposition لِ (lee) and finally personal pronoun كَ.
This is followed by الْكِتَابُ. A noun, which is Maraf bil Lam and its irrab, is Rafa. I will not break it down again as I have done it above, at Faisal’s request.
Now this ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ is a complete sentence. How come and what kind? Since it starts with a noun; hence, a nominal sentence. A nominal sentence has two compulsory parts and an optional auxiliary part. Compulsory parts are Subject (مُبْتَدَأُ) and object (خَبَرٌ) and auxiliary part of predicate, translated as “about object”( متعلقِ خبر).
First, step is to analyze the sentence for the components.
Subject of the sentence need to have certain characteristics, has to be a noun ofcourse, Marfa and irrab Rafa. Predicate, usually needs to be Nakra, but can be Marfa, if is not a إسْمُ الصَّفْت but, irrab Rafa.
Now with this very basic knowledge, let us apply to above sentence.
ذا A Noun, all nouns of indication are considered Marfa, and by default Rafa. Hence, this qualifies as our Subject.
Next is a combination of a preposition and personal pronoun. لِكَ, it is by definition a compound called مُركبِ جارى.
All such compound's irrab is, Jerr not Rafa hence cannot be, a predicate. Additionally, it's meaning does amounts to a خبر. So it could be متعلقِ خبر , but not خبر. Now that leaves us with only الْكِتَابُ. Its irrab is Rafa, it is not a إسْمُ الصَّفْت, hence, can be Muraf bil lam, which it is.
A usual order of a simple nominal sentence in Arabic is Subject (مُبْتَدَأُ), object (خَبَرٌ) and finally متعلقِ خبر. .(Urdu and English have usually same order)
Now we can already see that in this very simple sentence, order is changed. We have ذا the subject, followed by لِكَ, متعلقِ خبر followed by predicate الْكِتَابُ
One can see without knowledge of rules of syntax/irrabs and presence i.e irrabs, marks suggesting syntactical relationship of different word of a sentence. It would be impossible to analyze any sentence. We are right now only talking about a very simple sentence with just three basic components.
Let us try to translate this sentence.
ذا, means both, that and this
لِكَ, means, for you
الْكِتَابُ, from above “the collection, he wrote from what he learned and heard”.
Please remember Quranic text is continuous; hence let’s put the verse before.
2:1 Man (mankind) has intensely suffered,
2:2 (for) that, this is, the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard, for you.
I am not very good at typing and it takes lot of time, shall continue at later.
Comments, critique welcome.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/30/2010 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/31/2010 |
dear B K Anwar thank you very much for the تحلیل of the verse .
Please do correct me wherever I am wrong .
and Faisal please continue with your critical research on understanding of Quran without اعراب . It will be another angle to understand Quran .
Thanks to all members who are participating in the discussion .
most humbly , Dr Qamar Zaman
| Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman | On: 12/31/2010 |
لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ
It starts with a negative Particle, but first word is again a noun. Hence, it is a kind of a nominal sentence, but is called a negative or prohibitive sentence. Let’s first of all identify all words and their position in sentence. After that we shall go into more deep analysis.
لاَ= a Negative/prohibitive particle. Its use is only for the present and future tense. Hence, its presence helps to decide the tense of this sentence.
رَيْبَ a noun, it is also kind of a subject but Arab grammarians like to call it a noun of “la” in the sentence. How, do we say that? Because its irrab is Nasab and, not Rafa. Again please note change of irrab from subject of a pure nominal sentence, which was Rafa.
فِيهِ is a compound of a preposition “fee” followed by pronoun “ha”, again a مُركبِ جارى. Here, it is a predicate compliment in the sentence.
هُدًى a masdar from root ه دى, at the measure of فُعَلٌ. In sentence, it is the predicate, but called as predicate of “la”. How do we determine this? Because, of its irrab, which is Rafa.
لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ= a compound مُركبِ جارى. Here we need to spend some time to understand it. This will show how important irrabs are. It is not only a compound, but a phrase. Let us first of all break it down.
لِ= a preposition, could mean “for”
ال= the definite article to make it Marfa. According to rules anytime preposition “lee” is added before definite article, its Alif/hemza is dropped in writing as well.
مُتْ= this is imperative form of root موت
تقى= from root تقى
ينَ= it is an irrab, it is called irrab bil huruf. It indicates that not only this word is in plural, as well in Jerr.
Let us see how this so called word, which actually is a phrase, is formed? What rules are applicable?
It starts of around root تقى, its plural male third person noun would be, تَقُونَ, prefix to it imperative of root موت, which is مُتْ
When these two combine, according to إدغام rules, since last letter of prefix and first letter of following word are the same these are written as one with a shadda. So it becomes مُتَّقُونَ. Now add the definite article “al” to it. It becomes المُتَّقُونَ.
Now, once we prefix to it preposition, “lee”. The hemza of “al” will drop. Additionally, all these prepositions change irrab of their following words. That is why, these compounds are named as مُركبِ جارى. So the the irrab of word المُتَّقُونَ. Which is ونَ a irrab suggestive of Rafa of plural third parson male, changes by Jerr irrab for third person male plural, which is ينَ
With all this information and changes we get to لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ.
Can we see the importance of irrabs, now? Do we still have any concerns?
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/31/2010 |
Only via a collective participation of a team of people, beliefs which are mere opinions can become knowledge. The definition of knowledge being true verifiable believes. Although, all knowledge begins with some beliefs, but not all beliefs can be considered knowledge until verified. Until, verification these remain mere opinions.
Sincerely,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 12/31/2010 |
Aastana team is proud to have you.
thanks
yours humbly Dr. Qamar Zaman
| Comments by: Dr. Qamar Zaman | On: 1/1/2011 |
Since I am one of those following your explanations very closely and learning, please also explain how do you arrive at this definition of the word Al-Kitab :-
""the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard""
I didn't wish to interrupt your continued explanations; but this is only to keep pace with your lessons and not leave a gap in my understanding.
Best regards.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/1/2011 |
Dear Brother Aurangzaib, I think you missed it. I did break down Al-Kitab above for Fasial. He was only concerned with irrab and only looking for an explanation for Dumma. Hence, likely did not pay attention to rest. Anyway, here it is again to recap.
"Dear Faisal, since you’re question was by name to me (relayed by my friend Abdun Nur). Hence, I have decided to register. I am not familiar with this forum. Hope it posts my reply.
ألكِتْابُ is a verbal noun, a masdar. Additionally, it is Marafa. Muaraf bil Lam. You could call it a proper noun for lake of better explanation in English. But it is really to narrow the scope of the noun to a know thing. It is at the measure of فِعْالٌ . This measure has several meanings. But in Quran, for this word it would be more appropriate to consider, used as Plural fractus.
Root of this word is ك ت ب . Which means "he wrote what he had heard or learned". Now if one were to put this meaning into measure of فِعْالٌ. it would become "Collection he wrote from what he heard or learned". Add meaning of particle "Al". Now it becomes "The collection he wrote from what he heard or learned".
Hope this helps.
Badar"
Dear Faisal, there are several reasons for a word's irrab to change. It depends upon syntax, as well which words are before or after. Therefore one affects irrab of the other. A default shape or irrab for nouns is Rafa. Hence, It is Al-Kitabooooo, if not written in sentence and just an isolated word. Original Arabs were really not as big Badooooooos, as currents are. Hence, it is up to us really to recognize the reality and get our destination in our hands and quiet relying, on Badoooos.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/1/2011 |
Here, is a joke that I commonly tell people not familiar with term Syntax, to indicate how important it is. How one can change meanings drastically: without following the applicable rules of syntax,
Laloo Prasad sent his Bio Data - to apply for a post in
Microsoft
Corporation, USA.
A few days later he got this reply:
"Dear Mr. Laloo Prasad, We are sorry to intimate you that you do not meet our
requirements. Please do not send any further correspondence. No phone call
shall be entertained.
Thanks"
Laloo Prasad jumped with joy on receiving this reply. He
arranged a Party and when all the guests had come, he said: "Bhaiyon aur
Behno,
Aap ko jaan kar khushi hogee ki hum Amereeca mein naukri paa
gaya hoon."
Everyone was delighted.
Laloo Prasad continued...... "Ab main aap sab ko apnaa
appointment letter padkar sunaon gaa - par letter angreeze main hai -
isliyen saath-saath hindi main translate bhee karoonga.
Dear Mr. Laloo Prasad ..... Pyare Laloo Prasad bhaiyya
We are sorry ...... humse galti ho gayee
to intimate you that .........aapko yeh batana hai ki
You do not meet ---- aap to miltay hee naheen ho
our requirement ---- humko to zaroorat hai
Please do not send any further correspondence ---- ab Letter
vetter bhej ne ka kaouno zaroorat nahee.
No phone call ---- phoonwa ka bhee zaroorat nahee hai
shall be entertained ---- bahut khaatir kee jayegi.
Thanks ---- aapkaa bahut bahut dhanyawaad
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/1/2011 |
I really did miss it in my excitement. It is clear now.
Kindly proceed ahead at your ease. I have opened an exclusive file to keep track of these lessons. It's a rare and a golden chance for us Quranic students. And it's FREE.
God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/1/2011 |
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:du2BsoVoxCsJ:goldkoran.mse.jhu.edu/+gold+koran&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/1/2011 |
The above post by Brother Badar simply isn't true.
Firstly, it has been confirmed that the "oldest" extent Quranic manuscripts found are the Sana'a manuscripts (which are without the 'Iraab). This is widely/universally confirmed and accepted.
Secondly, the Golden Quran DOES NOT include the 'Iraab. Here is a different link to show a picture of one of its pages.
http://whyislam.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-gold-quran/
You can also click your mouse on the picture to enlarge it. As you'll see, there are no 'Iraab. Badar is correct about the other link. For whatever reason, it isn't loading.
Thirdly, one can click on this link to see a scanning of what is believed to be a page from the Samarkand manuscript (also known as Uthmani copies) which was supposed to be widely distributed by Caliph Uthman (also confirmed and believed to be older than the Golden Quran at John Hopkins).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kufic_Quran_7th_Cent.jpg
It is written in the Kufic script and one can see (again) there are no 'Iraab.
Another thing we should all keep in mind is that even though Arabic was primarily a spoken language, it did not have its own script and thus had to borrow from the alphabet of other existing languages such as the Nabatean script. According to Abdirashid A. Mohamud in his book "Arabic for Reading and Speaking ",the oldest archeological finding that bears an inscription in the Arabic language and Nabatean script is a tombstone from the Syrian Desert, dated 328 A.D. This is interesting if we keep in mind that the Arabic script DEVELOPED from Nabatean Aramaic.
God Bless All,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:AndalusQuran.JPG
I'm not saying that you are, I am asking it. If so, this is not the same images one can view on the John Hopkins site (I have seen the images you are speaking of at the site, it's a pretty famous site). The page at the above link is from an early Andulusian copy.
I don't have access as the site in question isn't loading (as you already pointed out).
'Iraabs are 'Iraabs, either they are there OR they are not. The links I have provided clearly show that they are not. You commented that "half truth is more deceptive than falsehood ", brother I am not the one claiming what you say is an 'rrab bil huruf is present but not ALL 'irrab are present. You have to ask yourself who is presenting a "half truth" here?
I only have two last things to say. Firstly brother I didn't post the above information to make this into a "my opinion versus your opinion " debate. I merely wished for the forum participants to get the full picture instead of a half painted one.
Secondly, it isn't about opinions anyway. The research has been done and confirmed years ago and we all know that the research concludes that the Sana'a and Samarkand manuscripts are both much older than the few pages of the Golden Quran at John Hopkins, it's just a matter of one accepting the truth or not.
Not only is The Golden Quran "younger" than these two, but you pinpoint one thing on the first page to place your argument on and ignore the two facts that...
(One) it is one tiny print compared to an entire manuscript which you conveniently ignore. Do you recall what I had pointed out to you in the post that I made earlier in this thread on Dec. 20th about finding that one, small, minute thing that is non existent elsewhere and basing an entire argument on it and ignoring how it is non existent in the larger body of material? It is the part of my post about how you found "al" to be a condensed substitute of "allaDhee" in W. Wright alone and in NO OTHER grammar books.
(Two) if anything this will only show the BEGINNING STAGES of the INTRODUCTION of the 'Irraab and another shackle being placed on The Quran to prevent the masses from engaging it and drawing guidance from it.
Badar my brother, I am not your enemy, I am only doing what we are all here to do and that is to get to the truth and in order to do that we must go the route of "process of elimination" which means once we find out that something is a falsehood or based on a falsehood we eliminate it and go with the remaining material until we finally get to the very heart of the matter.
God Bless You Badar,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
As for translating the rest of verse, there is really nothing left. But just for all.
لاَ= should be “there is no”
رَيْبَ= doubt, since it is sort of subject on the sentence. It would be translated first. Additionally, it has no tenween, this implies it is not connect to following word or vice versa. If it were it should have had a tenween of fetha as irrab, not just fetha.
هُدًى= a masdar, explained measure above. Usually translated as guidance, but from Lane also means “a mode of conduct”. Since it is masdar. The definition of a masdar “A verbal noun not connected to time and who the subjects and objects are”. Hence, with this knowledge it would mean “a timeless mode of conduct”. It is the predicate or “La- ki - Khabar”.
فِيهِ= contained in it, a predicate compliment. It relates the هُدًى to sentence before. Contained in the collection, he wrote from what he learned and herad.
لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ= Mutaliq-e-Khabar,, Khabar being هُدًى. It would translated as “for all those who want guard themselves against Moot (meanings of moot from lane= the end of their physical life; as well as the deprivation of senses, intellectual faculty, grief, sorrows and fears.)
Now let us put this knowledge into a sentence.
There is no doubt, a timeless mode of conduct is contained, in it for all those seeking to safe guard themselves against, deprivation of senses, intellectual faculty, grief, sorrows, fears as well complete extinction.
Now let us put all together,
2:1 Man (mankind) has intensely suffered,
2:2 (for) that, this is, the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard, for you. There is no doubt, a timeless mode of conduct is contained, in it for all those seeking to safe guard themselves against, deprivation of senses, intellectual faculty, grief, sorrows, fears as well complete extinction.
Dear Faisal, if you still have concerns about irrabs, please ask. Otherwise, with your permission, I would like to go back to Al-fathia, as that work has completely stalled for few days.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
Here is what, I would suggest humbly. Please try to read some on linguistics, script writing and its evolution in time, just as a start. If you need help with references, please feel free to ask. I know you want to walk on your feet. I do too. Hence, I would happy to help you do that, if like. If do not liked to be helped that is fine with me.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
Please give me one reference, which says it is not.
If I were to provide you with several more references, would you then believe?
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
Instead of reading up on Linguistics as a science and script writing and its evolution as a "general " subject, it is more appropriate and productive to focus on the history and development of Arabic language as a "specific " subject since it is the Arabic "specifically" that we dealing with.
As a start, I can present a few facts.
Fact: The Samarkand and Sana'a manuscripts are both OLDER than the Golden Quran pages.
Fact: These two OLDER copies of The Quran are both WITHOUT 'Irraab.
Fact: The first ever grammar book is the "Al-Kitāb fī an-naḥw " (The Book of Grammar) by the "Persian " Sibawayh in 180 A.H. / 796 A.D. All other "classical" Arabic grammar books use this work as the foundation on which they write their respective grammar books. "Kitab Al 'Ayn " is not the first ever written grammar book because it is NOT a grammar book at all, it is a Qamoos.
Fact: The Samarkand and Sana'a manuscripts are both dated as PRE-ABBASID era.
Fact: Al Kitab fi an-nahw is EARLY ABBASID era (749 A.D.)
Fact: Since Arabic is primarily a spoken language BEFORE it acquired a written form, this lets us know that it always was a spoken language no matter what. It still exists as a spoken language today.
Fact: Written Arabic (like ALL spoken languages) is a reflection of the "verbal vernacular" of those who "speak it " which is why 1). The earliest ever Quranic manuscripts don't have 'Iraab and 2). Today's MSA without the 'Iraab is the "de facto " WRITTEN AND SPOKEN language of choice among ALL Arabs. This is why you have newspapers, books and most textbooks without any sort of 'Iraab.
Fact: No one among the Arab world speaks Arabic (which was ALWAYS a spoken language) with 'Iraab...NO ONE. Those who try have to study LONG and HARD in order to remember when and where to use them in a sentence. By doing this, it would take them at least 5 minutes to "correctly" (according to Sibawayh's rules) say a simple 10 word sentence. Why should one have to struggle to memorize this if it's a natural feature of the language?
Fact: The people of "high status" in the Arab world who use MSA as their official mode of speech do so WITHOUT the 'Iraab as it is simply unnatural (and hence the difficulty) to try and speak while struggling to remember how, when and where to use the 'Iraab. In fact, lots of times they do a lot of "code switching" between dialect and MSA. They call this the "dialect of the educated".
Fact: Since Arabic always has been a spoken language, then we should ask where are the people and place where this way of speaking Arabic still exists? The two spoken Arabic vernaculars with the reputations of being the absolute closest to "classical " Arabic in all features and aspects of the language are the Najdi dialect of central Saudi Arabia....AND....the Sana'a dialect of Yemen (Hhmmmm....). NEITHER of these dialects use 'Iraab in speech even though they possess much of the features of what is termed as "classical " Arabic.
Fact: The classical grammar rules (including the 'Iraab) are based on unjust arbitration and "theory " where as observation and practice of the "ACTUAL LANGUAGE" routinely and constantly disprove these "theories ". By theory I mean Sibawayh and company giving theoretical dissertations on how the language COULD and SHOULD function as opposed to how it just naturally functions. Fact and empirical evidence will always defeat theory.
Fact: The 'Iraabs have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the meanings (by this I mean definitions) of the words themselves. This next statement MAY be taken as somewhat of a challenge, but I request anyone here to please provide even ONE example from The Quran that is non-understandable without the 'Iraab/ case endings.
Brother, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but no one is entitled to his own facts :-)
I don't mind engaging anyone one on facts and If I am proven wrong, I accept the truth based on the facts and keep soldiering on until I reach the ultimate destination of total, undeniable truth. But I simply cannot accept anyone's opinions above the proven, empirical and observable facts no matter what.
I Hope you understand where I am coming from and why.
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
I said it is not mentioned in NO OTHER GRAMMAR BOOK (at least none of the ones I have read and studied)....Lane's is not a grammar book. Also, I already said to you in that same post that I take everything Lane says with a huge grain of salt. Lexicons and dictionaries take a back seat behind Tasreef and context in my book.
Would I believe you if you provided other references? I'm sure no because of three reasons:
1). It will only be a very, very few references you can possibly provide and they will be outnumbered by the HUUUUGE body of other grammar books in common circulation which do not include THAT information you are speaking of.
2). These very few references will be based on the same thing W.Wright got this from (wherever he may have gotten it from). Is this another Sibawayh concoction?
3). It is one those "items" that is based on mere theory and not fact. It is not used at all in Standard or Spoken Arabic and there is not a single instance in The Quran where this "al"/"alladhee" phenomenon occurs, hence THEORY!! And instead of giving an example from The Quran to prove this theory, Wright decided to concoct his own arbitrary sentences as evidence!
And you said something along the lines of "again a misrepresentation of facts"....may I ask where I have misrepresented facts? While you are at it, how does one misrepresent FACTS? :-(
Facts are facts, opinions are opinions and theories are theories. If I present facts, I present them as they are and as they are known and understood by everyone else and for all to verify for themselves. Now, rather or not people wish to be honest and accept and acknowledge the facts is totally out of my hands. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
By the way, if you feel up to it feel free to bring me just one passage from The Quran that cannot be understood without 'Iraab.
Peace Be With You Brother Badar,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
I asked you to PLEASE provide, only one reference that SAYS "AL" IS NOT A CONTRACTION OR COULD NOT BE USED AS A CONTRACTION FOR Alladhi". There are lots book of Grammar out there that do not have everything in those. This doesn't prove the absence of facts presented in other books. The grounds for discussion will only be if you were to present evidence that says it is not or cannot be.
You seem reasonably well versed. So why do not you try to find evidence to support your opinions. Until then, I have heard your opinions well. But to me they are just your beliefs and mere opinions. I would not like to discuss anything further, based on opinions only. Not necessarily that your opinions are certainly wrong. But these are not verifiable true believes, the knowledge, at this time.
So, please bring your evidence, then we shall discuss further.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
This is very sad for me to look at. You make a claim that "al" is a contraction of "alladhee". The onus is always on the person who makes the claim. And because you CANNOT PROVE this to be true you try to put the onus on the other person because of this.
Badar, my brother, we are using English language to have this discussion. As English speakers, we both know that the English definite article "The" is not a contraction of "therefore". How do we know? Because It is NEVER, EVER, EVER used that way and it NEVER, EVER, EVER has been used that way. This is the same thing with "al" and "alladhee" "Al" is NEVER, EVER, EVER used as "alladhee" in ANY written or spoken text and it NEVER, EVER, EVER has been used that way. Again brother, we are dealing with FACTS!! Facts can always be proven,but you can NEVER, EVER prove opinion or theory.
YOUR ONLY REFERENCE FOR SUCH THING IS W. WRIGHT. But, you cannot (and I repeat CANNOT) show ANYONE this usage in The Quran or any type of written or spoken Arabic text. To show us one of these things would be the ULTIMATE proof of your claims and I would have no choice but to accede to it. But what you are trying to pull right now by trying to put the onus on the other person is not only sad, but I also see it as dishonest and your way of saying that you do not wish to admit that you are incorrect on this. To ask someone to present a grammar source that says "al" is not used for "alladhee" is the same as asking them to present a grammar source that says Kitab cannot mean kitty kat or the word sujud does not mean fly up in the sky. No one has to bring evidence for any of this as the usage of these terms SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!! I am growing somewhat disappointed by some of these tactics. This is really sad :-(
You should remind yourself that others are reading this thread brother.
Besides Brother, THE QURAN is what is under discussion and if what you say is true all you have to do is show an example from The Quran to prove "al" is sometimes used as "alladhee". If not, give us an example from a "verifiable" written or spoken text. It's funny how Wright and Lane tried to cover their tracks by saying this is "rarely" used :-)
Yeah, it's "rare" alright. And you have still yet to provide a passage of The Quran showing its incomprehensibilty without the 'Iraab. This can also serve to prove your case.
Peace Be With You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
You said I am presenting opinions. To prove this, go to my post where I made a list of "facts" and PROVE them to be false (and hence my opinions).
Peace Be With You,
Your Brother Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
I see that friends at Aastana have agonized with it a lot. One can understand that basic Arabic grammar really doesn't help alone without applying use of syntax rules/irrabs. Additionally, root meanings are switched as well. Finally, years of conditioning and brain washing that we need to start everything with the name of Allah right from early childhood is very hard to get rid off.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
YOU SAID - "One can understand that basic Arabic grammar really doesn't help alone without applying use of syntax rules/irrabs"
MY RESPONSE - You do realize that YOU are the one presenting unsubstantiated "opinions". Unless you bring AT LEAST ONE PASSAGE from The Quran that is non-understandable without the use of the "iraab, your above quote is a "falsehood" and hence "dishonesty" on your part. I would like to think that you would not do such a thing. Again, I wish to remind you that there are others reading this thread and witnessing the path that you are taking. If you are so sure of your statement above, take it to any native Arab and say this to them and see the response that you'll get. That will be all the proof anyone could ever need.
If you wish not to engage with me, that is fine, I have no problem with that, but if I see anyone here posting obvious and blatant falsehoods (especially when I detect an air of dishonesty behind it) I am going to address it. This is for the benefit of other aastana members who would not know any better so I see it as my duty to do so...one of the reasons we are all here...to establish truth and destroy falsehood.
I've noticed my very first response to you in this thread was my first post on Dec. 29th. From that very first post upto this one I have presented facts, evidences and examples to prove the lie/falsehood of 'Iraab you have not attempted to address even one of them. My question is WHY? On top of that you still pursue your agenda of 'Iraab AFTER it has been proven false to you and all others reading this thread. Can you blame anyone if they start to see you as dishonest and pursuing a personal agenda?
I have listed no less than 12 facts in a few posts above and you conveniently ignore them. I am very disturbed at what I am seeing here. And while we are at it, here is another FACT to add to the list....When the N2I's recite the Quran (during Namaz and at other times) they ROUTINELY recite it WITHOUT vocalizing/pronouncing the case endings. If you don't believe me, anyone here is living in Pakistan should go to the local Mosque during one of the five daily namaz and have a listen. After they are finished, ask them WHY they like to recite Quran without pronouncing the case endings....you may be surprised at the answer they may give you :-) In addition, all Qari's I have ever listened to ALSO LEAVE OUT the 'Iraab in their recitation. Anyone here can see the proof of this themselves by doing a google search of Quran recitation online and to see that "MAYBE" one of every 50 Qari's will make an attempt to pronounce the 'Iraab.
I'll just do the only thing that I can do. I'll PRESENT THE FACTS and give everyone here all the evidence and tools they need to VERIFY THESE FACTS. All I can do is present the truth, I can't make anyone accept it.
Dear Aurangzaib and Dr. Qamar, if I am incorrect in my position or if I am SAYING or DOING something wrong please point it out to me. Also, what can I do about any participant who has had his views disproved to him, refuses to address the things that disproved his views and yet still insists on trying to present those views as if they are true? Is he not obligated to validate those views first or refute the evidence presented to him to show that what he is presenting is not true? What is a person to do? :-(
Someone please explain it to me. Anyone!! Am I missing something?
Fi'amanillah,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
Please stop worrying about everybody and only worry for yourselves. I am sure these are all mature adults reading this forum; additionally they are likely after the truth, as well. So you do not need to worry about them, just worry about self. In the end if you really believe in Quran. Even the current translations say that "one is only responsible for his her own deeds, not others". Even prophet was told not to worry about others.
So please stop worrying about others.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
Everything I said I BOLDLY said that they are FACTS and that EVERYONE HERE can verify them. One glaring example are the links I posted to show that the earliest Quranic manuscripts DID NOT have the 'Iraab which is a FACT and a PROOF against your claims. It is too bad that you cannot say the same thing. I'll tell you what Badar, if I am only giving opinions, why don't you PROVE that they are opinions and show me where I am wrong on ANY of the information I have shared here with everyone? This is a very simple thing to do IF you have the truth on your side, don't you think? :-)
And I'm sorry but I cannot worry about myself, because there are others here who aren't knowledgeable on this issue and I see it as my duty to make sure that they get the CORRECT information and that I expose falsehood whenever it is presented here no matter who it is that is presenting it.
I am eagerly awaiting the input and feedback of Dr. Qamar and Aurangzaib and I am very curious as to the "criteria" for "burdens of proof " at this forum.
In the meantime, I am going to do what you say that YOU are doing.....I will present the comprehensible message with its explanation and expose any and all falsehood in the process. I have already begun this by giving some facts that everyone here can either verify or refute. I understand why now you refuse to "attempt " to refute these things...it is because you simply "can't " :-) No big deal. I'll just continue to present the clear and unrefutable truth brother.
So to recap.....
'Iraab (case endings) are NOT a feature of the Arabic langauge (I have proven this),
the earliest Quranic manuscripts naturally did not have any 'Iraab at all (I have proven this),
the 'Iraab DOES NOT change the meaning of a word or sentence (I have proven this),
there is not one single verse or passage in The Quran that cannot be understood without the man made (sibawayh made) 'Iraab (I have proven this),
every native Arab would laugh at the statement that "basic Arabic grammar really doesn't help alone without applying use of syntax rules/IRRABS. ", (By the way, I see another "dishonest" tactic by you lumping the 'Iraab with syntax. syntax is a different thing from your man made 'Iraab and you know it Badar),
"al" has NEVER BEEN, it ISN'T NOW nor will it EVER BE used as a substitute for "alladhee" (I have proven this),
no one can go into the history of Arabic language to show 'Iraab was there from the very beginnings and when they fell out of use BUT they CAN go into its history and see WHEN they appeared which is in the late Umayyad and Early Abbasid era (along with Sibawayh and his man made grammar rules, and YES I have proven this).
I will bring alot more as this discussion continues to develop :-)
Fi'amanillah,
Your Brother Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
I have been in a situation like most others; that I have been led to believe, the translations written underneath are the real meanings of the script above. However, neither I had so far verified these claims nor most of the people, I know of.
There are books available written by the natives of said language about Lexical meanings of its words,(for people not familiar with term. Lexical meaning, means as the word concept is understood and used by common people of the language, not scholars and philosophers), Grammar and Syntax.
I am going to apply these established meanings and rules to understand and explain the text. At this time history and controversies are not my concern.
You would be very welcome to critique application of said rules with references. Your mere opinions will be completely ignored, if presented without due references.
Peace,
Badar
(Furthermore, bring me a Lexicon written by natives (not a new one but an original one) without Harkaats and irrabs. If these were not part of the original language, why did they bother to preserve words with these? Most likely you reject these lexicons as well based upon your unique logic. Why do not you just reject this whole book?)
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
You just put yourself in a pretty bad position as I am going to go through your post point by point.
YOU SAID - "At this time history and controversies are not my concern. "
MY RESPONSE - LOL!!! The very reason you are attempting to understand Quran without the current translations is because of "history and controversies"...otherwise why bother understanding it differently than what it has been..."historically"...understood as? If history and controversies are not your concern, then you should be content with the present status quo, other wise it is "history and controversies" that compels you to seek an alternative understanding. Furthermore, don't think I am not aware that you are saying this because you cannot "refute" all of the evidence that I have been giving you in this discussion. Please do not run away. I wish for you to stay and finish this. The truth MUST be revealed for ALL to see.
YOU SAID - "You would be very welcome to critique application of said rules with references."
MY RESPONSE - I have given you references earlier in this thread which you pretended not to see. It seems giving you references is an exercise in futility. Besides, you know as well as I do and whoever is reading this thread that I have YET to present any opinion at all. Everything I have stated are all facts and I HAVE PROVEN EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. You really think just because you are using the word opinions that it is going to affect the facts that I have presented and the eventual outcome of this thread? Just another tactic, that's all....and it won't work.
YOU SAID - "Furthermore, bring me a Lexicon written by natives (not a new one but an original one) without Harkaats and irrabs. If these were not part of the original language, why did they bother to preserve words with these? Most likely you reject these lexicons as well based upon your unique logic"
MY RESPONSE - LOL, Nice try Badar....I already did you one even better when I gave you the links to view that which is MUCH, MUCH older than ALL of the lexicons (The Samarkand and Sana'a Qurans). It simply doesn't get any OLDER (and thus BETTER) than this. The FIRST and EARLIEST EVER Arabic lexicon is Kitab al 'Ain by Khalil bin Ahmad and it is POST ABBASID (786 A.D.) just like sibawayh, bukhari and all of the other Persian/Zoroastrian encroachments in Islam. The Sana'a and Samarkand Quran manuscripts are both PRE ABBASID and they DO NOT have the Harakaats or 'Iraabs. In order to find out if the harakaats and 'Iraabs were original features of the Arabic Language we have to go as FAR BACK into the time as humanly possible and examine the OLDEST ever Arabic writings. The Samarkand/Uthmani and Sana'a manuscripts are each much, much older than the first ever lexicon, which was written by Sibawayh's teacher and mentor Khalil bin Ahmad.
YOU SAID - "Most likely you reject these lexicons as well based upon your unique logic"
MY RESPONSE - My logic is unique? This is very comical coming from the ONLY PERSON in this thread who makes claims and REFUSES to give his audience his evidence. Whatever his evidence is (if he has it at all) he has decided to keep it all to himself. Not only that, but when someone gives him the proof that his claims are flat out wrong he doesn't even bother to address those proofs clearly and plainly laid out in front of him. Besides, my logic isn't all that unique. I have recently learned from Dr. Qamar Saheb and Aurangzaib that it is better and more accurate to use tasreef ul ayaat first, followed by context, then the Quranic methodology of juxtaposing antonyms and then going to the lexicons to help fill in any gaps. This is what I do now and I have gotten this advice from them.
YOU SAID - "Why do not you just reject this whole book?"
MY RESPONSE - Why, because you have? You admitted yourself that you don't even know Arabic and you are trying to explore The Quran using a grammar book which does not reflect the grammar of The Quran. If you actually took the time to learn Arabic and Study THE QURAN instead W. Wright's book you may be able to make some progress in this direction.
I realize that you are not well versed in Arabic and no one here will hold that against you. But if you are serious and humble enough I really willing and able to help you. I meant it when I said that I am not your enemy and we all have our contributions to make. If helping you to learn the actual language is what you require from me I will be honored to help you (no egos at all on my part).
By the way Badar, I think it was pretty tasteless (and again dishonest) how you tried to sneak the word "iraab in with the word syntax in your post earlier AS IF they are one and the same or go hand in hand.
Well, that's it for now. Tomorrow I will begin posting evidence from The Quran to PROVE that it is NOT in the "classical" Arabic that Sibawayh had concocted. My reason for doing this is to (as you said) "critique your rules with references"....Quranic references which a TRUE BELIEVER will not reject. More to come. And I am still waiting for a response from Dr. QZ and Aurangzaib to explain to me the rules and criteria for "burden of proof" in our discussions.
Peace Be With You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
As I sated in my post above I will begin posting "QURANIC EVIDENCE" which concretely PROVE that the Quran is not written with the classical grammar rules that Badar is fond of. However, I will be posting this for all to examine not just for Badar. For now I will refrain from engaging with Badar until Dr. Qamar OR Aurangzaib step in to give everyone here the proper guidelines for these discussions in terms of "burdens of proof" and how to properly (and HONESTLY) carry on in the discussions.
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
This thread has expanded so rapidly… that… to keep pace with the developments of its diverse points of discussion, proved an awesome task. Not to speak of being able to write something to share it with both of you very learned companions of Aastana team.
Brother Damon did ask for Dr. Sahib’s or mine humble intervention and I perceived this demand of his as meaning to invite some neutralizing element with the aim of arriving at some solution-oriented conclusion of this intellectual episode.
This is honestly a highly technical and scholarly discussion and both sides have at their command years of relevant academic background based on profound learning. Both are driven by passion and commitment.
For myself, I frankly don’t find myself in a capacity to intervene. I am but a mere student of Dr. Sahib in matters of Arabic language, grammar, syntax, etc. Dr. Sahib being a lifelong researcher must be able to contribute substantially in this exchange of views, and bring about or introduce some decisive and conclusive element.
But sincere thanks to both of you for granting me and other members the great opportunity of learning a lot in a hitherto little known field of knowledge. The discussion had started with a brotherly note and a spirit of mutual learning. My humble submission is that caution and restraint must be exercised to fullest extent to maintain that spirit of mutual learning by not allowing it to transform into “conflict” or “confrontation”, keeping in view our common goal of pursuit of knowledge. So long as criticism does not turn into paranoia, and into suspicion of other party’s motives, it will remain healthy and reflect nobly upon our personalities.
The knowledge you both learned Brothers are sharing with us is great. We are not only thankful but greatly indebted to you for such scholarly inputs.
The discussion started with the question of Ae’raabs, and with, whether the earliest Quranic manuscripts were with Ae’raabs or without. A few days earlier I posted something on this subject in reply to a question, which I reproduce below, if it might help in the discussion :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The link is : http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?MID=3&SID=32&QID=814
“”My dear Mubashir Syed / Adnan,
THE HISTORY:
If we depend upon our history, it says that the three stages of Dotting and Diacritization were as follows :-
1. Dots were put as syntactical marks by Abu Al-Aswad Al Doaly, during the time of Mu’awiya Ibn Abi Sufian (661-680 CE);
2. The letters were marked with different dotting by Nasr Ibn Asem and Hayy ibn Ya’amor, during the time of Abd Al-Malek Ibn Marawan (685-705 CE).
3. A complete system of diacritical marks (damma, fataha, kasra) was invented by Al-Khaleel Ibn Ahmad Al Faraheedy (d. 786 CE).
Generally, Hajjaj bin Yousuf is awarded the attribute of affording Quranic text with its proper diacritics; and going by the above history, it is proved as partly true. The Point 2) above testifies to that. But as you can see, he was not the only one ---- nor was he the FIRST ONE as we find that earlier too, this work was carried out during Ameer Mu’awiya’s period, viz., 661-680 CE.
THE SCIENCE:
However, when we revert to the modern scientific methods of research, we come across the following fact about some Quranic parchments discovered with PROPER HIGHLIGHTED VOWEL MARKS (Sorry! Photo could not be copy/pasted) :-
“Gerd R Puin photo of one of his Sana'a Qur'an parchments, showing layered revisions to the Qu'ran. The Sana'a manuscripts, found in Yemen in 1972, are considered by some to be the oldest existent version of the Qur'an. Although the text has been dated to the first two decades of the eighth century, carbon-14 tests indicate that some of the parchments in this collection date back to the 7th and 8th centuries. Carbon-14 tests date some of the parchments to 645-690 AD. Their real age may be somewhat younger, since C-14 estimates the year of the death of an organism, and the process from that to the final writing on the parchment involves an unknown amount of time. Calligraphic datings have pointed to 710-715 AD. “
(Sorry, I couldn’t copy the image here. It is available in the recently published Book “Sab’at Ahraf” by Mr. Abdul Karim Athri)
Thus, we come across a still earlier history of diacritics that starts from 645 AD (or even earlier). We must remember that 645 AD coincides with the end of Omar bin Khattab’s era and the start of Othman bin 'Affaan’s period.
In view of the above evidence it might be entirely a baseless idea to think that Quran, while it was descending, was being written and preserved without any concept of Dots and Diacritization. As a matter of fact, all mediums of proper writing like, skilled writers, pens, ink and ink-pots and the items where something is written upon, were all available and thus, everything was perhaps written and recorded complete with proper diacritics and then fully preserved under perfect supervision and monitoring of the Prophet (pbuh) himself. “”
---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------
In the last paragraph of the excerpt above, I have pointed towards a possibility….by using the word “might be”. But Brothers, since we have oldest parchments (for example the San’aa ones) both with Ae’raabs (diacritics) and without Ae’raabs, so this point perhaps cannot lead us to a precise conclusion. Let us accept both possibilities. May be there were Ae’raabs in the original manuscript; may be they were not!
About the Role of Ae’raabs in proper reading and understanding of Quranic Arabic, with my meager knowledge as a student of Arabic grammar, being a non-Arabic learner, I feel that Ae’raabs are a must for me. I will be lost without them.
However, Brother Damon’s standpoint that Ae’raabs are not a must in this respect, I would humbly opine that he must also be right insofar as native Arab speakers are concerned. We do not find the Arabs ever feeling the need for Ae’raabs while reading their books, newspapers etc. Native speakers do develop an innate capability to comprehend their language in different situations with the help of context.
This is a layman’s analysis. Please do continue with the sacred mission of dissemination of KNOWLEDGE for the benefit of Aastana and every one.
About “al” being a substitute or abbreviation of “alladhi”, Brother Damon’s demand for another example from Quran as a proof seems justified. I trust this demand would be met soon.
I am very keen to continue with the grammar lessons by Brother Badar. But all of us must rest assured that whatever we derive from new discoveries in the linguistic field, will be, with a joint effort, put to scrutiny under the criterion of TASREEF, CONTEXT, COMPARISON OF ANTONYMS and THE GENERAL OVERALL PHILOSOPHY & MESSAGE OF QURAN.
This is just my 2 cents of the understanding (as our dear Brother Mubashir usually says).
God bless all.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/2/2011 |
Point that I have reservation about is using Tasreef to understand Quran at the present time. This concept of Tasreef assumes that most, if not all current Quranic translation is correct at present. Hence, one could use other verses to explain some others. But I just humbly want to point out the circular logic in this argument. Brother, there are lots of tight circles in this logic. That is all, I would like to say at present. As I do not want to create another distraction. However, once we get to real meanings based upon the rules of the said language. Then we shall be able to decide, if tasreef is need; although, my gut feeling is one would need no other method.
Dear Damon, why do you want to keep putting words in my mouth and keep attributing statements to me that I never said. I never said Quran is written in Classical Arabic. I am going to cut and paste exactly what I have said from above "Dear Damon, let me tell you, my stance and position openly and for everybody else to understand. We have a written book in hand popularly known as Quran. It is written in a certain script of a certain language. One can call it, Arabic. To me even any ABCD name would be just fine."
As far as, which and what the name of this language is? I care least now. After having read all the history books etc, I can’t reach to any conclusions. Just like Brother Aurangzeb has pointed out above.
Furthermore, if you really would like to hear my personal conclusion in this regards. I am reasonably certain that current Quranic script is not in the dialect of prophet. That is if really the prophet's dialect was Qureshi dialect as claimed by some.
As indicated above my first and only objective at present is just try to understand the meanings of Quranic script by using all available rules of the said language.
I am going to leave these controversies about history etc to you and others more capable then myself and who have interest in these. However, believe me, these do not interest me at all. Additionally, I feel these are a distraction for, what I want to do. At the same time I am not saying that someone should not be looking into those. Hope, I have made my point of view clear.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
I apologize to you for putting words in your mouth Sir. The reason that I say that you believe that The Quran is in "classical" Arabic is because you have demonstrated here at this forum that your only source of "grammatical" reference are the books of "Classical Grammar" such as Wright, Palmer, Howell and indirectly Sibawayh (the founder of "classical" grammar). If one strictly adheres to the rules given in the "classical" grammar books and use that to engage, understand and interpret The Quran, what else am I to think other than you see The language of The Quran as being "classical" Arabic?
You and I 75% agree on one thing that the Quranic script is not in this so-called Quraish dialect. Since we already see eye to eye on this issue I guess there's no need for me to go into it.
You said you wish to understand the meanings of Quranic script by using all available rules of the said language. I can't argue with that Brother. God Bless You. I just saw otherwise because you are actually interpreting entire words and sentences with these rules which means you are going beyond "understanding the meanings of script". I have a little to say about the script in my reply to Brother Aurangzaib.
And yes brother you have made yourself clear as far as what you are saying. Two issues that seem to pop up in my mind is that if one does not know the history of their endevour, how do they know if they are walking the correct path of the endevour? You can only know by viewing the history of your subject of study to know how it started, what it has gone through and how it has come this point. The second issue is that what you are saying in your post above doesn't always mirror what your are doing in practice in other parts of this thread, that's all. I do read what people say, but I also like to observe what they do and sometimes I find what they say is contrary to what they actually do in practice.
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
I am going to spend considerable time before, I present my humble understanding. This is due to fact that this verse sets a tone for the message’s understanding that negates all basis of current religion, popularly known as Islam. Additionally, we need good amount of linguistic proof and understanding to negate current translations. As well to support a different one that shall follow soon.
I know there are, like brother Damon says, lot of people reading and watching this. I am also cognizant of the fact that all are going to be at a different levels of their knowledge of Arabic language. Hence, I am going to gradually gear up, with explanation of involved rules.
Just like any other language, the Quranic language also has either sentences or phrases (compounds). Let us just at the start recap some basic definitions.
What are alphabets? These are written representations of spoken sounds. The alphabets are basic units of spoken language that do not carry any meanings.
