Waw of clarification & waw of with(al-maa'iyyah)
-
Peace,
waw of clarification
2136"What was given to Moses and Jesus, meaning what was given to the prophets from their lord"
wa maa ootiya moosaa wa &eesaa wa maa ootiya annabiyoona min rabbihimIf this is translated and understood as 'What was given to Moses, Jesus and the prophets' We would be led to think that Moses and Jesus (God bless them both) are not prophets which we know is wrong.
waw of with (al-wawul-maa&iyah)
315"With Companions pure . . ." wa azwaajun muttaharatun
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
No it does not exclude them from being messengers but it woud exclude them from being prophets.
For instance, if I said. "Let's speak to the two guards and the employees" it would be understood that the two guards are not considered employees. howver it I say it reversely, "Let's speak to the employees, and the two guards" than that can mean 'including' because you specified the guards. If you just say 'Let's speak to the employees and two guards'' this says that the two guards aren't employees. It sets them apart. That is because you have to mention the bigger group first before you can use 'and' to include or specify.
In English saying "I admire Jesus, Moses and God's prophets' exludes Jesus and Moses from being prophets, it sets them apart. But saying 'I admire God's prophets (usually there has to be a pause here) and Jesus and Moses' weakly allows for the and to mean including.' Usually in English there would be no and. It would be 'I admire God's prophets;(this is usually a pause when spoken) Jesus and Moses . .. ' but spoken English is not always written English and this can be inserted as an including, although it is very weak English and not very precise.
The whole point of this is to show that for those who would take waw as always meaning and, they are wrong. To say 'We have faith in what was given to Moses, Jesus and what was given to God's prophets from their lord' would be a sentence which sets apart Moses and Jesus from God's prophets. But to understand this waw as a clarifier like 'that is' or 'meaning' resolves the issue of this sentence saying something that is not true.
Elke. Think about what I'm saying here. I know I went into depth, maybe alittle more than I should have. However, the basis of your misunderstanding of this is that you say
IMO 'What was given to Moses, Jesus and the prophets' does not (in English) exclude them from being messengers.
Rather the issue is that 'What was given to Moses, to Jesus and the prophets' (in English) excludes them from being prophets. If we take the waw in the sense of and (the and that adds onto what you've already mentioned.)
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace progod
No it does not exclude them from being messengers but it woud exclude them from being prophets.
yes sure, this is just me getting mixed up.
The whole point of this is to show that for those who would take waw as always meaning and, they are wrong. To say 'We have faith in what was given to Moses, Jesus and what was given to God's prophets from their lord' would be a sentence which sets apart Moses and Jesus from God's prophets. But to understand this waw as a clarifier like 'that is' or 'meaning' resolves the issue of this sentence saying something that is not true.
as far as i know "waw" has these two meanings of "and" and "clarifier". Agree
Still i don't follow you completely in the English version
I believe in jesus and moses and the prophets
could IMHO just mean
I believe in jesus and moses and the other prophets
or
I believe in jesus and moses as well as other prophets
and could thus be at the same time "and" and "clarifier" without excluding them from prophethood.but i'm no specialist
lk -
Peace,
My comments were for those who don't agree that waw can be a clarifier as well(in particular Khidr who has this posted on his site). The verse was evidence that understanding it only as 'and' would make it exclude Jesus and Moses (God bless him and keep them) as prophets. And WE KNOW they are prophets. So we MUST see this waw as a clarifier. So this passage is proof of this usage. That is all I was saying. If you know that waw is also a clarifier and you see how it is used in this verse, then you see my point.
Godbless,
Anwar -
if you said management and employees it would not exclude management as employees )
i don't know who needs to be told that they are included in the list of nabiyyin... you mentioned someone's site... poor guy him
"where is the forest, all i see are these trees"
-
i understand your point but i am trying to tell you that it doesn't necessarily exclude even when we use it in english
if i said "harry and friends visited the museum" it would not exclude harry from being one of the group of friends, see?
i know what you're talkin about dude, i'm not slow )
-
Peace
Aaron I agree with your usages here. However, there is a level of distinction here that i will do my best to specify. When you say let's talk to management and the employees, your are saying that management and the employees are different from the employees, and aren't technically employees(in the least rank-wise). You can imply from this setence that there is something about the management that makes them different from the other employees. Where if you said it in the reverse 'We are going to talk to the employees and management.' this 'and' is more clearly an including.
As far as 'Harry and friends' this reminds me of an Afro-American expression 'Harry and them.' This is stating that the friends or the them belong to Harry, he is the prominent figure of the group. This I think is an expression that assumes possession or leadership of the first person mentioned(from a subjective point of view).
Godbless,
Anwar -
are you sure it's not just an expression that mentions a person that the audience actually knows?
like if harry were with his friends but the person i was speaking to didn't know his friends, and only knew harry... then i would mention harry because this is someone the audience is familiar with
also, perhaps it could also be referring to the fact that harry is so often seen with this group that if you mention "harry and them" or "harry and friends" then the audience can automatically picture in their mind who else is with harry
look at us givin free english lessons to the members here
harry and them... harold et al? i dunno P