GIVE ME A BREAK!
-
Dear Samia,
955 (radadnaa)
995 (awhaa lahaa)
1013 &10 (maa adraaka)
1016 &8 (thaqulat & khaffat)I will get you some more examples as well as examples from grammar books. This is an old Arabic feature however, and is not used in MSA at all, excpet with qualifying words and in certain phrases yaa laita, idhaa, law, in etc.
Godbless,
AnwarSalam nwar
Sorry, I did not see this post before.
The first two verses are valid to your argument. The last two are not, and this is why
1013;10 adraaka and yudreeka mean the same. This is an idiom like maa zaala and gaa yazalu (still).
101 6;8 the verbs are in a conditional sentence (with man, which has a similar rule as itha).If you notice, the first two are verbs of Go's action, which is timeless. So, your rule is correct, but limited to the quraan. I do not think it is possible to apply it to the language at large. But it is quite interesting. I believe that the quraan has its own sociolinguistics; and now this shows that it has its own linguistics. A further support that the quraan's language is not based on classical arabic, nor on quraish arabic; just clear and understandable language.
Thanks
-
let's see... we have one part that says god never punishes until a messenger is sent... then we have another part that says messengers are sent in the language of their people... try putting them together
i'm pretty much over my verse choppin stage so the most you will tend get from me is an overall view of the entire message as i understand it.
in this case
a) god does not change god's method
b) god sent messages in the language of the community god was warning
c) god did not destroy a community until god sent a messagea+b+c = should god decide to destroy any communities in the future god shall send them the message in their own language
please note that i am only speaking in terms of past, present or future for your benefit, as it also does not fall into my beliefs that god is constrained by what we consider as the passage of so called time.
Combining was bad enough
that's how reading works... one reads letters, reads them together to form words, reads the words together to form sentences and continues thusly in order to come to an overall idea of what the writer is trying to convey
sometimes when one reads a book one has to remember a concept from earlier in the book to link with the concept one is currently reading
so i would venture to say that you also combine.
-
Peace,
Samia that is purely old Classical Arabic, i.e. Quraish Arabic. You can find it clearly in grammar books. I'm sure if you read Sibaweiyah you will find these rules. I don't think maa adraaka is an idiom, and this is dificult to assume because it has become a idiomatic phrase becase of the Quran. Like laa samaha allahu and others. These phrases didn't begin as idioms. In English and in all languages those idioms can be traced to a perfectly grammatical phrase, it is the phrase being taken out of context and standardized for a similar situation that it was first mentioned in that makes it an idiom.
As I said I will try to dig up some more examples for you. This is a feature of Old Arabic (including Quraish Arabic) which as not lasted in any consistent way in the PostQuranic Islamic Classical Arabic or the Modern Standard Arabic, so you should not assume that these are idioms. Again, I'm sure if you did some research particular to this in Sibaweyah you will find something pertenent to it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace rumi,
Why ? Because the concept that is vehicled may not be the one you wish to bring across. No a muslim is not for me someone (by chance) born a muslim, or a convert praying five times a day and fasting. I still use the word muslim, may be because i live in an arab country, but i use it to shock sometimes - because i want people to reflect, to think, not just follow. When i tell someone here that the nassara ("christians" this is how they call the westerners around here) are sometimes the better muslims, you bet that they are shocked,
I'm glad we have this in common, I too do this.
but some start thinking...al hamdullelah or thank god...The billion of people know what quran is ? U sure ? Most people around here, even though "muslims" serve me hadith thinking that it is in quran.
It's ignorance on their part, but I'm sure they would know that the Quran is the Holy book, divine word of God, sent down to Prophet Muhammed via the angel Gabriel. If they actually read it, understand it, confuse it with the hadith, that's another matter. The very least, they know "of" the Quran.
IMO there's no unity of concept. Now i don't know about you, but when i speak french i say dieu, german gott, english god, arabic allah.... is that so hard to get ?
But the concept of "God" still stays the same regardless and irrespective of language understood to the individuals, it's not a plethora of different words each society and language gives it. You might not know that the word for god in Bosnian is "boze", but if you say Allah, both you and a Bosniak will understand it. The concept thus now transcends the barriers of the languages used by different communities, so there's unity in this.
Well thank you !
elke
Elke, Let's just agree to disagree shall we? To be honest with you, I say god, dieu, gott, boze, tuhan when talking to non muslims simply because they might not understand that Allah actually means god or that they might have the misconception that it is a word exclusive to Muslims. With "muslims" these words are already a common understanding.
Peace Elke
-
Peace Aaron
The combining of the verses Elke and Samia quoted that messengers were sent in the language of that people and that people were not destroyed unless a messenger was sent is correct but only within that context. The people of Muhammad believed and accepted the message so they were not destroyed. The messenger and the MESSAGE are two separate issues. Even the messenger was subjected to the message. He has to deliver as the Messenger and he has to follow as any other believer.
Aaron b) god sent messages in the language of the community god was warning
This I can not agree with you. The warning and the message is for a diverse people far and wide and it extends to the future. The Quraan says it is for the mankind. It addresses the recipients of the message as Mankind, Those who believe, The Children of Adam, Children of Israel, People of the Book even Those who reject etc. The Quraan says it is a message/reminder for those who believe, for the righteous, for the pious, for the fearing, for the repentant, for the one who remember/think or the ones who are intelligent, the ones with knowledge but it does not say it is for those who understand Arabic or only for the Arabic speaking community of Muhammad
Also destroying a community here on earth and the punishment after the resurrection are not same.