What are words? Words are combinations two or more alphabets, which convey some meanings. These form basic units of further combination, to convey further meanings called sentences or phrases (compounds).
The differences between a sentence and phrase in the said language are as follows.
A sentence is a combination of different words by which either a certain news or desire or order is conveyed. In contrast to this, a phrase (compound) is a combination of words; which does not convey any of these meanings contained in a sentence.
I shall pause at this, to see if there are any questions.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/2/2011 |
Dear Aurangzaib,
Thank you for your feedback and words of wisdom. As always yours is the calm voice of reason and logic.
When I asked for you or Dr. Qamar to step in, I was not asking that you bring the discussion to a close or to bring about a consesus of any sort. I was asking about discussions in which participants will make statements without providing some sort of evidence to validate the statements and when another participant provides his own evidence to "invalidate" the first person's statements, he doesn't address them or try to counter them but calls it an opinion when everything I have said (brother EVERYTHING) is not only fact, but verifiable fact. Everything I said can be looked into, looked at, asked about, whatever...none of the information I shared here is unverifiable. Not every participant in this thread can say the same. So my question is what to do in a situation like that? What criteria does aastana have in place to establish correct etiquette of these discussions for the sake of the participants discovering what is true and what is false?
I like to do what I call a "process of elimination" where I investigate all possible angles and possibilities, find out what is truthful and logical and what is false and illogical, what is verifiable and what is non verifiable, which is fact and which is theory or outright falsehood. I go through a process of systematically eliminating the falsehood and I continue to chop down the tree of falsehood until I can get to the "root" of the truth. I have done this with the Arabic language and The Arabic Quran. My disagreement with the 'Iraab and some of the other features of "classical" Arabic is not an indication that I don't know them or that I don't understand them or even that I don't like them. No, I have studied all the grammar books that I can get my hands on. I have studied books on "classical" Arabic grammar, books on Modern Standard Arabic grammar (which shows very little difference with "classical" Arabic) and I presently study the grammar of the Spoken vernacular. My studies and research has shown me that the grammatical structures of The Quran are much, much closer to spoken Arabic than it is to what they call "classical" Arabic and the grammatical structures of The Quran (which I am prepared to give evidence for) routinely disregards and shows a lack of respect for the grammatical rules in the "classical" grammar books.
I said earlier that I wish to share some information and explorations of The Quran to show that it is not in the "classical" Arabic Sibawayh had put forth. My reason for doing this is simple. The 'Iraab (as well as some other rules and features I disagree with) is a feature of "classical" Arabic and it is well known worldwide that it is not a feature of spoken Arabic. Thus if I can show and prove to the aastana viewers that The Quran is not in "classical" Arabic, then the viewers would realize that they do not need to bother themselves with anything that is strictly a feature of "classical" grammar which naturally includes the 'Iraab.
Brother Aurangzaib, concerning the Sana'a manuscripts, I'll have to be very honest with you. I have the original 1999 article by Toby Lester which appeared in "The Atlantic Monthly" as well as a 2000 rebuttal to that article by the eminent N2I scholar Dr. Ali Mazrui and I must say brother I have never, ever read anywhere that the erasing and re-writing of these manuscripts is an indication of diacritic marks. Your statement to this effect is the very first time that I have heard or read anyone come to this conclusion. I have read the wikipedia article you have linked and it doesn't say it in the write up at all.
What has always been the common back and forth argument on both sides (meaning the orientalists and the N2I believers) is that the erasing and re-writing of the manuscripts is an indication in what they call "spelling errors" which have to do with the letters and not diacritic marks. This explanation has always sounded more plausible to me for a number of reasons.
Firstly, Arabic did not have its own script and thus had to borrow and develop it from Nabatean. This means there were people speaking a language that did not have a written form yet (which further points to one of my arguments that Arabic has always been a spoken language and not a written one). If Arabic at a certain point did not have a written form, then HOW can it be disglossiated (meaning having a spoken form and a separate written form)? The first Quranic manuscripts (especially the Uthmani Samarkand) scripts were in the early stages of Arabic acquiring a written form. This knowledge, along with the fact that it had to borrow another language's script for its own alphabetical purposes, is why it is plausible that there was no uniform spelling of the words at that point in time.
Another reason, that the idea of non uniformity of the spelling (at least at that beginning stage) is more plausible to me is because if you closely look at the images you'll notice that the erased marks and the re-writes are the same size. The infra red images (the erased writings) are the same size as the present images. Please observe the image in the link below...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SanaaQuoranDoubleVersions.jpg
Not only does one notice that the erased letters and the new ones are the same size, but additional observations show that some of the letters stayed the same just in a different position in the word, some of the erase marks are obvious letters and not diacritic marks. Why do I say this? Because the diacritic marks are always "smaller" than the letters that they affect, not the same size. From their first appearances in the Early Abbasid dynasty they have always been smaller than the letters themselves and they were always positioned in such a way to make it clear which letter of whichever word is affected by it. Also, upon careful observation of the image, one can see the appearance of one letter and the erased mark was a different letter. I posted the link of the enlarged image above for all to see and so that I wouldn't be accused of giving "opinions".
Again brother, I wish to restate I have never, ever read anywhere before where the erasing and re-writing of the Sana'a manuscripts was an indication of diacritics. I am not saying that it hasn't been said before, I am merely stating that I have never come across it. If you do have a link or two for me to look at, I'll certainly read it/them.
Now you say that the 'Iraab and the harakaat are an absolute must for you and that you'll be lost without them. I can't argue with that. Your statement is definitely valid. I have a "theory" (now THIS you can justly call my "opinion" since I am theorizing) that the harakaats (not the 'Iraab) were introduced to bring about one, uniform, all encompassing "pronunciation" of the text. According to the official history there were upto 14 orignal "readings" of the text. The "readings" were not a difference in interpretation or meanings of the words but a difference in how different Arabs from different tribes and regions recited and pronounced the text. To some extent, I can understand how that would be an issue. But it's not as big of an issue as one might think because this same phenomena exist among the Arabs today. You correctly pointed out that the Native Arabs can read the script without any harakaats or 'Iraab and it does not affect their understanding of the text. However, if you ask any two or three Arabs from different regions to read the same text aloud, the pronunciations will be determined by the dialects of each Arab. However, the meaning of the text itself does not change.
Now CAN you learn to read Arabic text without harakaats and 'Iraab? I say "yes you can" (no I am not trying to imitate Barack Obama :-) ) I do not wish for you to think that I am bragging or putting myself on a pedestal, but I am able to do it. It is largely a matter of three things....having a large amount of vocabulary in your repetoire, knowing the context of what you are reading and being properly and thoroughly grounded in Arabic syntax. This is how the native Arabs are able to do it, except they have their entire lives to be immersed in the environment which facilitates this.
On an ending note, you said something that I really admire and it should have been a "no brainer" for me to figure out.
YOU SAID - " But all of us must rest assured that whatever we derive from new discoveries in the linguistic field, will be, with a joint effort, put to scrutiny under the criterion of TASREEF, CONTEXT, COMPARISON OF ANTONYMS and THE GENERAL OVERALL PHILOSOPHY & MESSAGE OF QURAN."
My RESPONSE - No response necessary. This is a brilliant statement you have made :-)
And by the way, I really would like a response (for future reference) on etiquette of discussions at this forum. If the "purpose" of the forum is strip away falsity and reach the truth, the rules and etiquette of discussions would have to be in place to properly facilitate this. Otherwise, the field is wide open for people to teach, share and spread falsehoods (verifiable falsehoods that have been proven false) without restraint and they would now have the okay to do such thing if nothing is in place to obligate the participants validate what they are bringing to the table. I am not speaking of anyone in particular. This is for general and future reference.
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
Something else just cam to me about the Sana'a manuscripts and the "re-writing" of them. We must also remember that (according to the research and the conclusions derived from it) that these parchments were "washed over". When they placed them under the infra red lighting they detected what appeared to be a "washing" of the parchments prior to the new writing placed over top of it. This is what they had to do back then when parchments and other writing materials were of limited quantity.
Also, I wish to re-iterate for everyone's benefit the impossibility of Arabic always being a language afflicted with disglossia as their was a time when Arabic didn't even have it's own alphabet, let alone writings. There was a point in the Arabic languages history when it was only (i.e. "exclusively) spoken and not written at all. On top of that, it had to borrow from Nabatean script to develop its own alphabetical system. Because of this and because of the tribal and regional differences in "dialect" and pronunciation (yes, even back then) its what would explain the differences in spelling of words between different contemporary manuscripts as well as the re-writing of some of them. This was in the beginning stages of Arabic developing and codifying a unified and solid written form.
Due to this information, I bring up another angle of my views. If the 'Iraab were a natural feature of the langauge and was used in their speech even back then, then they would have HAD TO accomodate that aspect from the very beginning for the sake of clarity and posterity. On top of that, if they had to accomodate it from the very beginning, why on God's green earth would they not do so using the alphabetical system they were already using? Why on earth would they have waited (at the very least no less than 50 years ) to finally design a diacritic system to accomadate the use and vocalization of the 'Iraab from the VERBAL to the WRITTEN? Remember, it was verbal first as it was at first "strictly" a spoken language without a written form. So if the 'Iraab were there from the beginning as part of the spoken language, then it's a mystery as to why and how they overlooked to accomodate it in written form from the very beginning. To overlook this would suggest that they had obviously misspelled words at best and had incomplete, nonsensical words at worst. :-(
Now do you guys see the dilemma with the theory of the 'Iraab?
And to suggest the possibility that maybe it is written in a specific dialect that used the 'Iraab, then I have to ask where did that dialect go? Where is it? Why can't be found? Why can't we go into the history of the Arabic language and find the initial existence of the 'Iraab and the path it took to its eventual disuse? To say that the language of The Quran is a dead language is false because there was never a time in Arabic language's history where it died. It was always alive, thriving and evolving. And because of this, the proponents of 'Iraab should at least be able to go into the history of the Arabic language to find out what dialect spoke it, what happened to the dialect (or the region or people of the dialect), how, when and where it started to fall out of use and what brought the situation of the 'Iraab to its present circumstances.
So many questions that have never been asked before and if they are asked (or ever were) no one has supplied a response did any empirical research into the situation to find out. Why?
Peace All,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/2/2011 |
If you can stomach the obvious "atheist" and/or "anti-Islam" slant behind this youtube video it is worth watching only for the sake of viewing different images of the Sana'a manuscripts found in 1972.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLSEaPxePZc
It is said that they are older than the Uthmani manuscripts and "textually" different. Rather or not this is the case has no bearing or consequence on my belief in The Quran although I can understand how the N2I believers might feel "challenged" or "threatened" by disbelievers (who have the labels of "professor" or "researcher" prefixed to their names) making such statements after their examinations and research.
One thing they were adamant about in the video clip (and the reason I am posting the link to it) is that these manuscripts were completely devoid of vowel markings and dots. And when you look at the ultraviolet images of the writings that were originally on the parchments, again no harakaats or 'Iraab.
On an ending note, this thread has turned out to be interesting and beneficial after all. I went and dug out that 1999 article in the Atlantic Monthly and read it again after 12 years of reading it the first time. I will say this. Since the Arabic of The Quran is a spoken vernacular (as opposed to Sibawayh's "classical" variety) it becomes interesting that the oldest found manuscripts (so far) are credited to be the Sana'a manuscripts and that the Sana'a "spoken" dialect is known by all those who are familiar with it to be one of the three existing dialects closest to the "old" Arabic you'll see in The Quran. In addition, the dialect of Sana'a, Yemen is ALSO known to be little to none affected by outside influences from other languages which is also interesting to me. (Note: because they were never colonized may have something to do with this)
A pretty interesting read to get hold of if you can is "A History of The Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani if you wish to get a pretty good glimpse at the history, development and culmination of what we today call the Arabic Language (in addition to the history of the Arab people in general of course :-)
Peace All, God Bless You.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/3/2011 |
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Tahir ul Qadri شروع اللہ کے نام سے، جو نہایت مہربان، رحم فرمانے والا ہے
Ahmed Ali شروع الله کا نام لے کر جو بڑا مہربان نہایت رحم والا ہے
Ahmed Raza Khan اللہ کے نام سے شروع جو بہت مہربان رحمت والا
Shabbir Ahmed شروع اللہ کے نام سے جو بڑا نہایت رحم کرنے والا ہے۔
Fateh Muhammad Jalandhary شروع اللہ کا نام لے کر جو بڑا مہربان نہایت رحم والا ہے
Mehmood Al Hassan شروع اللہ کے نام سے جو بڑا مہربان نہایت رحم والا ہے
In English
Yusuf Ali In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Pickthal In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Arberry In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Shakir In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Sarwar In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Dear Brother Damon, I am really impressed with your zeal and passion about issues. Additionally, you have said the following above.
“Now CAN you learn to read Arabic text without harakaats and 'Iraab? I say "yes you can" (no I am not trying to imitate Barack Obama :-) ) I do not wish for you to think that I am bragging or putting myself on a pedestal, but I am able to do it. It is largely a matter of three things....having a large amount of vocabulary in your repetoire, knowing the context of what you are reading and being properly and thoroughly grounded in Arabic syntax. This is how the native Arabs are able to do it, except they have their entire lives to be immersed in the environment which facilitates this.”
You also further said this above
“In the meantime, I am going to do what you say that YOU are doing.....I will present the comprehensible message with its explanation and expose any and all falsehood in the process. I have already begun this by giving some facts that everyone here can either verify or refute. I understand why now you refuse to "attempt " to refute these things...it is because you simply "can't " :-) No big deal. I'll just continue to present the clear and unrefutable truth brother.
In the meantime, I am going to do what you say that YOU are doing.....I will present the comprehensible message with its explanation and expose any and all falsehood in the process. I have already begun this by giving some facts that everyone here can either verify or refute. I understand why now you refuse to "attempt " to refute these things...it is because you simply "can't " :-) No big deal. I'll just continue to present the clear and unrefutable truth brother. “
Dear Brother, we are not enemies. I understand, your intentions are to help us all understand the text in question. Additionally, I already said that it needs to be a team effort; so more the help, the better.
So in the spirit of help, learning and cooperation. Could, I request my respected brother to please do the following things for us.
1. Do you agree with the translations of the verse above? If not please share your understanding with us.
2. Since, you have made claims that you understand Syntax well without Irrabs. Please share your breakdown of this verse, with us. As to what kind of a sentence it is? What are its constituent components?
3. Do you just consider that only irrabs are superflous or you think that all written Arabic Grammar is wrong as well?
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/3/2011 |
I've been following all of this discussion and I know nobody asked for it but couldn't help saying brother Damon's writings carry much more weight. I have very little knowledge of grammar and still trying to learn but what little I know about iraabs is that they were placed in order to preserve and produce a coherent "pronunciation" of the Quran language much later than the time Quran was revealed AND written. As the word "Two" in Arabic is "Athnan", "Ithnan" and even "Ithnaen" in different parts of Arab.
Even if someone argues that its not true, the fact remains that the language is written and read without iraabs and the little grammar I have learned so far, it actually explains why a words are spoken a certain way... and the pronunciation though important dont have much in making the structure of the language.
After all hamare haan bhi to kai log "ghalat" ko "ghalt" kehna pasand kertay hain :)
Any way those were my thoughts only and any one can disagree but I expect that, specially from the people on this forum, to have a criteria of acceptance to be truthful and logical.
jazakAllah
UmeAimon
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/3/2011 |
Nice to see some fresher insights make their way into the conversation. I was afraid this discussion was turning into The Badar & Damon Show :-)
@ Badar,
Brother, I know we are not enemies and I think the episode we had during this discussion can be put behind us. But again, I am very concerned with anyone translating this book of ours using methods that they cannot (or will not) bother to validate. And to continue to pursue an agenda without bothering to refute the arguments made against said agenda and methods makes for bad scholarship (in my opinion).
You said it should be a team effort. I love team efforts and hold it in very high esteem. As they say, two heads are better than one, four heads are better than two, eight heads are better than four, etc. The concern that I have with THIS team effort is that there is "disagreement" over the methods and grammatical views of the book we all wish to understand and "Implement" for the better of humanity. I emphasize "implementation" because the path of the "classical grammar analysis" has always served ( and I dare say will continue to serve) as another of many obstacles of obtaining "guidance" from The Quran and following that guidance for the sake of serving mankind. If I were to engage in this exercise you are proposing here (putting The Quran under the Sibawayh microscope), we would all be going back and forth over waaaaay too long a stretch over grammatical anaylisis, this case ending, that kasra, but W. Wright says, etc., etc. And I wish to remind all here that WE here and HUMANITY do not have time for that. We Will NEVER reach a common understanding by playing this game, and you wish to put us through this starting with the Basmalah? I don't like it when people trivialize The Quran and making it more complex than what it really is using the criteria and methods of the very same ones who placed shackles on this book to begin with to keep us from engaging it and understanding it as it is and on its own merits.
You asked if I agree with the above translations. The short answer is no, I do not agree with them. As far as an explanation on why I disagree and how do I undertsand it, I will reserve the answers to that until a later time and I do so for two reasons.
Reason one, is it fair that I can keep answering your questions and giving you my understanding of sentences you give and giving you the grammatical breakdown of them and you have yet to ANSWER ONE THING I have asked of you? Is this a fair discussion? Is this good scholarship? Is this what you call a "Team Effort"? Anyone can go through this thread and see how I have replied to you and your statements and at least gave an answer to them. Not only have no attempts been made to refute my replies to those queries, but I was told that I was opinionating (with no evidence given to prove this), more questions came from your end and not a single question from me has been touched. Honestly brother, put yourself in my shoes. Would you say this is a fair discussion or is it one sided? The message that I get from this is that you are not going to validate your grammatical criteria nor are you going to refute the arguments raised against it, but you are going to pursue your agenda anyway rather we like it or not. This is easy to prove. All one has to do is go through this thread and notice that you have never answered anything I asked, but with each post you make YOU ask OTHERS more and more questions. You ask how they explain this, how they understand that, what is their grammatical analysis, what does this mean, etc. This is just unfair, one sided and strays from the path of true scholarship. This is why I asked Dr Qz and Aurangzaib about some type of rules and criteria for these discussions to prevent such things.
Additionally, I shared some vital information in my prior three posts and once again, you don't even bother to address them to validate or invalidate anything I have said and yet you have more questions for me to answer. I raised some serious questions about the 'Iraab two posts prior to this one and raised some questions of WHY the sounding and spelling of the 'Iraabs were not accounted for from the very beginning of Arabic writing? Arabic was DEFINITELY spoken BEFORE it was written. So once Arabic made its way from the verbal to the written, then ALL SPOKEN FEATURES must be accounted for in the written form. Why don't you ponder on this? Why don't you address these issues since you so feverishly stand for the 'Iraab? Why feverishly support something that you cannot validate as true or refute what people post to invalidate what you so feverishly support? If you want to be taken seriously and wish for people to believe that you are honest, why don't you address my points that I made in my last post made on Jan. 2nd? about the 'Iraab? But instead of doing that, you would rather ask me MORE questions about the 'Iraab? What is this? Seriously brother?
I have asked you to provide proof for quite a few things you represent throughout this entire discussion between us and you absolutely refuse to do so. Why Badar? I seriously don't understand. I am trying my best to understand this, but I just don't get it, how can a person present himself to be learned and well versed and conduct himself in such a manner? I really don't get it brother.
The main reason that I will reserve my explnations on the Basmalah for now is because I will "first" do what I had requested for you to do in this thread. I will first attempt to "Quranically Validate" my claims and arguments that the Quran is not grammatically structured on the grounds of Sibawayh's rules. Once I make that attempt, it would be up to those who disagree to invalidate what I post here. If they do not do so but still wish to ask people to "answer them this and explain that" then that would be all that I would need to see to know for sure what type of people we are dealing with. And if you cannot invalidate what I bring to support my argument against Sibawyh and company that means you now have a choice. Do you go by FACT or Sibawayh's THEORIES?
It is 6:30 in the morning here and I am getting ready for work. I will hopefully continue this sometime this evening.
Peace All and God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/3/2011 |
Baravo Sister, for being the first one to make at least your opinions know openly; it’s really encouraging that our sisters and daughters are getting courage to speak up their opinions openly. Could, I also request you to please give your opinions about Urdu/English translation of the verse given above.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/3/2011 |
But I think it would fair to ask you to at least answer these questions.
2. Since, you have made claims that you understand Syntax well without Irrabs. Please share your breakdown of this verse, with us. As to what kind of a sentence it is? What are its constituent components?
3. Do you just consider that only irrabs are superfluous or you think that all written Arabic Grammar is wrong as well?
You think, you have the rights to bombard some with questions, without showing your cards. Yet you want to have rules for honesty, truth etc in place.
These are very simple question and based upon your own claims should not be beyond your reach and abilities.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/3/2011 |
Thanks for your kind reply addressed to me. I would briefly fulfill my duty of response paragraph-wise.
Aastana for the time being is a free for all. All participants are equally respected and enjoy freedom of expression. Our “etiquettes of discussions” are just the elements of mutual respect and the observance of the norms of decency and civil manners. And, that we must remain objective, as that’s the only way towards academic advancement and achievement. We have just, very humbly, provided an organized space, an institution without barriers, to allow free flow and exchange of knowledge. Neither there is a set criterion upon which to analyze and check, nor is there enough time or a proper body of vigilantes to monitor, control and/or apprehend the “right” or “wrong” scholarly reflections. Those have not been our goals. It is, for us, a mutual learning process which, at the end of the day, greatly helps us in proceeding with our ultimate goal of a most grammatically accurate Quranic translation suited to modern times. You, with your in-depth knowledge of the relevant field, already are an essential and a most valuable part of that process. With help from your discussions, we, as well as other friends, are enabled to form their opinions and make right decisions.
Your “process of elimination” and “investigation of all possible angles” in the process of reaching the ultimate truth, stand beyond question. Your valuable words and the style of argumentation speak for themselves. For me, my dear, you stand out as an expert of great consequence in your field. Quintessentials from your scholarly prowess will automatically be noted and drawn to update and refine the work on our main Project. Knowledge speaks for itself. For most of our participants, this field is of highly technical nature. They have first to learn a lot, procrastinate, and then say something about it, fearing that they might look preposterous. I say this for myself and for those of us whom I know closely. Had this been an easier field of some common branch of knowledge, your mail box would be filled with appreciation and applaud by now.
About Classical Arabic and Classical Grammar and its application, or otherwise, to Quranic text, as well as about San’aa Parchments, you certainly are much more informed, well read and well-equipped to issue an authentic statement. I have not been able to pay much attention to this aspect of Quranic history. My knowledge is just the least bit that came my way by chance. So, I can only learn from your knowledge in this respect and can’t share something of substance. I only remember from my graduate course of Arabic language that during Jahiliyya, on the occasion of annual Okaaz fair, it was a custom to invite all renowned poets and a literary competition was held. All the famous Poets brought in their poetry in WRITING. The winner’s poetry instantly enjoyed countrywide fame, was copied and sent around across Arabia and was eventually hung in the Harem at Makkah. It was called “al-Mu’allaqaat”. I still remember three names of the Jahiliyya’s Poets of Mu’allaqaat; they were Umra al-Qais, Turfah bin al-‘Abd al-Bakari and Zuhair bin Abi Salama. I think, as you clarified, that this stage of writing must have come at a much later stage than that when they only SPOKE this language and didn’t write.
I know that Yemen stands as the oldest cradle of Arab civilization. All Yemenis that I met and talked during my stay in Saudi Arabia, spoke a much superior dialect of Arabic than the Saudi one. It looked to me more eloquent, more intelligible. Theirs was nearer to classic, or may I say, to the written form of Arabic, and farther to the local street slang.
Concluding, and referring to your latest post above, I would reiterate for assurance that nothing would be taken as final without a consensus. So, all you need is to continue with your valuable inputs and watch, meanwhile, Brother Badar facing a likely shower of questions as he also proceeds ahead with his lessons.
I do hope Dr. Sahib would say a few words here.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/3/2011 |
In reply to your question, I submit that the translations you have narrated are old traditional ones.
I, as well as my close circle of Quranic friends, do not agree fully with those translations.
We wait for something more rational and grammatical to come up from your end for our consideration and analysis.
Thanks.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/3/2011 |
Dear all,
Although, I think discussing issues brought up by Brother Damon are just a distraction. But since it is gone on for too long, I am going to address these in as concise a way as possible, for general audiences. This is also to clarifying my stance and position. I think it is important, as in his posts Brother Damon has left all the standards of decency and self restrains and exceeded all limits of a civil discussion.
I am just for the sake of ease, going to use word Arabic. Although, my conclusion is, that it should be called Quranic Language, instead of Arabic. This is due to the reason that current spoken language by Arabs and the language of Quran are two completely different languages. However, most common people are not aware of this. Additionally, most Arabs are unwilling to admit the truth due to their national pride. (see, below Niloofar Haeri and Mark Van Mol).
My stance is that we have a written book at this time, called Quran. Its scrip contain all Zaer (Kesra), Zubar(fetha) and Paesh(Duma)(I am avoiding technical terms for those not familiar). We also have a detailed description of all these marks and Grammar available by same people who added these to the text. Let us first try to apply these rules to the text and see what meanings come out. Analyze these meanings with reason and logic and if they seem befitting accept these, otherwise reject and move on. This is my position in simple words.
Now let me, address all questions raised by Brother Damon, very briefly. All languages are spoken first. So there is no reason for not agreeing with the notion that the Language of the Quran was a spoken language only in the beginning. Furthermore, archeologically and historically no legible written document is available of said language, before Quran (Owens).
Why do people write things? To preserve spoken language. The spoken words/language dies the second it is uttered from speakers’ mouth. Since, nothing is available in writting form before Quran, which could be considered legible. At this time, it is reasonable to assume that written part of language started with Quran. Humans did not learn to write in one day. The scripts of all languages developed over long periods of time and continues to evolve (please see Daniels and Bright, below).
So it would be nothing unusual with script of Quran to develop and evolve over a period of time.
The proponents of eliminating irrabs from Quran say that they have proof that irrabs were not there to begin with, based on following.
1. Because irrabs are not part of spoken language at present time. Hence, these were not part of Quranic language. But wait a minute, what is the proof. We have sufficient evidence that current spoken Arabic language is not the same as Quranic language. So just based upon a claim that current spoken language has no irrab. Despite, well know research available to point out that current spoken Arabic and Quranic language are not one and the same. Therefore this claim couldn't be considered a proof, when such serious concerns are present. It may be considered, a hypothesis and a research question to bring proof, but a proof by itself. Furthermore, unfortunately, no one is alive anymore who spoke the language to confirm or to address to these concerns.
2. This brings us to the next question. What about written language? Well we are familiar with this, aren’t we? All Qurans that I have seen from my childhood were with these marks. I did not find anybody objecting to these marks at that time. Those of you who are old enough, did you? So my question is that all of sudden, why so much vehement opposition now?
3. The written old manuscripts of Quran that are available in public domain are of dubious nature at the most. Please open the link above provided by Brother Damon and pay attention to the page. You will notice that readable text is very new, but underneath this text, there is a partially erased unreadable text still present. Can this be considered a proof at all? Additionally, the gold Koran at John Hopkins site does have Irrab bil huruf at least for one word that I have seen myself. Once available I shall share with you all. Until then, these are only my words.
That is all; I am going to say on this topic. Anyone further interested my humble suggestion. Please Google search on topic of interest and it will lead you somewhere. Other option is to blindly follow me or Brother Damon or somebody else of your liking.
Badar
1. Sacred Language, Ordinary people, Niloofar Haeri 1st edition 2003
2. Variation in Modern Standard Arabic in Radio gossip Broadcasts, A Synchronic Descriptive Investigation in the use of complementary Particles, by Mark Von Mol. 2003.
3. A linguistic History of Arabic, by Jonathan Owens. Oxford University Press Page 6.
4. The World’s writing systems, by Peter T Daniels and William Bright; Oxford University Press , 1996
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/3/2011 |
Thank you for the reply and input. I only wish to say that I am not (nor do I consider myself to be ) a Scholar. YOU are more learned and scholarly than I am. I think you realize this but only wish to give me encouragement and self esteem :-) And we all know Dr. Qamar Saheb is a TRUE SCHOLAR, so a mere dwarf like me cannot be named the same thing as a Giant like Dr. Qamar Saheb.
Other than that, when I start posting some things on The Quran and how does it compare to Sibawayh's grammar, I will also post something very interesting about the whole "pre Islamic poetry" thing.
I hope you, Dr Qamar Saheb and the others are watching this thread closely.
By the way, where on earth are Faisal Masood and Nargis? You guys are supposed to be part of this too :-)
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/4/2011 |
I think, I can cut the chase short. I can give you the break down and my humble Grammatical explanation/understanding without worrying that you would get it or not. I have seen Dr. Shaib's attempt at explaining this verse Grammatically. By Rabb's grace, he is almost there, already.
This is just for the sake of time. Since I have other obligations to fulfill as well need to work on rest of the text. I shall remain available for any references. I find you guys more than capable to explain it, to your wider audiences. Who may not be as well versed with the Grammar. Please let me know, if this sounds reasonable.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/4/2011 |
Thank You Badar for "finally" answering others instead of only expecting them to answer your questions. I wish to go through your responses point by point......
BADAR - "My stance is that we have a written book at this time, called Quran. Its scrip contain all Zaer (Kesra), Zubar(fetha) and Paesh(Duma)(I am avoiding technical terms for those not familiar). "
DAMON - Okay, I'm with you so far...
BADAR - "We also have a detailed description of all these marks and Grammar available by SAME PEOPLE who ADDED these to the text. Let us first try to apply these rules to the text and see what meanings come out"
DAMON - EXACTLY!!!!!! There were people who have ADDED these marks to the text and by default crowned themselves the ones to give DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS (as you put it) of these marks. You said yourself....someone ADDED these. What did they add them to? THE TEXT!!! Since they were ADDED to the text this can only mean that they were not apart of the text ORIGINALLY, hence your statement they were ADDED. And since they were ADDED, this makes them "ADDITIONS"!! Are my conclusions correct or incorrect?
On top of this, you "BLINDLY" accept them adding something and you wish to (how did you put it?) " FIRST try to apply THESE RULES to the text and see what meanings come out"!! Instead of trying to FIRST apply Khalil bin Ahmad and Sibawayh's "ADDITIONS", I propose we should FIRST apply the rules of the ACTUAL, NATURAL Arabic language as it is since this is OBVIOUSLY the grammatical rules they were applying BEFORE Khalil Bin Ahmad's and Sibawayh's "ADDITIONS". Is this correct or incorrect? I mean, WHAT grammatical rules were they applying for hundreds of years BEFORE THE ADDITIONS? Maybe I should make some additions of my own to Dr. Qamar Saheb's Urdu books and write my own Urdu grammar book to give a "detailed explanation" of these "additions". Would you accept me doing this? Yes or No? If not, why would you accept the Persian Sibawayh to do this to a non Persian text and language?
BADAR - "Why do people write things? To preserve spoken language"
DAMON - NO!!!!! It is NOT to preserve spoken language, it is to preserve writings that are considered of importance to those who know the language in question. So, as you see, THE QURAN was NOT written to preserve the Arabic language. That is not the purpose of it being written. The purpose of it being put into writing was to preserve THE IDEAS AND THOUGHTS of the book for the sake of posterity and for mass distribution of it. Am I correct or incorrect? If you say that I am incorrect then you and I both should ask Dr Qamar Saheb if he wrote his Urdu books in order to "preserve the Urdu language"...OR....did he write his books to share ideas pertinent to the well being of humanity. I suspect another tactic of dishonesty with the use of "clever wordplay" just like you did when you tried to put the word 'Irrab side by side with the word syntax in order to imply that they are the same thing or that they go hand in hand. Any Arabic speaker and/or reader knows that you cannot understand Arabic text without syntax. But in a very clever way you wrote "it cannot be understood without syntax/'irab"
In fact, here is the exact quote which was made by you on Jan. 02...."One can understand that basic Arabic grammar really doesn't help alone without applying use of syntax rules/irrabs"
I see this as a really tasteless and dishonest play of words ESPECIALLY since you know just as well as I do that the 'Iraab ARE NOT rules of syntax and have absolutely nothing to do with syntax. Let us move on...
BADAR - "The spoken words/language dies the second it is uttered from speakers’ mouth. Since, nothing is available in writting form before Quran, which could be considered legible. "
DAMON - Wait...what? The spoken language DIES the second it is uttered!?? :-I
Well, I read the statement but there was no explanation to say why this statement is true :-P
BADAR - "At this time, it is reasonable to assume that written part of language started with Quran. "
DAMON - That's a reasonable assumption. What do you make of the tombstone found in the Syrian Desert and believed to be dated back to 328 A.D.? Anyway, if the written part of Arabic language began with The Quran, then it would be good to remind yourself that the oldest found and examined Qurans have NO HARAKAATS and NO 'IRAAB. Again Badar, this is plain FACT. This is NOT Damon's "opinion" Also, you have already testified that these "marks" were ADDED. I rest my case on that one.
Another thing you should keep in mind.....when a language has to be written, in order for ANY written text to make sense, then ALL FUNCTIONS of the language MUST be accounted for. The original Quran's have NO 'iraab. If you believe 'Iraab were an original part of the SPOKEN language, then for the original Qurans to not include them would (AT BEST) give you incomplete words and MORE LOGICALLY (AT WORST) a nonsensical text since the text has entire sentences and verses composed of nothing incomplete and only partially written words. Is this correct or incorrect?
BADAR - "Humans did not learn to write in one day. The scripts of all languages developed over long periods of time and continues to evolve "
DAMON - What you refuse to realize is that for a TEXT (such as The Quran) to go from the SPOKEN to the WRITTEN it HAS to INCLUDE and ACCOUNT FOR ALL FUNCTIONS OF THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE IN ORDER FOR THE WRITTEN TEXT TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE WHO "SPEAK" SAID LANGUAGE!! To NOT include all functions of the SPOKEN language with the written language would make the written text INCOMPLETE and as a result, NONSENSICAL and INCOMPREHENSIBLE. Is this correct or incorrect? The WRITTEN text is merely a "visual representation" of the SPOKEN text. The language we are using in this very discussion is English. Everything that I have typed (written) can be said verbally WORD FOR WORD with not changes. If I choose to write incomplete words, then my written statements/sentences would be nonsensical....or to put it a better way....yo wi no compr a da thi I a Try t conv t y. There Badar, certain letters that are a natural feature of the spoken language I have decided to forgo them as you claim was done with The Quran. And by the way Badar, since you already admitted that these "marks" were ADDED to the text, how can you TURN AROUND and say that they are an ORIGINAL part of the language? Which one is it? Are they an original feature of the language or were they ADDED (years later , by the way) by someone? If they were an ORIGINAL part of the language and Arabic grammar alone cannot help one in understanding Arabic text ( as you claimed earlier) I can't see why they would wait for YEARS (brother, we are talking NO LESS THAN 50 years AT BEST, some 100 years at worst)) to....umm....ADD..the marks to the text in order to make it comprehensible to the Arabic speaking people. Again brother, HOW were they reading and understanding it for YEARS BEFORE the ADDITIONS?
BADAR - "The proponents of eliminating irrabs from Quran say that they have proof that irrabs were not there to begin with, based on following"
DAMON - Okay, let's see...
BADAR - "Because irrabs are not part of spoken language at present time"
DAMON - SPOKEN language Badar, SPOKEN language!! Do you remember the questions I had a couple of posts back about WHERE is the land that at least USED TO speak with 'Iraab? WHERE IS THAT PLACE? WHERE ARE THOSE PEOPLE? WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS DIALECT OF ARABIC that used to speak with case endings? Arabic is spoken by some 180 million people in over 20 different countries. With these types of numbers, SOMEONE SOMEWHERE should be able to provide the history of this mysterious dialect and what had happened to it. Arabic as language NEVER died, so that can't be it. It NEVER died for a while and had to be resurrected like today's Hebrew language. So that can't be it either. I'm lost Badar..can you point me in the right direction? I mean after all YOU are the 'Iraab proponent here, so I'm sure that you MUST know something :-) At the very least, how about a land or a people where at least "traces" of this mysterious dialect (which used to use 'Iraab) can be detected and observed? Let's look at some more of your statements...
BADAR - "Hence, these were not part of Quranic language"
DAMON - So you're finally getting it, huh Badar?
BADAR - "But wait a minute, what is the proof. "
DAMON - Hey, I got it. How about the OLDEST ever found Quranic manuscripts? And just when I thought you were finally getting it.
BADAR - "We have sufficient evidence that current spoken Arabic language is not the same as Quranic language. "
DAMON - Wrong again. I am going to PRESENT to you that the current spoken Arabic is not only the same as Quranic language, but that BOTH the Quranic Arabic and today's spoken Arabic share sooooo many of the same grammatical features. Not only that, but BOTH types of Arabic totally disrespect and disregard Sibawayh's "classical" grammar rules. Here's a hint for you Badar...why do you think that people like to say that the Quran has "GRAMMATICAL ERRORS" in it? WHICH grammar rules are they using to examine The Quran with in order to discover these "grammatical errors"?
BADAR - "Furthermore, unfortunately, no one is alive anymore who spoke the language to confirm or to address to these concerns. "
DAMON - This is hypocrisy and double standard. If no one is alive anymore to verify that 'Iraabs were NOT a part of the original language, then that also means that no one is alive anymore to verify that they WERE part of the original language. So you claim that proponents against 'Iraab are only choosing ONE side of this fact, but we should say nothing that YOU choose to base your beliefs on the OTHER SIDE of this fact. HYPOCRISY & DOUBLE STANDARD. And this seems to be your m.o. as because I will quote another hypocritical statement made by you a little further into this post. The answer I give to your quote above will be THE SAME ANSWER that I'll give to your next hypocritical and double standard statement a little further down.
BADAR - "This brings us to the next question. What about written language? Well we are familiar with this, aren’t we? "
DAMON - Sure we are. Now this next statement is more of your dishonesty BADAR.....
BADAR - "All Qurans that I have seen from my childhood were with these marks. I did not find anybody objecting to these marks at that time"
DAMON - MORE DISHONESTY AND UNDER HANDED TACTICS!! Of course you have only seen it written that way as you are POST ABBASID just like the rest of us. You and I have inherited the end product of Abbasid...umm, how did you put it...oh yeah, "ADDITIONS"!! Yeah, that's the word I'm looking for. Shame on you Badar. You have an entire potato sack of dishonesty and under handedness. Before pulling these tactics with me, you'll do well to KNOW that you are not dealing with someone who cannot see what you are pulling. I have come across thousands like you who pull dishonest tactics when they know their backs are against the wall and they have run out of breathing space. Shame on You Badar. Do you really believe in The Quran? I can't tell And to say that YOU have found no one objecting to these marks means nothing because I AM OBJECTING them to you now and there are HUNDREDS of other who feel the same as I do. Because no one in your tiny circle raised no objections mean nothing. Let's look at some more dishonesty shall we........
BADAR - "Those of you who are OLD ENOUGH, did you? So my question is that all of sudden, why so much vehement opposition now?"
DAMON - OLD ENOUGH???? Old enough of what??!! What is your definition of "old enough"? Hundreds of years or thousands of years? Do you wish to speak to some one is pre Umayyad and Abbasid? That is the only OLD ENOUGH that matters because is THEY who are "old enough" to see those Sana'a and Samarkand manuscripts. Wow, I din't know you were this dishonest. I had you all wrong when you first joined this forum. But true are colors are certainly showing.
NOW, I wish to bring up your second hypocritical and double standard statement....
BADAR - "The written old manuscripts of Quran that are available in public domain are of dubious nature at the most. Please open the link above provided by Brother Damon and pay attention to the page. You will notice that readable text is very new, but underneath this text, there is a partially erased unreadable text still present. Can this be considered a proof at all?"
DAMON - First of all Badar, I have already said (very clearly) in my posts that there are "detectable writings" on these parchments that were there PRIOR to the present texts on these parchments. I have clearly stated this and said that they are observable when placed under the ultra violet light. ALSO (Badar) even the FIRST writings of the text still DO NOT INCLUDE harakaats and 'Iraab. So you pointing this out did absolutely nothing for your case. Your pretty much exercised your fingers by typing this for nothing. Now, I am going to point out why I say this is a second case of hypocrisy and double standard on your part. Here's the remaining portion of your quote...
BADAR - "Additionally, the gold Koran at John Hopkins site does have Irrab bil huruf at least for one word that I have seen myself. Once available I shall share with you all. Until then, these are only my words"
DAMON - First, I'll point out the hypocrisy and double standard. The Sana'a manuscripts which are available for public viewing are "dubious" but the Golden Quran available for public viewing at John Hopkins isn't? What is your criteria for your double standard Badar? Why is it that what I have (links to an old manuscript that is different form yours) to support my position is "dubious" but what you have (links to an old manuscript that is different from mine) isn't equally as dubious? Explain this one to me please? This hypocritical statement by you (as well as the other one above about no one being alive anymore) is your way of saying ONLY YOU can use historical data to support your arguments but NO ONE ELSE can do the same.
How about this Badar, since both of our historical links may possibly dubious why don't you and I dismiss BOTH of them? hat do we have left? I'll tell you TWO things that I have left and both of these things are facts. The first FACT is that 'Iraab are NEVER, EVER, EVER used in spoken Arabic. Is this correct or incorrect? The second FACT is that there is not a SINGLE SPOKEN or WRITTEN text that needs the 'Iraab to be comprehensible or that the SPOKEN or WRITTEN text is non understandable without them. Is this correct or incorrect?
The second thing I wish to address about this statement is that you ONCE AGAIN find ONE SMALL thing to base an ENTIRE argument on. 'Iraab bil huruf for "at least ONE word". This is your supporting evidence? This is probably your favorite maneuver....this is what you did with finding the "al" into "alladhee" phenomena in Wright's grammar book. Hey Badar, how do YOU KNOW that the Golden Quran isn't dubious? If we are to dismiss the Sana'a and Samarkand manuscripts, then we'll have to dismiss all such manuscripts because they could possibly be....you know...."dubious" So I'll ask the same question you asked at the end of your statement......
"Can this be considered a proof at all?"
Gee, I wonder...can it?
Peace,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/4/2011 |
Wow, what a display of arrogance..
Look at this quote....
"I have seen Dr. Shaib's ATTEMPT at explaining this verse Grammatically. By Rabb's grace, HE IS ALMOST THERE, already."
My God. So now I know why Badar is here. He's here to "TEACH" us because we simply don't know like he knows. Dr Qamar Sahab has done the ABSOLUTE BEST EVER of opening my eyes to some Quranic realities. He has written scores of books and is now working on a translation of The Quran. But since he's not as learned or well versed as Badar, what he is doing is making an ATTEMPT, but he's not quite there yet.
Mr. Badar, you say that you are a "humble" student and your are trying to learn and understand. You say that you wish to explore The Quran and find out its meanings starting with understanding the script.
But I am so curios to know (and I'm sure others here are equally as curious) are you LEARNING the quran or are you already LEARNED of the quran? An excellent example is your attempts to "understand" the basmalah. Are you trying to learn and understand the basmalah or do you ALREADY know and understand it? I ask this based on your comments about Dr QZ Saheb.
Peace,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/4/2011 |
I meant to include this information in my latest reply to Badar..
DAMON SAID - "The second thing I wish to address about this statement is that you ONCE AGAIN find ONE SMALL thing to base an ENTIRE argument on. 'Iraab bil huruf for "at least ONE word". This is your supporting evidence? This is probably your favorite maneuver....this is what you did with finding the "al" into "alladhee" phenomena in Wright's grammar book. Hey Badar, how do YOU KNOW that the Golden Quran isn't dubious? If we are to dismiss the Sana'a and Samarkand manuscripts, then we'll have to dismiss all such manuscripts because they could possibly be....you know...."dubious" So I'll ask the same question you asked at the end of your statement......"
I wanted to include along with this statement how you have manged to "microscopically" pinpoint ONE word in a much NEWER (the beginning of the "additions") manuscript and choose that over ENTIRE MANUSCRIPTS that have not a single one of these 'irrab bil huruf and these ENTIRE MANUSCRIPTS are far much older than the "single word" you fell in love with in the newer manuscript. But hey, why should that matter? The links posted are dubious anyway, right?
And if you all notice a change in my approach in this discussion is only because of two things. Firstly, because of what I am detecting from Brother Badar where honesty and burden of proof is concerned. And secondly, because I was informed that nothing is presently in place to address someone who behaves in this manner. So I'll have to address it and I'll have to do so in the most "surgical" way as the situation calls for.
Peace Be With You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/4/2011 |
Thanks Heidi @ John Hopkins you are a great help. May Rabb reward you for your help. Please see page 3r for لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ.
http://goldkoran.mse.jhu.edu/htdocs/mrsid/Koran/index.pl?pagenum=1
Additionally, please pay attention to last alphabets of words. There are dots present as well suggestive of irrab. Originally haarkats and irrabs were represented by dots and not the signs we are familiar with now; another point and evidence of evolution of script. I periodically look at this quran, but never looked very closely for irrabs as this issue was not brought up with such a great opposition. But, I was reasonably certain seeing irrab-bil-huruf, with one word at least. However, it appears now that irrab bil haarkats were also likely present.
Why do I call these dubious? To Examine these document is a science by itself. Until these documents are verified by experts of the relevant field these should remain as such.
However the gold Quran has likely been authenticated by experts at John Hopkins (although I have not done a thorough search on it, yet). Additionally, if we were to look closely with zoom as layman. One would not find any erased text underneath. But still until authenticity is confirmed, we cannot call it a proof. It can be considered another piece of evidence.
I shall work soon on and present the grammatical break down of first verse.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/4/2011 |
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Let us zoom out and look at this verse and then we shall zoom in gradually.
By looking from distance, it appears that there is one preposition followed by four nouns.
The first noun is Nakra, which is سْمِ it is actually إسْمٌ. Due an anomaly in script writing the first Hemza is dropped and hence written as سْمِ. Before, this is a preposition “Bee”.
This is followed by another apparent noun, which is Marfa. Maruf-bil-lam, but in actuality, it is a phrase. Please see break down of word اللَّهِ, above
This is followed by two more Marfa nouns الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ.
Now let us try to analyze the relationship of these four nouns with each other. Here one seems to start running into problems right away. Why so?
Well all these noun’s irrabs are Jerr. Wow! May be opponents of irrab are right. What is going on here?
Can we call it a sentence? Well let us apply the rules of a nominal sentence. We know this much if this is going to be a sentence, it has to be a nominal one. So far there is no word anywhere in this verse which could be called verb (please note Urdu translations say, I start with the name of Allah, but no verb in the verse).
So what is going to be the subject of the sentence? بِسْمِ اللَّهِ can it be considered subject? May be, but let us zoom in some further. We know these are two nouns with a preposition at the start. What is their relationship with each other in phrase (compound). Only way, we can tell by looking at irrabs. Before, we do that let us simplify it. Take preposition “Bee” away and restore its Hemza back. Then it should look like this. إسْمُ اللَّه. Well now we understand from our basic knowledge of Arabic grammar. This is a مُركبِ إضافى. Now we also know that why سْمِ is in jerr. It is due preposition “Bee” and thereby, becoming a مُركب جارى.
اللَّهِ is in jerr due to being Mudhaf ilahae of previous noun.
Now since we understand this phrase better. Can we call it as the subject of the sentence? Since, we have decided, if it going to be a sentence, it would be a nominal sentence. A Murakab-e-Idhafee could be a subject of a sentence; if we can find a predicate for the sentence.
This brings us to the next two nouns. الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ, well this appears to be a مُركبِ توصيفى. Such phrases by definition can be a predicate (خبر) of a sentence. But it has to meet certain rules. A predicate needs to a Nakra, usually.
Wait a minute this not, it is Marfa. Well there are few exceptions to this usual rule. One such exception is that if a noun is not a إسْمِ صفت. A predicate noun/phrase of nouns, could be Marfa.
But, is this not exactly, what we been told about all our lives by our ancestors? That these two nouns are إسْمِ صفت of Allah, aren’t we? In addition, a predicate needs to be by irrab in Rafa. But both these nouns are in Jerr. We do not find any other reason for these to be in Jerr. Do we?
So these cannot be considered a predicate of the subject. Without a predicate there is no sentence.
So how this last phrase relates to previous phrase, now we need to know rules of مُركبِ إضافى. Per rules (people familiar with rules). This relates to اللَّهِ.
I hope Dear, Dr. Shaib and rest of the team at Aastana, this is enough of a break down for you fine gentlemen to proceed further. I shall be very humbly at your service, if needed.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
BADAR - "please pay attention to last alphabets of words. There are dots present as well SUGGESTIVE of irrab. "
DAMON - I believe this to be thoroughly wrong. I deliberately made your word "suggestive" in all capital letters to draw attention to it. How are DOTS "SUGGESTIVE" of 'Iraab? The dots are ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT from the 'Iraab. The ONLY things on ANY Quranic manuscripts (new or old) that are dots are the dots which represent the differences between some of the letters which resemble one another and the sukuun. That's it. FURTHERMORE, I feel that I detect "trickery and deceptive wordplay" in this statement when it was said that the dots are "SUGGESTIVE" of "iraab. They are either obviously 'Iraab OR they are obviously not 'Iraab. Where does the "SUGGESTIVE" aspect come in on this? Dots are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from 'Iraab.
You see Badar, this page 3 of the Golden Quran is one ENTIRE page of The Quran with "only one" (what you WISH to believe) word with a "so called" 'rab bil-huruf. If the 'Iraab are there as a functional feature of the written text (for the sake of textual comprehensibility), then the question is very obvious.....WHY ONLY ONE WORD OUT OF AN ENTIRE TEXT??!! Is it logical to believe that one word is the ONLY WORD in the ENTIRE TEXT that has need of 'Iraab EVEN THOUGH this very SAME PAGE of present day Quran manuscripts have 'Iraab on every noun of the written text. Do you see what position this places you in? If the Page of the Golden Quran under question only has one word with an 'Iraab while this SAME PAGE of now existing Qurans have 'Iraab on ALL OF THE NOUNS of the EXACT SAME PAGE this thoroughly proves the 100% FACT that these marks were "systematically"...ADDED...and NOT part of the ORIGINAL text. All you have to do is look at the timeline. First, you have the OLDEST ever manuscripts (the Sana'a manuscripts) which are PRE ABBASID and PRE SIBAWAYH and which have NO MARKS AT ALL. Next, you have the Uthmani/Samarkand manuscripts which are PRE ABBASID and PRE SIBAWAYH and have NO MARKS AT ALL. THEN, you have the Gold Koran which (according to John Hopkins University) was written around the year 800 A.D. which definitely makes it POST ABBASID and POST SIBAWAYH.
BADAR - "Originally haarkats and irrabs were represented by dots and not the signs we are familiar with now;"
DAMON - This too, I believe, is false. Badar is the FIRST and ONLY person I have ever come across to have make this claim as if it is 100% fact. And as usual, there is no link to any research or books to support this statement. I for one would like to be pointed in the direction of at least a couple of grammar books or documented researches where this conclusion was made by someone who is expert in the field. It has reached the point to where your statements and claims just aren't enough. It has been demonstrated that evidence or links to the evidence would need to be provided. Otherwise, these are only YOUR words and opinions that are not shared with anyone else. I will admit that I have read something on wikipedia ( I am very sorry, but I don't remember the exact link or article in question) where the author states that someone in the time line "suggested" the use of dots for the harakaats and 'Irraab, but others thought it to be too cumbersome and wished not to get them confused with the letters that make up the actual language.
BADAR - "it appears now that irrab bil haarkats were also LIKELY present."
DAMON - Again, I made it a point to put the word "likely" in all capital letters to draw attention to it. It just makes me feel uncomfortable when there is a possibility of trickery and deceptive wordplay. Using the word "likely", are you admitting that there is no evidence to say that they were DEFINITELY present? And if there is no evidence to say that they were DEFINITELY present, then this word you used ("likely") can justifiably be seen as a form of wordplay and an attempt to "persuade" through clever use of words instead of "proving" through evidence or links to the relevant research. In addition, I have been accused of giving "opinions" earlier in this thread. Using the word "likely" is a word used when someone is giving an "opinion" and drawing up theories. Just something that I thought I'd point out.
BADAR - "Why do I call these dubious? To Examine these document is a science by itself. Until these documents are verified by experts of the relevant field these should remain as such.
However the gold Quran has likely been authenticated by experts at John Hopkins (although I have not done a thorough search on it, yet). "
DAMON - Firstly, I wish to comment on your words you have placed in paranthesis. You admit that you have not done a thorough search on it, AND YET, you are dismissing it as dubious. I myself HAVE done a thorough search on it from the time I have read Toby Lester's Atlantic Monthly article 12 years ago. I have read and studied rebuttals, counter rebuttals and scores of other general articles from BOTH SIDES (orientalists and traditional muslims) on this topic. You should at least familiarize yourself on something before passing judgement (good or bad) on it.
Secondly, you are practicing double standards again. The research, examination and studies conducted on the Sana'a texts were done by EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. They are just as expert in their respective fields as those whom you like at John Hopkins University. Just like the researchers who have examined the Gold Koran have Graduate Phd's in their fields, the researchers of the Sana'a and Uthmani manuscripts ALSO have University Phd's in the same field of research. So again, I have to ask...WHAT IS IT that makes what you support as research done on the Gold Koran credible and the research done on The Sana'a and Samarkand manuscripts dubious? I have asked this question in my last reply to your statements. You don't give an answer but you repeat the statements. What makes the "experts" on the Sana'a and Samarkand manuscripts dubious and the "experts" on the Gold Koran not as dubious? There's really no need to try to answer this because there isn't an "honest" answer that can be provided for your stance. But I already get the message of these statements. The message is.... "only Badar is allowed to support a branch of research on this subject and if anyone supports a different branch of research than what he support, then it's automatically dubious."
I shall call it quits from here. This discussion dates back to Dec. 18th (from the standpoint of looking at grammatical aspects) and has taken up alot of space. I am very satisfied that this discussion has taken place in public view for others to see and all one needs to do is start from the beginning of this discussion and work their way through it to see the arguments and what evidence was presented or not presented to support any of the arguments given over the course of the discussion.
As far as I am concerned there are only two possible things that I can do to contribute at all to this thread. One, I will certainly like to present to the people here at aastana some things that I have come across in The Quran which show total disregard for the rules that Sibawayh and the proponents of "classical" grammar have put in their grammar books. The only question is if people here are interested in seeing this, do they wish for me to present it in this thread or initiate a separate thread for it so as not to interrupt Badar's presentation of the verse?
The second possible contribution I can have in this thread is to give my feedback and understandings of this verse if Badar and the others are open to it? And if so, how can I provide my understandings and feedback without it degenerating into another long, drawn out grammar affair? OR (if you all think it to be for the best) I'll remain silent on the examination of this verse and just watch from the sidelines.
Badar, I have no more questions or requests to ask from you nor should you expect any more rebuttals or disagreements from me concerning the issues of the grammar. The floor is all yours. If you wish for my participation on the examination of the verses, I'll be more than happy to "Cordially" do so. If you'd rather that I just sit back and enjoy the grammar lessons, I'll be equally as happy to do so. No matter what EITHER ONE OF US think, in the end our respective understandings and interpretations must go through the scrutiny of TASREEF, CONTEXT, COMPARISON OF ANTONYMS and THE GENERAL OVERALL PHILOSOPHY & MESSAGE OF QURAN as Aurangzaib has already noted.
I did say that I would be willing to share with you how I understand and interpret the Basmalah. If you are still interested in my humble understanding, I'll certainly present it you and I'll try my absolute best to do so in a non confrontational manner or as if I'm an "authority" on the matter.
Peace,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/5/2011 |
I am a guest at this place and forum. I have been already honored by the respected hosts here, more than what I deserve and could have asked for myself. You are free to do whatever, you like. If you do want permission, I would suggest to ask the respected hosts and follow the unwritten standards uttered by them.
Be at peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
"""2:1 Man (mankind) has intensely suffered,
2:2 (for) that, this is, the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard, for you. There is no doubt, a timeless mode of conduct is contained, in it for all those seeking to safe guard themselves against, deprivation of senses, intellectual faculty, grief, sorrows, fears as well complete extinction. """
On the other hand, if every word in the Quran is that complicated, i would not call it "easy to understand" :-O
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
First of all, welcome back Nargis, we've missed you :-) Now, if UmeAimon, Faisal Masood, Momin, Aurangzaib and the others would join back in, then we can continue the path of the "Team Effort Attempt " this was originally intended to be. I feel as though my "not so productive" participation in the grammar discussions had marginalized those who wish to also contribute to the talks but refrained from doing so because they believe their current levels of Arabic are not adequate enough. If anyone here does feel that way, I must say that nothing could be further from the truth. Every now and then it might be a good idea to "lay off' of the Arabic aspects of things, take a step back and try to use to some good 'ol fashion common sense which you have (as you always do) expressed in your post above.
Also, I wish you all to please accept my humble (and certainly SINCERE) apologies for the part I played in allowing the talk to get off course a little bit. From now on I will make the popular expression of "Agree - to - Disagree" my personal mantra for this board.
@ Badar,
Brother, I am not a scholar either. Aurangzaib had made some statements of me possessing a degree of scholastic prowess in the subject matter that we were discussing. The thing is he knows just as well as I do that he is FAR MORE LEARNED than I am in not only the ideology of The Quran but in the language of The Quran (Arabic) as well. He is just being modest. But, I am thankful for the encouragement and the boost to my self esteem. And if anyone else here does think that I am scholarly when it comes to Arabic language, let me correct you right now....I'M NOT!! If it appears so, it is only due to my interest and "fascination" of the language, that is all.
And yes, Nargis, that rendition of 2:1-2 makes sense to me as well.
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/5/2011 |
Ok brothers n sisters, since I am invited how I can resist. First of all I would like say that I doubt NO ones intentions here and the sole purpose of me being here is to get the true extract of the message, NO personal gratification at all, since I was the one who "indirectly" directed brother Badar to this forum:). The reason I said that is to remove even iota of doubt about biasness of my comments.
Having said that and before reading what I have to about all this discussion please bear in mind that this Quran is a very powerful Book, which has a direct impact on people’s ways of life. If read and understood easily can easily revolutionize people thinking and their ways. So those who don’t want this system to work have used ALL their might to make others steer clear of its message by of course making it NOT SO EASY! So one thing is for sure- the No2 Islamists have twisted the message’s MEANING in whatever manner they could.
I‘ve read brother Badar from ourbeacon forum for some 2 to 3 years from now. He was there before me till he was banned.. Since then he had been translating on his own. You can see it here:
http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/95/126/
The meaning of Allah by brother Badar did appeal to me a lot and so did most of his translation done so far. But there were some reasons of doubt on how he was translating. All these doubts are very effectively addressed by brother DAMON! And I must admit what he is saying makes a lot of sense for these reasons
First, like he proved the iraabs were NOT part of text from the beginning!
Brother Badar like it or not the copy of golden Quran you provided DOES NOT PROVE YOUR POINT AT ALL! Any SENSIBLE person would know your arguments of “look at one in the end” and “suggestive of …” do NOT hold!
Second and please try to understand why, it IS a big issue!
While we know Iraab were added later to the text it proves they DID NOT have much to do with the UNDERSTANDING of the message at all! (Another proof is still Arabic is written and understood like that.)
So there is a BETTER and EASY way to understand this message!
Third as I thought too, these iraabs were added for the consistency in pronunciation LATER ON, it would not make much difference in the translation BUT just make it more COMPLICATED and DIFFICULT to understand than the way it was understood before them.
BUT that is not the only case here, it could be very well that they were added to create more confusion in understanding of the text and deliberately too!
So at one end we may think and get some good meaning out of the text BUT at some other we get totally different meaning.
We DON’T KNOW all those tactics used to manipulate the meaning of the message but it survived miraculously till this day and will do till the end of our time as it is in the hearts f the people who know it!
After all this I would request brother Badar to please reconsider what brother Damon has said and also to aastnaa team and Dr. Qamar(already doing a briliant job!) to work together in reaching the most sensible meaning of this divine message most efficiently!
jazakAllah
UmeAimon
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/5/2011 |
Sister UmeAimon, Thanks for your input. You have raised some important issues. I shall address those little later. Once, I can put my thoughts together. However, in the meantime could you please elaborate on this part of post " since I was the one who "indirectly" directed brother Badar to this forum". Please, give some details, how? Since, we never had a direct or indrect personal contact with each other so far, lately.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
ON DEC 29TH HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID, DEAR BROTHER DAMON. "MY RESPONSE - NO, I will NOT believe you, nor do I believe Wright, Thackstone, Palmer, Howell or Sibaweyh. You mentioned "incompetence, blind belief, corrupt and hypocrite scholars and clergy. Illiteracy, arrogance,"...well what is will you get when you uphold arbitrary and DISPROVED things above that which is PROVED and obvious for all to see? Please ponder on your very own words of BLIND BELIEF. Because of your inability to disprove the three PAINFULLY obvious points I raised is why I say I am done. I know you will not be able to refute them because they really are 100% irrefutable. So no need for me to continue with another typical "free-minds" style senseless debate ;-)
Again, I wish to reiterate, if you wish to pursue the Sibaweyh and W. Wright path, then more power to you. My concerns are the MESSAGE of the "mubeen" Quran and how I can apply the mechanics of it :-) "
Dear Brother, I have yet to find even a native Arab questioning the authenticity of these books. Wright etc are not the writers of these books, Just translators from Original Arabic books to English. If you have found one, besides yourself, please share with us.
Following, such a huge claim of yours, rejecting all work of Arabic Grammar. For which, I have yet not found a single native or anybody other then natives claiming; that the original work of natives Grammarians or their translation in English are all wrong or fabricated.
On DEC 29th, I asked you following, but again got no response from you, to back up your claim, except several other confusioning posts for other audiences.
MY QUESTION; ON DEC 29 AFTER YOUR REJECTION OF ALL TRANSLATION BOOKS OF ARABIC GRAMMAR. “Thanks brother Damon. If you do not mind, may I ask why are wasting your time on these boards and learning Arabic, if you already understand every bit of Quran.”
ON JAN 02, I asked you a simple question “ Dear Damon, may I ask you one thing, if you don't mind. Are you an Arab by descent?
I got no answer, yet again from you.
ON JAN 03, I asked you following simple questions
“2. Since, you have made claims that you understand Syntax well without Irrabs. Please share your breakdown of this verse, with us. As to what kind of a sentence it is? What are its constituent components?
3. Do you just consider that only irrabs are superflous or you think that all written Arabic Grammar is wrong as well”.
In response, I got several pages worth of rambling again. Mind it for all these questions. I needed no referances just your words.
I am sorry to say Brother, I am at this time not willing to trust you. You may not like it and I would understand it fully. Although, by saying this I do not mean to hurt your feelings. But I want to share my honest assesment of the current situation.
Being, truthfulness is the first criteria that I have set for myself. This is the criteria, I judge people upon.
Hope this is clear and articulate enough for you, to understand my stance. However, my opinions are never fixed. These keep changing based upon the mounting evidence.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
Surah 2. The Cow
1. A.L.M.
2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
-----------------------------------
Surah 3. The Family Of 'Imran, The House Of 'Imran
1. A. L. M.
2. Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.
Surah 29. The Spider
1. A.L.M.
2. Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?
------------------------------------
Surah 30. The Romans, the Byzantines
1. A. L. M.
2. The Roman Empire has been defeated-
Surah 32. The Prostration, Worship, Adoration
1. A. L. M.
2. (This is) the Revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt, - from the Lord of the Worlds.
------------------------
Surah 31. Luqman
1. A. L. M.
2. These are Verses of the Wise Book,-
-------------------------------
If they have the same meaning, i find it strange that the same sentence is repeated.
Another thing - irrab was added later,right ? (And the purpose for adding them was pronunciation?) How did people pronounce the words before Irrabs were added?Were people confused about how a word in the Quran is to be pronounced?(And If they were added to change the meaning, what's the original message :-O) Just curious
Third , most serious, most important thing, none of you (Damon and Badar) have joined our group at Facebook:-@ how come? :-@ :-@
http://www.facebook.com/heer.saleti?ref=profile#!/group.php?gid=29246902303
Im learning a lot from this discussion,so hip hop but dont stop
| Comments by: Nargis | On: 1/5/2011 |
irrabs were to best my understanding for pronunciation. In fact, lot of time these not pronounced in Modern Qiraat. These are rules of Syntax; which in simple words means, how words relate to each other in a given sentence. This relationship of words in the sentence imparts further or additional meanings, besides what is already contained in individual words. Please read the joke above posted by me above, to understand concept of term Syntax. Besides do a Google search of the term to understand it better.
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
Gold Koran Information
Dear Badar,
Thank you so much for your kind words!
The following is a newspaper article from 2000 dealing with the history of the Gold Koran in America. In short, it was purchased by Robert Garrett around 1904 (there is no information about where or how he acquired it) and became part of the Hopkins collection in 1942. The Gold Koran was shown in an exhibit at the Walters Art Gallery (now Walters Art Museum), so it was examined by scholars of Islamic manuscripts and considered genuine.
Sacred writings returned; Manuscript: The Johns Hopkins University sends back
a portion of the ninth-century Gold Koran that disappeared at least a century
ago from Istanbul.:[FINAL Edition]
Holly Selby. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.:Feb 29, 2000. p. 1A
(Copyright 2000 @ The Baltimore Sun Company)
WASHINGTON -- A century or more since the manuscript disappeared from Istanbul,
the Johns Hopkins University returned to the government of Turkey yesterday
part of a ninth-century Koran, the holy book of Islam, written entirely in
gold.
Known as the Gold Koran, the illuminated manuscript is considered by scholars
to be a rare and extraordinarily beautiful example of Islamic art. The
university's portion -- which has been in its library collections for nearly
six decades -- includes the first 18 suras, or chapters, of the Koran. When it
arrives in Turkey, it will be be reunited with the remainder of the manuscript
that for centuries has been kept in Istanbul's Nuruosmaniye Library.
"Johns Hopkins acknowledges the rightful home of the Gold Koran is in the
Nuruosmaniye Library in Istanbul. We are pleased to restore the manuscript to
the people of Turkey," said William R. Brody, university president. "We are
losing, in a sense, a child, but by reuniting it with its sister document, we
are gaining another child."
In accepting the manuscript at a ceremony yesterday, the Turkish government
acknowledged that the university had no role in its removal from Istanbul,
which occurred after an inventory that was conducted in 1756 but was not
discovered until a second inventory was completed nearly 200 years later.The
university will not be compensated for the manuscript, which is valued at $2
million to $3 million.
"This is a very ethical step on the part of Johns Hopkins University. And for
us, part of the very important and precious cultural heritage of Turkey is
coming back home," said M. Istemihan Talay, the minister of culture. "This is a
very good example for the world."
Questions of provenance
In recent years, museums and libraries have had to re-examine the provenance of
their holdings as questions have arisen about the rightful ownership of objects
confiscated by the Nazis in Europe, or acquired by unscrupulous dealers or
researchers. Many institutions are returning objects to descendants of the
original owners or to the countries of their origin, when research finds that
the artifacts illegally came onto the art market.
Last year, the J. Paul Getty Museum announced that it would return to Italy
three works -- including a 480 B.C. Greek terra-cotta drinking cup. The
decision was made after the museum discovered that the works, which had been
acquired individually through reputable sources, originally were taken
illegally.
And New York's Asia Society said that it would return to India a 1,000-year-old
sculpture that had been donated in 1978 by John D. Rockefeller III. Research
showed that the object, which had been purchased from a London dealer, had been
looted from a small museum in central India.
Other institutions have been unwilling to repatriate artworks. The British
Museum has steadfastly refused to return to Greece the Elgin Marbles, which
were originally part of the Parthenon.
One dispute made international headlines in 1998 when a Manhattan district
attorney required the Museum of Modern Art to hold two Egon Schiele paintings
on loan from Vienna's Leopold Museum. The district attorney acted at the
request of the heirs of the paintings' former owners, who claimed that the
Nazis illegally seized the art in the 1930s.
In anticipation of further disputes, the Association of Art Museum Dealers
issued guidelines in 1998 for how museums should deal with claims that artworks
were looted by the Nazis. The guidelines urge U.S. museums to review their
holdings to discover whether any of the objects were illegally confiscated by
the Nazis.
"We checked the collections within the last year or so apropos of the Nazi
situation," says Gary Vikan, director of the Walters Art Gallery. "Fortunately,
the core of the collection was set by 1931, so we are much less susceptible
than a lot of museums."
"We always ask that people we get gifts or purchase from to state that they
have good title," says Doreen Bolger, director of the Baltimore Museum of Art.
"We do research on items as we acquire them."
A 1942 bequest
The Johns Hopkins University acquired its portion of the Gold Koran with about
30,000 other rare books as part of a bequest made by Baltimore businessman John
Work Garrett when he died in 1942. Some years later, the Garrett home -- the
Evergreen House at 4545 N. Charles St. -- also was given to the university.
Garrett had purchased the manuscript from Princeton University in 1942, a few
months before he died, says James G. Neal, dean of the university libraries.
Princeton, in turn, had received the book as a gift from Garrett's brother,
Robert, an avid collector, who had purchased it from a dealer about 1904. Who
the dealer was or how he acquired the portion of the Gold Koran is unclear,
Neal says.
"That's the big issue: How did it get from Turkey to the United States? We did
a lot of research on the manuscript and we don't know," says Cynthia H.
Requardt, curator of special collections at Hopkins. "The only thing we know
for sure is that it was in the U.S. around 1904-1905."
`Deluxe manuscript'
The Gold Koran was copied in the ninth century in north Africa or in what is
now Iraq. The 11-by-15-inch manuscript is written in Kufic, an early Arabic
script named for the town of Kufa, a major center of Islamic culture in the
eighth and ninth centuries, in what is now southern Iraq.
"The size of this book, the time it would take to make it and the cost of its
materials suggests that it was made in a professional workshop within a mosque
or theological school of the highest level," says Marianna Shreve Simpson,
director of curatorial affairs and curator of Islamic art at the Walters Art
Gallery. "It is a deluxe manuscript par excellence."
Modern scholars say scribes wrote the letters in animal glue on parchment made
from calf or gazelle skin. Gold leaf then was cut, placed over the glue and
burnished to a high sheen. Next, each gold letter was outlined in brown ink.
Diacritical marks were written above the letters in red or blue pigment. Later,
the marks were reinforced with black ink.
The university's part of the Gold Koran is bound in a red goatskin cover
embossed with medallions and a vine motif that was probably made in the 18th
century. Its inside cover is also tooled leather but is crafted in a style
developed in the 15th century by Muslim artisans.
The Hopkins manuscript includes the first 18 chapters of the Gold Koran and the
title page of the next chapter, says Simpson. There are 114 suras in the Koran,
each of differing lengths roughly arranged from longest (in the front of the
book) to shortest. "Presumably, the second volume, the one in Istanbul, begins
with the text of the 19th chapter," Simpson says.
Exhibit drew attention
The manuscript came to the attention of Turkish diplomats in 1997 when it was
displayed at the Walters Art Gallery as part of an exhibition curated by
Simpson and titled, "The Divine Word and Sacred Sites of Islam." The Turkish
government contacted the university in July 1999, asking for the return of the
manuscript.
Over the years, other pages from the Gold Koran apparently also were taken out
of Turkey, scholars say. Some of them now are in public and private collections
in the United States, England and Europe and have come up at auction as
recently as 1991. The Turkish government is inquiring about some of those pages
as well, an embassy spokesman said.
[end of article]
If I find out anything else, I'll certainly pass it along to you!
All the best,
Heidi
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
Dear Nargis2, for meanings of Alif-Lam-Miim in other Suras, please be patient, until we get to those verses.
irrabs to best of my understanding WERE NOT ADDED just for pronunciation only. It is a complete misunderstanding about irrabs. In fact, in lot of words irrabs are not pronounced in Modern Qiraat even, especially the last words of a verse. These are rules of Syntax; which in simple words means, how words relate to each other in a given sentence. This relationship of words in the sentence imparts further or additional meanings, besides what is already contained in individual words. Please read the joke above posted by me. In order to understand the concept of term Syntax. Besides, you could do a Google search of the term to understand it better.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/5/2011 |
Yes we have not contacted directly for a long time thats why I said indirectly. I wished you could come join here like all others truth seekers I asked to, so I requested brother Abdun to come, somehow I knew you'll join too later :D
niyat achhi thi tareeqa ye is liayay k kia baar aapka address le k ghuma baithi thi :S
Nargis, the pronunciation is different in diferent parts of Arab even now But the meaning is the same.
jazakAllah
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/6/2011 |
Here, I am a bit confused about this statement of your's, since you have already translated ALM " Man (Mankind) is in a loss, etc.
Please. Defend your following statement:
Dear Nargis2, For meanings of Alif-Lam-Miim, please be patient until we get to those verses.
Dear Sisiter Nargis2 from Botswana/Mogadishu/Oslo, Naar gives you Khabar/heat/Will to survive.
| Comments by: Iqbal kay shaheen | On: 1/6/2011 |
NARGIS2 - "Another thing - irrab was added later,right ? (And the purpose for adding them was pronunciation?) How did people pronounce the words before Irrabs were added?Were people confused about how a word in the Quran is to be pronounced?(And If they were added to change the meaning, what's the original message :-O) Just curious "
DAMON - You are correct Sister Nargis, they were ADDED and they weren't only added later, but they were added MUCH later which tells alot about this situation.
You ask how did people pronounce the words BEFORE 'irraabs were added. The same way they pronounce the words today without the 'irabs which is the NATURAL way according to the actual words and function of the language. This is so easily provable as Arabs are everywhere to verify this. Do not take my word or anyone else's word for it. Approach ANY native Arab and ask them about this. I have already done this, so I it is my sincere advice that you do the same.
Were the people CONFUSED about how a word in The Quran was to be pronounced? This you can also ascertain for certain (as I HAVE DONE MYSELF). Go to ANY native Arab with a paragraph written in Arabic both WITH and WITHOUT the 'irrabs and see what that person tells you. This way, you get to verify for yourself instead of taking my word for it.
You asked the BEST question of all...."If they were added to change the meaning, what's the original message" LOL, good luck getting an honest answer to that one :-)
The rock bottom line Sister Nargis is that the 'iraabs DO NOT in ANY way, shape or form AFFECT the meanings of the words. If they do not affect the meanings of the words then what good are they? :-) Truth be told, they are only included to turn the simple and straightforward Arabic of The Quran into something superflous, incomprehensible and artificially "academic" (even though The Quran IS NOT and was NEVER meant to be an "academic" or "scholarly" work).
LASTLY.....thank goodness for the internet. I have found the link to the ORIGINAL article written by Toby Lester in 1999 on the AUTHENTICITY of the Sana'a manuscripts (including images of the manuscripts)...STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE!! What I mean by "straight from the source" is that the article DOES NOT tell you that no one knows who found these manuscripts and where. It tells you WHO found them and where they were found. Also, it DOES NOT merely say that they were examined by Islamic scholars without giving you the names, backgrounds and qualifications of these mysterious scholars. This article mentions BY NAME the SCHOLARS who examined the Sana'a manuscripts and it also mentions their background and qualifications. I am posting the link here for ALL to read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/koran.htm
Peace Be With You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/6/2011 |
My last post with some editing and additional info and "comparisons" of dubious research and authentic research...
Thank goodness for the internet. I have found the link to the ORIGINAL article written by Toby Lester in 1999 on the AUTHENTICITY of the Sana'a manuscripts (including images of the manuscripts)...STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE!! What I mean by "straight from the source" is that the article DOES NOT tell you that NO ONE KNOWS who found these manuscripts and where (like the article on the Gold Koran does). It tells you WHO found them and WHERE they were found. Also, it DOES NOT merely say that they were examined by "some" Islamic scholars WITHOUT giving you the names, backgrounds and qualifications of these mysterious scholars (like the article on the Gold Koran does). This article mentions BY NAME the SCHOLARS who examined the Sana'a manuscripts and it also mentions their background and qualifications. In addition, I am providing a "direct link" to the article itself instead of merely "typing it in my own words" without giving references for you all to verify the AUTHENTICITY and ORIGINALITY of the article. After reading this article by Toby Lester, it will not be hard to figure out "dubious" research from authentic research.
I am posting the link here for ALL to read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/koran.htm
Enjoy :-)
Peace Be With You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/6/2011 |
The link above to the "authentic" article detailing the "authenticity" of The Sana'a manuscripts is divided into three parts.
Although you can click on the links for parts two and three from within the article itself, I am posting separate links for parts two and three here if you all deem it more convenient.
Part 2 - http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/koran2.htm
Part 3 - http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/koran3.htm
Peace All,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/6/2011 |
In case you did not know this but the very first ever Arabic grammar book written is by Sibawayh. Sibawayh WAS NOT a Native Arab....he WAS NOT Arab AT ALL....He was PERSIAN!!
Just thought you'd like to know.
God Bless You Nargis,
Your Brother Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/6/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
irrabs to best of my understanding WERE NOT ADDED just for pronunciation only. It is a complete misunderstanding about irrabs. In fact, in lot of words irrabs are not pronounced in Modern Qiraat even, especially the last words of a verse.
These are rules of Syntax; which in simple words means, how words relate to each other in a given sentence. This relationship of words in the sentence imparts further or additional meanings, besides what is already contained in individual words.
_____________________________________
See, now Nargis (1 & 2) is bewildered, please allow me to share my frustrated thoughts with you- Sorry if it seems chaotic, this is what my brain come up with
it is claimed that the Koran can not be changed (its message), but to add or delete something, is it not the same as to CONVERT an original communication?
If something is added, and the direct consequence is that the” rules of Syntax is changed which in simple words means, how words relate to each other in a given sentence. This relationship of words in the sentence imparts further or additional meanings, besides what is already contained in individual words.” Wouldn’t that mean the actual message is gone?
I don’t understand the need to add anything, wasn’t the Quran graspable?
The requirement to modify anything advertises itself when the beneficiary does not understand the correspondent. So if X invented irrabs to make the Quran comprehensible, it mean all the Y's in the region did not understand the language of the Qur'an and the meaning of its words (or its grammar) ??
Like, people in Norway (and Botswana :-O)don’t understand classical Arabic, and instead of teaching them the language, I invent a new rules of syntax ...with the assumption that everyone know the new rules of syntax and the inventor have the essential knowledge about the ”original language”, and its rules of syntax.
It seems quite strange that the language of the Quran was so incomprehensible that the grammar was modified and a new set of rules were implemented. Instead of writing a book about the existing sentence structure used in the Quran, its own language rules are changed...
At all, who saw the necessity to adjoin anything?
But there is a bright spot, in spite of this; it is possible to generate only two versions of the Quran, one with the irrabs and one without irrabs, right? : P Hah hah hah can’t fool me no no.
Then again, it is said irrab have no impact on the meaning---
Pheew, see its all confusing , hay Bhagwan (crushing my bangles)
Brother Damon, daaaamn, these bloody Persians have really been active, eh?
@Iqbal ke shaheen, NARgis really need some Naar now,yummi.
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
1. Brain washing of years and hammering of years of believes without evidence. One such belief is no change in Quran. We take it literally. It does not at all mean that the written text of Quran cannot be changed. I change it all the time. I gave example above, didn't I. By bring back Hemza of Isme Allahi. However, what it really means that the universal principles presented in Quran never change.
2. Please consider another example. I believe firmly that our Rabb has promised to provide nourishment to all being (Rabb means sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher). But yet we find that people are dying right and left from hunger, ever thought, why. Did he forget to fulfill his promises? No not at all. He has given the distribution of these resources to us with the principle of conduct in this respect. This principle never changes. If we do distribution against this principle the result will be ugly, which we see every day.
3. Similarly, who has been made responsible for preservation of Quran? Aren’t they humans? How could one expect anything different then what we find with distribution of resources of sustenance.
4. Neither, does he come to feed hungry, nor will he come to restore the book. It is our responsibility to understand and adopt these principles. These are with us at all times. If we do we shall create our Jannat right here in this world. If do not our crop is already most rotten in this world.
5. All languages are oral to begin with. Natives do not need Grammar. Most people even at present time cannot explain their spoken language by grammatical rules. Because they do not need these. However, when languages change or people who are not native to the language need to be taught the language. Then we need grammar.
6. Due to rapid expansion of Islamic empire and intermixing of cultures and languages the language of Quran changed so rapidly that even Khalifa’s language was understandable by common people (you really need to read, Lane preface to have better handle on issues about language.
7. Hence, more attempts were made to find out and preserve the language’s rules.
8. It is a serious and lengthy issue and need serious reading and cannot be covered in one post. I shall keep posting as situation rises. If you have real interest. Please consider just the preface from Lane’s Lexicon.
Here is the link for you.
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Lane/
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
I don’t believe the Quran can be changed, in the sense that the” message “will always be the same.
But when you say: “By bring back Hemza of Isme Allahi.” I don’t understand, how do you know where to “bring back” something?
Now I’m going to sleep, because sleep is not coming to me, moreover I’m already brainwashed, so ill brush my teeth & wash my face so i can be teethwashed and facewashed too, ha ha - Ok I’m really hurt :-@ argg
Good night, sweet, no, I mean horror dreams byeeeee
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
Brother Badar, yes brother Shabbir is “like” elder brother so are all and we have talked over the phone many times. Its very kind of him to think of me as someone he can become fan of.… what can I say? Yes he did told me about Mr. Qardhwi who is a Qatari Arab Arabic language professor in Qatar university. NO, Mr. Qardhwi is not my relative but aren’t we all. And I don’t know about Dr. Shabbir consulting “me” as he listens to all but hardly change his stand some what like you:). But must say I have learned a lot from him. And my Arabic teacher once told me... the best way to learn Arabic is to watch drammas and speak :)
Now back to the issue again your arguments are not holding ground. I urge you to please reconsider your stand or present better argument least I am beginning to think of you as an over zealous kid who when learns some new poem from the school thinks has found the world… and he is going to teach this to the world now.
What you said about grammer and stuff to sister nargis thats exactly what is being said by brother Damon. Since it was a spoken language it should be understood as Arabs still do understand it that way! Dont you think they understand?? Brother they understand it perfectly but are NOT allowed to question it ! Just told to memorize Quran like a parot and then dont ask questions... They are not even allowed to comment except for those specially positioned on thse posts( all kings men!! i say)! Like Quran itslef says... they changed the message "After" knowing it...
Its the niyat not the language that has changed and they know it!
So there IS A way to understand that language the way it was understood by Arabs of that age and now too!
Syntaxes iraab even grammer not only give the general rules BUT ALSO the EXCEPTIONS because of the SPOKEN language!
If you remember I have asked you to translate an Urdu mahawra.
"Nach na janay angan terha"
using grammer syntax /iraab etc rules.
That was not a sarcasm, that was for understanding!!
Which rule in English provides reason for PRONOUCING PUT and BUT differently!!!
PLease make us understand.
Again I say I had never doubted your intentions and that is the reason I compared you to a kid and not to an arrogant adult.
jazakAllah
jazakAllah
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/6/2011 |
I've read your post above, and am puzzled at what you are saying, you suggest the modern Arabic is the same as the Arabic of the ancient past:
"Since it was a spoken language it should be understood as Arabs still do understand it that way! Dont you think they understand?? Brother they understand it perfectly but are NOT allowed to question it ! Just told to memorize Quran like a parot and then dont ask questions..."
That makes no sense, so is out right non-sense, it takes very little investigation to realise the modern Arabic is corrupted beyond recognition of the Ancient, just as the English language of 14 centuries ago is unrecognizable to modern English, even the name of the language has changed, the same will be true of every single language that is being used in the modern world, all language changes over time, it is its nature.
With the Arabic language you have an added dimension of intentional perversion of concepts, the Arabs of the past must have intentionally corrupted the language to allow the introduction of the religions their ancestors had practiced becoming a part of Islam, this is the reason the use of terms is tenuous at best, as they have been forcing a square peg into a round hole.
So they say Ibada means worship
Salat means 5 ritual prayers
Dua means to Pray
Bayta means gods house
Deen means religion
Maqam mean Abraham's footprint
Hajj means annual pilgrimage
Zakat means paying of religious tithe
Hadya means animal offerings
the list goes on and on, but it takes almost no effort of investigation to discover that even in the lexicon, so at a very simple level none of these meanings are true, not even slightly true, they are in fact absolute corruptions of the true meanings, so how do you justify your statement "they understand it perfectly", they don't even understand the meanings of the words never mind the understandings of the grammar, you seem to think because they have retained the name of the language they have some how retained the language?
| Comments by: Abdun | On: 1/6/2011 |
There are some really good questions being asked about this issue. This is the way to get the truth of things, by QUESTIONING and that's the problem with the traditional muslims as they do not QUESTION, they simply "accept" whatever they are told.
If questioning and using common sense are ways of getting to the core issues of things, then here are more questions to consider....
The first person to write a book on Arabic grammar was a Persian. How can a non Arab be the first person to write a book on Arabic grammar? This should have been done by a Native Arab instead of a Persian in order to reduce the possibilities of this grammar book (and the intentions behind its production) being looked at suspiciously.
Why wasn't a book on Arabic grammar written for clarity once The Quran was put into written form if proper understanding of the grammar was an issue? I would logically arguse that it is because the Arabic grammar was not an issue at all. The NATIVE Arabs who grew up SPEAKING Arabic know their own language and so do not need a grammar book to explain Arabic grammar. They have learned their native vernacular (and continue to learn their native vernacular) the same way ANYONE ELSE has and continues to learn their native spoken vernacular and that is by natural osmosis in an Arabic speaking environment.