-
Peace,
I've always understood that those rusul (which can means message as well) should best be translated as 'message-bearers.' The angles are also rusul. God given revelation to certain people is a messengership that automaticallyl comes with prophethood. Those messages that we all get come in different forms but are connected to us submiting to God, and they can come in different forms.
I always associated with the verse that says 'Wa talaqaa aadamu kalimaatin min rabbihi' 'Man will recieve words from his lord. . ."
Godbless,
Anwar -
The combining of the verses Elke and Samia quoted ?that messengers were sent in the language of that people? and ?that people were not destroyed unless a messenger was sent? is correct but only within that context.
which context would that be? is it only correct within that context because you say so?
The people of Muhammad believed and accepted the message so they were not destroyed.
what, all of his people believed and accepted? what evidence that anyone fully and properly accepted the message do you have? isn't this forum based on quite the opposite view of the message? that it was not properly accepted and applied and thus needs to be corrected?
the entire purpose of translation and interpretation is to deliver the message to people in a language they can understand.
our understanding of god giving the people a message in "their own language" obviously differs.
-
Elke, Let's just agree to disagree shall we? To be honest with you, I say god, dieu, gott, boze, tuhan when talking to non muslims simply because they might not understand that Allah actually means god or that they might have the misconception that it is a word exclusive to Muslims. With "muslims" these words are already a common understanding.
peace rumi
we don't disagree that much.
salaam
lk -
Well lobbi... i do what i can. As a woman of a certain age that has been rejected by a 17 year old mystical bird turned into a deli '( i try prophet's brothers and poets before i'll end in limbo with socrates and aristoteles. I'd have preferred to end with Dionysus though
-
Peace Samia,
If you look at Surah 104, where it says 'wa yahsabu anna maalahu akhladahu'
Akhladahu here is future tense. This future tense developed out of a sense of certainty that something will happen. Like when someone asks you to do something and you say 'it's done.' That's technically a passive used in a past tense way, as it it was already done. If you someone hit you and you said to him qad qataltuka that has to be translated as 'I will kill you' although it really means 'I have killed you' which translated stylistically as 'You're dead.' to take in further into English in my dialect on this situation if heated enough someone can easily say 'You just died.' And that means that what that person did is going to lead him to a sure death (metaphorically or literally). Also take into consideration tabbat yadaa abee lahabin wa tabba. (The hands (power) of the father of a certain flame/flames (he who has a character and way of life that is going to definitely take him to some flame (in this case the flame of hell)) will surely (shall) perish, and he will surely (shall) perish.
It can also be the subjunctive or 'may he/would he etc. . .' Take salla allahu alaihi was sallama, laa samaha allaahu and other such phrases.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Samia,
If you look at Surah 104, where it says 'wa yahsabu anna maalahu akhladahu'
Akhladahu here is future tense. This future tense developed out of a sense of certainty that something will happen. Like when someone asks you to do something and you say 'it's done.' That's technically a passive used in a past tense way, as it it was already done. If you someone hit you and you said to him qad qataltuka that has to be translated as 'I will kill you' although it really means 'I have killed you' which translated stylistically as 'You're dead.' to take in further into English in my dialect on this situation if heated enough someone can easily say 'You just died.' And that means that what that person did is going to lead him to a sure death (metaphorically or literally). Also take into consideration tabbat yadaa abee lahabin wa tabba. (The hands (power) of the father of a certain flame/flames (he who has a character and way of life that is going to definitely take him to some flame (in this case the flame of hell)) will surely (shall) perish, and he will surely (shall) perish.
It can also be the subjunctive or 'may he/would he etc. . .' Take salla allahu alaihi was sallama, laa samaha allaahu and other such phrases.
Godbless,
AnwarI totally agree with you, progod. As I said in a post earlier, responding to you, this language is specific to the quraan, and we cannot say that about Arabic language, not even classical. Just as we have in the quraan the generic female, contrary to the rule of classical arabic that the feminine is specific. This is a further evidence that the quraan is not written in classical arabic (the CA we knnow).
-
Peace,
I'm glad you are seeing what I'm saying. But I would not say that it is not written in Classical Arabic and that the Quran stands alone linguistically speaking, as a language. The fushaa that we know is technically MSA, or Modern Standard Arabic, not Old Classical Arabic. The same sort of language to be found in the Quran can also be found in the Hadeeths (although maybe not as well-written stylistically speaking and that is because the quality of the authors obviously differ). Despite that the Arabic of the Hadeeth and the Quran is the same. However, the CA spoken in the news and that we read today even in high level books is not Classical Arabic, it is MSA Modern Standard Arabic, a reduced version of Classical Arabic. Unforatunately, they both go by the name of fushaa and MSA is subject and subordinate to phrases and words from the real Fushaa. MSA is about 80 percent of of real Fushaa, the 20 percent difference has to do with grammatical constructs like the one we just discussed and archaic vocabulary that has fallen out of use.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam progod
The grammar of these versions of arabic is almost the same. No one came up with a differnt grammar after Sibawayh. They differ in vocabulary, which is understood. Even the hadeeth language does not have the special charactersitics of the language of the quraan past tense used for future, present and past; or the generic feminine. It might be trying to imitate the quraan, but it is a deformed copied language.
-
Peace,
I don't know Samia. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. The hadeeth are just as valid an expression of Classical Arabic language as the Quran. They are just of different categories of linguistic level. There is a difference in grammar between Classical Arabic and Modern Standard. Technically in MSA you cannot say maa yughnee anhum maaluhum. You are only supposed to say Laa yughnee anhum maaluhum. There are some other grammar cases like this where MSA has created rigid rules that do not go along with the rules of true fushaa of the Hadeeth and the Quran, and the old poems etc.
Godbless,
Anwar