For the record, many people would say that Sibawayh wished to write an Arabic grammar book for the benefit of Non Arabs. Here's a question concerning that notion...If Sibawayh's book was for the benefit of non Arabs who who did not know the Arabic grammar, then it should have been in the language of the non Arabs in question and not in Arabic. In other words, the NON ARAB Sibawayh's book (Al Kitab/Kitab Sibawayh) should have been written in Persian for the benefit of the Persian people instead of it being written in Arabic to be read by people who already know how their own NATIVE language functions. It is good to also keep in mind that after the appearance of Sibawayh's book that Arabic all of a sudden became this complex language which even the "Arabs Themselves" do not fully understand and THUS they need a Non Arab and HIS grammar book to explain to them the complexities of their own language that HE HIMSELF did not grow up speaking, although the native Arabs DID grow up speaking it. All I can say about this is WOW!!!
It is evident that Sibawayh made a really critical mistake. Instead of viewing The Quran and deriving proper grammatical data from it, Sibawayh took it upon himself to write a book with his own grammar data and decided to impose these unauthentic rules on The Quran. THIS is why Arabs themselves (and certainly non Arabs) believe The Quran to be in a "classical" grammar that is not only dead somehow (we still haven't received an explanation on its death) but takes YEARS to properly learn and understand. This makes the Quranic statement of it being "Mubeen" false by going along with Sibawayh's game. This also gives the ammunition that the Quran haters need in order to say that The Quran is riddled with all sorts of grammatical mistakes and why it is incomprehensible and full of senseless gibberish that no one can understand. We have Sibawayh and his goons to thank for that. Either Sibawayh's rules are manmade OR the Quran is riddled with grammatical mistakes as they claim. Pick your poison.
In order to really get to the truth of this matter and then move on once they have found the truth, all one has to do is go through the historical timeline of BOTH The Quran AND the Arabic language. Doing this makes the truth as plain as daylight. Look at the oldest ever Quranic manuscripts found and look at what we have today. Is there something or something(S) that weren't there in the older manuscripts that exist in today's manuscripts? If so, this speaks of something being added. Look at the Arabic language. The Quran clearly makes statements about it being in the vernacular of the Arabic speaking peoples of that time. What do we have with the Arabic language today? And if the original Arabic was spoken with the use and pronunciation of case endings, then that belief brings up a whole mountainload of other questions. WHY do they not speak like that today...ANYWHERE in the Arab world? WHAT HAPPENED that caused the case endings to fall out of spoken Arabic if they were originally used in spoken Arabic? Where is the study and research detailing the journey of the case endings originally being used, eventually being used less and less and finally being dropped out entirely in spoken Arabic?
These are questions that need answered for the sake of authenticating the view that they were once used in spoken Arabic. I will give the traditional muslims a benefit of the doubt. I said that they do not question. I must say along with this that they are NOT ALLOWED to question and WE ALL KNOW that in countries dominated by N2I believers, some questions will not only NOT get answered, but may also cost you your life just for questioning and giving the masses different angles of viewing things instead of swallowing the "official party lines".
Something else to think about....The first Arabic grammar book (for the sake of authenticity) should have met two criteria to avoid these questions and debates. One, it should have been written by a NATIVE ARAB instead of a non Arab and Two, there would not be any reason to argue and dispute if the grammar book was written BEFORE the appearance of The Quran (or any other Arabic writing for that matter).
Again, none of us here need to consult grammar books to read something in our respective native languages. Growing up in the environment where our respective languages are used and spoken makes for the best teaching and facilitating of the languages we use. So to learn Arabic language (as USED and UNDERSTOOD by NATIVE Arabs), then one just needs to learn the ACTUAL, TRUE and NATURAL grammatical functions of the LANGUAGE ITSELF and NOT Sibwayh's manmade rules that the people were forced to accept OR ELSE....
Peace,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/6/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
You say you are after truth? Are you really? If I were to start telling you the truth, would you have the stomach to digest it. More importantly would it mater. That is to say would it change your believes about certain things. If not then you are fine with your beliefs.
To me beliefs are ever changing things not a fixed entity. Beliefs are mere opinions. The opinions need evidence to become knowledge. However, evidence has its own grades. The knowledge based upon weaker piece of evidence should change upon more concrete piece of evidence. Hence, today’s beliefs shall change with tomorrow’s evidence. This is called evolution and progress by knowledge. This is the real purpose of human creation.
Nur, has adequately addressed to your linguistic concerns. Although, it is very obvious to me, what he is saying. But one needs some background knowledge to understand, what he has just said.
With due respect,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
Peace,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
______________________________
Hey, it's not directed at me, but I really want to know the true accuracy and have stomach, spine and biceps to tolerate it.
I have a trouble-free concept, any aya which is problem-solving for the humanity, is translated fittingly ha-ha
Feel free to tell me the reality; I have no belief shaping my existence so much that it can’t survive a quake. Thank God I’m brainwashed, now there is tons of “legroom” up there (for new information:-D)
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/6/2011 |
Badar said ""You say you are after truth? Are you really? If I were to start telling you the truth, would you have the stomach to digest it. More importantly would it mater. That is to say would it change your believes about certain things. If not then you are fine with your beliefs. ""
So you're saying IF I want to know the truth you'll tell me, and that too if you think I could digest!! What??
So what have you been doing so far ? Please make up your mind first. And should I trust you to be telling the truth... the whole truth and nothing but the truth? ? ? I doubt it now after this statement of yours!
And no brother Abdun did not give me any sensible answer. BY calling my response/query nonsense DOES NOT make an answer sensible automatically :)
What he is saying in short, is that only NON ARABS, like you, can understand Arabic through special phenomenon that occured and which you have YET TO PROVE!!!
AND that to me sir does not make any sense!!!
What I said and I just told him too, was said by an female Arab journalist who was being penalised by the Arab mullah for not wearing a niqab and on the TV and her was the cry for help!! the commentators were saying she will be killed for saying all that although she was as diplomatic as she could be!! I hope i can find that interveiw on internet yet it does not make any difference to a person who even uses his common sense, that its the NIYAT that made them ignore the message NOt the language EVEN at the time of prophet himself!
Anyway your arguement STILL don't hold any ground, So instead of getting personal with anyone put all you have on the table and let people judge on their own, like sister Nargis said!!!
jazakAllah
UmeAimon
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/6/2011 |
For a little while I feared things were about to drift in a negative direction. But thanks God Brother Damon took due note of Aastana’s close family environment, and not only resumed a style of proper euphemism in his academic confrontation, but promised to go along and cooperate in Brother Badar’s pure grammatical translation work, by offering his own respective inputs. And that’s the best thing we could hope for.
Some more welcome entries in the discussion introduced an aura of more congeniality and were conducive to friendly atmosphere.
Since eyes are soar and brains shaken trying to absorb the impact of a vast amount of scholarly reading dictated by this thread, It might be in the fitness of things if both friends try to put an end to readers’ ambivalence and proceed with their respective translations – Brother Badar with his much awaited (already started) one, and Brother Damon with his counter effort, one after the other in sequence.
It is already said above that, apart from Grammar, Aeraabs, syntax, etc., there exists a God given common sense in Quranic students to assess both versions, ask questions, discuss a little bit further where necessary and then to arrive at a final consensual decision. Of course all can see what exactly fits with Quran’s overall message and what is best suited to the context of narration.
Personally, this very humble student is all eyes and ears to grasp the latest discoveries in Quranic knowledge. He guesses that knowledge is neither adequate or inadequate, nor true or false. It is just knowledge. Its areas are boundless and pursuit infinite.
God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/7/2011 |
UmeAimon
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/7/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/7/2011 |
It's really nice to have Damon and Badar on the team, because they contribute to productive discussion and have loads of loads of knowledge.
Now both of you can brainwash my recently “washed brain “haha
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/7/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/7/2011 |
You say that you know that current Arabs fully understand the meanings of Quran. Please explain this further. What do mean? Do they have different understanding then what is available in Public domain? If so, how come you know it? Additionally, if you know this for sure. Which you seem implying with very certainty, could you please share the understanding of just one verse? Say just 1:1.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/7/2011 |
UMEAIMON - "to a person who even uses his common sense, that its the NIYAT that made them ignore the message NOt the language EVEN at the time of prophet himself! "
DAMON - YES!!! :-) This is good Sister UmeAimon. It becomes more and more obvious with each of your posts that Sister Nargis and You each have your "Intellectual Radars" on full blast and do a much, much better job than me expressing these very important truths.
I have always thought that it was obvious that SINCE their were rejectors and enemies of the Prophet himself, that it was not the language, but the Kufr which made them not "understand" The Quran. When I say "understand" I mean understanding "Beyond Knowing" the words that they were reading or hearing. One can hear and not listen just like one can read and not accept what he or she just read. And it is these characteristics that make the atmosphere "ripe" for the negative innovations and decadence.
@ Nargis2
NARGIS - "Brother Damon, daaaamn, these bloody Persians have really been active, eh? "
DAMON - Yeah, but we have the opportunity today to "sniff" those things out, discard them and try to set things back on the right course if we can. :-D
God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/7/2011 |
Since you asked ------ YES, the breakdown from you is understandable and is serving as a valuable refresher course. But please spare me from a professional opinion/verdict. Dr. Sahib, with his deep insight and perpetual hard work in Grammar, would be competent for that. I am sure he is constantly in touch and would offer his comments when required.
Meanwhile, I and my companions observe a close follow up.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/7/2011 |
1. Who have either no clue or very little knowledge of Arabic grammar (not that I consider myself an authority) and start considering themselves as authorities already. Nor, do they want to progress in knowledge.
2. Have already established a religious shop and a false status of an authority. To maintain this status is more important for them, then upholding the truth.
3. Finally, are those whom I consider as deliberate misleaders. As it appears to me that they do understand it. Yet they do not want to accept the truth due to their, preconceived beliefs, vested intrests and pride. Hence, it is difficult for them to admit that they were wrong all along. Or else in addition they are scared of repercussion of masses; once masses were to find out the truth, as it starts becoming the common knowledge.
This verse, as I said before, describes the relationship between Rabb and Us. The proper understanding of this verse alone is enough to pull the rug from underneath current religion Islam. Hence, I am going to wait at every step for Dr. Zaman Shaib's confirmation. If he sees any issues, my humble request would be to bring those out at every step. So we can work together to solve those before proceeding further.
Badar
(I just realized, the above list remains incomplete without mention of one more kind of people. These are only few. Who consider me correct even without any confirmation. Rabb bless their hearts. Although, a great psychological, social and moral support. But their confirmation has just this value of moral support. I can not consider their personal love and trust in me, as an evidence for the work of understanding the book).
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/7/2011 |
I personally see some issues with Badar's rendition of the Basmala. I am reluctant to post these issues and my own understanding of it because I can see the possibility of the discussion spiraling out of control again. Aside from the differences in how I read, understand and interpret the verse, the fact that I do not agree with the grammatical avenues he has employed may not help but to "always" serve as a point of "Heated Debate". The fact that this rendition relies on the acceptance of how he interprets اللَّهِ and why he does so and how I am linguistically and grammatically against it is enough to turn the heat back on.
So logically, can I give an analysis of this verse without it degrading again? Most likely not.
Regards,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/8/2011 |
First of all, I would like to apologize for my interruption. Since the discussion is going on between scholars of this forum with deep insight and high level of intellect, my knowledge is very limited in this regard and I do not consider myself eligible to participate.
In fact I was trying to understand the reason behind this discussion in terms of productivity and I realized that I m getting confused once again.
I Just wanted to ask few things in order to clear my concepts and I hope you all won't mind.
My point is;
-Quran says that It has been revealed for mankind.
-It also says that it's simple and easy to understand.
Considering the above mentioned two points, I assume that the message is independent of any sort of complications, therefore needs no grammatical analysis and it's quite easily understandable to a person having an ordinary level of intellect (like me).
If that is the case, why do we need to go into such complex debates?
Do you really think this text is that much complicated?
With due apologies, I would say that it took me so long to get myself out of fake complexities introduced in the past (by orthodox translators and so called religious scholars) and right at the moment when I thought i was in a position to see the true picture, you guys have confused me again :(
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/8/2011 |
To me your questions revolve around an assumption that we already understand most if not all of the Quran. My answer to the question is NO I do not. Only way I have claimed to understand it, is via translations of others.
Hence, I am trying to understand it myself. In the process, I have found out the current understanding and translations are even no where close to being actual understanding.
I shall wait as eagerly for a response from team Aastana, as you would be.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/8/2011 |
First of all, you do not need to apologize because you are not interrupting. You have just as much right (and intellectual capacity) to participate in this discussion as anyone else here. So, YES, you are eligble to participate.
In my humble opinion, you are 100% correct on everything you said in your post above concerning your two points and the logical questions which accompany those points. This is the heart of the matter and again you are correct that this discussion did not have to drag out this long if we concentrate on the fact that the quran is not (and was never intended to be) a "scholarly" academic book subject to "academic" grammatical anaylsis which the "Common Person" (whom the quran IS intended for) does not (and sometimes cannot) wish to waste time with like those who "intellectualize" and make up barriers to lock the common man away from it.
It is the "Message" of the quran that is clear and understandable as you pointed out. Those who knew functional Arabic (the way the Arabs themselves understand and use Arabic) and rejected the quran did so on the grounds of disagreeing with the message and socio-economic solutions that the quran shares with mankind. All of the other things such as sibawayh's "classical" grammar rules, the "forged" pre-islamic poetry, the so-called (get this) QURAN SCIENCES (really, what on earth IS THAT??!!). These are manmade barriers and the picture that they collectively paint is that even a native Arab MUST go to institutes of "specialized learning" in order to engage, undertsand and benefit from the guidance that the quran provides. If you have not gone through such an avenue (even if you are a native Arab) then you are LOCKED OUT of the quran's guidance.
So, if we listen to these people, the quran and its message is complicated although the quran itself says otherwise. If you do not know Arabic, they tell you that you cannot undertsand the quran, and if you do know Arabic they tell you that there is a "dead" grammar that you must learn without ever providing an explanation or providing research to show everyone HOW, WHERE, WHEN and WHY these "classical" grammar rules fell out of use and have been relegated to strictly a literary/written usage.
You asked some really important questions above...
JUNAID - "why do we need to go into such complex debates?"
DAMON - You're right...WHY? But the answer is we DO NOT need to go into such complex debates. Thanks for waking me and shaking back to reality.
JUNAID - "Do you really think this text is that much complicated?"
DAMON - You and I realize that this text is not that much complicated but there are many, many, many people in the world who are hell bent on making it complicated. There are different motives why different people do this. We already know about the motives and the traps set by the Persians especially during the Abbasid Dynasty. But there are others today who wish to put these manmade shackles on the quran to lock others out. That way they get to think (and say to others) that they know something that the others do not know and have "One Up" on them. They also get to set themselves up as "teachers" and "intellectuals/scholars" that the common joe MUST come to in order to understand the quran.
JUNAID - "With due apologies, I would say that it took me so long to get myself out of fake complexities introduced in the past (by orthodox translators and so called religious scholars) and right at the moment when I thought i was in a position to see the true picture, you guys have confused me again :( "
DAMON - Well, I apologize for the part that I played in causing this confusion, but I would humbly suggest that you stay with your mentality that the quran is not that complicated but it is people and motives which make it appear so.
I have engaged in the one thing that I said that I would not allow myself to get sucked into. And I came to the conclusion (based on past forum experiences and observation) that this will ALWAYS happen at internet forums. That's just how it is. There will always be personality clashes, temper flaring, finger pointing and people wishing to "Defend a Position" or "Win an Argument" as opposed to searching for truth. Add to the mix when people may have "not so pure" motives going to these discussion forums and refusing to deal with "the truth", but are hell bent on establishing whatever agenda they went to the forum for. Aastana is not immune from this. It isn't a forum thing, it is a people thing. People are people...and they make the world go 'round (as the old song says :-D )
I now realize that the negatives will usually (if not always) outweigh the positives in posting at internet forums. I'm done folks!!
May Peace and Blessings Be With You All and I hope you all continue to grow and be productive.
Sincerest Regards,
Damon
| Comments by: Damon | On: 1/8/2011 |
Here
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?MID=2&SID=45
Dr sahibs article need to be translated, its brilliant.
and continue the discussion, I have learned a lot from both of you. because of you I've started to read some grammar here
http://corpus.quran.com/documentation/grammar.jsp
:-D
Is this your translation, brother Badar
http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/147/182/ ?
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/9/2011 |
It is true that Quran’s interpretation was corrupted beyond the capacity of common people to salvage its genuine essence. The intelligentsia that was capable of doing that, was kept under the fear or influence of the corrupters “the Arab rulers”. So they dared not interfere with the rulers’ evil designs. I am, by the way, the one who does not blame the Persians, or the Jews for that matter. Under the extremely autocratic, coercive and strictly controlled dictatorial regimes, no one, right under their noses, could have undertaken the daunting task of corrupting the rulers’ Deen, without their approval and mandate. The job was accomplished under an organized strategy and its subsequent enforcement was vehemently carried out through the rule of sword. Perhaps after some passage of time, the same corrupted version was taken as the authentic and the right one. No effort by the righteous Quranists to remedy the situation was allowed to be effective or successful by the authorities and their lackeys, the clergy.
We are not sure about Arab world, but, at long last, in Indo-Pak sub-continent, the revival of Quranic movement paved the way to explore the Quran afresh and discover its genuine substance. Sir Syed was the pioneer. There were several other names of his contemporaries……Syed Amir Ali, Altaf Hussain Haali, Moulvi Chiragh Ali. Then come other big names like Aslam Jairajpuri, Inayat Ullah Al-Mashriqi, Allama Pervaiz. I don’t name the orthodox line that does not mean much to Quranists.
The important point is that the work is still in progress and we can’t claim that we have reached a decisive final version of the genuine interpretation. Dr. Qamar Zaman is a prominent name in the modern times who is endeavoring in this field, and the work is still far from complete, but under probe, investigation, debates and discussions.
With the above preamble, I would now attempt to answer the questions of Brother Junaid, keeping in view the answers of Brother Damon too.
JUNAID - "why do we need to go into such complex debates?"
DAMON - You're right...WHY? But the answer is we DO NOT need to go into such complex debates. Thanks for waking me and shaking back to reality.
AURANGZAIB: Because the work is still under way, and the best Quranic way to arrive at a consensual solution is “Mushawarat” i.e., to give every contender his right to express himself. That’s why the debate!
JUNAID - "Do you really think this text is that much complicated?"
DAMON - You and I realize that this text is not that much complicated but there are many, many, many people in the world who are hell bent on making it complicated. There are different motives why different people do this. We already know about the motives and the traps set by the Persians especially during the Abbasid Dynasty. But there are others today who wish to put these manmade shackles on the quran to lock others out. That way they get to think (and say to others) that they know something that the others do not know and have "One Up" on them. They also get to set themselves up as "teachers" and "intellectuals/scholars" that the common joe MUST come to in order to understand the quran.
AURANGZAIB: HAD IT NOT BEEN COMPLEX, the very first pioneer, Sir Syed could have simply completed the task. The task is SO COMPLEX that from 1850s up to the present time (2011), it is consuming the best brains of Indo-Pak intelligentsia. HAD IT NOT BEEN COMPLEX, we would have had the most genuine version ready by now and our present researchers wouldn’t need to spend their entire energies on it. HAD IT NOT BEEN COMPLEX, you would be able to declare by now …..”See guys…..this is the final genuine version of Quran…..take it …..and start abiding by its injunctions….and stop fretting any further”. Do we have a final genuine version? Where is it? Nowhere yet!
And our Authority is Quran, not any Guy’s or mine opinion, Right?
So WHERE does Quran say that it’s easy to understand, Guys? One might refer to Verses No.54:17, 22, 32, 40, where it says:
وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ But do you know what it actually means? It means guys that : “We have made Quran AVAILABLE (یسرنا ) for advice/remembrance……” . And if you have doubts about this translation, please ponder upon Verse No.44/58, which CONFIRMS THE WORD “AVAILABLE” as under :
فَإِنَّمَا يَسَّرْنَاهُ بِلِسَانِكَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ ﴿ “Verily, we have made it AVAILABLE IN (WITH) YOUR LANGUAGE, so that they take advice/remember.” I hope this solves the perennial question of WHETHER QURAN IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND OR COMPLEX. Let us not go to numerous other verses where it is emphasized that “IT” is for “Li Qoumin Yaalamoon”, “Li Qoumin Yafqahoon”, “Li OOlil Albaab”, etc. etc. simply meaning that Quran is for THOSE WHO ARE PEOPLE OF KNOWLEDGE, DELIBERATION AND INTELLECT. How many people in a society fall in this category, please? It is the intelligentsia Quran is referring to! May be 1%, or 2% at the most ? And that’s still an exaggeration!
JUNAID - "With due apologies, I would say that it took me so long to get myself out of fake complexities introduced in the past (by orthodox translators and so called religious scholars) and right at the moment when I thought i was in a position to see the true picture, you guys have confused me again :( "
DAMON - Well, I apologize for the part that I played in causing this confusion, but I would humbly suggest that you stay with your mentality that the quran is not that complicated but it is people and motives which make it appear so.
AURANGZAIB: Brother Junaid, when you claim you are already out of fake complexities, and that “I was in a position to see the true picture”, Let us also see that true picture. Where is it, Brother? Can you refer to a Quran fully interpreted according to your so-acclaimed “true picture”? No? There is none yet! The ground reality is that some people are trying their best to introduce one, and all this academic exercise is part of that struggle. So, instead of being allergic with that, we should wholeheartedly take part in that struggle and help?
In the end, for clarification, let me explain that presentation of Brother Badar’s small bit of translation attempt cannot mean that it is already taken as the final and decisive one. Brother Damon’s cooperative attempt in this regard would also carry an equal weight. How interesting it would be that, alongwith Dr. QZ’s version, we would have three different standpoints that would make the task of arriving at a consensus so easy. Please don’t quit, Brother Damon.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/9/2011 |
Dear Nargis2, yes but by no means, the link above at the servant of light is the final version. It only reflects the struggle of a loner for truth and a call to all to come and join hands in search of the truth.
It also incorporates some important forgotten principles about the language, which I have rediscovered. Initially, I thought these might be just enough to understand the whole book. But very quickly realized that language as complex a phenomenon it is; couldn’t just be understood based upon only few rules and principles. Although, the principles primarily used in translation at Servant of the light are very useful in certain parts of the book.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/9/2011 |
When you say "simply meaning that Quran is for THOSE WHO ARE PEOPLE OF KNOWLEDGE, DELIBERATION AND INTELLECT. How many people in a society fall in this category, please? It is the intelligentsia Quran is referring to! May be 1%, or 2% at the most ? And that’s still an exaggeration!".
I don't think you are implying that Quran is only for intellectuals to understand. I am sure you mean to say, the ones who are willing to use their intellect, capacity to deliberate as well capacity to acquire knowledge. In order to make their believes as verfiable truths and not just mere opinions.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/9/2011 |
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Brother Damon, Brother bkanwar and brother aurangzaib.
Brother aurangzaib said;
(Brother Junaid, when you claim you are already out of fake complexities, and that “I was in a position to see the true picture”, Let us also see that true picture. Where is it, Brother?)
My answer is NO, I am not yet 100% out of fake complexities. Thats why I used the words (I thought i was in a position to see the true picture) and nowhere did I say that the picture was 100% clear. In fact I always had this feeling that something is missing and you have confirmed what I was thinking. I know we've got a long way to go in order to understand and interpret.
However, I am still on the same wavelength with Brother Damon and I cannot agree on the point that the message is too complicated to be understood without going into complex grammatical analysis or man made rules to interpret the language. The book was was not revealed on experts of grammar or literature and was not meant for only scholars to understand. (29:48-49)
(29:48) (O Prophet!) you were never able to read a book before this (Qur’an), nor could you write anything with your own hand. Or else, those who try to disprove the truth might have some reason to doubt it. (QXP)
Brother bkanwar said;
(I don't think you are implying that Quran is only for intellectuals to understand.)
I do agree with this statement and I am inclined towards the concept that Quran is for everyone having capacity or willingness to acquire knowledge and who uses his/her intellect.
(29:49) Nay, here are messages self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge. And none but the unjust will disregard Our messages. (QXP)
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/9/2011 |
Quote, "...and I cannot agree on the point that the message is too complicated to be understood without going into complex grammatical analysis or man made rules to interpret the language. The book was was not revealed on experts of grammar or literature and was not meant for only scholars to understand. (29:48-49)
(29:48) (O Prophet!) you were never able to read a book before this (Qur’an), nor could you write anything with your own hand. Or else, those who try to disprove the truth might have some reason to doubt it. "
Well said brother Junaid... couldn't agree more.
PLUS and its a big plus, brother Aurengzaib, this debate is NOT about whether Quran has been made complex to understand. We all agree on that and since we all agree that it has been SURELY MADE like that with many ways, the real ISSUE HERE is that ONE of those CONTROVERCIAL ways/tatics ways to make Quran complicated is being justified here, WITHOUT ANY solid proof or justification, to explain IT!!!
No one here deneid to represent a beter way of understand ssince there are many areas that need to be explored BUT once someone says yes I thnk I yunderstand it through flaan flaan way, THAT way needs to be justified... AND it has been NOT!
And no matter what tactics is used INCLUDING "personal synopsis of forum participants" which NO one asked for and which is NOT the issue here, the thing is it could NOT be proven to be a reliable way of understanding !
And regarding whether it makes sense ..the point is same as those with ahadiths! It should NOT matter whether they make sense or not as a proof of their liability!
How hard is this to understand? Now I cannot be any more clearer but surely who understand will know what is really happening here, but after going through all of above I have nothing else to say on this issue anymore since that would be sheer waste of time.
Just in end I would request brother Damon to write his understanding as sister Nargis said.
jazakAllah
UmeAimon
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/9/2011 |
I see no problems in the way of a consensus on this issue. I would always go for a broader view rather than narrowing the scope of an interpretation. Yes, Quran means people of knowledge and also those who are willing to acquire that knowledge which facilitates Quranic understanding.
But we must keep in view that " و لکن اکثر الناس لا یعلموں '" "But the Majority of People do not undertake the act of Knowing - or do not have the Knowledge" is a sentence frequently repeated in Quran. That simply means that a vast majority of common people does not go, or cannot go, for in-depth understanding of the philosophy.
And if Quran is for the EDUCATED, so no wonder because every book of high literature is understood only by the educated. And isn't Quran laced with idioms, similes, metaphors, etc. just like any other masterpiece of literature? I only emphasize this as an example ------Quran, I think, is on the highest pedestal of literary excellence.
And when you analyse this in the perspective of 85% illiteracy in our homeland, where all the literary activity is already dead, the Quranic implication would become more revealing and convincing. Moreover, to think that out of the remaining 15% literates, we have around 50% educated illiterates too who would still not WANT TO LEARN, does corroborate the Quranic emphasis..
In the end, Quranic implication does not leave the illiterates alone. Once the ideology/philosophy is understood by the educated "elite", it is then disseminated, in turn, by them to common people in simple and easily understood narratives. Moreover, when Quranic tenets are promulgated upon a society as laws, everyone automatically starts observing those as State Laws and in this way everyone does reap its benefits without the need of becoming ideologist/philosopher.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/9/2011 |
Your above statement is well corroborated by the example of American revolutionaries in Modern times. These were only handful people who wrote the American constitution (by the way, people who have not read it. I would strongly urge to read it). Once, it was written after due deliberation and implemented to the dot. Most have reaped its benefits, without ever knowing it or reading it. This includes me, until very recently.
When I said those willing to use their intellect, capacity to deliberate and acquire knowledge. Again, I would like to present myself as an example; until about 44 years of my life, when I was content with my status co nothing changed. I am still just an ordinary Joe. But for last 3-4 years since, I started to use my intellect, capacity to deliberate as well to acquire knowledge. Just like I use these in daily life and to progress in my professional life. The message of book started to make sense without the crutches that I have always used.
So my very humble call and request to all who really sincerely want to understand the book would be? Please leave your preconceived notions at bay. This book is written in the script of a certain language. Which at least most of the people of Indo-Pak decent have no clue about? Any Language is a very complex phenomenon. Without learning the basics of the language, there is no understanding. I can also share from personal experience, that although learning of a language from scratch could be very difficult. However, when it came to learning the language of the Quran; it is surprisingly really easy. I am working at it only for 1-2 years; that also on a very part time basis and things have already started to make sense. However, one note of caution, once one was to attempt to understand book this way. One ought to be ready for surprises and for sure there are lots of surprises in it for us.
So anybody really interested, please come join the work of understanding the book. The only thing we agree upon and claim to be our basis.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/10/2011 |
As said above this verse is not a sentence. Actually, by not being a sentence, it is a marvel of the language. Why do we say this? For this we need to recap the definition of a sentence. As well difference between a sentence and phrase/compound مُركب.
A sentence is a combination of two or more words, by which a news, order or a wish is conveyed. Sentences are of two types.
A nominal sentence is one which starts with noun. A nominal sentence gives a description of a person or thing, either absolutely, or in the form of a clause descriptive of state.
A verbal sentence is one, which starts with a verb. This sentence relates an act or event.
Once, we get to the meanings of this verse. These definitions will really help one to appreciate the marvel of the language. As to why a compound/phrase مُركب is used? Instead, of a sentence to convey the meanings.
A compund/phrase only relates one noun with other, without conveying any of the meanings by a sentence.
With a request for a correction, humbly submitted.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/10/2011 |
You sure look like a born teacher. The way you are proceeding bit by bit, analyzing the essence of things, makes things easier. You are methodical and very kind and patient to students.
I might not be able to write for the next week or so due to an upcoming exam. But please don't mind. Others would respond. I'll be watching though, not allowing the chance to learn go waste. Thank you.
Dear Brothers Badar, Junaid, Damon and All,
On our continued subject of discussion, I missed to post a few extra lines, which I now post before continuity is lost. It is about Quran being easy or complex. Please criticize freely.
Another aspect of the issue. Let us suppose that Quran was “easy” – “was made easy”. But HOW was it done? For their travesty, they resorted to literalism. And through heedless, literal, word-to-word translation, they “made it easy”. The result was that, through their sophistry, a wonderful “PARODY” OF Quran became readily available which represented an unmatched mockery of its substance, its literary style, its idiomatic and metaphoric expressions, its syntax and grammar….…..and what not? They forgot all about the deeper ideas and insights each and every term of this magnificent Book contains and symbolizes.
All of us are witness to the deplorable tragedy this traditional “easy” interpretation has produced. The most sinister thing it produced was a cast, creed and order of merciless dynastic rulers with ultra demonic dispositions, who gradually pushed the whole Ummah down the abyss of ignorance, slavery and obliteration. These demons still dominate the Islamic scene and the Ummah is still in their brutal stranglehold.
Quran was now reduced to the level of a book dealing only in eating and drinking, washing and cleaning, sleeping with various categories of women within or without the marital bonds, executions, amputations, lashes and stoning to death, horrible looking beards and wretched appearances, and, of course, a heap of rituals of worship, including indiscriminate slaughter of livestock in the name of Allah, but “secretly” to fulfil their lust for flesh-meat eating that they believe prepares for exorbitant sexual extremes.
This is the “easy” Quran? “Easy” for common folks to understand? What folks?....... Virtual cave-dwellers, hate-mongers, grabbers, fanatics, extremists and murderers! Allah swt never deemed it that “easy”?
I presume our notion of “easy Quran” stems from this “made easy” Quran that remains our sole heritage from countless generations. On the contrary, the ONE we are now endeavoring to discover doesn’t seem “easy” at all. Some generations have passed since we started salvaging the “true essence” of Quran. The daunting task still poses a challenge to our intelligentsia.
By no means am I refuting the most diligent arguments put forward by Brother Damon. He fought his case well. His home work was solid and flawless. He is one of those who stand at a quite high level of intellect, and Arabic linguistics apparently is the field of his competence. I am impressed, and honestly wish to continue getting inspired from his remarkable knowledge and achievements. For him, to understand the essence of Quran, was undoubtedly easier than for the laymen like myself. In that perspective he was right in his stance and remains right in my esteem. I once again request him to please contribute.
God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/10/2011 |
Your apprehensions are shared by most of us and are justified. But please rest assured nothing has been construed as final yet. I believe You, Me and All other participants would be included in the consensus when the time comes. The discussions are aimed not at wasting further time and energy. I have requested participants not to indulge further in debates, but rather try to proceed with their actual translations so that we have solid matter to concentrate upon and express our opinions.
Personally, I highly appreciate your participation and also express my gratitude for your kind words for me.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/10/2011 |
Brother aurangzaib, Let me share what you said and then I'll post my comments;
(Quran was now reduced to the level of a book dealing only in eating and drinking, washing and cleaning, sleeping with various categories of women within or without the marital bonds, executions, amputations, lashes and stoning to death, horrible looking beards and wretched appearances, and, of course, a heap of rituals of worship, including indiscriminate slaughter of livestock in the name of Allah, but “secretly” to fulfil their lust for flesh-meat eating that they believe prepares for exorbitant sexual extremes. )
Even though I am not a grammar expert but this is simply not what I have understood from Quran. My concepts are totally different from what you have posted;
A precise yet comprehensive message which contains complete guidance in terms of mission and strife regarding legislative, economical, social, moral, cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of human life. A book which contains everything and nothing is missing.
Quran clearly tells us that mankind is yet to attain the status of Adam and the target can only be achieved by following the complete system of life as defined by Allah. This system of life (Al-Deen) which has been named as (Islam) is not a religion based on myths, dogmas and rituals. In fact it is a complete code of conduct which encompasses every aspect of human life without any exception and is based on concepts of a collective approach towards growth and development which guarantees an ultimate state of peace and harmony.
A clear guidance for mankind, based on the following concepts;
-Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone and therefore No human being should be empowered or subjugated by another or no one is responsible for other's deeds. (A concept of complete freedom)
-Ownership of land, natural resources and everything else belongs to the creator, the sustainer, the cherisher which is Allah. Man has been appointed as an inheritor / successor and therefore he cannot be the owner. (A concept of uniform rights regarding utilization and preservation of land and natural resources)
-Law of Allah alone: Creation of welfare state in order to serve and not to rule. Provision of justice and equality which is the key factor to enjoy peace, harmony and prosperity in worldly life as well as the next life.
-No compulsion or no use of force against individuals and guarding Human rights by all means within and beyond the social, cultural, geographical and political environments. (this also applies to family laws and punishments for social and ethical crimes).
-Mutual consultation and a collective approach towards understanding and continuous efforts to improve the the system defined within Quran. (better chances to learn and implement)
-You will get you will strive for: A concept of Human labor as the base of economic activities and wealth generation and return of labor in form of something of intrinsic value which negates economic injustice.
- A clear contradiction to usury (earning in excess of efforts in form of physical, or mental labor as well as earning by capital investment using time factor and not the physical labor).
-Contribution towards growth and development with mutual consent and free will. (Grow and help others to grow)
-Creation of awareness within the society in order to learn and teach the main objectives (mission and strife) and to acquire education (ponder on universe and other creation) and later on educate others.
- Acquiring best knowledge, skills and abilities by individuals in their respective fields of life in order to produce better outputs. Sharing of knowledge and providing better opportunities for the society as a whole to grow and evolve.
Brother aurangzaib, it took me two years to go through various interpretations and eventually I managed to extract the key elements of teachings of Quran (No grammatical analysis involved). All I did was to go through various translations with a clear state of mind (freeing myself of the previous concepts based on myths, dogmas and rituals) and to refer lexicons and Arabic dictionaries for confirmation. Based on the key factors I have already discovered, I cannot see any difficulty in terms of understanding the magnificence of Quran.
Please do tell me if you think I am wrong and that my concepts contradicts the true essence of Quran. If not then I can tell you that this method is much faster as compared to a complex grammatical analysis.
Note: With due apologies I beg to state that I have been watching this thread since last 20 days and I am yet to see a comprehensive interpretation of verse 1:1 from brother Badar. 20 days for translating one verse means many, many and many years for complete translation of Quran. Don't you think this method is a bit slow? I have wasted half of my life in state of ignorance and I don't want to waste rest of my life waiting for an interpretation with grammatical analysis. After-all we do need time to think, plan and get on with implementation process (if possible) with all available means.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/10/2011 |
Quote: (I have requested participants not to indulge further in debates, but rather try to proceed with their actual translations so that we have solid matter to concentrate upon and express our opinions.) by aurangzaib
Brother aurangzaib, I am really sorry that I couldn't see your post.
From now on, I will try not to get involved in unnecessary debates on this particular topic :)
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/10/2011 |
You are on the right track. My purpose behind suggesting a pause to the on-going debate was the same as yours, i.e., to prompt the two main contenders to come up with the actual work of translation now. Like yourself, me and other companions are eagerly awaiting that.
Yes, my target of condemnation in the last comment was our TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS, not the ones our Quranic brethren are NOW trying to compile. You misunderstood me.
About the question of grammar, let me remind you and everyone that even learning our own national language, URDU, we had to undergo some teaching of grammar to know the language properly. Languages just don't flourish and glorify, and are just not comprehended, without grammatical principles. I believe whatever you have learned of Quran by now, as you so elaborately detailed, somebody must have laboriously interpreted that under grammatical rules. Ask the interpreters if you can contact them! Another example; whatever I have learned of English language throughout my life, its comprehension had not come to me without first understanding its grammatical structure and composition.
God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/10/2011 |
بِ = a preposition, actually has several meanings. Additionally, it gives Jerr to its noun. There by a مُركب is formed called مُركب جارى. The second part of which, is a Nakra noun, written due an anomaly of script writing as,
سمٌ= its root is thought to be س م و or more likely أ س م. There are some more issues the way this word is written. To understand those, one needs to be familiar with types of Alif/Hemza. There are several types of Alif/Hemzas. But we need not going into detail of all at this time. Only shall try to deal with ones which are relevant here; usually Alif/Hemza with Kasra is considered as Hemza- til- Wasal. This type of Alif/Hemza is used at the beginning of a verb. This creates confusion here. Is it noun or verb? There are certain rules which are called poetic licenses. Under such poetic licenses certain words are allowed to be written differently in contrast to customary rules. This is the case here. It actually is أَسْمٌ, from root أ س م.
Let us after understanding its shapes try to learn what the common people of the language meant by this word? From Lane it means “a timeless sign or attribute for conveying the knowledge”.
اللَّهِ= Usually considered a noun, but in actuality a whole sentence. Please see above for break down.
الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ = Two Marafa nouns, from root, رحم. The first noun رَّحْمَنِ actually is رَحْمَان which is at the measure of musdar, فَعْلانٌ. The second masdarرَّحِيمِ noun at the measure of فَعْيلٌ.
فَعْلانٌ= is a very rare measure, the best search suggest that this measure is used, to suggest permanence of the root verb meanings; whereas, فَعْيلٌ suggest more of a continuation of root meanings.
Additionally, this root itself has few meanings. Traditionally, root meaning of “mercy” is used. But actually meaning of relationship should be used here. This is further confirmed by syntax. That is the understanding of meanings of other words in this مُركب.
Now let us try to recap the Syntactical analysis one more time. بِسْمِ اللَّهِ a مركبِ اضافى. First part بِسْمِ a Mudhaf, of this مركبِ اضافى and مُركب جارى.
الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ a مُركبِ توصيفى and it relates to اللَّهِ. How can we say that? Due to its irrabs, which are Jerr. But wait a minute; is not بِسْمِ also in Jerr? Yes it is. So why cannot it relate to بِسْمِ. Because بِسْمِ is in Jerr only due to preposition “Bee”, otherwise its irrab would have been Rafa. The irrab changes brought due to preposition, only affect the immediate noun.
Shall stop again, I think there is not a lot left to translate this verse.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/11/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/11/2011 |
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم.
Every single word in this verse is revolving around.
اللَّهِ= ألْذَّى لا أله, as explained above meaning “One who is not a deity for adoration and worship”
بِ= has several uses here would be لِلظَّرْفِيَّةِ, meaning for time and space
ِسْمِ= “a sign conveying the knowledge”
الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم= the permanent and the continuous relationship
Lets us put it together
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم
For a timeless distinction of the unchanging and everlasting relationship, with One whom is not a deity for adoration and worship.
I know, its going to be tough and bitter for people to swallow. But has truth ever been sweat? Shall comment few of my own linguistic takes based upon definitions as described above later.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/12/2011 |
| Comments by: Nargis | On: 1/12/2011 |
Please recall the definition of a sentence and nominal and verbal sentences from above. It becomes obvious we are told our relationship to Rabb. Nor as a desire, news or an order; neither is Rabb is a person or thing, either absolutely, or in the form of a clause descriptive of state. Not even an act or event. Is this not how we know him, despite forgetting due all religious connotation invented afterwards. What could be the best expression to describe his relationship with us, except a compound/phrase مُركب.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/12/2011 |
I do have some difficulty of comprehension here :
بِ"= has several uses here would be لِلظَّرْفِيَّةِ, meaning for time and space "
Have a question too : Have you checked your interpretation of ALLAH, as a negative phrase, by applying it at most of the other places where the term ALLAH appears? Particularly with the sentence: ALLAHU LA ILAHA ILLA HOO !
Does your interpretation fit well in other situations too?
Thanks.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/12/2011 |
http://www.ghazali.org/arabic/WrightArabicGrammarVol2.pdf
For other question. No, I have not done all the verses with word Allah. The verse in question was done at the request of Abdun Nur, some time ago. I am doing a cut and past of original. It needs refining with my increased understanding of the language.
Abdun Nur
Apprentice
Gender:
Posts: 449
Re: There is No God.
« Reply #60 on: December 23, 2009, 01:44:04 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaam,
اللّهُ لَا إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ
Allahu la ilaha illahuwa alhayyu alqayyoomu
The one who is not illah (god), will not become illah (god). But, who is ever living and self subsisting, from whom all things subsist. (a point of interest for you “hayya”, not only means life, but a life of a burning fire)
Thanks to Brother Badar (end of the post)
Now I would translate this as "One who is not a deity for adoration and worship, shall never be a deity for adoration and worship. Except that he is ever living and self subsisting, from whom all things subsist".
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/13/2011 |
3:2 اللّهُ لَا إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ
اللّهُ= Subject مُبْتَدَأُ of the sentence, whatever the meanings may be. Traditionalists say this is the proper name of god. Let us give it to them.
لَا إِلَـهَ = a negative sentence and the predicate خبر of the sentence i.e اللّهُ لَا إِلَـهَ. This should still mean “Allah shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind”.
Badar
(I am adding this as a footnote after confirming it. In لَا إِلَـهَ the word إِلَـهَ irrab is Nasab. Which would imply that this لَا is, what experts of language had called ِلا نفى ألْجِنْسِ ; meaning, it absolutely denies the existence. Hence, لَا إِلَـهَ would mean “shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind”. Oh People, do you still want to eliminate irrabs from Quran? Please, think thousand times before following the misleaders. Now I am going to edit translation above, accordingly)
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/13/2011 |
My humble way of paying tributes for the scholarly devotion and sheer hardworking of Dr. Badar Kanwar is manifest in my URDU translation of the essence of his literary interpretation of the opening Quranic Verses; which I submit here below for his kind perusal and corrections where he deems necessary. Kindly go through and comment freely.
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم
For a timeless distinction of the unchanging and everlasting relationship, with One whom is not a deity for adoration and worship.
یہ اس ذات عالی کی، جو حمد و پرستش کا دیوتا نہیں ہے، غیر متغیر اور دائم رہنے والی ایک ایسی رفاقت کی آگہی کے لئیے ھے جو زمان کی پابندیوں سے ماوراء ھے۔
الم ﴿١﴾
2:1 Man (mankind) has intensely suffered,
(در حقیقت ) انسان نے شدید مصائب وآلام برداشت کئیے ہیں
ذلک الکتاب لا ریب فیہ ھدی للمتقین
2:2 (for) that, this is, the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard, for you. There is no doubt, a timeless mode of conduct is contained, in it for all those seeking to safe guard themselves against, deprivation of senses, intellectual faculty, grief, sorrows, fears as well complete extinction.
اس بناء پرپیش ھے تمہارے لئیے ایک ایسا خاص مجموعی ماحصل جو اس نے پڑھ اور سن کر لکھا ھے۔ بلا شک و شبہ یہ ان تمام نفوس کے لئیے ایک دائمی ضابطہء کردار کا حامل ھے جو اپنے تئیں حواس کے مختل ہونے، عقل و شعورسے محروم ہونے، رنج و غم و خوف کی آزمائیشوں، اور فنائے ذات کے خطرے سے بچائے رکھنا چاہتے ہیں۔
RUNNING TRANSLATION:
یہ اس ذات عالی کی، جو حمد و پرستش کا دیوتا نہیں ہے، غیر متغیر اور دائم رہنے والی ایک ایسی رفاقت کی آگہی کے لئیے ھے جو زمان کی پابندیوں سے ماوراء ھے۔
انسان نے شدید آلام و مصائب برداشت کئیے ہیں۔( در حقیقت )
اس بناء پرپیش ھےتمہارے لئیے ایک ایسا خاص مجموعی ماحصل جو اس نے پڑھ اور سن کر لکھا ھے۔ بلا شک و شبہ یہ ان تمام نفوس کے لئیے ایک دائمی ضابطہء کردار کا حامل ھے جو اپنے تئیں حواس کے مختل ہونے، عقل و شعورسے محروم ہونے، رنج و غم و خوف کی آزمائیشوں، اور فنائے ذات کے خطرے سے بچائے رکھنا چاہتے ہیں۔
As a matter of fact, Brother Badar’s interpretation corroborates one of my personal convictions that Quran stands on the highest pedestal of literary excellence. I have always believed that. It’s a MASTERPIECE OF LITERATURE that requires high intellect to comprehend and interpret. We can all see that it excels in its style of narration, depth of meanings and in its most vivid terminology, which stand inaccessible by common folks.
Since the issue has been under debate and discussions, and there have been endless arguments and counter arguments, I won’t insist upon my personal convictions. We can all make our own decisions about its status irrespective of what this humble student thinks.
May God bless Brother Badar with more bountiful knowledge.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/13/2011 |
I am very busy today, but shall write in detail about few issues, soon.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/13/2011 |
I would like to give explanation of certain issues that were raised in this thread. I am going to use a simple narrative style. Ones, who would like to explore any of the issues in detail, can do at their own. I would be happy to share references that I have.
One misconception, which is based upon the belief that Quran is unchanged and Rabb has guaranteed its preservation. Hence, the printed book of Quran today is exactly same as at the prophet’s time. This notion is far from being true. It is impossible. Why? Just imagine yourself. Did you learn to write in one day? Is the script you write today is same that you wrote as 1st or 2nd grader. Obviously not, everybody learned to write overtime. Imagine, if there was nobody who knew, how to write your language. Would you be able to learn all this writing even in your life time? Impossible, isn’t. Similarly, like we learn to write over years. It took different groups of people, having different languages as a whole, to develop script for writing, over even longer time.
What is script? It is a written depiction of all spoken language. The languages are very complex phenomenon. Hence, representation of all these complexities needs to be reflected in script.
Hence, whatever was written at prophet’s time was according to the script, they knew. Lots of time when we read the script of our language actually we are not reading. This is due; we already have templates in our mind. Lot of time we do not see our mistakes in script despite reading those several times; just because we have correct template in our minds already.
Hence, the addition was done by people to preserve and express the concepts as those were present in spoken language. They also wrote explanations of these additions.
So let us try to understand it as it is. If the meanings that come out apeal reason and logic and are Universal enough take them.
Based upon this it is certain that the Quran we have is not exactly the same as was written at time of prophet. In fact, if we were to somehow get that Quran, it would be incomprehensible today.
This leaves us with a burning question. Could there have been mistakes in this whole process. Certainly there could have been. Hence, while trying to understand things one has to keep mind open for this possibility.
Finally, I want to share that translation of this whole book is not be one man’s job. A team of dedicated people is required. Hence, if anyone really cares about humanity and this book; please come join hands with the work. Let us work as team, leaving our personal interest aside.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/14/2011 |
Brother aurangzaib I agree!
(This leaves us with a burning question. Could there have been mistakes in this whole process. Certainly there could have been. Hence, while trying to understand things one has to keep mind open for this possibility.) by bkanwar2
Brother badar, now you are scaring me !
BTW sorry brother aurangzaib, I couldn't stop myself from posting :)
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/14/2011 |
Nobody ever stopped you from posting. On the contrary, there is always a persistent open invitation to express opinions, standpoints and even differences. You are a witness that I have been repeatedly requesting Brother Damon too to keep in touch and contribute, though he, and I am sorry to say that, seems unfavorably disposed to Brother Badar's contribution. Kindly don't take Aastana's unbiased and pluralistic aspirations negatively. Aastana is an open Quranic Academy for all. And this thread alone provides an ample proof of that conviction.
God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/14/2011 |
Badar :I would like to give explanation of certain issues that were raised in this thread. I am going to use a simple narrative style. Ones, who would like to explore any of the issues in detail, can do at their own. I would be happy to share references that I have.
Mubashir : Thanx for this approach of using simple narrative style this might really help people like me to understand.
Badar : One misconception, which is based upon the belief that Quran is unchanged and Rabb has guaranteed its preservation. Hence, the printed book of Quran today is exactly same as at the prophet’s time. This notion is far from being true. It is impossible. Why? Just imagine yourself. Did you learn to write in one day? Is the script you write today is same that you wrote as 1st or 2nd grader. Obviously not, everybody learned to write overtime. Imagine, if there was nobody who knew, how to write your language. Would you be able to learn all this writing even in your life time? Impossible, isn’t. Similarly, like we learn to write over years. It took different groups of people, having different languages as a whole, to develop script for writing, over even longer time.
What is script? It is a written depiction of all spoken language. The languages are very complex phenomenon. Hence, representation of all these complexities needs to be reflected in script.
Mubashir : The supporting example you considered I think is not good enough to prove your concern. Do you mean language was not developed when Quran was written at prophet’s time ?
Badar : Hence, whatever was written at prophet’s time was according to the script, they knew. Lots of time when we read the script of our language actually we are not reading. This is due; we already have templates in our mind. Lot of time we do not see our mistakes in script despite reading those several times; just because we have correct template in our minds already.
Hence, the addition was done by people to preserve and express the concepts as those were present in spoken language. They also wrote explanations of these additions.
Mubashir : In this case we might have many different Editions and which is not the case. Changing text to keep concept intact?? If at all this was required Do you think Prophet was unaware to this ?
Badar : So let us try to understand it as it is. If the meanings that come out apeal reason and logic and are Universal enough take them.
Mubashir : Agree, process of decoding is on the way.
Badar : Based upon this it is certain that the Quran we have is not exactly the same as was written at time of prophet. In fact, if we were to somehow get that Quran, it would be incomprehensible today.
Mubashir : Not exactly it cant be certain based upon conveyed reasoning given its only good enough as food for thought process. Incomprehensible……. I think decoding can be done for anything even Egyptian scripts of Tota and Maina can be decoded
Badar : This leaves us with a burning question. Could there have been mistakes in this whole process. Certainly there could have been. Hence, while trying to understand things one has to keep mind open for this possibility.
Mubashir : Agree we need to keep our minds open for all possibilities and with methodology of acceptance which has been initiated long back I think we are moving with astronomical speed.
Badar : Finally, I want to share that translation of this whole book is not be one man’s job. A team of dedicated people is required. Hence, if anyone really cares about humanity and this book; please come join hands with the work. Let us work as team, leaving our personal interest aside.
Mubashir : Agree would love to see a panel of all scholars being together and work for this.
Note : Sometimes unknowingly we only see what our eyes want to see.
With no intension to offend or defend few questions, concerns and suggestions for a healthy discussion……….
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 1/14/2011 |
(Nobody ever stopped you from posting.) by aurangzaib
Of course not!
In fact Aastana is like a second home for me where I can express those of my thoughts which I never was able to share anywhere else. Where I can see true freedom of expression without any restriction and where there is all gain and no loss.
The reason why I avoided to post is just the lack of my knowledge in this particular field. In fact I never realized the significance of grammatical analysis before, but thanks to you and brother Badar that I can now feel how important it is to know the grammatical aspects of Arabic language in order to comprehend a masterpiece. If I would've had half of the intellect and knowledge as you or brother Badar posses, I could've been participating in this grammatical analysis quite actively. Unfortunately this is not the case, therefore I am just a spectator on this thread, trying to learn from whatever you guys are posting.
(though he, and I am sorry to say that, seems unfavorably disposed to Brother Badar's contribution.) by aurangzaib
I do have a slight disagreement here. As far as I have noticed, Brother Damon has always been positive in his discussions. I am sure Brother Damon is also trying to avoid unnecessary discussion just like I am doing, giving Brother Badar more chance to concentrate on the main topic.
Now I would like to share my concern;
(Badar : This leaves us with a burning question. Could there have been mistakes in this whole process. Certainly there could have been. Hence, while trying to understand things one has to keep mind open for this possibility. )
Brother Badar, your point has raised another question in my mind regarding whether these mistakes were Intentional or unintentional. Don't you think a deliberate change could also be a possibility? That makes the situation quite dangerous isn't it?
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/14/2011 |
Brother Junaid, please do not under estimate yourself. Most humans have the capacity to do what they like to do. They just need to apply themselves to the task at hand. You shall find yourself more capable then any of us soon.; if you were to decide to apply to the task.
"Brother Badar, your point has raised another question in my mind regarding whether these mistakes were Intentional or unintentional. Don't you think a deliberate change could also be a possibility? That makes the situation quite dangerous isn't it? "
Badar: I do not claim to know the people’s intentions. To know the intentions of dead people is even harder. I only look upon the evidence to decide. In respect to question you are asking. I would simply say evidence is not strong enough at this time for me to judge the intentions of people of the past, one way or the other.
Dear Brother Mubashir,
Mubashir : The supporting example you considered I think is not good enough to prove your concern. Do you mean language was not developed when Quran was written at prophet’s time ?
Badar: Languages are oral phenomenon as well natural, mean we are born with ability to express ourselves via language. No doubt, it was a complete language. However, written depiction of the language is not a natural thing. It is developed by humans later. Hence, script was not there in full form and shape. This notion is supported by the fact, that to date; no other legible written document is available, before Quran. There are only few inscriptions on stone etc. But experts can not even fully comprehend these. Hence, only legible document available of the said language is Quran; therefore, it is this written representation of the spoken language that continued to evolve later.
Simultaneously, the spoken language continued to change to another different language. (if you are interested further, I be happy to share references to help understand further).
Mubashir : In this case we might have many different Editions and which is not the case. Changing text to keep concept intact?? If at all this was required Do you think Prophet was unaware to this ?
Badar: This is not what history tells us. Did not Hazrat Usman burn all other copies? Ever thought why he did it?
Additionally, just look at the links above for Gold Quran or link by Brother Damon. Does it look like the same edition that we have today?
Mubashir : Not exactly it cant be certain based upon conveyed reasoning given its only good enough as food for thought process. Incomprehensible……. I think decoding can be done for anything even Egyptian scripts of Tota and Maina can be decoded
Badar: What I mean is only if were to have it by itself. However, if we were to use all irrabs and marks and rules to track it back. Yes we can.
Mubashir: Note : Sometimes unknowingly we only see what our eyes want to see.
Badar: Please, just add to this "eyes do not see, what mind does not know".
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/14/2011 |
Badar: Languages are oral phenomenon as well natural, mean we are born with ability to express ourselves via language. No doubt, it was a complete language. However, written depiction of the language is not a natural thing. It is developed by humans later. Hence, script was not there in full form and shape. This notion is supported by the fact, that to date; no other legible written document is available, before Quran. There are only few inscriptions on stone etc. But experts can not even fully comprehend these. Hence, only legible document available of the said language is Quran; therefore, it is this written representation of the spoken language that continued to evolve later.
Simultaneously, the spoken language continued to change to another different language. (if you are interested further, I be happy to share references to help understand further).
Mubashir : Well without depiction or written form can a language be complete?….for me with my meager understanding this doesn’t appeal to me as logic.
No other legible written document is available before quran….good point. Need to really do ponder on this…….may be Islam has passed through many phases and very devastating history. Not sure if corruption was to level to wipe out any supporting documentation to complicate original context.
Badar: This is not what history tells us. Did not Hazrat Usman burn all other copies? Ever thought why he did it?
Additionally, just look at the links above for Gold Quran or link by Brother Damon. Does it look like the same edition that we have today?
Mubashir : Anything from history would be our conjectural logic acceptance on available data. In all the possible scenarios ultimately we all have same book in our hand I mean we all got similar text now( don’t we ?) the current form which is universal as said by M.N.Khalid where did it evolve from? which year?
Would appreciate if you can continue comments on originality of text under another question which was initiated sometime back under below link.
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=32&QID=814
Anyways message is important, and message would remain same….so lets offend or defend message………….what say ?
Badar: What I mean is only if were to have it by itself. However, if we were to use all irrabs and marks and rules to track it back. Yes we can.
Mubashir : Would request you to put in your valuable comments if you have any other interpretation presented for any of the verse by Dr Qamar. I can always see him inviting people to negate/correct him based on grammar.
I would initiate a question to have your valuable opinion on few terms which we recently understood or in process of understanding.
Request you to present your case for everything whether you differ or inline with translation/understanding. We can convince or get convinced if not then we might have two case studies for truth to prevail. As Bro Aurangzaib already conveyed it would be great to have parallel thoughts even if we differ. Let TRUTH alone prevail not Personality or Ego.
Badar: Please, just add to this "eyes do not see, what mind does not know".
Mubashir : We only see what our eyes want to see and eyes do not see, what mind does not know…………this implies to ALL ( Including you and me )
Note : Sometimes I fear people with good knowledge are intoxicated so its tough for them to understand. ( Hope you are not intoxicated, I don’t know you beyond your posts on aastana but just wanted to convey my fears before hand ).
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 1/14/2011 |
Mubashir: Note : Sometimes I fear people with good knowledge are intoxicated so its tough for them to understand. ( Hope you are not intoxicated, I don’t know you beyond your posts on aastana but just wanted to convey my fears before hand ).
Badar: Please consider me an ordinary person. Like any other Joe in your neighborhood. Neither, I am a person of great knowledge, nor do I aspire to be one.
Mubashir: Would request you to put in your valuable comments if you have any other interpretation presented for any of the verse by Dr Qamar. I can always see him inviting people to negate/correct him based on grammar.
I would initiate a question to have your valuable opinion on few terms which we recently understood or in process of understanding.
Badar: Would be very happy.
Mubashir : We only see what our eyes want to see and eyes do not see, what mind does not know…………this implies to ALL ( Including you and me )
Badar: Brother, how did you get the impression that I have excluded myself?
Mubashir: Anyways message is important, and message would remain same….so lets offend or defend message………….what say ?
Badar: This is what I have been contending all along. Let us not worry to count the trees let us eat the Mangos. We have the book in hand let us not worry how we got it. But first try to understand it. What is written in it?
Mubashir: Well without depiction or written form can a language be complete?….for me with my meager understanding this doesn’t appeal to me as logic.
Badar: Dear Mubashir, if I were to share this piece of information that according to Ethnologue (www.ethnologue.com). There are at least 6909 spoken languages at present time. However, even today out of these, only 200’s natives are used to seeing their languages on paper. Others are perfectly fine languages and their natives do not miss anything. Would this help any?
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/15/2011 |
Mubashir: Note : Sometimes I fear people with good knowledge are intoxicated so its tough for them to understand. ( Hope you are not intoxicated, I don’t know you beyond your posts on aastana but just wanted to convey my fears before hand ).
Badar: Please consider me an ordinary person. Like any other Joe in your neighborhood. Neither, I am a person of great knowledge, nor do I aspire to be one.
Mubashir : Truly happy hear these words.
I would initiate a question to have your valuable opinion on few terms which we recently understood or in process of understanding.
Badar: Would be very happy.
Mubashir : Done, we are listening…….
Badar: Brother, how did you get the impression that I have excluded myself?
Mubashir : Am a bit keen on how people react to words, you asked to add something before acknowledging which created doubts of intoxication. Thanks for clearing.
Badar: This is what I have been contending all along. Let us not worry to count the trees let us eat the Mangos. We have the book in hand let us not worry how we got it. But first try to understand it. What is written in it?
Mubashir : I agree with you lets first try to understand it. Please allow to suggest something which is not beyond what you know but for my satisfaction would like to convey something which implies to all.
“ Its not necessary that someone might understand a concept in one or two dialog exchange or when something is discussed.( correct me if am wrong here ). There might be difference of opinion so I think we should give time for people of understanding to absorb and accept after a good analysis and impacted areas. Am optimistic that for rational thinkers truth will reach hearts for sure but it might take some time to people like me who are a bit slow learners. “
Badar: Dear Mubashir, if I were to share this piece of information that according to Ethnologue (www.ethnologue.com). There are at least 6809 spoken languages at present time. However, even today out of these, only 200’s natives are used to seeing their languages on paper. Others are perfectly fine languages and their natives do not miss anything. Would this help any?
Mubashir : Yes it did helped a bit, but got some more reasonable questions. Let me consider one of those here with an example. Is it possible to have shayeri of Allama IQBAL without having urdu on paper and undefined/incomplete grammar for urdu before his sayings?
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 1/15/2011 |
“ Its not necessary that someone might understand a concept in one or two dialog exchange or when something is discussed.( correct me if am wrong here ). There might be difference of opinion so I think we should give time for people of understanding to absorb and accept after a good analysis and impacted areas. Am optimistic that for rational thinkers truth will reach hearts for sure but it might take some time to people like me who are a bit slow learners. “
Badar: Dear Mubashir, the meanings which come out of the book really shakes the ground under ones feet. One feels like that whole world is gone dark. Then one also feels disbelief, how could we have been so wrong? These were at least my feelings. Certainly, everybody has his/her own threshold. That is why, I say it important to work together on this task for number reasons
1. All who will participate shall own and know this understanding first hand.
2. It will expedite the whole work; which is really needed and needed soon, due where humanity is heading.
3. It shall decrease the risk of mistakes significantly.
4. Finally it will safeguard the work and its continuation. Even if few people are not around, just to name a few.
Allama would have still done everything, even if there was no writing system developed for Urdu. Just we wouldn't be able to read and get benefit now. Luckily, at the time of Iqbal Urdu's script was well developed and has not been an issue. Please do not compare the time of 1400 years ago with 70 years ago. Human race has progressed a lot since.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/15/2011 |
Dear bkanwar2,
I was following this wonderful discussion until your post dated 14 January 2011 as under brought a
a turmoil in my mind.
"One misconception, which is based upon the belief that Quran is unchanged and Rabb has guaranteed its preservation. Hence, the printed book of Quran today is exactly same as at the prophet’s time. This notion is far from being true. It is impossible. Why? Just imagine yourself. Did you learn to write in one day? Is the script you write today is same that you wrote as 1st or 2nd grader. Obviously not, everybody learned to write overtime. Imagine, if there was nobody who knew, how to write your language. Would you be able to learn all this writing even in your life time? Impossible, isn’t. Similarly, like we learn to write over years. It took different groups of people, having different languages as a whole, to develop script for writing, over even longer time"
I would like to know more on this subject please continue your discussion.
| Comments by: momin | On: 1/15/2011 |
For example force of gravity is the same forever. Even before it was understood and defined. Once understood now it's description is also written in books of physics. But is this principle dependent on these books only. No, anybody who wants to understand it can do at his own without these books.
Similarly the Universal principles of our conduct appear to be preserved in this book called Quran; But these principles are not dependent on it. Anybody can understand them and adopt them. In Modern times, when American constitution says, "all men are equal, freedom of religion and speech for all". Haven’t Americans discovered these principles at their own? They do not believe in Quran nor do they understand it. But yet they were able to discover these Principles of conduct understand and adopt these. These principles are unchanging.
However, script of language is a human learned skilled. It is not innate. You would never see any kid writing without being taught how to write. However most kids do start speaking at their own without being taught. In fact they develop most of the language before going to school.
Similarly the preservation of Quran was done by human. They used the writing skills they knew at the time. As they continue to learn, how to write better. The script changed. Please realize this is not necessarily under any malice. It is part of natural evolution of written language.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/15/2011 |
1. By now we know Creator has got fixed laws which he wont change. so preservation of anything has to be done by humans with a process. ( No Miracles)
2. And what does this verse really have to say we may be able to understand in sometime. May be it deals with preservation of the message which no one can change it remains in nature in any of the form.
3. Anything from history would be a logic assumption based on our belief. So trying to defend originality of text merely based on tradional understanding of this verse would not be appropiate. An UNBIASED research without any pre conceived belief and understanding of message might help.
Just 2 cents from my side not sure if makes sense to anyone........please post to correct or enhance my thought process.........
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 1/15/2011 |
Brother Mubashir, your 2 cents makes a lot of sense to me:)
However, it makes me think about the fact that if, if and if any changes have been made (intentionally or unintentionally) what kind of changes could those be and what could be the impact?
(A question which cannot be answered so easily)
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/15/2011 |
2. And what does this verse really have to say we may be able to understand in sometime. May be it deals with preservation of the message which no one can change it remains in nature in any of the form.
3. Anything from history would be a logic assumption based on our belief. So trying to defend originality of text merely based on tradional understanding of this verse would not be appropiate. An UNBIASED research without any pre conceived belief and understanding of message might help.
Badar: Dear brother you are capable of understanding things far more than you want to admit publicly. The only way to find out as it is said in Urdu, Milk separate from water is to translate this book. Utilizing a methodology, with all available rules of language and applying to the text, without worrying about these issues. I can share with you from personal firsthand experience. The more I learn the language and apply it to the text. The more profound the text meaning starts to get. Although, most is in complete opposition to my own personal held beliefs that I was brought up with. But I know for a fact that basis of my parents beliefs for sure was not founded in real knowledge. Instead they believed, what they were told.
To team Aastana: My humble few suggestions.
1. If it is possible, can we have few simultaneous threads on this forum? One where, I can keep adding my humble linguistic translation as I progress.
2. Couple of threads, one for posting the grammatical break down and question related to the break down.
3. Finally, one for all these issues of historical importance, language development and script development etc. All of these are important enterprises by themselves. In fact every one of the area needs serious and unbiased research. Hence, we need to progress simultaneously on all avenues. A team of people would again work well. People can pick and choose the area of their interest to work on and share their research.
Any suggestions/additions would be greatly appreciated. If these ideas are something against Aastana's policy; I would completely understand it as well.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/15/2011 |
Like brother Momin, I too find your posts thought provoking. I am nobody here , however I would be
very glad if your suggestion is accepted by aastana team.
| Comments by: pervez | On: 1/15/2011 |
Brother Qamar wrote:
Similarly the Universal principles of our conduct appear to be preserved in this book called Quran; But these principles are not dependent on it. Anybody can understand them and adopt them. In Modern times, when American constitution says, "all men are equal, freedom of religion and speech for all". Haven’t Americans discovered these principles at their own? They do not believe in Quran nor do they understand it.
But isn't this translation done by you:
Surah 1:1 بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
This is the timeless sign conveying the knowledge from the One, who is not a deity for worship and adoration. ABOUT the abundant and effortless state of life that mankind cannot conceive by themselves, from your sustainer and maintainer. The greatest mercy: from the One.
Surah 1:2 الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
The DECREE: for all width and breadth of land, on account of the One, who is not a deity for worship and adoration. One rearing, fostering, nourishing and accomplishing all created beings, capable of acquiring knowledge.
Surah 1:3 الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The abundant and effortless state of life, that mankind cannot conceive of by themselves, from your sustainer and maintainer. The greatest mercy from One-
I am confused.
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/15/2011 |
Verse 6:19 says Allah is 'ilaahoon waahidoon'. What do you think of this?
قل اي شئ اكبر شهادة قل الله شهيد بيني وبينكم واوحي الي هذا القران لانذركم به ومن بلغ ائنكم لتشهدون ان مع الله الهة اخري قل لا اشهد قل انما هو اله واحد وانني بري مما تشركون
Say (O Messenger), “What could be the greatest witness?” Say, “Allah is Witness between me and you. This Qur’an has been revealed to me so that I may warn you as well as whomever it reaches. Do you bear witness that there are other gods besides Allah?” Say, “I bear no such witness.” Say, “He is the One God. I disown what you associate with Him.”
Doesn't it clearly state that Allah is "ilahoon wahidoon" meaning "One God"!
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 1/15/2011 |
"Brother Qamar wrote:
Similarly the Universal principles of our conduct appear to be preserved in this book called Quran; But these principles are not dependent on it. Anybody can understand them and adopt them. In Modern times, when American constitution says, "all men are equal, freedom of religion and speech for all". Haven’t Americans discovered these principles at their own? They do not believe in Quran nor do they understand it."
This was written by me, not by Dr. Qamar.
I need to understand your question as well confusion in very clear words before responding. Otherwise my response might lead to further confusion.
The translations you have posted are certainly done by me in the past. These were based upon on only certain established and forgotten principles of language, without taking into account a lot of other grammatical rules. These translations are same as present at www.servantofthelight.com. I already indicated in response to Nargis2 above that by no means these should be considered final. If you still have any further confusion, please do not hesitate to express your concerns.
Dear Brother, Naushad, please understand my stance that I have stated several times above. Quran is a book that nobody understands. What I mean to imply by this notion is that the understandings of Quran presented in public domain are not according to linguistic rules. Hence, to bring something from what I have already, based upon evidence rejected as incorrect, is not helpful for me. Please, either present your understanding with grammatical rules; or ask the person whose translation you are presenting to give you the breakdown of any verse. Just like I am giving it here. Only then it could be a fair comparison based upon established rules.
Otherwise, this translation remains belief of the given person. Which by definition is just a mere opinion, not the knowledge. We need evidence to consider this as knowledge. The evidence of Linguistic rules applied for this comprehension.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/15/2011 |
Verse 6:19 clearly challanges your interpretation of "Allah". If you do not agree with the translation of ilahoon-w-wahidoon, please share with the forum your interpretation of this verse. What is your translation of verse 6:19?
Please do not circumvent or skirt the question. Enough questions have been left unanswered in this thread. Going by your own explanations above, it is clear that you interpret the word 'ilah' as God (deity for worship and adoration- as per your understanding). The verse contains plural of ilah (......alihatan......) and then goes on to declare that Allah is "ilahoon-w-wahidoon".
You say that Allah is 'the One who is not ilah' which is clearly an opposite of the idea propagated in this verse. You cannot close your eyes to this important aspect being pointed out here. Since you are questioning the most basic understanding, and you can be completely flawed, it is in the interest of everyone that all ideas pertaining to Allah, which are described in the quran, be analyzed and discussed. You have to scrutinize your interpretation in the light of internal evidence from the quran itself.
I would also request Dr. Zaman and others to research on this verse. We do not want to reach a skewed understanding just because someone without the knowledge of spoken language is quoting man made grammatical rules to prove a point. I find myself agreeing with Damon on this. He could be of great aid to this discussion if he continues to put his points forward.
I again request Badar to address this point clearly and directly.
Naushad
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 1/16/2011 |
For the record and clarification for all; I have never ever talked, seen or met Dr. Zaman. So personally, I do not even see a shadow of bias on his part for this task.
Does it sound fair enough deal?
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/16/2011 |
Junaid : However, it makes me think about the fact that if, if and if any changes have been made (intentionally or unintentionally) what kind of changes could those be and what could be the impact?
(A question which cannot be answered so easily)
Mubashir : Oh Gosh you are right this a million dollar question it really wont be easy.
1. If and only if this is the case I have a gut feeling that rational interpretation of this book will convey the message ( may be am being emotional here but optimistic )
2. More work to do by looking into all possibilities to get Maximum Message from Quran.
3. We might loose out support from some of the rationally thinking brothers on the way to truth.
4. Another diversion of two streams from this level of understanding. ( Those who would agree and those who wont )
5. Much more difficulty in making traditional brothers understand.
6. Few more sleepless nights.
A very short list which I could think of on a fly…….. Never thought would be discussing this Agenda at this early stage of our understanding…………
Note : With gingerly crossed fingers……..but a stable mindset for TRUTH.
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 1/16/2011 |
I started writing to brother Qamar first then realised I need to address this issue first and forgot to change the name to brother BADAR :)
Anyway what I wrote other than your name is very clear and what matters is brother now you are saying that what you insisted on back then (some three years ago) and REFUSED to listen to anybody, was wrong! Thats fair enough.
And if you can remember I told you that you should put your translation somewhere else and you would know in time if you are doing wrong because even if you make this book impossible to understand one thing is for sure and that is , IT's NOT illogical and any wrong translation will create contradiction in the meaning.
So lets see where this goes now. Hope after three more years you would not be back to bismillah again.
jazakAllah
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 1/16/2011 |
Badar : One misconception, which is based upon the belief that Quran is unchanged and Rabb has guaranteed its preservation. Hence, the printed book of Quran today is exactly same as at the prophet’s time. This notion is far from being true. It is impossible. Why? Just imagine yourself. Did you learn to write in one day? Is the script you write today is same that you wrote as 1st or 2nd grader. Obviously not, everybody learned to write overtime. Imagine, if there was nobody who knew, how to write your language. Would you be able to learn all this writing even in your life time? Impossible, isn’t. Similarly, like we learn to write over years. It took different groups of people, having different languages as a whole, to develop script for writing, over even longer time.
What is script? It is a written depiction of all spoken language. The languages are very complex phenomenon. Hence, representation of all these complexities needs to be reflected in script.
Badar : Hence, whatever was written at prophet’s time was according to the script, they knew. Lots of time when we read the script of our language actually we are not reading. This is due; we already have templates in our mind. Lot of time we do not see our mistakes in script despite reading those several times; just because we have correct template in our minds already.
Hence, the addition was done by people to preserve and express the concepts as those were present in spoken language. They also wrote explanations of these additions.
Badar : So let us try to understand it as it is. If the meanings that come out apeal reason and logic and are Universal enough take them.
Badar : Based upon this it is certain that the Quran we have is not exactly the same as was written at time of prophet. In fact, if we were to somehow get that Quran, it would be incomprehensible today.
Badar : This leaves us with a burning question. Could there have been mistakes in this whole process. Certainly there could have been. Hence, while trying to understand things one has to keep mind open for this possibility.
| Comments by: moazzam | On: 1/16/2011 |
Last January, you had posted your interpretation of Allah on another forum. There too, I had asked you to reflect on 6:19. You didn't respond then too. That is why I am asking for a clear and direct response. Don't worry, I am not going to run to someone, that's not my way :) I seek the truth and that's it. Nobody is infallible so I don't consider anyone as a final authority. The request to Dr. Zaman & other capable persons to partake in the search is obviously for well intended reasons.
Coming to the discussion, why don't you address the point that I have raised. Let's not move in circles. Let us find the truth from the quran itself. Please provide your translation of 6:19.
Naushad
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 1/16/2011 |
Brother Moazzam: Dear Participants ! Although the grammars and lexicon plays important role to understand the quranic script, but TASREEF AL AYAT are more important to understand the true sense of this ALKITAB( as directed by Allah).
Badar: I am going to take this statement head on. I made remarks in passing before in response to Brother Aurangzaib. Although, I do not want to offend people; at the same time due seriousness of issues at hand one cannot just try to be only politically right. Additionally, so far my assessment about Astana’s team is the objective here is to understand Quran only, without any biases. I hope, I do not turn out to be wrong in my assessment as I have been in the past.
It appears that member here have big influence by Late G.A Pervaiz. I have read some of his work and use his Lughat-ul-Quran, regularly and as needed. Indeed a great mind and scholar. Unfortunately was limited by place and time, he was born. Furthermore, he was contained by religious Vultures in his pursuit for the truth of real message.
However, with due respect I beg to differ with the great departed soul in one of his main approachs to understand the message. Which is TASREEF AL AYAT? This whole logic is basically flawed. It is called circular logic in terms of logic. Let me explain with simple example, from Prof. Jesse Hall a professor of Philosophy of religion.
Prof. Hall in one of his lectures quoted an incident from his student in class.
Student: Professor, I know for sure that there is god.
Prof: let us settle this question today, because I have been worrying for this myself for years.
Student: Professor, it is very simple. God does not lie and Bible is god’s words and it says there is god. It is as simple as this.
Right here is an excellent example of circular logic. The problem with circular logic is that it’s form is perfect. It serves well the held beliefs, but its premises are wrong. If one starts off with wrong premises. It will only lead to wrong conclusions.
Dear brother, I have already indicated several times that current translation is mostly incorrect according to linguistic rules. We can only apply Tasreef, if these translations were mostly correct. I have shown these to be incorrect with examples above. That was the very purpose of whole exercise.
Again I didn’t mean to offend anybody or intended an insult to people of the past. Since being truthful, to best my knowledge, is the criteria I have set for myself, I had to say this much.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar1 | On: 1/16/2011 |
Badar: I am going to take this statement head on. I made remarks in passing before in response to Brother Aurangzaib. Although, I do not want to offend people; at the same time due seriousness of issues at hand one cannot just try to be only politically right.
Additionally, so far my assessment about Astana team's objective are to understand Quran only without any biases. I hope, I do not turn out to wrong in my assessment as I have been in the past.
It appears that member here have big influence by Late G.A Pervaiz. I have read some of his work and use his Lughat-ul-Quran, regularly and as needed. Indeed a great mind and scholar. Unfortunately was limited by place and time, he was born. Furthermore, he was contained by religous Vultures in his pursuit for the truth of real message.
However, with respect I beg to differ from the great departed soul in one of his main approach to understand the message. Which is TASREEF AL AYAT? This whole logic is basically flawed. It is called circular logic in terms of logic. Let me explain with simple example, from Prof. Jesse Hall a professor of Philosophy of religion.
Prof. Hall in one of his lectures quoted an incident from his student in class.
Student: Professor, I know for sure that there is god.
Prof: let us settle this question today, because I have been worrying for this myself for years.
Student: Professor, it is very simple. God does not lie and bible is god’s words and it says there is god.
Right here is an excellent example of circular logic. The problem with circular logic is that it’s form is perfect. It serves well the held beliefs, but its premises are wrong. If one starts off with wrong premises. It will only lead to wrong conclusions.
Dear brother, I have already indicated several times that current translation is mostly incorrect according to linguistic rules. We can only apply Tasreef, if these translations were mostly correct. I have shown these to be incorrect with examples above. That is the very purpose of whole the exercise.
Again I didn’t mean to offend anybody or intended an insult to people of the past. Since being truthful, to best my knowledge, is the criteria I have set for myself. I had to say this much.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar1 | On: 1/16/2011 |
Badar
(Now we have 3 of same posts. Could somebody from the team delete above number 1 and this one just leaving #2 only as I have done edits in # 2 , address to Brother Moazzam. I do not see an option to delete. Thanks)
| Comments by: bkanwar1 | On: 1/16/2011 |
Firstly I would like to apologise for my belated response to your statements regarding Allah. We are all here to broaden our perspectives and absorb knowledge! As “life long students” we are in a continuous mode of ascertaining the truth.
Stages of our understanding are ever increasing, and as more and more findings occur, we can only anticipate what we are to unravel next!
If one uncovers a theory, one has the right to present his or her case. We are here to work collectively to find out whether the findings are relevant or not. However, the individual who presents their ideas must provide supporting evidence to ensure the claims made are not defective.
If the ideas presented do not fit into the context of the Quran, then we must continue our efforts, not dwell on what has happened.
Bkanwar2 / Damon, I must admit the analysis and etymological detail you have provided has left me bewildered.
Damon, you have stated that the word Allah cannot be a combination of the article “Al” and “ilah” as the alif in the suffix “ilah” of the word is not present and being a strong noun alif cannot be displaced. It is also argued that if Allah was a combination of al and ilah it would be written as al- ilah and not Allah. Please could you explain the role of alif and the shadaah situated above the middle letter “lam”.
Please can you explain what اللَّهِ is? And whether the word itself is a strong noun or not, is it classified as a definite or indefinite noun? Is tanween ever used with the word Allah? I know you have said not to be perplexed by cases but in this case (ignore the pun ;) purely accidental) what is it? Does the noun decline?
Bkanwar2 – So what you’re saying is that the article “Al” when added to another word forms a proper noun (as al kitab), but in the case of اللَّهِ it is not a proper noun instead it is a combination of words, a possible noun phrase?
For arguments sake, let’s agree that the alif is displaced in 4:7 as the preposition “lee” takes form... so to back your theory that the article "Al" is an abbreviation of Alladhi... could you provide evidence as to where such phrases such as Allah are used elsewhere within the Quran as you have suggested.
If Allah is a phrase that means “One who is not illah”, please could you please translate the beginning section of Aya 59:23
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ
Could you also explain how you adopted the words adoration and worship to (what you refer to as) the phrase Allah?
| Comments by: William | On: 1/16/2011 |
William: could you provide evidence as to where such phrases such as Allah are used elsewhere within the Quran as you have suggested.
Badar: This question is being raised by few others. I am working on it. But in the mean time my logical question to all those asking this Question would be show me another word in the Quran that has Orthographical shape and structure like اللّهُ. One that is impossible to type even with the most sophisticated keyboards of the language. It is unique isn’t.
William: could you explain how you adopted the words adoration and worship to (what you refer to as) the phrase Allah?
Badar: I might not be understanding, your question fully; but from what I am understanding is already written above in the breakdown of word Allah. A deity for adoration and worship is the lexical meanings of word “illah”, from Lane’s lexicon. Allah is really a sentence, not a phrase. I used this term of phrase loosely and before I understood, what sentences are in the language.
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ
He is Allah. Who shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except, he is who has dominion”.
(Thanks to Rabb right here the “Al” of الْمَلِكُ cannot be taken as definite article but as a contraction for Allathi would make understanding more fluent).
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/17/2011 |
Now you are stating that الْمَلِكُ is a sentence too?
Lane has stated that where a preposition "lee" is used it may be in reference to Allathi, however this is for certain occurrences only - also this claim has not been verified as being syntactically accurate.
You yourself have stated that “Al” is a particle “The” in ألكِتْابُ
Why then is this not a contraction of Allathi?
If “ilah” had a “lexical” meaning which was “A deity for adoration and worship” this would suggest that there can be many deities that could be worshiped?
However, if you’re able to provide proof of this, then I will await your response.
Also, “lexical” meanings provide a usage or purpose for a word, they are not necessarily abbreviated sentences! For instance, the word “Deen”, which cannot be translated as a direct word into English, therefore it has to be explained – it is a system of life!
To state that a word represents a sentence is linguistically unheard of!
Your translation of the aya is accurate in accordance to your suggested system of abstracting compound-morphemes, yet it makes little or no sense!
Your translation: “He is Allah. Who shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except, he is who has dominion”
This would suggest that he who “should not be adored or worshiped” CAN be “adored or worshiped” if he achieved power and status legally.
Does this conform to the themes of the Quran?
| Comments by: William | On: 1/17/2011 |
Allah as in GOD, Law of God, Creator, Who is not GOD ( thanx to Momin's research ), Sovereign System/Supreme authority, An appealing word selected by Prophet to convey message to people, A third person imaginary voice which is generally used in dramatization ( for example Big brother, Big Boss, Main Samay hoon if you happen to see mahabharat on TV )
Note : Most of them might doesnt make any sense at all to anyone ( including me ) yet.
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 1/17/2011 |
"Badar : One misconception, which is based upon the belief that Quran is unchanged and Rabb has guaranteed its preservation. Hence, the printed book of Quran today is exactly same as at the prophet’s time. This notion is far from being true. It is impossible. Why? Just imagine yourself. Did you learn to write in one day? Is the script you write today is same that you wrote as 1st or 2nd grader. Obviously not, everybody learned to write overtime. Imagine, if there was nobody who knew, how to write your language. Would you be able to learn all this writing even in your life time? Impossible, isn’t. Similarly, like we learn to write over years. It took different groups of people, having different languages as a whole, to develop script for writing, over even longer time."
1. What you are saying is that the BOOK, Al-QURAN that we have with us today is not the same as was written/documented by the Messenger of Allah some 1400+ years ago? Am I right, brother? How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have an evidence to conclusively prove your statement? If your evidence is the same that presented in response to Br. Damon elsewhere on this forum, then I must say, its an extremely weak argument. Since you seem to be fully convinced on this issue, I presume you have a stronger evidence. I would therefore request you to present your evidence to the forum participants.
2. The argument in the above paragraph that you presented to prove your point in 1) above leads me (a below average IQ person) to conclude that (a) there were different group of people having different languages at the time and that they developed the script of writing gradually? It also implies that the written script at the time was either in its infancy or was non-existent? Am I right to conclude this? How did you conclude that this is/was true? Again, I am coming back to request you the same...EVIDENCE. We must be guided by evidence to conclude something?
3. By the logic you presented above, we must have new Quran every few hundred years? You are not entertaining an iota of doubt that people could copy verbatim? This kind of conviction is called "faith-based," meaning you have already made up your mind that it is so? I would stand corrected, if you present the evidence to support your conviction.
4. Finally, and this one is more important: If it is not the same AL-QURAN that was revealed to the Messenger of Allah, then why bother to understand it and translate it? Its already changed/edited/modified, adulterated....? Further, then what is the difference between the Quran, Bukhari, Muslim, etc? I must say, I have uneasy feelings about the route that you want to take us all to? I hope and request you once more, please present your evidence in detail for all of us to understand and appreciate your efforts and point of view.
| Comments by: dawood | On: 1/17/2011 |
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ
He is Allah. Who never was/is/shall be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except he is who has dominion”.
Now if we were to replace word Allah by its meaning, it should read as following.
“He is One who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who never was/is/shall be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except he is who has dominion”.
William: Now you are stating that الْمَلِكُ is a sentence too?
Badar: No only thing I have said that “Al” here is a contraction for “Allathi” and if translated with meanings of “Allathi” like I did above. It flows better then definite article “Al”.
William: You yourself have stated that “Al” is a particle “The” in ألكِتْابُ
Why then is this not a contraction of Allathi?
Badar: Languages are developed as oral phenomenon first and later rules are found and written to explain languages. I was not present at either of those times. Hence, cannot answer lot of why question. This is how the people who wrote rules of the language, wrote these rules.
After ensuring that you do not feel I am inventing any new rules of language. Let me elaborate further with concrete examples. The language is full of examples where one word is used for different meanings as well written differently in different context.
For example word (ما) “Maa” can be a particle of negation or in a different context could a noun of interrogation. Similarly, its script shape can change to only (مَ) when written in combination with particle “Lee” as (لِمَ ).
William: Also, “lexical” meanings provide a usage or purpose for a word, they are not necessarily abbreviated sentences! For instance, the word “Deen”, which cannot be translated as a direct word into English, therefore it has to be explained – it is a system of life!
Badar: I feel your example is irrelevant for the discussion. Additionally, I do not agree the meanings that you are presenting. This word is one of the most misunderstood word like many othes. However, its meanings are different in different context. Please wait to see, first meanings of this word; if I get a green light from team Aastana for my suggestions in translation of Al-Fathia.
William: This would suggest that he who “should not be adored or worshiped” CAN be “adored or worshiped” if he achieved power and status legally.
Badar: I do not get what you are trying to say? Please explain further.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/17/2011 |
I was reading a document regarding 7 reading or writing styles of Quran (probably another invention of Persian Imams). I found it a bit boring and added it in the queue (to be read later). Perhaps some of you might be interested in reading what it says. Please do let me know if it contains any useful info.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44529023/Quran-Was-Revealed-On-Seven-Readings-Qiraat-Enemies-Of-Allah-Told-A-Lie
My apologies in advance if this article is irrelevant or out of context.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/17/2011 |
I don't know who invented this concept, however I do need to ask one question here; (to whom it may concern)
Does it actually means "Allah" the one we know as "Lord of Universe" , "the creator", "the Owner" and "the only sovereign " is nothing but a force which is to be considered an effective authority only when it attains the status of power?
And what about the sentence " if he achieved power and status legally"? I mean is there an illegal way too?
Now I am getting seriously confused :(
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/17/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/17/2011 |
Brother Badar, that brings us both on the same wavelength :)
What so you say about Brother William's post I have quoted?
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/17/2011 |
Dr. Qamarzaman is doing much in the said field to coop up the flaws (over sighted by any mean), resultantly the true translation is being appeared to satisfy the quranists, with out SHAKING THE DIVINITY OF ALKITAB IN HAND. If suppose you are in position to justify your stance that “the Quran we have is not exactly the same as was written at time of prophet. In fact, if we were to somehow get that Quran, it would be incomprehensible today”
then please don’t hesitate to convince us rationally at this burning issue prior to go in translation of Qura’n . You will find no personality cult at this blog. If proven then i will be the 1st one to quit from this Aastana blog to not to waist my time any more at baseless book. Initially , start to discuss the quranic terms used in different verses in different subjects like Muslim, momin, fuhash,zina,slat,soum, hajj, Nisa, setan,malaika. as mostly been under discussion between the member of this blog.
| Comments by: moazzam | On: 1/17/2011 |
Who am I? I am an ordinary person like another in your neighborhood. I was born and raised in traditional Sunni family with a tilt towards Peeri/Faqari. I had all the beliefs that come with that background. I am very sure you are aware. Hence no detail is needed.
What do I believe now? The only belief I have is that Quran is the book that contains the solution to problems faced by humanity.
Now please remember. A belief is defined by language experts of English as mere opinion. Meaning I did not know for sure that it does contain such solution until very recently; when I understood, Al-Baqra 1 and 2.
What is the knowledge? It is something that we know. How do we get from believing, a mere opinion to knowing something, the knowledge? By bringing sound evidence.
Next question is how much evidence? It depends on everyone’s threshold. However, if one were to shoot for certainty. We will never have that in this world and one shall doom himself. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt is enough for me to move on to make decisions.
With this back ground, now let me address your concerns.
Am I certain that the current Quranic text is not the same as at the time of Prophet? No I am not.
Does the evidence I have satisfy the criteria of as being beyond reasonable doubt? Yes it is, at least for me.
What is the evidence?
1. Historical, Brother Aurangzaib is very familiar with this history of addition of Haarkat, irrabs and diacritical marks. He has posted elsewhere on this very forum. I need not repeating. My own research had already led me to same conclusions.
2. Archaeological evidence from old available Quranic Musaf in Public domain also confirms. Additionally, when Western experts examined these they didn’t come out blowing trumpets that Quran has changed. Despite some concerns about tempering of Sanna remains. Why?
3. Due scientific evidence, they already knew about it. What is that? That the scripts of languages have evolved over time. Hence, it is not an unusual case for Quran.
4. Finally, all grammar books I have and read are full of quotations for changing script (references could be provided, if needed).
Is this a certain evidence? No, is it reasonable evidence? Yes, for me it is. Do I feel, doomed based upon this that I will not be able understand Quran? No, not at all, I am aware of these facts. I keep these limitations in view while working upon the text.
Without letting this post to get too long; and hoping for, that I am able to clarify some confusions I created due wrong assumptions. Please let me know if you still have some concerns.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/17/2011 |
Regarding the word ألكِتْابُ I wanted to know what the rules were and how they differed from الْمَلِكُ and not necessarily why! I apologise for the confusion. Please can you therefore provide a comparison of the two words in reference to the article “Al”.
Regarding your translation to the beginning section of 59:23 - I paid exclusive attention, hence why I questioned it.
You state that without the word Allah, the sentence can stand alone; it is not dependent. I disagree, as the following words that come after هُوَ اللَّهُ are dependent upon a subject, as it is a nominative sentence. If هُوَ اللَّهُ was not present, the sentence would make little sense!
All the words present have value; otherwise their occurrence would be pointless within the discourse!
Your translation with the meaning of Allah included.
“He is One who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who never was/is/shall be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except he is who has dominion.”
Previously you did not have a variation of “was/is/shall” - previously you had written “shall” – hence the reason for my comments.
Nevertheless, even the revised translation that you have posted contradicts itself. The first segment of the sentence states no one to be adored or worshiped. However, the word “except” in the last segment would indicate a condition or clause... that everything prior to the last part of the sentence is to be dismissed if this occurs.
The translation you have presented appears to suggest that “one cannot be adored or worshiped except he who has dominion”. So what you are saying is, if I am elected to have power and status, you should adore and worship me!
This is the perception I am getting from the translation, it’s the way you have written it!
Please share your thoughts.
Regards
William
| Comments by: William | On: 1/17/2011 |
Let me just address question related to translation of the verse. Some of the concepts about irrabs, definitions of sentence etc., are discussed and elaborated above. So please try to abreast yourself, by reading. Furthermore, Ayas are not sentences and should not be treated as sentences. Otherwise, more confusion
In the verse above
هُوَ اللَّهُ is a complete sentence. (هُوَ) is Subject and (اللَّهُ) is the predicate of the sentence. A complete sentence by definition of said language. Now once we understand the component of sentence. One can translate into English as either “He is Allah” or even “Allah is he”. The next sentence is followed by an exceptive clause
الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ another sentence connected to previous sentence's subject, due Ismun Ishara, meaning "Who was/is/shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind", followed by exceptive clause describing further characteristics of the subject.
It is just like if were to describe you as “He is Bill. Who never shall become a employee of Cisco systems. Except he may like to work for them on contract”.
More sometimes later, with regards
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/18/2011 |
Sorry for my interruption once again!
(“He is One who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who never was/is/shall be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except he is who has dominion.” ) by william
Compared with;
(It is just like if were to describe you as “He is Bill. Who never shall become a employee of Cisco systems. Except he may like to work for them on contract”. ) by Badar
To me these two sentences look a bit different in context.
Let me try and reproduce the example quoted by Brother Badar.
He is Bill who never was/shall/is become an employee of Cisco systems. Except he is a free lancer.
Do you think it's correct?
If it is, then I can say that I have clearly understood Brother Badar's point
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/18/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/18/2011 |
The native can read his society's language very well, with out any diacritical marks (harakat,ira’b), like we can do “URDU.”. So, historical addition of Harakaat & iraab in Quran might be put for the foreigners (ajmies) for to ease the correct pronunciation for them, enev then divine message is safe by using TASREEF AL AYAAT TECHNIQUE as a instrument..
2:-The said archeological evidence ( tempring of sanaa)has no weight comparatively with available script in large. That might be the effort of some one individual, which could not get appreciation in masses.
Analogy: if your father was found some time with the strange dress, would it create doubts to be your father,(don’t mind)
3:-Yes we believe “? That the scripts of languages have evolved over time “ ,But in case of divine book (Alkitab) you have to bring very strong proof to convince the opponent.
4:- We also agree that “all grammar books are full of quotations for changing script “ .Mind : the Quraan is a divine book (la raiba fe) not like others man written books you quoted to compare with ( by research not by belief)
5:- As you are not certain with the evidence you provided, also this is not the reasonable evidence too.
6:- My advise to your honor : That you may draw the comparative table DOUBTS vs CERTAINTY of this Alkitab in hand, then discuss the doubts rationally / logically to convince the rationalist like Aastana members, your research work will highly be appreciated.
7:- As I told you in my previus post that “My inference is same as yours that “Current translation is mostly incorrect according to linguistic rules. We can only apply Tasreef, if these translations were mostly correct.
Dr. Qamarzaman is doing much in the said field to coop up the flaws (over sighted by any mean), resultantly the true translation is being appeared to satisfy the quranists, with out SHAKING THE DIVINITY OF ALKITAB IN HAND “
Please join hands with Dr Qamar ( in the field of grammar and lexiconic analysis) and cruise the fleet of Aastana in a direction it is already being threshed. FA TAHAJJUD BEHEE NAFILA TALLAK.
| Comments by: moazzam | On: 1/18/2011 |
translated to-He is Allah. Who shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except, he is who has dominion”.
Badar : to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran اللَّهِ is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathi الذي = who, La لا = not and finally illah اله. This would mean “One who is not illah”.
Badar: No only thing I have said that “Al” here is a contraction for “Allathi” and if translated with meanings of “Allathi” like I did above.
So
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ is actually
Allahthi allathi ?
you translated it to :-“He is One who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who never was/is/shall be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except he is who has dominion”.
Why is Allahthi written as Allah if it has the same meaning? Or why is Allah not written as allahthi if it means the same? And who were adored and worshipped Allah/thi, who did a meticulous attempt to worship and adore Allah, given that he tells them not to over and over again?
You might be right, but to me it doesn’t make any sense. Why repeat the same sentence in one aya with the change in is and was? If the actual word for Allah i Allahthi, and its used in the Quran, whats the point of writing Allah in a different way than what it is?
Then you said:
""Dear Junaid the only way he wants us to know him is as our Rabb= our sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher. At least, this is how much I have understood so far. In addition, he certainly does not want to be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Otherwise, he is as elusive as ever and shall remain so. ""
So if Allah and Rabb is the same thing, and he only want us to know Rabb as= our sustainer, maintainer foster and accomplisher, why are we told additional attributes of Allah than just being a maintainer, sustainer? shia sunni's found 99 attributes, remember?
And the word Allah, didn’t it exist before Islam? When the pagans used this word for their God Hubal, it actually meant he is not a diety for worship?
What language was the Quran written in to begin with? How developed was that language at the time? Was Arabic grammar introduced through the Quran?
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/18/2011 |
Please join hands with Dr Qamar ( in the field of grammar and lexiconic analysis) and cruise the fleet of Aastana in a direction it is already being threshed. FA TAHAJJUD BEHEE NAFILA TALLAK
Badar: I know this is what I am doing. Brother do you have any doubts about it?
Badar: Brother Moazzam, I do not want to assume anything further. For our discussion to continue; Could I ask one thing? Do you know or at least believe that all current translations of Quran available in public domain are mostly linguistically incorrect? Please share.
Nargis2 leaving for work shall get back to you as time permits.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar1 | On: 1/18/2011 |
Plz answer my six points written in above post to make me clear, I haven't any doubt about your sincerity,but your all above posted material made the Alkitab in hand (present script) doubtful.
| Comments by: moazzam | On: 1/18/2011 |
The Qur’an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and un grammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qur’an's eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings.
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/18/2011 |
Badar: Brother Moazzam, I do not want to assume anything further. For our discussion to continue; Could I ask one thing? Do you know or at least believe that all current translations of Quran available in public domain are mostly linguistically incorrect? Please share.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar1 | On: 1/18/2011 |
“He is Allah. Who shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except, he is who has dominion”.
Anyone reading the above sentence will deduce that “Allah” shall never be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. But then the next series of words state “EXCEPT, HE IS WHO HAS DOMINION”
Badar... your translation of the “exceptive sentence” is blatantly obvious, as to me it states that “Allah” can be adored and worshiped if he has dominion!
You then said that you wanted to make amendments to what you had written and posted a revised version of the translation which is:
“He is One who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who never was/is/shall be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. Except he is who has dominion”. (Junaid – this is not my translation... it’s Badar’s)
In this version, we still see that the exceptive clause is still visible: “Except he is who has dominion”
Any reader who reads this without any explanation will see that one can be adored and worshiped if he has dominion.
The example you provided of Bill working for cisco systems, was not relevant. Please provide an example which is more applicable, as you are not making sense at all! I’m sorry to say but the analogy you used was off the mark – the “exceptive sentence” classifies how the subject should be treated if terms are met.
Now to the point raised by Nargis... If Allah means “One who is not a deity for adoration and worship” what is the point of repeating this in the next sentence in a slightly varied format.
If Allah means one who is not a deity for adoration and worship – does this mean he is human and can be adored and worshiped if he has dominion?
Or
Allah is an individual or group, who should not be adored and worshiped, instead seen as sovereign authority?
If the latter (which makes more sense) is what you are referring to, why on earth would the sentence “who is not a deity for adoration and worship” need to be repeated hundreds of times? It’s not a name or title, yet it has attributes affixed to it in the manner rabb has? What does this mean?
Please explain what Allah is and what Rabb is.
Also Badar I would recommend that you to re-assess the manner in which you word things, or at least provide a solid explanation, as from what I have seen it confuses many people!
| Comments by: William | On: 1/18/2011 |
Nargis2: You might be right, but to me it doesn’t make any sense. Why repeat the same sentence in one aya with the change in is and was?
Badar: Unfortunately, I am not the author but just a trasnalator of this book. Additionally, I haven’t found and met with the author, yet. If I do meet him; I certainly will bounce this query of yours. However, if one were to look at the reality all around. Do not we find billions of people doing exactly opposite to what the author is saying? Not only are they doing opposite. They have changed very concept of this book back 180 degree opposite. What do you say? How many times a reminder would have been enough?
Nargis2: If the actual word for Allah i Allahthi, and its used in the Quran, whats the point of writing Allah in a different way than what it is?
Badar: Actual word is not Allah, it is a sentence. Actually, it is "Al" (written as contaction for Allathi) "La" :illah". Why it is written like this? Good question, text was decided by writers of the text, not the author and has documented evolution. Was it intentional or unintentional to write this sentence, this way? Judge for yourself.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/19/2011 |
First of all, I would like to mention that I am a very ordinary person, having a very limited level of intellect and a visitor on this forum in search of knowledge. Being a very ordinary person, I completely understand that I have no right to tell you all what to do and what not to. However, I would like to share my feelings here;
I can see an aggressive approach gradually building up in this discussion. I can understand that a very open stance by Badar regarding authenticity of Quran might be the reason why we all started scratching our heads. Just to let you all know that I was also pulling my own hair in a state of confusion and I was the first one who raised question against the theory presented by Badar. But then I realized that I have no authentic proof to defend my case and I couldn't find genuine historical reference to prove Badar wrong.
Our history has been distorted intentionally and it is the same history that tells us how Quran was recorded and preserved. Just for an example I can say that our historians and so called Imams gave us an entirely different picture of Islam but it was rejected by most of us on the basis of our research and analysis. However, we are still reluctant to reject the historic events produced by the same historians and Imams who tells us that Hazrat Umar (R) compiled the most authentic version of Quran and he ordered to burn all the other versions and copies. It is the same history which tells us that the Quran in our hands today was originated from that particular point during the era of Caliph Umar (R). How sure are we? Can anyone answer this with 100% authentic references?
My point is that if we think Badar is wrong, we must provide solid evidence in form of authentic references from our history to present our case. Otherwise our objection means nothing but criticism for the sake of criticism. In my opinion, we should leave this topic as it is and get back to the main discussion i.e grammatical analysis.
I consider myself a person with most inconsistent approach and my concepts are changing rapidly. I always had a feeling that Quran is very simple and easy to understand, while it's interpretation is not so difficult keeping in mind the very basic concepts of human welfare. However, having gone through this particular thread, I realized the importance of interpretation through grammatical analysis.
One has got every right to express difference of opinion and it reflects a positive and healthy discussion but we all must try and appreciate the efforts and hard work being put up by Badar even if we have a disagreement. We need to motivate others and appreciate their talent so that they could continue their work, no matter what they come up with. Hope you all will understand my feelings.
I am sorry if my words sound a bit harsh or if I made you angry. It was not my intention anyway.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/19/2011 |
Responses to a given argument or theory are not by any means made with any controversial intent, nor to ridicule its author. The simple fact is works are scrutinised in order to reach a solid conclusion and to avoid any spurious or erroneous declarations.
If an argument put forth makes little or no sense, it is the author’s responsibility to provide rational explanations, examples or a befitting hypothesis.
The reader’s purpose is not only to absorb the information presented, but inherits the role of critic; feedback regarding the composition is therefore provided.
Everyone in this forum encourages and welcomes insight into the Quranic message; we are all here to learn! If alternative models are presented, then sound reasoning and supporting evidence must also be presented.
In this case, the translation which you have submitted negates itself. I have tried to point this out to you - I have even tried to offer a substitute to the translation you have written in order to better understand what you are trying to suggest in the first place...
All points that have been raised by me, Nargis and others nullify the theories put forth. When we question or challenge the ideas presented, it is to remove all doubt and inconsistency. However, no conclusion has been reached. No one has finalised what Allah is or what Rabb is. “One who is not a deity for adoration and worship” does not qualify as an explanation as to what Allah is!!
Is Allah a group or a person, or a sovereignty state?
As you have provided us with your interpreted etymology of the word “Allah”, we are entitled to seek explanations as to how or why you reached such a conclusion – if the explanations provided do not make sense, why should we be held accountable?
Stating that you have not met the author or cannot explain why it is written in a certain form is not what we need to know. We ask questions in order to understand how and why you came to see things in such manner, so we can grasp the concept too – it is NOT to be awkward.
I ask you again, if Allah means one who is not a deity for adoration and worship – does this mean he is human and can be adored and worshiped if he has dominion?
Or
is Allah an individual or group, who should not be adored and worshiped, instead seen as sovereign authority?
What exactly are you saying? I just want to know – that is all!
| Comments by: William | On: 1/19/2011 |
“He is One who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who never was/is/shall be a deity for adoration and worship of any kind. But, he is who has dominion”.
Let us not get stuck at one point. Since, we long journet ahead of us. Hopefully we could have permission for separate thread for critique, methodology etc from our hosts. In mean time, please ponder on this. These are usually considered two verses, but in my humble opinion should be one.
Surah 1:2 الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The definition for the unchanging and everlasting relationship for all those who are capable of knowing intuitively and inferentially is "my sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher"; for One who is not a deity for adoration and worship.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/20/2011 |
You have not replied to my post dated 16th Jan:
Verse 6:19 clearly challanges your interpretation of "Allah". If you do not agree with the translation of ilahoon-w-wahidoon (One God), please share with the forum your interpretation of this verse. What is your translation of verse 6:19?
You say that Allah is 'the One who is not ilah' which is clearly an opposite of the idea propagated in this verse. You cannot close your eyes to this important aspect being pointed out here. Since you are questioning the most basic understanding, and you can be completely flawed, it is in the interest of everyone that all ideas pertaining to Allah, which are described in the quran, be analyzed and discussed. You have to scrutinize your interpretation in the light of internal evidence from the quran itself.
Waiting for your reply.
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 1/20/2011 |
1. You shall try to learn the language yourselves. If you really want to continue discussing Quran and not use others crutches.
2. Or else, if you shall bring another translation as a quote from someone. Please bring his/her grammatical break down of each and every step involved.
Please make a commitment. We should a have deal. It will take me some time. But I shall start working on it. Once, I have a commitment from you.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/20/2011 |
| Comments by: naeem sheikh | On: 1/20/2011 |
Surah 1:2 الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
The definition of the One who is not a deity for worship and adoration, for all those who can understand it intuitively and inferentially is " my sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher";
1:3 الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
(This) relationship is unchanging and everlasting
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 1/21/2011 |
However, what I can see and understand. You are using the rules of Genitive construction. I am getting better handle on these rules by the day and thought of applying those here as these seem befiting too.
Please, share your thoughts and welcome.
One could do this and should be reasonable from grammatical point of view,
Surah 1:2 الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
The definition of the One who is not a deity for worship and adoration, for all those who can understand it intuitively and inferentially is " my sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher";
1:3 الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The relationship is unchanging and everlasting
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/21/2011 |
Don't worry about about others' translations. I don't consider anyone a final authority so I don't consider anyone's work as final. My reference point is only the Quran. I will put forward my thoughts which I feel are pertinent to the issue and within logical framework. As regards grammer, I am not well versed with arabic. I'll leave it to many other capable people on this forum.
Now please give your translation of 6:19
Naushad
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 1/21/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/22/2011 |
Surah 1:1 بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
For a timeless distinction of the unchanging and everlasting relationship with One, whom is not a deity for adoration and worship.
Surah 1:2 الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
Surah 1:3 الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The definition of the One, who is not a deity for worship and adoration, for all those who can understand it intuitively and inferentially is " my sustainer, maintainer, fosterer and accomplisher"; the relationship is unchanging and everlasting.
Surah 1:4 مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّين
What is the Deen (custom and tradition), at all times, for you?
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/22/2011 |
Or you are starting afresh with better understanding of grammar?
Thanks,
Mubashir Syed.
| Comments by: Mubashir Syed | On: 1/22/2011 |
Brother Faisal, are you still around? Haven't heard from you for a long time; you started this thread. Please participate your intrest appeared in language of Quran.
Finally, before I present the next verse. I would very humbly request Muhtram Dr. Zaman Sahiab and all other respected Aastana members including Brother Aurangzaib. Time is here to please come forward to help and comment. As in next verse we are going to enter the area where we will encounter lots of issues about, changes in the text of Quran. Were these intentional or not? Can we solve these or not? Finally despite all these, is message really preserved?
Hopefully, able to demonstrate that preservation of concepts and principles of Quran is not same as the written text. Although, concepts and principles presented are well preserved, but unfortunately written text may not be as well preserved.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/22/2011 |
The etymology which “orthodox” Muslim grammarians indeed prefer is summarized by Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, s.v. اله:
“ … it is originally إِلهٌ of the measure فِعالٌ …, with [the article] ال prefixed to it, … sot that it becomes الإِلاه, then the vowel of the hemzeh is transferred to the ل [before it], and the hemzeh is suppressed, so that there remains الِله …, after which the former ل is made quiescent, and incorporated into the other: … the suppression of the hemzeh isfor the purpose of rendering the word easy to utterance: on account of the frequency of its occurrence …”.
This etymology, however, is for various reasons not convincing. For instance the suppression of the syllable “il”, the very semitic root bearing the meaning “god”, is unbelievable.
Puin (in the attached paper sent in mail) points to the use of the letter “ى” rendering an “ā”, in old Koran fragments not only at the end of a word – as in later orthography, in which case it is termed alif maqṣ̣ūrah –, but also in the middle like in kitāb and especially in ilāh (where it bears no diacritical points in all such cases). What he then argues concerning the correct etymology you may read on page 4 and 5 of Puin’s paper, because I am unable to render the decisive Arabic words with the font I use in this mail.
Typographical difficulties like this one also were responsible that the paper by Puin hasn’t been published, yet. However Puin told me that, after these difficulties have been overcome, a revised version will be published shortly.
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/22/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/22/2011 |
Brother Badar,
I was going through the posts and I realized that the translations followed by comments and then out of context discussions are making things quite complicated.
This discussion is getting too long and at least for a lay man like me, it's getting too difficult to search and sort out the relevant posts on this particular thread.
Dear brother, I have got one suggestion for you if you don't mind;
Is it possible that you could create a blog at http://wordpress.com/ (for translation of Quran) and share it with us all?
I mean you can post all your translations with grammatical references in a sequence so that we all can go through.
This discussion thread or a new one can be utilized for questions and comments.
I am sure things will get much simpler and easier this way.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/23/2011 |
It took few days to really make sure the understanding of next verse is reasonably correct and according to rules of the Language of Quran; as this one has shaken some of practices as well held beliefs yet again.
Surah 1:1 بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
For a timeless distinction of the unchanging and everlasting relationship with One, whom is not a deity for adoration and worship.
Surah 1:2 الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
Surah 1:3 الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The definition of the One, who is not a deity for worship and adoration, for all those who can understand it intuitively and inferentially is " my sustainer, maintainer, fosterer and accomplisher"; the relationship is unchanging and everlasting.
Surah 1:4 مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّين
What is the Deen (custom and tradition), at all times, for you?
Surah 1:5 إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ
Guarding against making us an object for adoration and worship; as well, be aware not to, seek temporary fixes and solutions, from us.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/24/2011 |
In my sincere effort to follow the trail of discussions on this thread, I confess to my gross inability to grasp all the valuable stuff that has been posted by friends in my short absence.
This thread has broken all previous records of rapid expansion and magnitude, and thus stands to emphasize the importance and the crucial nature of the subject under investigation, i.e., the latest discoveries by your good self in Quranic interpretations by applying alternate angles of syntactical structures.
Trying to sum up the proceedings, we end up with some conclusions like these :-
1) The term Allah’s composition, as proposed by your good self, remains a prime target of questioning where : 1) you are shown Lane’s etymology that goes contrary to your inference; 2) you are asked to interpret Verse 6/19 applying your interpretation of the term Allah; 3) You have Brother William’s objections on the interpretation of Verse: 59/23; 4) And Sis Nargis’ question as to why Allazi in two different forms in . هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ .
And you may kindly remember that in one of my comments in the beginning of my participation, I had raised a question. I had asked you whether or not you had applied your definition of Allah in most of the other situations where this word is narrated throughout the length of Quran. You said that you had not done that yet. I do hope you now have begun to see that you are being asked to do exactly the same. And I think you might also be feeling now that, before introducing your valuable research, it was imperative that you must have already checked its application and viability in all the situations where the term is used in Quran. Because, any new interpretation can only be valid if it can be successfully applied in all relevant situations. I trust you agree with this principle.
The point I am trying to make here is that, had you already gone through TASREEF, you would be ready with all kinds of answers. This is what TASREEF is all about – or this is at least what all Quranics understand by the word TASREEF.
We have duly noted above that your good self is not favorably disposed towards the methodology of TASREEF. But it looks pretty clear now that TASREEF is rather unavoidable or inevitable as the best method to prove whether a conceived meaning is right or wrong. To prove it further inevitable, I would humbly draw your kind attention to the following verses that I have picked up just randomly and which I would request you to kindly translate for us by incorporating in them your discovered meanings of ALLAH and ILAH :-
21/22: لو کان فیہما الہۃ الا اللہ لفسدتا
7/44: فاذکرو آلاء اللہ و لا تعثو فی الارض مفسدین
22/28: ویذکرو اسم اللہ فی ایام معدودات علی ما رزقہم من بھیمۃ الانعام،
18/110: قل انما انا بشر مثلکم یوحِٰی الی انما آلھکم الہ واحد
4/64: و ما ارسلنا من رسول الا لیطاع باذن اللہ
9/43: عفا اللہ عنک، لم اذنت لھم۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
6/50: قل لا اقول لکم عندی خزائن اللہ و لا اعلم الغیب۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
24/25: واللہ خلق کل دابۃ من مآء۔۔۔۔
7/32: قل من حرم زینۃ اللہ التی اخرج لعبادہ۔۔۔۔۔۔
5/4: ۔۔۔۔۔۔تعلمونہن مما علمکم اللہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
12/40: ان الحکم الا للہ
104/6-7: نار اللہ الموقدۃ التی تطلع علی الافئدۃ
I apologize for having taken you to further task. BUT, how else we are going to have proof that your interpretation is authentic and successful? Won’t this save us from going after personalities and opinions?
The phrase “One who is not a deity for worship and adoration” is fascinating and goes along very well with the Quranics’ firm conviction about the status of Almighty. It does not contradict or interfere with their concept of Allah. However, the general thinking is that this is a monotonous, unnecessarily repetitive, negative assertion which, if applied in all the situations where the term ALLAH is depicted, would be grossly inadequate to represent the essence of Almighty’s concept and would, being unfit at most of the places, garble the whole meanings of sentences. This monotonous repetition also does not seem to stand in consonance and harmony with the otherwise magnificently smooth and beautiful flow of Quran’s literary narrations.
We can easily check this by applying it to the above verses. This sure needs your kind and active consideration. I think this point might prove to be a final decisive factor in whether this interpretation is valid or invalid. No personal opinions would be involved here, so no conflict or no clash of interests would ensue. Quran would ITSELF decide about the right and the wrong of its interpretations. The whole episode might conclude right here!!! From here we might feel inclined to redirect our constructive approach and research towards some alternate angles.
2) The authenticity of Quran.
In the comments posted above, grave concerns have been expressed about your standpoint on this issue. It’s a matter highly sensitive to Quranic community. Those who have spent whole lives paying profound respects to this Divine Scripture in appreciation of its purity and genuineness are bitterly disillusioned.
The question was justifiably raised: Why are we working our guts out on this Scripture if it is adulterated by human vested interests? You are one of us, Brother and with your profound grammatical expertise, a valuable asset for the Quranic community. Permit us to ask you as to why are you wasting precious years of life on a book that you think cannot be in its original form; because all of us also stand to face the same serious question.
Until recently, east and west were unanimous in their conviction that Quran is inherited by Muslims from Prophet Muhammad in perfect continuity of existence and without the slightest change of text.
The Yemenis discoveries did give some excuse to the west to question Quran’s integrity. But then they inflated the issue; as their biases looked out for such an excuse. However, the laser examinations have proved that someone tried to over-write with malicious intentions on the original parchment, but for fear of severe retaliation or consequences, buried his vicious project under the earth. So Quran remained pure and genuine in the hands of Muslims not by conviction but by technical evidence.
Languages do progress with the passage of time. That won’t mean that sacred scriptures would continue changing their texts. Arabic language, by all accounts, had fully matured to classical proportions when Quran descended. Writing and reading of Arabic was in vogue much earlier than that. Arabia of our Prophet’s time was a much more academically and culturally advanced society than is normally depicted in our books of traditions. Mr. Asrar Alam (Delhi, India) has portrayed a beautiful picture of a highly civilized and multi-cultural/multi-racial, affluent society in the times of Prophet Mohammad in Arabia in his research based book “Ummat ka Bohraan”. Arabs knew pretty well how to preserve a divine piece of literature gifted to them as a universal code of conduct/guidance.
The autocratic tyrants, finding it impossible to corrupt Quran's text in view of hundreds of thousands already existing copies scattered all over the empire, had to resort to bogus interpretations and parallel books of Ahadith. We sure need concrete evidence before we can suspect Quran’s integrity.
3) In the end, your translations of Hamd = Definition
Al-Rahman = Unchanging relationship
Al-Rahim = Everlasting relationship
I raise humbly the same old question. Have you checked the application of these translations in all situations where these words are used in Quran? In other words, have you evaluated these translations by TASREEF method? Because I think you are going to face the same questions here too as you are facing about ALLAZI LA ILAHA.
Sorry about any mistakes. Have been entirely out of touch. I still have to request you for your kind detailed analysis (تحلیل ) of Verses: 1/2 to 1/5. You have been very detailed and methodical earlier. I did not come across this Tehlil in my quick glance above. I might later on try to translate it in Urdu, as I did earlier. Your English translation is not smooth, nor is it easily understood. My own deficiency perhaps. Sorry.
Best regards.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/25/2011 |
I certainly would work to translate all verses pointed out by you with occurrence of word Allah. But it will take some time as lots of time may need to translate verse before and after; so shall post as I translate and understand these.
I would like to remind us all, few definitions.
What are beliefs? Beliefs are mere opinions or hypothesis.
What is knowledge? It is something that we know? There are several levels of knowing, that I will not go into detail at this time. Real question is how do we get from believing to knowing something i.e., from opinions to knowledge. By bring sound evidence to make beliefs as verifiable true beliefs; the knowledge.
Do I believe the Quran is divine? Yes, but do I know (have knowledge) that, it is divine? Well if I say yes then, how do I know it? Implying what is my evidence/proof of this claim?
1. My ancestors have always told me that it is. Could this be considered as a sound evidence?
2. Well Hadith/History says it is? Are these really trustworthy resources?
3. Finally, Quran’s translation says it is. Well may be it is? But wait minute aren’t we in agreement that current translations are not correct? That is why we are spending our precious time and sweating days and nights. If Quranic translations are perfect then why all these forums, websites discussion? Let us take these translations and all the system that everyone keeps talking about in these translations and try to implement it.
4. If there is any other sound evidence which anybody has? Please share with me. I shall stop worrying about it.
Is there any other way I can confirm or refute my belief that Quran is divine or not? Yes by understanding Quran itself. If the meanings which come out to be way beyond human imaginations as well following the principles out of such understanding would produce the right results. This would be the soundest evidence that one could marshal about its divinity.
How do we do bring this evidence? By understanding the book, via learning its language. Please, try to put all held beliefs at bay, in order to achieve this lofty goal by joining hands. I shall continue to address other concerns. However, in the mean time all are welcome to express their concerns so far.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/25/2011 |
Dear brother, you are calling people's belief about the quran a "misconception." But then you are forwarding your belief ( ...This notion is far from being true. ...) as the basis of your conviction. Can you please share the knowledge that provided you the evidence beyond "belief" to prove your belief? It will not only be of great help to people who have this belief but would also be of great help to those who have spent centuries to prove this belief to be false.
Regards,
Dawood
| Comments by: dawood | On: 1/25/2011 |
Please remember, if you were to bring current translated verse from Quran. One would ask you that what makes you think that if this current translation of verse is correct; Then why not all others?
The only certain evidence of no change would be to bring exact same copy of Quran written at the time prophet. Can you bring that as certain evidence?
Furthermore, could somebody with the belief of unchanged Quran. Please explain exactly what do they mean by this statement/belief?
With regards,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/25/2011 |
" The chattering sound should be end now, repeatedly wrong can't make right." .....................MIND ! denial of present text is different than the mistaken translation of Qura'n. It is also observed that, you tactfully or intentionally, over looked the crass questioning of many learned members of this blog, in particular at same issue, like Mr. Junaid,Brother Mubashir, Sister Nargis. Plz follow the advise of brother Moazzam to join hands with Dr. Qamarzaman, to get quranic translation corrected in its true sense ,if you may come up to satisfy the critarian laid down by Aurang zaib bhai, ie to satisfy the translation of following verses as per your inference.21/22: لو کان فیہما الہۃ الا اللہ لفسدتا
7/44: فاذکرو آلاء اللہ و لا تعثو فی الارض مفسدین
22/28: ویذکرو اسم اللہ فی ایام معدودات علی ما رزقہم من بھیمۃ الانعام،
18/110: قل انما انا بشر مثلکم یوحِٰی الی انما آلھکم الہ واحد
4/64: و ما ارسلنا من رسول الا لیطاع باذن اللہ
9/43: عفا اللہ عنک، لم اذنت لھم۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
6/50: قل لا اقول لکم عندی خزائن اللہ و لا اعلم الغیب۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
24/25: واللہ خلق کل دابۃ من مآء۔۔۔۔
7/32: قل من حرم زینۃ اللہ التی اخرج لعبادہ۔۔۔۔۔۔
5/4: ۔۔۔۔۔۔تعلمونہن مما علمکم اللہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
12/40: ان الحکم الا للہ
104/6-7: نار اللہ الموقدۃ التی تطلع علی الافئدۃ
| Comments by: naeem sheikh | On: 1/25/2011 |
Badar: Please elaborate and suggest how do I do this?
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/25/2011 |
Dear Badar : If you, please may put your valuable remarks, to analyze (logically / rationally and grammatically) at on going true (in my sense ) Quranic translation by Dr. Qamarzaman, whether agree or not , will be highly appreciated. I think Mr.Naeem Sheikh is rightly worried ,as each quranist should be, by your care free comments at ALKITAB. Please be care full, till your own confirmation at solid grounds( if you may have), which, you are failed to produce yet .
| Comments by: moazzam | On: 1/25/2011 |
Regards
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/25/2011 |
Which words have been changed, and how do you know they have been changed? do you have the original copy from S Mohammed?Is the word Allah written as allathi in the Sana manuscript? how do you know its a "it is "Al" (written as contaction for Allathi) "La" :illah".
Then you said ""Why it is written like this? Good question, text was decided by writers of the text, not the author and has documented evolution.""
i dont understand how you know what the author actually said and how it differ from what the writers wrote, if you have the original copy please share?
| Comments by: Nargis2 | On: 1/25/2011 |
This humble student hardly nurtures the feelings of "vengeance" against a human being. Not to speak of Vengeance against a dear Quranic Brother like you whom I feel pride in learning from.
I actually wrote with the aim of covering all the supplementary topics, involving all the participants, in order to have one consolidated thesis. Please do take your time in sorting out the issues individually. There is no hurry at all.
I have not touched the points of "Belief" and "Knowledge". My writing above would testify to that. Almost all my comments about authenticity of Quranic text were based on hard facts and on ground realities, not on opinions - never on convictions. While we are learning and advancing towards our goal of an accurate, ultimate and comprehensive translation of Quran, we must set aside our beliefs and convictions. I have done so long ago. Therefore, I fail to see where the point of Belief comes from. You would note that I have made Quran as our exclusive criterion for analyzing and qualifying (or disqualifying) your discoveries. What could be a better yardstick? I trust no participant would disagree to that.
And yes, it is again not a point of discussion as to which translation we believe in. Isn’t our continued quest proof enough that we don’t believe in any of the existing ones?
About Knowledge; ===== God forbid,===== a formidable subject !!! I am totally incapable of speaking on this subject. Since you raised this as a point too, and in a superfluous way (I apologize having to use this word), compared knowledge with belief and with opinion, I may write a few lines as a precautionary attempt to restrain you from opening up this Great Pandora's Box, we being already stuck with the lengthiest thread on this Blog.
Knowledge, being the question of epistemology in scholarly terms, would cover all aspects of the theory and study of all that constitutes the basis of knowledge; and before embarking upon any discussions on this topic, you would have to choose one position among some possibilities:
Putting more emphasis on logical and empirical methods, stressing that knowledge is an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. (causal determinism, empirical materialism: Aristotelian position)
You will have other option to declare that, ”knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal Ideas or Forms, existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to them” (Idealism: Platonic position)
Knowledge is the product of sensory perception, and rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection (Post-renaissance scientific empiricism)
Knowledge results from a kind of mapping or reflection of external objects, through our sensory organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments, to our brain or mind. (reflection-correspondence theory: if you adopted that position you would have to enter into the mazy realm of language, and its relation to reality, towards Structuralism & Post structuralism)
Knowledge is an empirical statement which comes from analytical truth (Comte’s position: Logical Positivism)
I can hardly expect you to try to initiate another lengthy scholarly debate and unfold limitless avenues of thought and reflection. Who would dare accompany you on that formidable venture? Moreover, it would certainly detract us from the already ongoing investigation.
That was some due clarification on your comments. Shall get in touch again soon. God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/25/2011 |
Brother Aurangzaib has encapsulated the collective concerns of the forum members in his post above. I feel that we should avoid any further posting on this thread and allow brother Aurangzaib to continue with Badar. Unless the pending concerns are not resolved, things will not go far. Let themdiscuss on every single point raised so far and then we can proceed further. In my opinion, this is the most objective way of continuing on this very sensitive topic.
Wa salaam,
Naushad
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 1/25/2011 |
I agree with you fully on both principles.
1. Let us not digress from our real objective. Trying to understand Quran by learning/understanding the language.
2. To work on the verses that you have posted with word Allah.
With your permission, I would like to start with the verse posted by Brother Naushad, since he has asked it first.
Br. Naushad, I would like to appologise and make an admission to you. I have some bitter feelings about people who were present at ourbeacon forum. This is due to treatment, I recieved there. However, I also realize that I should not generalise those feelings.
Nargis2, No I do not have the original copy nor does anybody else. One possiblity would be that they decided to write this whole phrase like this. As once gets tired of saying same thing thousand times over. As long as one understands the concept behind the word, any written form would be okay. You probably have seen recently, Pakistani media using "CJ" as contraction for "Chief Justice". When are you going to share Dr Puin's article?
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/25/2011 |
Nargis2 questions about هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ, allathi, in two different form. This question cannot be answered by us with certainty at least at this time. Several logical explanations could be put forwards.
1. As I said a contraction may have been used due repetition of same phrase time and again. Please recall its occurrence numbers in thousands in Quran.
2. To make text/script look elegant.
3. Could it be intentional and afterwards? We cannot be sure until we can get hands on to original Musaf.
4. Finally from meaning point of view, it is not the exact same theme. If one were to pay close attention to word (اللَّهُ) its irrab is rafa. Whereas, in the word (لَا إِلَٰهَ) irrab is nasab. The nasab here indicates that the “La” here is “LA-E-NAFEE Al-GINS”.
Hence, it should be translated as “He is who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who shall not be a deity for adoration and worship of any type or kind”.
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/26/2011 |
6:19 قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ
وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
“Think with your mind and then express in your words. He can only be a deity for adoration and worship, isolating himself apart from others. Whereas, I am certainly free from this, nothing doing with what you all associate or partake as partners with me”.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/26/2011 |
Thanks for responding. However, I am unable to comprehend this. Please throw more light on how you arrived at this translation and also indicate which words/ phrases in your translation represent the meaning of which words/phrases in the original arabic.
Naushad
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 1/26/2011 |
6:19 قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
There are three sentences in this part of the verse.
1. قُلْ
2. إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ
3. وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
Now let’s work on these one by one.
(قُلْ) a (فعل أمر), usually in traditional translations considered only a word. However, people familiar with basics of language would know that all past tense verbs are actually full sentences. Although, one may not come across this concept as a separate topic in given grammar books, but (فعل أمر) is a complete sentence. Why? Because of very nature of the concept conveyed. Subject and object are built-into it i.e., (مُتكلم و مخاطب). Hence, just like in English if, I say “do this” in actuality it means “I say to you, do this”.
Now this word (قُلْ), is from root (قول). This according to grammarian of the language belongs to a category of verbs, what they have called verbs of mind or (أفعال القلوب). The act of speaking is an act of mind. One thinks first and then speaks (or at-least needs to).
Hence, with this background, if one were to understand this so called word. It would mean “I say you think with your mind, then express in your words”. Or “think with your mind and then express in your words”. As speaker/subject is already know to the objects, and the object is everybody.
I am getting ready to start working. Hence, shall keep adding further explanation as time permits. My request is to avoid long and unrelated posts below it. As it will break the continuity, please only ask relevant question to grammar.
Badar
Now let us work on next sentence.
إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ
Only four words, a nominal sentence with a particle at beginning.
إِنَّمَا = is one of the most important particle in the language, as a particle of limitation or restriction. It stands at the beginning of a proposition and the word or portion of the proposition which is affected by it, is always placed, for emphasis sake, at the end. It literally would mean “only”.
هُوَ a pronoun and the subject of the sentence
إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ a Murakab-e-idhafi and predicate of the sentence.
Now let us analyze each word of this Murakab individually.
إِلَـهٌ a noun Naka meaning “a deity for adoration and worship”
وَاحِدٌ another Naka noun from root (وحد). The word (وَاحِدٌ) is at the measure of (فَاعِلٌ). Now let us try to see what it should mean, when the root meaning gets into this measure.
The root’s meaning from Lane “he or it became alone or by himself apart from others”. Add the measure’s meaning “he actively made himself separate from others.”
Shall continue.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/26/2011 |
Just to summarize and comprehend;
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
For a timeless distinction of the unchanging and everlasting relationship with One, whom is not a deity for adoration and worship.
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْمَلِكُ
“He is who is not a deity for adoration and worship. Who shall not be a deity for adoration and worship of any type or kind”.
قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
“Think with your mind and then express in your words. He can only be a deity for adoration and worship, isolating himself apart from others. Whereas, I am certainly free from this, nothing doing with what you all associate or partake as partners with me”.
Sorry for the interruption :)
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/27/2011 |
قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
“Think with your mind and then express in your words. He isolated and seperated himself apart from others, only to be a deity for adoration and worship. Whereas, I am certainly free from this, nothing doing with what you all associate or partake as partners with me”.
Badar
Next sentence is another nominal one,
وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
وَ a particle of conjunction
إنَّ another particle meaning “surely”, “certainly” and “truly”
نِى a personal pronoun (ىِ متكم), "Inna Ka Isam", (subject of the sentence)
بَرِيءٌ another noun Nakra and the predicate of the sentence, at the measure of (فعِيلٌ).
مِّمَّا another particle a combination of two separate particles written joint. ( مِنْ) and (ما)
تُشْرِكُونَ Finally, a (مضارع), plural 2nd person and (مجهول), from root (ش ر ك).
If team Aastana, has any further questions/concerns about grammar or understanding of this part. Please let us discuss now before I embark on next verse.
I may do this whole verse, to clarify the understanding better. As this portion of the verse starts of with a “Zameer” (هُوَ) implying reference to something already discussed.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/27/2011 |
(He isolated and seperated himself apart from others ... Whereas, I am certainly free from this) by bkanwar2
Dear brother;
Apparently, there are two personalities being discussed in this verse.
Who is "He" and who is "I" can you please elaborate?
My apologies if the question looks irrelevant.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 1/27/2011 |
With this in mind please correct me if I am wrong, but is the following concept being presented here: ?
He (who claims) to be a deity for adoration and worship, do so only to separate himself apart from others. Whereas, I am certainly free from this, nothing doing with what you all associate or partake as partners with me”.
(By the way is the english translation from nothing doing and onwards correct as well?)
Moreover, on the above discussions, regarding the text, Badar may be right if he would call it as possible script errors rather than text issues, as text and scripts denote different things. Although changes or errors in script technique may have an effect on the meanings of the text, it seem mostly from script evolution, changes, errors and not deletion, addtion or change in the body of the text itself. Hence if we pay close attention to the script techniques and apply all possible rules of grammar and syntax, I believe the true meanings will not only become more clear, but will easily point us out the errors that might have occured in the writing of the script itself. Once the meanings become crystal clear and possible script errors/changes/anamolies pointed out, this will remove all our anxiety as well ,and we will be assured that this text has been passed on to us from the time of our Prophet
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 1/27/2011 |
Truth seeker: your conclusion about isolated translations is correct. I have been avoiding it deliberately despite repeated insistence from several respected members. Now I decided to do these, as it seem to have been put forward as kind of a test.
Furthermore, I think this exercise will amply show to the skeptics that not just few word meanings and concept have changed; but a significant portion of word concepts are changed. Hence, current translations are far from being true. It shall also highlight that reconstruction of every single word from both grammatical point of view and its syntactical connections is highly tedious work; almost impossible for one person to accomplish for the whole book. Hence, a dedicated team of people is needed.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/27/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/28/2011 |
6:19 قُلْ أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَكْبَرُ شَهَادَةً قُلِ اللّهُ شَهِيدٌ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ وَأُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ هَذَا
الْقُرْآنُ لِأُنذِرَكُم بِهِ وَمَن بَلَغَ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَى قُل لاَّ
أَشْهَدُ قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ
Think and express; whoever exists is greater in status than a witness. I think and express; one who is not a deity for adoration and worship, is sound evidence, clear and manifest for me as well for you. So hast towards it. This Qur'an is, what you need to make obligatory, of free will, be informed through it. Hence, who came to this Quran, which is intended and determined for you, as well, which you seek? Weren’t you all certainly to remain witnesses for one who is not a deity for adoration and worship from the beginning? To be served, worshipped or adored is other than what I am. Think and express; I do not find any evidence; think and express this in your words.
Man isolated and separated himself, apart from others, only through a deity for adoration and worship. Whereas, I am certainly free from this. Have nothing to do with what you or any other associate or partake as partners with me”.
(A footnote: I have deliberately decided not to translate word "Al-Quran" in English at this time). (Please also note, I am editing after reviewing certain grammatical rules. I have decided to just edit, instead of posting new. Until someone posts and I am unable to edit).
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/29/2011 |
Very sorry about my weakness. Have tried repeatedly to drive the meanings (in your above post) home. However, the English script is too broken and distorted to convey the meaning. Perhaps a better running translation can be attempted. Kindly get help from ....say....Brother Abdun or some other friend to have a legible running translation.
However, your painstaking is highly appreciable. Sometimes I do think that the puzzle of Almighty using different Faail status about HIM, viz., first person, then second person and then again, third person in the same sentence, might be eventually solved with your discovery of new meanings of the word Allah.
Thank you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 1/30/2011 |
Abdun Nur did go over its English. He is not only a helper with my impediment of expression in English language, but is also gifted with understanding concepts as well. Some of the concepts which I am now understanding via Quran; he already understood, without Quran. I am not sure, if he is following this thread. If he is, he should certainly participate.
Furthermore, please do point out the areas where you are having trouble. This is how we shall be able to work as a team in public domain to improve our understanding.
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/30/2011 |
this seems to me to be a clear verse, I have written out how I read it below each phrase.
“Think and express; whoever exists is greater in status than a witness.” No one who lives in this world is of more value than a witness: to bear witness; testify; give or afford evidence.
“I think and express; one who is not a deity for adoration and worship, is sound evidence, clear and manifest for me as well for you.”
As that witness I think and express, 'the one who is not a deity for adoration and worship', is well supported within the physical evidence of this reality, I will endeavour to make that clear to myself and for all others.
“So hast towards it.”
So, (to possess; own; hold for use; contain; to get, receive, or take; to cause to, as by command or invitation) towards this task.
“This is the Qur'an; make it obligatory upon you, of free will, all who have directed themselves towards the Qur'an.”
This is the Qur'an, so without any coercion of any, sort purely through you own free will make it binding upon yourself, any one who freely wants to follow the guidance of the Qur'an.
“Weren’t you certainly to remain witnesses for one who is not a deity for adoration and worship from the beginning?”
The true intention from the very beginning was for all to remain witnesses of 'the One whi is not a deity for adoration and worship'.
“To be served, worshipped or adored is other than what I am. Think and express; I do not find any evidence; think and express; in your words.”
To be directed to be served in this manor of 'worshipped or adored', is other than what I want, need or value.
“Man isolated and separated himself, apart from others, only through a deity for adoration and worship.”
Man becomes isolated from reality and separates himself from community, making himself divide from others, only from the confusion of following a deity for adoration and worship.
“Whereas, I am certainly free from this. Have nothing to do with what you or any other associate or partake as partners with me.”
The Creator is truly free from this confusion of worship and adoration, this having nothing at all to do with the true nature of Allah, who is free from all these confusions of religion associated with him.
| Comments by: Abdun | On: 1/30/2011 |
“Think and express; whoever exists is greater in status than a witness.”
This part should read as "Who exsists is greater in dignity and estimation than even decisive knowledge and information witnessed by eyes". (Confusion for you likely is due use of "Whoever", instead of "who". Other changes are just more detailed understandings of words).
To me this part of verse is conveying some idea to us, about who and what our Rabb is.
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/30/2011 |
"You think with your mind and then express in your words. Who exists is greater in estimation and dignity than decisive knowledge and what could be witnessed by eyes.
(yes) I thought with my mind and express in my words. One who is not a deity for adoration and worship has sound evidence (for himself), clear and manifest for me as well for you.
So hasten towards me (towards our Rabb). (for this purpose) This Qur'an, is what you need to make obligatory, of your own free will, to be informed through it. Hence, who came to this Quran, which is intended and determined for you, as well, which you seek? Weren’t you all certainly to remain witnesses for one who is not a deity for adoration and worship from the beginning?
To be served, worshipped or adored is something other than what I am.
(yes) I thought (about this) with my mind and express. I do not find any evidence for this (a reason for him to be a deity for adoration and worship).
You think with your mind and express in your words. Man isolated and separated himself, apart from others, only through a deity for adoration and worship. Whereas, I certainly am, free from this. Have nothing to do with what you or any other associate or partake as partners with me.
(All divisions between people of different religions and within same religions i.e., sects of religion are just due differences of methods worship and adoration. Why would our Rabb want to create this chaos?)
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/30/2011 |
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 1/30/2011 |
"You think with your mind and then express in your words. ( Rabb) who exists is greater in estimation and dignity than decisive/proven knowledge and what could be witnessed by eyes ( of those trying to understand Rabb).
Now the following verse:
(yes) I thought with my mind and express in my words. One who is not a deity for adoration and worship has sound evidence (for himself), clear and manifest for me as well for you.
The meaning of (yes) I thought is not clear here: Is it again you are being asked to think and express this concept or is it a little different or man is asked again to express it after due thought process?
Then again:
One who is not a deity for adoration and worship has sound evidence (for himself), clear and manifest for me as well for you.
Who has sound evidence?? Or is there sound evidence of his existence visible to open eyes and mind. But who is saying this here? Is Rabb asking us to think and say it here??
Then the following verse section as to what it means here:
which you seek?
Then again who is saying it as you have put " I " in the following sentence as well:
yes) I thought (about this) with my mind and express. I do not find any evidence for this (a reason for him to be a deity for adoration and worship). Is man being asked to express it after due thought process to this fact again?
Thanks
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 1/31/2011 |
With this back ground; I am going to give my understanding here in this verse. Again this is only my observations that the style is to encourage the reader to use their mind to think and express, after due contemplation that he/she agrees.
The one who exists is greater in estimation than even soundest knowledge that one can muster. Which is by direct visual observation of facts; then author is answering himself on behave reader. Yes if I were to observe physical realities and think about those, I find enough evidence for the one who exists and also that he cannot be deity of adoration and worship. He is unique, higher in estimation than even the soundest knowledge. How could we compare and put him at the level of another deity for adoration and worship. Is that not an insult to him?
Additionally, not one who as direct reader/addressee, but anybody else could come to same conclusions. (Yes) was added by me to just clarify more not in the real text.
Truthseeker: Then again:
One who is not a deity for adoration and worship has sound evidence (for himself), clear and manifest for me as well for you.
Who has sound evidence?? Or is there sound evidence of his existence visible to open eyes and mind. But who is saying this here? Is Rabb asking us to think and say it here??
Badar: Who has enough evidence? Please recall Fathia the one who is not a deity for adoration and worship is defined as “Rabb”. Everybody finds and agrees even the so called atheists that there is a “sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher”. Issue that they have, is this entity needs to be worshiped.
Truthseeker: Then again who is saying it as you have put " I " in the following sentence as well:
yes) I thought (about this) with my mind and express. I do not find any evidence for this (a reason for him to be a deity for adoration and worship). Is man being asked to express it after due thought process to this fact again?
Badar: The answer again is given on behalf of created beings. But not as an order and a response;, instead that we should to try to learn these facts both inferentially as well intuitively like suggested in Fathia and even then we would come to same conclusions.
Hope this helps.
| Comments by: bkanwar1 | On: 2/1/2011 |
i have some objections on undermentioned urdu translation of quran 2:1
translator have to prove the translation of 2:1 contain the same arabic words which are mentioned in urdu حقیقت انسان نے شدید مصائب وآلام برداشت کئیے ہیں (these urdu words are translation of (الم) or least contain same concept of الم.
i am translating for الم in english ------ the meam----- meam is issam-a-nakarh. meam with --al-- means issam-a-marfah.
any body have any objection on MY translation please go ahead. but b short and 2 the point.
faisal masood.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 2/1/2011 |
Therefore, to answer your question although no equivalent word is present in Quranic text but this word used by Brother Aurangzaib in Urdu translation, does convey the force of the concept presented.
| Comments by: bkanwar1 | On: 2/1/2011 |
| Comments by: Naushad | On: 2/6/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/7/2011 |
Sorry about being too busy in other issues.
I have just been through all the proceedings of the last few days. Can frankly admit you are going fine with your great undertaking.
Very thankful to Brother Abdun for explaining your translation in separate bits and pieces. This break up really helped a lot. Can he insert the relevant Arabic bit into every paragraph, with every piece of text he has explained above (his comment of 30 Jan.) That will be a real great help again.
Also very thankful to Brother Truthseeker. He is calling for the same explanations from you that were not clear to me too; and I would surely have asked similar questions. Thus he is doing much brainstorming on behalf of all of us. And thanks to Brother Naushad for his very sincere pursuance.
In my humble opinion, with this kind of translation we find ourselves at the threshold of something academically majestic and splendid. I reckon, it will be hard for common folks (like myself) to come to agreement with it, just because it will certainly be far beyond their observational understanding.
With this fearful perspective in mind, I might request you for a few things:
1. Please do not expand the meanings of words so much that they cease to be easy of comprehension; I know that lexicons do provide an amplitude of meanings to choose from. Can we be selective and choose only the single most appropriate one? ….so that we don’t expand the translation too much.
2. I suggest you translate first, emphasizing corresponding English substitutes of Arabic words that you have selected from the lexicons. Secondly, you interpret the full concept into your words, where you can exercise full scope of expansion.
So, there will be two separate things before readers. One: purely translation – a much shortened text, easily followed and understood. Two: full interpretation of the concept derived by you, where you have the liberty of expanding the meanings to the required limit.
3. In the following paragraph of your translation, please put in the Arabic text (in brackets) at the end of every sentence, in order to show that the translation pertains to that piece of Arabic text:
“Think and express; whoever exists is greater in status than a witness. I think and express; one who is not a deity for adoration and worship, is sound evidence, clear and manifest for me as well for you. So hast towards it. This Qur'an is, what you need to make obligatory, of free will, be informed through it. Hence, who came to this Quran, which is intended and determined for you, as well, which you seek? Weren’t you all certainly to remain witnesses for one who is not a deity for adoration and worship from the beginning? To be served, worshipped or adored is other than what I am. Think and express; I do not find any evidence; think and express this in your words.
Man isolated and separated himself, apart from others, only through a deity for adoration and worship. Whereas, I am certainly free from this. Have nothing to do with what you or any other associate or partake as partners with me”.
For example: “Think and express (قل ); whoever exists is greater in status than a witness (ای شئی اکبر شہادۃ ) ……so on……
All this effort is targeted at easy and quick understanding of the translation. What is more important is that a majority of folks would try to understand it in Urdu. And the above points are also meant to enable me to convert this most difficult style of English text into Urdu. I trust you follow what I mean by “most difficult”. I mean that the meaning of every word is so much expanded that you loose track of what English part relates to which Arabic word. Sorry about that. Most of the folks, like me, are not accustomed to “think” in English. They first think in Urdu and then convert the thought in English. And in this process they are lost.
Have also gone through translations of some Chapters at Brother Abdun’s forum. My humble opinion is that no conceptual anomaly or difference of ideology exists there as against the core concept of what Dr. QZ is working on. There I do find much deeper and broader interpretations reflecting a very high literary excellence or a lofty academic level of narration that most of our folks would find hard to follow and understand. I would very much like to make all that easy through a fluent running Urdu translation, as I honestly wish that it may become acceptable to all and may enjoy its due cognizance.
You have expressed your views about Tasreef. I may confirm that our use of Tasreef does not involve the element of old traditional translations. You are right. We use Tasreef for comparing patterns of written Arabic words in different situations. That authenticates the accuracy of our own selected translations.
Hope I haven’t written too much this time. Best regards.
P.S.
In your translation of ذلک الکتاب where you say: “This for you is the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard”; my question is that the sentence is nominal جملہ اسمیہ because Kitaab is a noun; so how is it that you have converted that into جملہ فعلیہ ?
Moreover the Arabic of “he wrote from what he learned and heard” must be کتب عن or کتب عنہ . Kitab cannot mean “wrote from what he learned and heard”. Kitab means :
“A thing in which, or on which, one writes: (a book) a written piece of paper or (a record, register; and a written mandate) of skinK a writing, or writ, or thing written….
Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance: judgment or sentence, fatal decree, or predestination.”
I hope you would kindly clarify.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/8/2011 |
My humble suggestion is that this discussion should continue on this thread also. But a separate section should be started for the above two kinds of translational work as pointed out by the Brother, to be put together in a sequential manner. This should be a separate section from Dr Qamar's on going work, so there is no confusion. Once there is consensus and multiple verifcation of the garmmatical and lexical understanding including the correct syntax, then the the translations can be merged to create one body of understabding. This will put double burden on some one like Dr Qamar Zaman, who is currently doing a great translation work, as he will have to take out time to verify every word presented by Brother Badar or others as well, as multiple verification of all the data will be needed independently by more than one, so that we do not create yet blind following again. All data and verification should be supported by verifiable references as available.
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 2/8/2011 |
secondly i dont understand within your reply my translation is wrong or right. so far from your reply you dont have any objection on my translation of الم . also you are unable to prove within your translation of الم the translation of الم is ......... what ever you have translated it. i have not made any objection on urdu, english dont have equal words of arabic words.
now the difference between your translation and mine is; you are doing what you understand within your created off language laws. my translation is only basis on arabic language laws. so i dont have to put force and push hard what quran says. my translation of الم is very simple, clear and understandable. in urdu translation is "yeah meam" i am translating arabic word "al" in to urdu "yeah" in english "the" and meam will stay as "meam" if you understand the law of proper-noun you cant object on my translation.
more over الم is the first word which i have translated in urdu and english you have not seen my next words translation keep in mind translation of a single word cant express the whole text (especially when readers are unaware of language laws) its to loooooong looking for your objections. thanks.
faisal masood.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 2/8/2011 |
Your suggestions are very relevant. I shall keep them at forefront while working on next verse. Please keep suggesting as the ultimate goal is to get this message to common folks.
Truthseekeers, suggestions are also very relevant about creating two more sections.
1. This one, to leave it for discussion only.
2. One for as close to word translation.
3. For a detailed explanation of concepts.
However, process of verification of both i.e., word translation as well concepts is important. This is exemplified by first part of 6:19, where I had understood something different; but Brother Nur understood something different from what I expressed in English. I only realized, once he started to give explanation of understanding. Hence, somebody like Dr. Zaman’s understanding of language also needs to look and verify the concepts understood as well. This is in order that we want to get to the real meanings of Quran, irrespective who the translator may be.
For your request to put Arabic text with 6:19 meanings I will have to do it as time shall permits.
Finally “In your translation of ذلک الکتاب where you say: “This for you is the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard”; my question is that the sentence is nominal جملہ اسمیہ because Kitaab is a noun; so how is it that you have converted that into جملہ فعلیہ ?"
This is a nominal sentence due starting with a noun. Alkitab is a verbal noun, a masdar. Since Arabic is unique in that, it has only three types of words only i.e., Noun, verb and particles. However, nouns derived from verbs still carry the meanings of verb. Let me give you an example from Urdu.
“Nakee Kar ne Wala” and “Naak”, both have same meanings but “Naak” is a quality in Arabic it would be considered a noun. (If you or someone could please post a link for Urdu keyboard, I could use it in future).
Since Kitab is from verbal root "Ka-Ta-Ba" meaning “he wrote from what he heard or learned”. It changes to kitabun which is at the measure of verb noun (فِعْالٌ) we need to add meanings due changing to this measure. Which is a measure of plural fractus (جمع مكسر). Which adds meanings of “collection” in this case. Hence, we get to the meanings above. If it is still not clear please ask again. I shall try my best.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/8/2011 |
Sorry couldnt help... As far as I remember, a MASDAR is a a noun that indicates on the action at the very basic level.
i.e., the "action aspect" of the verb that are WITHOUT TENSES!!
And through this noun many other words can be derived BUT its NOT derived from any other word.
Like in English, a word "Ride" when we use it like ... it was a fun ride.
jazakAllah
UmeAimon
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 2/8/2011 |
A. The Deverbal Nouns
(a) The Nomina Verbi
195. The nomina verbi (أسْمَآءُ ألْفِعْلِ) are abstract substantives, which express the action, passion or state indicated by the corresponding verbs, without any referance to object, subject, or time.
Rem. The nomen verbi is also called (ألْمَصْدَرُ)........
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/8/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/8/2011 |
Regards and keep up the great work. May God bless u all.
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 2/9/2011 |
AQALMAND KO ISHARA KAFI HAI!!!
| Comments by: UmeAimon | On: 2/9/2011 |
I thank you for making necessary correction upon my "protest". You converted it back to "Nominal". But there is another point still to be amended.
You said : "Alkitab should read as "the written collection from learning".
I had raised the objection that the words "from learning and seeing" etc., are just an addition to the meaning of KITAAB, or KATABA کتب : These additions, though represent your preference for DETAIL or EXPANSION, do make the meanings and their comprehension difficult or tedious.
Can't we say "the written collection" only ? And doesn't it give the full true concept too?
To add "from learning....etc", won't we require some more words, just like I explained کتب عنہ OR کتب من علمہ ?
In case you insist that this "from something" is a part of the meaning of کتب, how would you add this with this phrase :
"کتب اللہ" ? "KATABA ALLAH" ?
Would you say "ALLAH WROTE FROM LEARNING" ?
Brother, I am coming up with a lengthy response. Please wait a few hours..
Regards.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/10/2011 |
I think our Brother Adnan, who is the administrator of this WEB would look into your suggestions. He is the only one who can handle any format changes. I am afraid, he might not be able to do something about it soon.
I suggest, in the meantime, we settle for some headings for our own ease.
For Discussions alone, we can put the word DISCUSSION as heading.
For all Translation work, whenever we add more translated text, every time we write in the beginning: TRANSLATION.
For detailed conceptual interpretation, we can always add on the top the word INTERPRETATION.
If you have a better way, please do suggest.
In my coming post, I would give the title DISCUSSION, as a test case.
Regards.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/10/2011 |
DISCUSSION
CLARIFICATIONS SOUGHT:
The next thing I would humbly try to discuss with you is “your peculiar construction” of the term AL-MUTTAQEEN. This is how you explain its construction:-
“Let us see how this so called word, which actually is a phrase, is formed? What rules are applicable?
It starts of around root تقى, its plural male third person noun would be, تَقُونَ, prefix to it imperative of root موت, which is مُتْ When these two combine, according to إدغام rules, since last letter of prefix and first letter of following word are the same these are written as one with a shadda. So it becomes مُتَّقُونَ. Now add the definite article “al” to it. It becomes المُتَّقُونَ. “”
Your kind Clarification may be requested as per the following questions that are formulated for short answers as well as for the sake of easy comprehension :-
1. You said: “It starts around Root TAQI”.
In my humble information, there is no trace of this Root. In fact the Root (ثلاثی مجرد ) for the Verb TAQA (TAQI) is و ق ی ?
2. You maintain that the “ prefix to it (is) imperative of root موت, which is مُتْ “.
Now, I think this statement can hardly be justified?
The whole word “ متقی Muttaqi” is, in itself, ISM AL-FAAIL from the verb TAQI, it can’t be a combination مرکب of two different words. Why? Pls see some of the ISM AL-FAAIL from this verb under different Measures : MUTTAQIN متق (Nakra), AL-MUTTAQI المتقی (Ma’rfah); MUTAWAAQIN متواق (Nakra), AL-MUTAWAAQI المتواقی (Ma’rfah); MUTAWAQQIN متوق (Nakrah), AL-MUTAWAQQI المتوقی (Ma’rfah); MUSTAWQIN مستوق (Nakrah), ALMUSTAWQI المستوقی (Ma’rfah), etc.
So dear Brother, MUTT مت seems to be an already existing integral part of ISM AL-FAA’IL from the verb تقی ? Any arguments to substantiate your peculiar construction, which in the light of above proofs may look like an invention? Excuse me for saying that; I don’t claim to be anywhere in an advanced stage of Arabic grammar. I seek your guidance only because the prevalent rules appear to be violated.
3. Assuming for a while that your valued contention is right about this combination of two words “MUTT” and “TAQEEN”, WHY would a part of the two be in IMPERATIVE form? There is no order (AMR) being given to some people? It’s just a phrase in MAZARE’ FORM starting with LIL – “for those…who wish to do …this…and…this..”. No IMPERATIVE can join this construction.
4. Had the word MOT موت been meant to be used here, wouldn’t the structure of the phrase be something like this :
“LILLAZEENA YATTAQOONA AL-MOT” للذین یتقون الموت ? Instead of للمتقین ?
5. According to this statement of yours :
“It starts of around root تقى, its plural male third person noun would be, تَقُونَ, prefix to it imperative of root موت, which is مُتْ “,
the word تقون is a “plural male third person NOUN”, you maintain. Can you prove that by rules and by examples from Quran? Anywhere in Quran تقون used as NOUN? My poor knowledge tells me that متقون or متقین definitely are listed as nouns, but……..تقون …….? I think without MUTT مت , TAQA or TAQU is a verb, for example “اتقوااللہ “ ITTAQU ALLAH,,,,,,,Isn’t that so, my dear Sir?
6. مت MUTT is an order to die. If it is joined with تقین TAQEEN, (as a Murakkab of two Verbs), how can you translate this combination into English? For example “DIE O, YE, WHO WANT TO SAFEGUARD THEMSELVES (or YOURSELVES?)”…? ? ?
There are some other questions too that arise in my mind. Being deficient of grammatical knowledge, I am afraid of putting them up. I am already apprehensive you might ridicule me for trying to be intrinsically difficult. Nevertheless, I have a conviction that you are a very methodical, broadminded, born and natural teacher. You will certainly remove the anomalies of comprehension in my mind.
Since you have kindly encouraged me to express myself openly, You know Brother, in most of your valued translations, what I have persistently noticed is that they can be magnificient as your conceptual INTERPRETATIONS; but as TRANSLATIONS they stand rather on the incomprehensible side of the case. Some part into this has been played by the disintegrated English wordings (I mean lack of smooth running text), and by your preferences to quote the whole range of possibilities of a word’s meaning given in the lexicons. I do think you would fare better by choosing a single, appropriate and most suitable equivalent of the Arabic word in question.
When I very humbly state : “Some part into this has been played by the disintegrated English wordings (I mean lack of smooth running text)”,,,,,, I always simultaneously confess to my own drawbacks. Nevertheless, in support of this statement of mine, I can refer to Brother Truthseeker’s consistent questions to you, where he is compelled to quote your translated texts in alternate forms, with changes and improvements in their compositions and structures, seeking to fully grasp the meanings thereof. So, I feel a bit relieved that at least I am not alone in this quagmire. There are others too facing this problem. And I am not fully to be blamed for my inabilities.
Regards.
P.S.
Yes, when I say that you sometimes take into account the whole range of meanings for a single word given by lexicons, I mean something like this :-
“for all those seeking to safe guard themselves against,(1) deprivation of senses, (2) intellectual faculty,(3) grief, (4)sorrows, (5) fears as well (6) complete extinction.”
That’s one word, Expanded to its whole range – SIX meanings. My humble contention is that Quranic text is the judge as to which one of this range would apply at a particular point. We need to determine THAT Quranic judgment from the CONTEXT of narration.
Please feel free to reject or make objections over any of above statements.
I feel privileged to be in touch and be learning from a linguist of your caliber.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/10/2011 |
1. As discussing these issues seem to hurt even our Quranic minded brethren's held beliefs. What to talk about ordinary folks.
2. Going into the details of these concepts usually shall prompt examples like these. If we address these, no systematic translation work can be done.
So please suggest how to proceed, in light of these concerns?
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/11/2011 |
DISCUSSION
First of all, please add the following at the end of my Question No.5) in the last post above :
Verse 2/41: و ایا یئ فاتقون WA IYYAYA FA ATTAQUN
Verse 33/55: و التقین اللہ WA ATTAQEEN ALLAH
Kindly note that at both places, TAQOON OR TAQEEN is used as VERB. And this goes contrary to your statement about TAQEEN, that it was a NOUN.
Now about the problem you have referred to in your last small post.
You see, skeptics already are not participating in this thread because of your conviction that Quran is neither AUTHENTIC nor maintains INTEGRITY. I believe you have expressed this view in your words somewhere in the earlier posts.
My dear friend, I cannot imprison your thoughts within the peripheries of other peoples' convictions. BUT, I do think that a scholarly person like you should not have been ambivalent about the most important aspect of our lives. I had already asked you the question, and I again write that for you underneath, which you still have to reply; and there are other multitude of questions from our companions on this Blog whose answers are pending from you and they insist that you must answer them before they participate in this discussion. The question:
"WHY ARE YOU SPENDING YOUR HIGH ACADEMIC QUALITIES IN EXPLORING A BOOK WHOSE INTEGRITY IS DOUBTFUL IN YOUR VIEW - WHO, ACCORDING TO YOUR STANDPOINT, HAS BEEN PILFERED WITH, ALTERED, CHANGED OR CORRUPTED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT" ? ? ? ISN'T THAT A SHEER WASTAGE OF PAINFULLY ACQUIRED SKILLS AND COMPETENCE?
My best wishes go with you. I continue enjoying your interpretations at Brother Abdun's Web.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/11/2011 |
1. I know as absolute certainty that a Rabb (sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher) exits. How do I know this instead of just believing this statement? I will barrow from René Descartes, “I think, hence I am”. I can not deny my own existence. I also know this much for sure that my existence is not self subsisting. It is dependent on something/somebody. This something/somebody is described as Rabb by Quran.
2. I believe (that is it is my opinion at this time) that Quran is a book that contains a mode of conduct for all times and for all humans. I am working to convert my belief/opinion into a knowledge by understanding this book.
3. In my humble opinion to accomplish this task one has to take a step back and suspend all judgments. This is much easy to say then to act upon. We need to look at Quran just as any other book that we have understood. This is very important as we do not want to look for explanations of our held beliefs. But rather want to find out what is in it for us.
4. Once we find out what it contains, without our own biases. Only then we can decide and let its meanings dictate the answers to all our questions about its source etc.
5. Finally, since we are in the infancy of understanding this book. The meanings will likely change and evolve. We have to be ready for that and not let our held believes or egos come into play as an obstruction.
6. I shall continue to work on other issues raised by you.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/11/2011 |
God bless you with those convictions. Wouldn't that be a pleasant surprise that I second all your convictions in the same way as you have explained? At least I am overwhelmed.
Then what hinders our way in explaining things that I have sought clarifications about, and that other participants have queried about ? You are doing a marvelous work and it is my earnest desire to reach a consensus with your efforts. We can sort it out together because two or more brains are always better than one.
Now, the queries made are very important.
Thank you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/11/2011 |
Summarizing the methodology of understanding and translating Alkitab:
I use widely accepted and respected English translations of Classic Arabic Lexicon and Grammar books. These include
1. An Arabic English Lexicon By Edward William Lane.(an authentic work of translation based on respected Arabic lexicons such as Taj al-Arus, تاج العروس and many others).
2. A Grammar of the Arabic Language by W. Wright (Based on Arabic authentic Grammar books cited in preface of his Book)
3. A Grammar of Classical Arabic Third Revised Edition Wolfdietrich Fischer; Translated from the German by Jonathan Rodgers
From these books I understood following. In Arabic script writing the implications of some of the terms and signs used are as follows.
1. A Gezm 1 is used to indicate declinable words attached to other words.
2. A Sukoon1 is to indicate a Non Mutherick consonant in a non-declinable word.
3. A Teshdeed 2 indicates binding of two words, one ending and other beginning with the same consonant.
The implications of above terms on the Arabic written script are that words can be so to call, zipped together. Hence what are commonly understood to be words: are not only just separated by space between them in the Alkitab. In addition, a word separation, is also indicated by above two signs, i.e., Gezm and Teshdeed/Shada. Hence, one needs to unzip them based on the above marks. This unzipping allows one to realize what words are written together. Once this is achieved it makes lexical and grammatical understanding much easier.
1. Jezm and Sukoon= http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000057.pdf
2. Teshdeed= http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume4/00000242.pdf
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/11/2011 |
After all, the Companions of the Prophet understood each word to its bottom as it was written in their dailly spoken language. For them it was Book of understanding and not for use in competitions for recitation in beutiful voices only. A book of law, or a book of medicine or a book of principles of accounting or any other book is to be under stood for what it contains and not just as to how to pronounce those words correctly and beutifully.
Let us all try to get to the bottom of those facts as to what God is really saying to us, rather than trying to find explanations of our long held beliefs trough this book. Knowing as to what the Book is saying in its pure linguistic terms is the only thing what will bring us close to the message depicted in this most fabulous Book of all times.
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 2/12/2011 |
Truthseeker: Thanks for elaborating upon concepts of Gezm, Sukoon and Shadda.
Aurangzaib: I thank you for making necessary correction upon my "protest". You converted it back to "Nominal". But there is another point still to be amended.
Badar: Dear brother your objection was this “This for you is the collection he wrote from what he learned and heard”; my question is that the sentence is nominal جملہ اسمیہ because Kitaab is a noun; so how is it that you have converted that into جملہ فعلیہ ? .
Badar: This Objection was not the reason of change. The reason was purely linguistic. This was based upon revision of definition of “Masdar”, while responding to Sister UmeAimon. As for your objection, please recall
1. A nominal sentence is labeled as such just based upon the fact, if it starts with a noun.
2. In a nominal sentence an object can be a verbal sentence and not necessarily has to be just another noun. Still it would be called a nominal sentence.
3. Why I am adding meanings of “learning”. Because it appears an integral part of the root meanings. Additionally, it will turn out to be important for certain other concepts/beliefs. That is all I would submit at this time. Please see link for lane below for root meaning of Ka-Ta-Ba.
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/15/2011 |
Aurangzaib: “CLARIFICATIONS SOUGHT:
The next thing I would humbly try to discuss with you is “your peculiar construction” of the term AL-MUTTAQEEN. This is how you explain its construction:-
“Let us see how this so called word, which actually is a phrase, is formed? What rules are applicable?
It starts of around root تقى, its plural male third person noun would be, تَقُونَ, prefix to it imperative of root موت, which is مُتْ When these two combine, according to إدغام rules, since last letter of prefix and first letter of following word are the same these are written as one with a shadda. So it becomes مُتَّقُونَ. Now add the definite article “al” to it. It becomes المُتَّقُونَ. “”
Your kind Clarification may be requested as per the following questions that are formulated for short answers as well as for the sake of easy comprehension :-
1. You said: “It starts around Root TAQI”.
In my humble information, there is no trace of this Root. In fact the Root (ثلاثی مجرد ) for the Verb TAQA (TAQI) is و ق ی ? “
Badar: Dear Brother you have asked clarification based upon this statement “In my humble information, there is no trace of this Root. In fact the Root (ثلاثی مجرد ) for the Verb TAQA (TAQI) is و ق ی ? “
Badar: let us analyze it. Can و ق ی be witten as “TAQI” implying that first radical consonant of a root could be changed into different consonant. This would the case if one were to accept your statement i.e., Waw can be changed into a “Ta”. However, per language rules this would not be permissible for number of reasons.
1. The weak consonants (Wa and Yaa) are the only ones that do change but none changes to “Ta”
2. There are certain other less know changes of certain consonants but “Ta” and “Wa” are not interchangeable.
3. Finally a root “Ta-Qaf-Ya” does exsists in Lane’s lexicon. Please see link below.
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000346.pdf
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume1/00000347.pdf
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/15/2011 |
Dear Brother, please feel free to interrupt as this doesn't need to be complete one sided affair.
Aurangzaib: “The whole word “ متقی Muttaqi” is, in itself, ISM AL-FAAIL from the verb TAQI, it can’t be a combination مرکب of two different words. Why? Pls see some of the ISM AL-FAAIL from this verb under different Measures : MUTTAQIN متق (Nakra), AL-MUTTAQI المتقی (Ma’rfah); MUTAWAAQIN متواق (Nakra), AL-MUTAWAAQI المتواقی (Ma’rfah); MUTAWAQQIN متوق (Nakrah), AL-MUTAWAQQI المتوقی (Ma’rfah); MUSTAWQIN مستوق (Nakrah), ALMUSTAWQI المستوقی (Ma’rfah), etc."
.
Badar: Dear brother you have included lots of examples in this. However, if I were to summarize the main point you have made is this part, would be, “The whole word “ متقی Muttaqi” is, in itself, ISM AL-FAAIL from the verb TAQI, it can’t be a combination”.
Dear brother, I would humbly draw your attention to the fact. There is no measure in the language to best of my knowledge for ISM AL-FAAIL, that has repetition of radical root constant at “FA KALIMA” as is the case in this word manifested by presence of Shadda at “Ta” after Meem”. Please share with me if you know such a measure and I shall stand corrected.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/17/2011 |
2/2 ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ
اس م نامی لکھے جا چکے میں نہیں شک ہے ہدایت یافتگان کے لئے تھا
above mention single line took mine 4 hours to type :-( and i could not find your translation in the thread to understand what was your translation. any way above mention are open for objection/s. can i know your name? sir.
faisal masood.
| Comments by: faisalmasoodsunny | On: 2/20/2011 |
Badar: Dear Brother since our objective is to get to the truth and real meanings of this book. Hence, I looked again any thing in support of your this statement, “The whole word “ متقی Muttaqi” is, in itself, ISM AL-FAAIL from the verb TAQI, it can’t be a combination”.
Only time a “Waw” can change into “TA” when roots start with “Waw”. When it goes into Bab-e iftaal. However, still unable to find an ISM AL-FAAIL with the said measure. One caution while dealing with language rules is that, lot of times there are may be two or more rules applicable to a given situation. The grammatical rules are always developed afterwards as rationalizations of a spoken language. Since translations and tafseers were written earlier then all rules of language. Hence, more caution needs to be exercised, as some rules appear to have been developed as rationalizations of established understanding of text as explained in tafseers/translations. Finally, we will need to use our Rabb given ability of rationale and logic.
Aurangzaib: Now having addressed your concerns about “Muttaqi” as not an “ISM AL-FAAIL” per language rules. Let me address second part. Which is “So dear Brother, MUTT مت seems to be an already existing integral part of ISM AL-FAA’IL from the verb تقی ? Any arguments to substantiate your peculiar construction, which in the light of above proofs may look like an invention? Excuse me for saying that; I don’t claim to be anywhere in an advanced stage of Arabic grammar. I seek your guidance only because the prevalent rules appear to be violated.”
Badar: Dear brother, I also never thought that it was a “FAAIL AMR” from start. I always thought that it was whole noun word (مَوُتٌ). However, earlier on due non-familiarity with lots of language rules, I accepted an explanation of Sister Samia, a moderator at www.free-minds.org site. Who said it could be “MUTT” a "Faail-e-Amr". However, for this discussion, I had to look again for an explanation due several other points raised by yourself; amongst which included objection to incorporation of a verb in an otherwise nominal construct. The noun (مَوُتٌ) could be legitmatly written as (مُتْ) under ijwaf rules (please ref. to W. Wright’s Vol.1 page 85 rem 157 for details and examples of this rule).
I sincerely want to thank you and your team, for given me this oppertunity of literary learning of the language by spending your precious time and effort.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/20/2011 |
FIRST POINT :
I am sorry that my standpoint remains the same as the odds are completely in favor of it.
I feel it preferable here, however, to just copy/paste for you how Lane has formed the construction of the word MUTTAQI and from which Root has he done that. You will kindly note that It simply is a derivative from Wa-Qaf-Ya and you can watch it hereunder. Same goes for your ROOT of TAQI or TAQA. Lane just mentions this root superficially, to fill the blank, it seems, as he does not expand on it at all - not a single derivative. On the contrary, he clearly refers you to Wa-Qaf-Ya. Please watch :-
ت ق ی = Ta-Qaf-Ya = to fear, be cautious, guarded, prepared, preserve, forethoughtful, reverential & pious fear (of God), righteous/virtuous/just/honest.
see Waw-Qaf-Ya***
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 1, pages: 346, 347
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As we see, Root Ta-Qaf-Ya does not elaborate any constructions of words. It rather refers you to Waw-Qaf-Ya, which is the one that unfolds a great wealth of constructions.
Let us check now the Waw-Qaf-Ya :-
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages: 212
و ق ی : Waw-Qaf-Ya = to protect, save, preserve, ward off, guard against evil and calamity, be secure, take as a shield, regard the duty. muttaqii - one who guard against evil and against that which harms and injures and is regardful of his duty towards human beings and God.
Waqaa (prf. 3rd. p. m. sing.): He protected etc.
Taqii (imp. 3rd. p. f. sing.): She protects.
Taqi (imp. 2nd. p. m. sing. f d.): Thou protect.
Qi (prt. m. sing.): Protect.
Quu (prt. m. plu.): Protect.
Yuuqa (pip. 3rd. p. m. sing. f. d.) : Is preserved.
Waaqun (for Waaqii): (act. pic. m. sing.): Protector.
**Ittaqaa (prf. 3rd. p. f. sing. IV.) Who guards against evil; Who keeps his duty.
**Ittaquu (prf. 3rd. p. m. plu. VIII.): Guarded against evils.
**Ittaqaitunna (prf. 2nd. p. f. plu. VIII.): Ye (f) guard against evil.
**Tattaquna (imp. 2nd. p. m. plu. VIII.): You are secure against evils and calamities.
**Tattaquu (imp. 2nd. p. m. plu. VIII. n. d.): You are secure against evils and calamities.
**Yattaqi (imp. 3rd. p.m. sing. VIII.): He-should guard against evils and calamities.
**Yattaquu (imp. 3rd. p. m. plu. VIII. ): They guard against evils and calamites.
**Yattaqii (imp. 2nd. m. sing. VIII.): Shield, Protect.
**Ittaqi (prt. m. sing. VIII. ) : Take as a shield.
**Ittaquu (prt. m. plu. VIII.): Ye take as a shield.
**Ittaquuni (comb. Ittaquu+nii).
**Ittaqaina (prt. f. plu. vb. VIII): Take as shield.
***Muttaquun/Muttaqiin (acc./ plu. of Muttaqii): Atqaa (elative): Most dutiful and guarding against evils.
Taqiyyann (act. plc. m. sing. acc.): One who carefully guarded against evils.
Taqaatun (v. n.): Observing duty.
**Taqwaa (n.): Protection; Warding off evil; Observing duty; Abstinent; Observing the Divine ordinances in every walk of life.
waqa vb. (1) perf. act. 40:45, 44:56, 52:18, 52:27, 76:11
impf. act. 16:81, 16:81, 40:9
impv. 2:201, 3:16, 3:191, 40:7, 40:9, 66:6
impf. pass. 59:9, 64:16
pcple. act. 13:34, 13:37, 40:21
taqiy n.m. (adj. comp. atqa) 19:13, 19:18, 19:63, 49:13, 92:17
taqwa n.f. 2:197, 2:237, 5:2, 5:8, 7:26, 9:108, 9:109, 20:132, 22:32, 22:37, 47:17, 48:26, 49:3, 58:9, 74:56, 91:8, 96:12
tuqat n.f. 3:28, 3:102
ittaqa vb. (8)
perf. act. 2:103, 2:189, 2:203, 2:212, 3:15, 3:76, 3:172, 3:198, 4:77, 5:65, 5:93, 5:93, 5:93, 7:35, 7:96, 7:201, 12:109, 13:35, 16:30, 16:128, 19:72, 33:32, 39:20, 39:61, 39:73, 53:32, 92:5
impf. act. 2:21, 2:63, 2:179, 2:183, 2:187, 2:224, 2:282, 2:283, 3:28, 3:120, 3:125, 3:179, 3:186, 4:9, 4:128, 4:129, 6:32, 6:51, 6:69, 6:69, 6:153, 7:63, 7:65, 7:156, 7:164, 7:169, 7:171, 8:29, 8:56, 9:115, 10:6, 10:31, 10:63, 12:57, 12:90, 16:52, 20:113, 23:23, 23:32, 23:87, 24:52, 26:11, 26:106, 26:124, 26:142, 26:161, 26:177, 27:53, 37:124, 39:24, 39:28, 41:18, 47:36, 65:2, 65:4, 65:5, 73:17
impv. 2:24, 2:41, 2:48, 2:123, 2:189, 2:194, 2:196, 2:197, 2:203, 2:206, 2:223, 2:231, 2:233, 2:278, 2:281, 2:282, 3:50, 3:102, 3:123, 3:130, 3:131, 3:200, 4:1, 4:1, 4:131, 5:2, 5:4, 5:7, 5:8, 5:11, 5:35, 5:57, 5:88, 5:96, 5:100, 5:108, 5:112, 6:72, 6:155, 8:1, 8:25, 8:69, 9:119, 11:78, 15:69, 16:2, 22:1, 23:52, 26:108, 26:110, 26:126, 26:131, 26:132, 26:144, 26:150, 26:163, 26:179, 26:184, 29:16, 30:31, 31:33, 33:1, 33:37, 33:55, 33:70, 36:45, 39:10, 39:16, 43:63, 49:1, 49:10, 49:12, 57:28, 58:9, 59:7, 59:18, 59:18, 60:11, 64:16, 65:1, 65:10, 71:3
pcple. act. 2:2, 2:66, 2:177, 2:180, 2:194, 2:241, 3:76, 3:115, 3:133, 3:138, 5:27, 5:46, 7:128, 8:34, 9:4, 9:7, 9:36, 9:44, 9:123, 11:49, 13:35, 15:45, 16:30, 16:31, 19:85, 19:97, 21:48, 24:34, 25:15, 25:74, 26:90, 28:83, 38:28, 38:49, 39:33, 39:57, 43:35, 43:67, 44:51, 45:19, 47:15, 50:13, 51:15, 52:17, 54:54, 68:34, 69:48, 77:41, 78:31
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages: 313
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please check particularly the constructions marked with ** and ***. Doesn’t the above make things more complicated, as it also goes contrary to your standpoint. Kindly check Muttaqun and Muttaqin - there clearly is no Murakkab of two words "TAQI" and "MAUT". So the discussion from freeminds about Imperative Mutt or Noun Maut is probably not required at all.
Doesn't Lane clearly states : ""muttaqii - one who guard against evil and against that which harms and injures and is regardful of his duty towards human beings and God"" - and it is a derivative from WA QAF YA و ق ی ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SECOND POINT :
About KITAB or KATABA, your link of Lane is the same where I had already strained my weakening eyesight. BUT it only showed the element of "learning and hearing" where it said کتب عنہ , i.e., "He wrote from what he learned and heard from him". For "کتب" alone, he has not added "learning or hearing". Pls check again. The proposed "addition" in the authentic meaning of KATABA is not proved authentic. Please ask me to copy/paste it for you if you are not satisfied.
But, Let us “suppose” for a few minutes that the contention is right - and KATABA does mean "he wrote from what he learned and heard". How would you then translate the following :-
کتب اللہ لاغلبن انا و رسلی - KATABA ALLAHU LA AGHLABANNA ANAA WA RUSULI
کتب اللہ علی نفسہ رحمہ - KATABA ALLAHU 'ALA NAFSIHI RAHMAH
I bet you just can’t incorporate the “rediscovered” additions in the meaning of KATABA in these sentences from Quran. I figure, it will be totally ridiculous to say "ALLAH HAS MADE IT MANDATORY (کتب اللہ) “FROM WHAT HE LEARNED AND HEARD” THAT I (he) AND MY (his) MESSENGERS WOULD EVENTUALLY DOMINATE",,, etc.
Obviously, the proposed "additions" stand to ruin and garble the translations in other situations in Quran, so the contention cannot be claimed as correct.
As for the other point of ISM and VERB in respect of KITAB, it is humbly pointed out that the word "AL-KITAB" is a proper noun for QURAN, used many dozens of times in the BOOK. It's a NAME. We can hardly convert that into a verbal sentence through any force of argument. I agree that a KITAB comes into being from the act (verb) of writing or collecting. However, the “OUTCOME” of that effort brings into existence a PRODUCT which is a THING with a name, a NOUN. I would only very humbly request you not to alter the whole philosophy of known grammarian distinction between Noun and Verb just because some obscure source has invented or discovered it.
THIRD POINT:
allazi la ilaha = ALLAH = that who is not a Deity for Worship & adoration
Let us apply this defition of ILAHA الہ in the following two sentences :-
…la ‘ilaha الہ illa ana fa ‘buduni…./ (there is) no Deity for Worship & adoration EXCEPT I, hence OBEY ME
(Does it make sense?)
….la ilaha الہ illa huwa ilayhil maseer…/ (there is) no Deity for Worship & adoration EXCEPT HIM, and to HIM is the last resort.
(Does it make sense?)
This is only to put your definition of "ilaha" to some more tests, if you don't mind please.
Best regards.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/21/2011 |
That is root و ق ی can change to تقی. Eagerly, waiting and looking forwards for your response.
With sincere thanks and regards.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/21/2011 |
و ق ی cannot change to تقی.
Review of the great work by scholar GA Pervez shows و ق ی and not تقی as an existing root, but Lane gives تقی. as a separate root also
It is not clear as to on what grounds Lane referred for the meaning of تقی. to the section on و ق ی unless the meanings were or became the same, otherwise the first letters of the words do not seem to be interchangeable in this pattern.
Having said that the word TAQI does exist as a verb in the Lexicons, it might be only correct to say that this word's root is also تقی and not و ق ی , even though both root word may be carrying the same meaning. But these will remain as two separate roots as the first letters of these do not seem to be interchangeable.
This word which we all agree to be a verb, seem to be a transitive verb which for its meaning would be dependent on other factors as well. As it means "guard, prepare, preserve, etc. then it has to be classified further as to prepare and gaurd against something and the method to prepare or gaurd against what ever the case may be.
Hope I am learning it correct.
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 2/23/2011 |
Salaamun / Peace, Prosperity and Safety Be Upon You,
The root word Wa-Qi-Ya is known as an "assimilated" verb due to it having a Waaw as the FIRST root letter. Words with Waaw or Yaa as the first root letter are both assimilated verbs and these letters often "drop out" OR become vowel sounds when put into various patterns. The word "Taqwa" is such a pattern as it is a masculine noun.
Words such as Taqwa, Muttaqee and the imperative Ittaquu are different patterns of the basic root verb of WaQiYa. This phenomenon is easily observable when you look at the word WaJaDa (He Found). Like the basic root verb WaQiYa, this word WaJaDa is in the masculine, 3rd person and past tense. But it drops out the letter Waaw entirely when put into the active present tense such as in 2/96, 2/110, 2/196, 3/30 and literally close to twenty other verses.
Another example of an assimilated verb in The Quran beginning with the letter Waaw is the root word Waaw-'3yn-Daal which means he promised or he gave his word. We can see the letter Waaw dropping out entirely when the pattern changes from past tense masculine 3rd person into the masculine noun "Promise" (Mi'3ad) in 3/9, 3/194, 8/42, 13/31, 34/30 and 39/20. Like the word "Taqwa" the Arabic word "Mi '3ad" is a masculine noun derived from an assimilated verb which begins with the letter Waaw in its basic root form.
Even though any of us could have cited the various grammar books and provided examples from those books to illustrate the above explanation, I believe the strongest evidence is that which is in The Quran itself.
Salaam and God Bless You,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 2/23/2011 |
If we look at MUTTAQI, there are two TA depicted by a Shadda. Unless we consider two TA here as representing end and begining of two separate words MUT TAQI, we will have to assume that WA has been replaced in the process of assimilation by two TA, which remains unexplained. Hence it seem that it is difficult to call MUTTAQI as one word. If there was only one TA, then MIM could have been an augmentative paricle carrying the concept of those gaurding most. But as there are two TA, it cannot be considered as such. This is how I am so far understanding it.
Salaam and God bless and help us all.
| Comments by: Truth seeker | On: 2/23/2011 |
Wa-Qi-Ya changing to Muttaqee...
First is the prefix "Mu". This is the prefix attached to any number of verbal derivations used to describe the "person" that is the agent of the verb. This is why we have the word Iman from which we get the word MUmin...Salam from which we get MUslim...JaRaMa from which we get the word MUjrim...JaHaDa from which we get MUjahid, etc.
As for the remaining portion of the word Muttaqee and why the letter TA is doubled is because the base root of the word is in the VIII pattern of the verb (ifta3ala/yafta3il). In this form of the verb if the FIRST root letter is Hemza, Ta or Waaw these letters are "replaced" by a DOUBLING of the letter TA at the beginning of the pattern.
The word Muttaqee isn't the only word in The Quran with this grammatical construct. We also have the root word Aa-Kha-Dha (beginning with Hemza) which has the meaning of taking, seizing or adopting and you would see the same construct of this word in the VIII pattern in 2/51, 2/80, 2/92, 2/116, 4/125, 4/153, 5/57, 5/58, 5/81, 18/63, 18/77, 18/106, 19/17, 19/78, 19/81, 19/87, 19/88 and plenty of other ayaat of The Quran. And we can see the doubling of this letter TA when prefixed by "MU" in 4/25, 5/5 and 18/51 just as we have the doubling of the TA in the word Muttaqee.
Salaam and God Bless,
Damon.
| Comments by: Damon | On: 2/23/2011 |
Having said above, you bring up a very very important point. Which is TA-QAF-YA/WA , is a transitive verb. It is not only transitive, but doubly transitive verb. This is the intrinsic evidence of language and Quran that shows with certainty for this to be two words. Otherwise this whole verse would not make a complete sense.
Let me elaborate with simple out of Quran example. If one says "Truthseeker safeguarded himself". This sentence needs further elaboration to make sense out of it. I would legitimately ask "Truthseeker safeguarded from/against what?". I shall also get an answer. Answers could be various, but say it is, he guarded from Maut; again it is not a complete answer. I would ask, how he did safeguard? There needs to be an answer for this as well. The previous part of the verse, as well previous verse has already answered this question. An eternal mode of conduct contained in this writing for the intense suffering of mankind. Now this really make sense. Isn’t it? However, still one needs to understand what word "Maut" meant to people of the time. Did it only mean an end of physical life, like at present time. Or else it contained lot more concepts in it.
With regards
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/23/2011 |
Your question :-
"Dear brother, thanks for such an extensive write up again. But you have not cited a single referance from language rules to indicate that in (ثلاثی مجرد ) a radical root letter/consonant can change like this.
That is root و ق ی can change to تقی. Eagerly, waiting and looking forwards for your response. "
has been beautifully and substantially answered by Brother Damon in his two comments above. I couldn't have easily answered in this way and I am thankful to him for eventually resuming his role in this discussion.
Now dear Brother, the ball is in your court and you have got a multitude of queries to answer. And it is not only my last detailed write up but the ones earlier than that too.
Needless to mention that it's a learning process, and I am eager to see how your new discoveries can be presented in a generally acceptable way. I do think they can only be accepted as per their possible successful application in other situations in the Quranic texts. That's why I ask you to try to apply them at various places.
God bless you.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/25/2011 |
Aurangzaib: Now dear Brother, the ball is in your court and you have got a multitude of queries to answer. And it is not only my last detailed write up but the ones earlier than that too.
Badar: Brother let me clarify my position. I am not doing, what I am doing to prove my superiority, authority or to defend my personal position at all. However, with my work on language as well due discussion so far here on this forum; clearly shows that we do not understand Quran based upon language, at all. If we could not move beyond the first few verses with certainty regarding the linguistic issues involved. How come we can say the current understanding/translations are correct?
1. If we understand this much, this is enough for me to done away with all current beliefs that we were ingrained with while growing up. That means current religion Islam and all beliefs belonging to it have no footings to stand on.
2. Once we get out off held beliefs, only then we realistically would be able to look at Quran as a book and be able to understand it. Also to me it becomes imperative for anyone who claims to believe in Quran to start spending his/her energies to get to real meanings as soon as possible.
Aurangzaib: “has been beautifully and substantially answered by Brother Damon in his two comments above”.
Badar: No brother my question was this “"Dear brother, thanks for such an extensive write up again. But you have not cited a single reference from language rules to indicate that in (ثلاثی مجرد ) a radical root letter/consonant can change like this.
That is root و ق ی can change to تقی. Eagerly, waiting and looking forwards for your response. "
Brother Damon has not cited a single establish rule in his write up. If he knows one? I would like him to share with us with reference, please.
The only thing he has pointed out is that it can be measure of (فَاعِلٌ) in (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ). Which, I started to point out above before your very long post above; even if one were to accept this explanation as correct for a minute. It does not explain following issues.
1. I am yet unable to find out this measure of failun in old translation from Arabic to English. Does it mean it is a later rationalization? If it is, wouldn’t it be considered as innovation in the language? I suggest why do not your team look it up in AUTHETIC OLD ARABIC GRAMMAR BOOKS to find out if this measure existed from beginning?
2. When a verbal root goes into (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ) . It adds either reflexive or reciprocal meanings which we do not find in traditional translations. Additionally, as pointed out above it is a doubly transitive verb. Which requires two (معفول) to give its complete meanings and make sense out of it. Where are those in the traditional meanings?
Shall continue, unless more distractions are added on the way.
With profound regards,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 2/26/2011 |
FIRST POINT:
ABOUT WAQA/TAQA.
1. The rule and pattern referred to in the first of the two comments by Brother Damon about conversion of Waw into Ta, which he explained with proper examples, do not meet with your approval. Bypassing those, You still require some more proof/rules.
2. He also explained about Prefix “Mu” in his second comment. He quoted the relevant Measure too (Baab) as well as proper references/examples from other Quranic terms. Still no approval from you.
3. I called Muttaqi – al-Muttaqi – as ISM al-Faa’il (under measure Ifte’aal). Still no agreement from you. I expected you to correct me by telling what may I call al-Muttaqi – Ism-e-Zarf or what? No correction from you, because you hold a basic disagreement with its Root, perhaps!
4. The whole list of derivatives from و ق ی by Lane also does not meet with your approval, While this Lane is the same whom you have chosen often to keep quoting as Authority in support of some of your standpoints.
5. When I copy/pasted Lane for you, the purpose was to make it clear that Lane has clearly equated TAQA with WAQA, and has not expanded on TAQA at all. You didn’t comment. How about that? Do you reject Lane on that account?
6. Here are some more derivatives from the Grammar Books (I have already quoted many):
PAST: waqqi (Taf’eel), ouqa (If’aal), ittaqa (Ifti’aal), tawaqa (Tafa’ul), waqa (Mufa’ala), tawaqqa (Tafa’ul), istawqa (Istif’aal).
MAZAARE’: yuaqqi (Taf’eel), yuqi (If’aal), yattaqi (Ifte’aal), yatawaqa (Tafa’ul), yuwaqi (Mufa’ala), yatawaqqa (Tafa’ul), yastawqi (Istif’aal).
There are so many other forms that are essentially derived from و ق ی in authentic books. Do you reject all those grammarians?
7. The Murakkab of Maut and Taqeen suggested by your good self, which I had tried to translate into English earlier, has neither substantiated its own formation/construction nor the meaning it represents. Mut (imperative) garbles the sense it gives when one translates it into English. You have not even quoted an authority for this construction, nor have you justified the sense it gives by its translation; except that you have quoted a certain ‘discussion’ in one of the Blogs, in your support. That naturally does not enjoy authority.
8. It seems you are prepared for a serious confrontation with the entire old and modern Arab intelligentsia on the grounds of your ‘re-discovered’ grammatical rules.
In my humble opinion, you and Dr. QZ are in for a pitched battle radically altering the Quranic translations and concepts. However, Dr. QZ might be the only survivor among you two as his battle is for applying the existing grammatical rules in letter and spirit. He consequently is well equipped and can face whatever serious repercussions might arise from any intellectual quarters. On the contrary, in your case, you are a flag-bearer of fundamental changes in the Arabic grammar itself on the basis of some ‘re-discovered’ rules and a much altered syntax. How would you survive? You are alone!
You have a tough uphill journey ahead of you, my friend. We still do not have a mutually agreed upon criterion upon which to judge and decide about your radical and revolutionary upheavals in the field of widely accepted Arabic grammar and syntax. For me, as well as for most of my companions on this Blog, the successful application of your discoveries into Quranic texts, without losing its logic, rationale and its core doctrine/message, is the only decisive yardstick. You will kindly note that my entire participation in this discussion reflects the same orientation. I think to acquire recognition for your kind of research, this project should have been undertaken by a panel of prominent Arab native linguists under the auspices of an Arab university of repute.
If you are greatly influenced by Sibawayh al-Nahwi (d. 180AH), you may take cognizance of two important factors: 1) Sibawayh was a non-Arab grammarian and his work is still being uncovered…..and 2) The Muslim world in his time was heavily infested with fake Muslim scholars of multiple origins and doubtful antecedents. All of them were hell bent upon the common mission of corrupting the essence of Islamic doctrine.
As per research into our history, We can’t even trust Imam Abu Hanifa (d.150 AH) or Imam Maalik bin Ans (d. 180 AH) upon their integrity of character and upon their being genuinely Muslim jurists and Mohaddisin. How can Sibawayh enjoy undisputed authority so as to alter the whole Arabic grammar? Personally, I am one of the loud skeptics about most of the acclaimed scholars of that era. Their writings clearly portray their enmity against Islamic ideology and their grudge against its great founder.
Lastly, I am worried too about distractions in the way of your smooth proceeding. But since you do need participation and sharing, some of us have to offer their view-points and some questions continue popping up. I suggest you initiate a new thread and work peacefully there. This is your field of specialization and your study and research here is enormous. And then, you are a very gentle and methodical teacher and it’s fun to learn from you. I will see to it that I create the least hurdle in your way. Kindly click on the Chapter “Translations” under heading “QURAN” on the left of Blog page, and when the QUESTION window appears, type some question there like this :-
Can new discoveries in Arabic syntax and grammar be successfully applied to Modern Rational Quranic translations ?
The new thread would take a start with that Question, and then you can continue working there with ease. The present thread has already stretched beyond a comfortable limit.
SECOND POINT:
It’s about KATABA and your ‘additions’ into its meaning. No clarification yet from you. But that doesn’t matter.
THIRD POINT:
It’s about your translation of ILAHA which needs to be justified through incorporation into Quranic texts. Take your time.
Regards.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 2/27/2011 |
First of all my brother you are not a distraction for me. In fact you are a cause for my learning. I want you and your team to know this, how much I appreciate interacting with you. That comment was more general comment not intended personally.
I am not influenced by anybody. I look at every ones linguistic work with open mind. I compare and contrast such work with others and finally try to use Rabb given reason and logic. I have not studied Sibawayh except few chapters that are translated in English. In fact there is no complete translation of his AlKitab available to best of knowledge. The comments by Orientals suggest that primary focus of his work was not Quranic text but just the language itself.
As for Lane is concerned, his work is just a translation of authentic Arabic Lexicons into English, with due references. Nothing more nothing less, if he added his opinion he has indicated as such. It is little difficult book for starters. However, if one were to read his preface few times. It aids the smooth sailing through the book.
Yes brother, I am up against not hills, but mountains. I am trying to navigate an uncharted sea, with only one hope that my Rabb shall pull me through. I know my own capacities which are very very meager. Whenever, I look at these, it seems that to get to shore is way out of my personal abilities.
Yes I shall try to create those threads soon.
In my next post, I shall give one more try to put together the rules I am using and rationale of using these rules to explain words under discussion.
With regards,
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/1/2011 |
لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ
Root is said to be= و ق ی
I think this part of this word is what seems to be problematic. The preposition “lee” and definite article “al” at start are agreed upon.
Such roots are considered as (لفيفِ مفروق), meaning has a weak letter at beginning and end.
Traditional claim is that this word is derivative of above root in the form of (إسم فاعلٌ). Additionally, this (إسم فاعلٌ) is fromed after this root has changed into (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ). The measure of (إسم فاعلٌ) in (مزيد فيه), which (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ) is, given below
مُفْتَعِلٌ
Futhermore, when a root containing “Waw” at start get into (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ). Its begining "Waw" gets assimilated into (ت) and instead of being written as (وت) it is written as (تّ). Hence when root (و ق ی) would change into (مزيد فيه) it would be written as
مُتَّقِين instead of مُوتقِين
I shall stop at this point. Please correct if any of this understanding is incorrect.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/3/2011 |
1. It apparently looks to explain the apparent written appearance of this word? Isn’t? Shall we be satisfied here? It meets criteria of grammatical explanation. This word’s syntactic rules are also satisfied. It is in Jerr due presence of preposition “Lee”. Hurray we understand this word and our Rabb’s message, our responsibility is fulfilled. We are saved. Let us just get on with our lives and try to make lots of Muslims.
2. But wait a minute all this is good and well. But aren’t we told as the basics of language that most words have at least triliteral root. Other words are formed by augmenting this root and not the other way around.
3. If the notion in 2 is correct? How come we have accepted the non-sense of new triliteral radicals being formed from assimilated words like one in question? Without this innovative rationalization, how could one explain following words out of Quran? Which are supposedly derived from same root . 49:13 أَتْقَاكُمْ, 3:28 تُقَاةً, 3:102 تُقَاتِهِ, 47:17 تَقْوَاهُمْ and number of others, where there is no duplication of “Ta” at “Fa Kalima”?
4. Furthermore, there are total of 45 roots used (Late G.A. Perwaiz in Lugat-ul-Quran has about 85) in Quran that start with “Waw” and 5 plus this one have weak letter at “Lam Kalima”. If we accept above traditional explanation as correct. Due deligence of 45 of these other roots have not a word in Quran with this pattern of (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ). Obvious question would be why?
5. Now let us take a look at some of the examples given above.
6. “Another example of an assimilated verb in The Quran beginning with the letter Waaw is the root word Waaw-'3yn-Daal which means he promised or he gave his word. We can see the letter Waaw dropping out entirely when the pattern changes from past tense masculine 3rd person into the masculine noun "Promise" (Mi'3ad) in 3/9, 3/194, 8/42, 13/31, 34/30 and 39/20. Like the word "Taqwa" the Arabic word "Mi '3ad" is a masculine noun derived from an assimilated verb which begins with the letter Waaw in its basic root form. “
7. Badar: It is an assumption based upon tradition that the root for “"Promise" (Mi'3ad)” is Waaw-Ayn-Dal. Let us analyze how correct this is. Only then we can decide, if it is relevant or not.
8. Let us bring actual text, only then it shall make sense and not in the transliterated form.
9. الْمِيعَادَ, the only way this could be considered from root Waaw-Ayn-Dal. If one were to assume that the starting “Miim with Kesra” is the augmentative letter in this measure in addition to “Alif after Ayn”. But unfortunately there is only one measure (مِفعَالٌ). Which is a measure of to indicate nouns of instruments a ( إسم آلالة). However, (الْمِيعَادَ) can not be considered a (إسم آلالة) in it’s current meanings. Can it be? If not, how could it be relevant? Neither the assumption about root appears correct nor the measure that could the case; if root assumption is considered as correct is relavant about word in discussion.
10. I can comment on other examples and show that those are also irrelevant as well. But do not want to get dragged into vain discussion again.
Shall continue, please point out mistakes as you see them. With regards.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/3/2011 |
Now let us look at it from traditionalist point of view and analyze.
Literal That The Book no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) guidance to the fearing and obeying.
Yusuf Ali This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;
Pickthal This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
Arberry That is the Book, wherein is no doubt, a guidance to the godfearing
Shakir This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).
Sarwar There is no doubt that this book is a guide for the pious;
H/K/Saheeh This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah
Malik This is the Book in which there is no doubt. (Since its Author, Allah, the Creator of this universe, possesses complete knowledge, there is no room for doubt about its contents.) It is a guide for those who are God conscious,[2]
Maulana Ali** This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who keep their duty,
Free Minds This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous.
Qaribullah That is the (Holy) Book, where there is no doubt. It is a guidance for the cautious (of evil and Hell).
George Sale There is no doubt in this book; it is a direction to the pious,
JM Rodwell No doubt is there about this Book: It is a guidance to the God-fearing,
Asad HIS DIVINE WRIT - let there be no doubt about it - is [meant to be] a guidance for all the God-conscious
Khalifa** This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous;
Hilali/Khan** This is the Book (the Quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqoon (the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)).
QXP Shabbir Ahemd** Allah's Guidance is right before you in the form of this noble Book, recorded by the most honorable scribes appointed by the Messenger (80:13-16). The Almighty Himself guarantees the Truth of this Revelation, its explanation and its preservation. And you will find it free of all contradiction ((4:82), (10:37), (15:9), (29:49), (32:2), (52:2-3), (75:17-19)). Therefore, there is absolutely no question or any doubt about the authority and authenticity of this Glorious Scripture. And, you will soon notice as you proceed, that this Book leaves no lingering doubts in a seeking mind. If you remember that this is a Book of guidance, and hence, treat it as such, the hard fact will dawn upon you that this is The Path-finding Guide for all those who wish to journey through life in blissful honor and security.
My intention is not to critique anybody. But please decide for yourself if these really make sense?
1. If this is a guidance only for god fearing. Then how about non-fearing, who is responsible for those. Who created them? Is it okay to do anything if one does not fear god?
2. Somebody who is pious why does he needs guidance?
3. If it is for ones guarding themselves, question is against what? Where is this meaning of evil coming from? Aren’t we putting words in our Rabb’s mouth?
4. Where are the words for wish to journey through life in blissful honor and security?
Please anyone tell me is there any semantic sense in these? Please!
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/4/2011 |
I agree with you that we cannot put our words in our Rubb's mouth.
All the four questions above are quite logical and have been raised earlier in the course of Dr. Sahib's translation.
BUT, Muttaqi, the derivative from و ق ی has a detailed meaning as per lexicons, and those meanings convey the complete sense without having to resort to the Murakkab of MUT and TAQI. For example, Lane writes :
"One who guards himself exceedingly, or extraordinarily, from sin, either of commission or of omission;
One who preserves, or guards himself from punishment and from acts of disobedience, by righteous conduct".
So, are we heading for a total denial of Lane here? (and of those too upon which Lane's writings are based).
No problem if we have to deny him. But let us prove why he and other lexicons are wrong. We are not questioning the translators here I think. But the sources (lexicons) from where the translators have taken these meanings.
It would also be very interesting to know which ROOT the word المیعاد comes from; if not from و ع د. Kindly throw some light on that too.
Regards.
| Comments by: aurangzaib | On: 3/6/2011 |
Let me further elaborate what I mean? Until few years ago I started to believe all previous Imams were criminals. Imam Tabri being the biggest criminal out of all; upon due research, I do not think it can be so with certainty. In fact, if we have to call anybody a criminal. These criminals are I/we; because our crimes are not hidden from ourselves. What are those crimes?
1. Blind beliefs without verifications.
2. Accepting or rejecting work of people of past and present with out due diligence.
3. Crime of apathy and inaction.
4. Crime of putting blame on others. Just to name a few but list is unending, brother.
Brother, Lane's work is just only a translation from authentic Arabic Lexicons. He starts of translating from root letters as heading, followed by most authentic meanings of the root and then followed by all other words supposed to be derived from same root given in the referenced lexicons. He references to grammatical constructs very sparingly. If one were to read his preface, he says that he is assuming the people using his lexicon have fair knowledge of Grammar of the Language.
With this background let me bring some facts to your kind attention.
1. It is obvious that Lane had found a root in authentic lexicons containing “Ta-Qaf-Ya/Waaw”.
2. Please note the meanings of root are given in 1. These meanings already imply (إسم فاعلٌ) meanings in it. Why then this root needs to go into (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ) and then become its (إسم فاعلٌ)? Is this easy language? Does not it contradict supposed claim of Quran somewhere of being in simple and easy language. Additionally, where is the additional meaning added to root from (بابِ إفْتَعَلَ) in traditional understanding/translations?
3. Finally he writes and translates the word in question in the last. Just because it was accepted as a word much before, based upon meanings understood on hearsay and translated by Imam Tabari. Far earlier then written accounts of language were completed.
Hope this makes sense. Root for المیعاد could be “Ayn-Waaw-Dal”. Although, again Lane has translated under “Waaw-Ayn-Dal”.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/6/2011 |
Could you please help me by providing exact translation for the terms mentioned in the following question?
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=29&QID=1114
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 3/7/2011 |
2:16أُوْلَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُاْ الضَّلاَلَةَ بِالْهُدَى فَمَا
رَبِحَت تِّجَارَتُهُمْ وَمَا كَانُواْ مُهْتَدِينَ
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/8/2011 |
ت - ج - ر has been translated as "traffic", "commerce", "sold and bought" in Edward Lane's Lexicon;
Whereas ٱلْبَيْعُ as mentioned in (2:275) according to my understanding, is from ب - ي - ع which has been translated as "exchange", "buying and selling". However a prefix AL is there in ٱلْبَيْعُ which probably gives بَيْعُ a special meaning.
بَيْعُ has normally been translated as "trade" in almost all orthodox translations of Quran.
I need to know what exactly is the difference between تِّجَٰرَتُ and ٱلْبَيْعُ which will help me to understand the true concept of ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا as mentioned in (2:275).
In fact I would really appreciate if you could share your understanding regarding the term ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا and صَدَقَةً as well.
Please refer to verse (9:60) or (9:103) for صَدَقَةً
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 3/8/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/8/2011 |
تِّجَارَتُهُمْ is combination of ( تِجَارَةٌ) and personal pronoun (هُمْ)
Root for ( تِجَارَةٌ) is (ت - ج – ر)
Measure would be (فِعَالَةٌ).
If anybody has any objections/suggestions please point out now before we proceed any further.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/9/2011 |
كِتَابَةٌ, وِلَايَةٌ, إمَارَةٌ, خِلَافَةٌ, نِيَابَةٌ, قِيَادَةٌ, عِرَافَةٌ, سِفَارَةٌ,
حِيَاكَةٌ, خِيَاضَةٌ, صِيَاغَةٌ
The measure adds meanings of "a craft or an office or a post" to the trilateral root meanings.
Other Words from some of the roots from above example words, do occur in Quran. With use of Tasreef, I am unable to find so far a word of this measure, besides the word in question, in Quran. I would like to request respected members of this forum. Since I consider them far better in use of Tasreef than myself to please help find out; if there is any other word of this measure in Quran?
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/10/2011 |
Lets us just look at semantics of these two verses first. As well ponder to see if this make sense? Then we shall look at the grammatical and syntactical rules applied for arriving at this semantic understanding.
2:1 آلمّ
Mankind has suffered, intensely.
2:2 ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ
For that suffering, this is the learned written collection of principles for you. A mode of conduct, without a shadow of doubt is contained in this collection, for all those safeguarding themselves against the Maut. (Maut=deprivation of senses, intellectual faculty, grief, sorrows, fears as well complete physical extinction).
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/14/2011 |
Dear Badar, I have one question regarding interpretation of آلمّ as "Mankind has suffered, intensely".
I would like to know how this word has been translated?
Also to mention that if there is a proper interpretation of آلمّ , could you please translate other similar words?
Let me share few words;
الٓمٓصٓ which is (7:01), الٓر i.e. (10:01, 11:01, 12:01,14:01 and 15:01 ), الٓمٓر i.e. (13:01), كٓهيعٓصٓ i.e. (19:01), طه i.e (20:01), طسٓمٓ i.e (26:01 and 28:01), طسٓ in (27:01), يسٓ i.e. (36:01), صٓ i.e. (38:01), حمٓ i.e. (40:01, 41:01, 42:01, 43:01, 45:01 and 46:01), قٓ i.e. (50:01), نٓ i.e. (68:01) and so on ....
It is to mention that I and few others like me, would be much comfortable accepting this interpretation of آلمّ if you could translate the above quoted words, accordingly.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 3/15/2011 |
2:1 آلمّ
Arabic has only two kinds of sentences broadly. This is a verbal sentence. There is no irrabs on it but certain other marks. First Alif (calling it alif just for ease, I am sure you know technical difference between Hemza and Alif), has medda and Miim has Shadda. Keeping the knowledge of these signs in mind this word actually is أالمم . Its root is going to be ألم. The reason it appears like أالمم, because it is at the measure of 9th form of verb أفْعَلِّ.
Please, replace Faa,Ayn,Lam, Lam with Hemza,Lam,Miim and Miim. When another Hemza is added at the start, like it is in this measure. Hemza of root becomes silent. In script when two hemzas are combined together a Medda is place over these. When other alphabets are combined a shadda is placed to indicate duplication of consonant letters. Hence, we get آلمّ .
This is a verbal sentence. Root meaning of Alif-Lam-Miim, from Lane “He/man suffered, was in pain”. Now 9th form of verb is used to denote intensify of the verbal action.
Once we add this verbal form meaning to root it becomes “Man (mankind), has intensely suffered/pained”.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/15/2011 |
الٓر = "You use the ablity of seeing, reflecting as well mental capacity of judging and seeing with your mind".
I hope and wish we could just understand, act and follow this much.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/18/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/19/2011 |
**(الٓر = "You use the ablity of seeing, reflecting as well mental capacity of judging and seeing with your mind". )
Quite meaningful, in fact it makes a lot of sense to me!
Please continue brother :)
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 3/20/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/21/2011 |
ص = "You are invited to attend and join".
ن = "You enter, but unwillingly and lacking energy and enthusiasm".
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/24/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/25/2011 |
طه = "He performed, or executed an affair firmly, soundly or thoroughly".
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/28/2011 |
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 3/31/2011 |
طسمّ = " His face became bright and fresh just like originally".
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 4/2/2011 |
كهيعص = Brother unable to translate with out more help from lexical sources. Lane's lexicon is not of help as some of the roots contained in it are in part of his lexicon that was completed after his death. Hence has several roots missing. Need original copies of lexicon that he used for his translation work. This is beyond my capabilities, at least at present time.
This concludes all of these.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 4/4/2011 |
Thank you for translating these words brother Badar. I really appreciate all your efforts in this regard.
Also to remind you that I am looking forward to see the translation of تِّجَارَتُهُمْ and ٱلْبَيْعُ as well as صَدَقَةً in order to understand the true concept of ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا as mentioned in Quran.
I hope you'll take out some time and help me to understand the above mentioned words.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 4/4/2011 |
I would now like to open doors for discussion. In order to understand how I have arrived this understanding. Please question and cross question as much and as many times. By using this approach I am sure it will increase my understanding as well others. It would correct all omission and errors on my part. Last but not least it may give wider realization that how far away we are from real principles of Quran. How important it is to put our efforts to restore Quranic understanding as soon as possible to get ourselves out of current quagmire.
30:39 وَمَا آتَيْتُم مِّن رِّبًا لِّيَرْبُوَاْ فِي أَمْوَالِ النَّاسِ فَلَا
يَرْبُوا عِندَ اللَّهِ وَمَا آتَيْتُم مِّن زَكَاةٍ تُرِيدُونَ
وَجْهَ اللَّهِ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُضْعِفُونَ
And whatever action of easy reward caused you to be among the strong, it likely shall only cause strength and growth in your worldly possessions and the confusion. Consequent results shall not be at all a real strength or growth. A combination of concepts forming a complex whole, of one who is not at all a deity for adoration and worship is what shall lead you to strength and growth, just like a fruit bearing tree. The Ones making continuous change about his system are in direct confrontation with one who is not at all a deity for adoration and worship. Resulting in them becoming negligible and inconsequential; they have made themselves weak, unsound and infirm.
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 4/8/2011 |
Dear Badar, what I have understood from your translation, apparently ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا stands for "action of easy reward" if I am not mistaken. It seems quite logical, understandable and I agree with your concept, however this interpretation has raised another question in my mind. Please allow me to share my thoughts;
Let me start with Brother Abdun's definition of ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا which is "stealing the fruits of others labor". This definition confirms your interpretation of ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا as "action of easy reward".
As per my understanding, Quran provides us values which are beyond time or space and instructs us to implement a system based on the concept of peace, harmony, growth and development. Implementation of such a socio-economic system requires a welfare state or a community formed on the basis of welfare. (please correct me if I am wrong here). Now the question is that the concept of welfare means a group of people who are unable to earn their living due to any reason, will be protected and nurtured by the system / community / welfare state and will receive صَدَقَةً collected from those capable of earning.
See 9:103:
خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَتُزَكِّيهِم بِهَا وَصَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ ۖ إِنَّ صَلَاتَكَ سَكَنٌ لَّهُمْ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
Various instructions regarding collection and distribution of صَدَقَةً has been given in (9:60) which says;
إِنَّمَا ٱلصَّدَقَٰتُ لِلْفُقَرَآءِ وَٱلْمَسَٰكِينِ وَٱلْعَٰمِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَٱلْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَفِى ٱلرِّقَابِ وَٱلْغَٰرِمِينَ وَفِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱبْنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ
According to (9:60) the following will receive their shares;
لِلْفُقَرَآءِ ,ٱلْمَسَٰكِينِ ,ٱلْعَٰمِلِينَ ,وَٱلْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ , فِى ٱلرِّقَابِ, ٱلْغَٰرِمِينَ, ٱبْنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ
What I mean to say is, that all these people have not earned what they will receive, rather they will get what others have contributed in form of صَدَقَةً as per verse (9:103) and ٱلْعَفْوَ as mentioned in (2:219).
My question is from both Badar and Abdun that don't you think these people under the category of لِلْفُقَرَآءِ , ٱلْمَسَٰكِينِ or ٱلْعَٰمِلِينَ are also getting something which is could be regarded as "easy reward" or "fruits of other's labor"?
How would these welfare grants different from ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا then?
Note:
Also ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا has been compared with ٱلْبَيْعُ which is normally translated as "Trade" but for trade, another word تِّجَارَتُهُمْ has been used in Quran. What exactly is the difference between تِّجَارَتُهُمْ and ٱلْبَيْعُ ?
Also ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا has been mentioned as antonym of ٱلصَّدَقَٰتِ in (2:276) which means ٱلصَّدَقَٰتِ needs to be interpreted more precisely.
Another important aspect is أَضْعَٰفًا مُّضَٰعَفَةً which has been used to define ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا in (3:130)
What is the exact meaning of أَضْعَٰفًا مُّضَٰعَفَةً ?
(Perhaps these questions will help us to understand the exact or more precise meaning of ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا as mentioned in Quran).
Bother Badar, I think this discussion thread is getting too lengthy and probably thats why no one is reading our discussion anymore. I would request you to please continue on this discussion under the following relevant topic if possible;
http://www.aastana.com/blog/aastanablog.asp?SID=29&QID=1114
I am sure other members will be able to see our posts this way and they will participate too :)
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 4/9/2011 |
How would these welfare grants different from ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا then?
Badar: Dear Junaid, I think you did not read this part of my post carefully "Not only these are incorrect, these are misleading as well; the issue on hand is not as trivial as just misunderstanding of meanings of few words only. Hence, I have decided to translate this whole verse with word “Riba. Last but not least it may give wider realization that how far away we are from real principles of Quran. How important it is to put our efforts to restore Quranic understanding as soon as possible to get ourselves out of current quagmire".
Dear I do not want to sound cocky, but if in Quran and if Quranic system will support such concepts of لِلْفُقَرَآءِ , ٱلْمَسَٰكِينِ. etc. I shall be the first one to reject it outright. However, how little I understand about Quran. I won't have to do this. As these term are part of traditional mistranslation to create acceptance for humans to be in such a status. Brother understanding and implementation of hidden principles of Quran shall create a haven on earth. Can you imagine anything or anybody in such a state in havens? How could be, the principle of all are equal, be correct? If one were to accept these terms in their current understanding.
I shall continue to share understanding of other words as time permits on other thread.
Badar
| Comments by: bkanwar2 | On: 4/9/2011 |
Brother Badar, I agree with you on the point that most of the translations are incorrect and misleading. Specially regarding the case of ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا and ٱلصَّدَقَٰتِ I am getting totally confused. I have raised few questions on this forum about ٱلرِّبَوٰ۟ا and ٱلصَّدَقَٰتِ but unfortunately, I haven't got satisfactory replies from any side, not sure why !
I am willing to get rid of this confusion and I am eager to know the true meaning of all the terms mentioned in my post above.
I would request you to please try and share your views openly and without any hesitation whatsoever.
NOTE:
**(Brother understanding and implementation of hidden principles of Quran shall create a haven on earth. Can you imagine anything or anybody in such a state in havens? How could be, the principle of all are equal, be correct? If one were to accept these terms in their current understanding. ) by Badar
Dear Brother, I completely agree with you.
| Comments by: Junaid | On: 4/9/2011 |
| AASTANA.COM © 2005-2010 | |||||