2 questions concerning chapter/surah 30 about the romans...
-
Peace Mazhar,
Don't be so hasty in judgement. Me and you have discussed a few things which you hav been mistaken about when it comes to Classical Arabic grammar and the Quranic text. Let me do my research and then I'll get back to all. But please don't be in a haste to judge Mz or my ability to understand Classical Arabic (especially when you have seen that I have good knowledge of it and study all possibilities to the best of my ability). Thanks.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Dear Aarun,
This style of things is like the one regarding which Allah and Quran says, " " Following the Book may I ask you all to bring if you are truthful. Merely reading from the preface of Lane about Classical Arabic does not become the knowledge and Burhan. And remember one thing. Lane did nothing except compiling from couple of lexicons, which took him quarter a century, thanks to the sponsorship of the Duke and after his death continuation of the project was considered possible only by the grace of his widow, Her Grace the Duchess.
-
Brother,
The Book has given you a principal. If someone makes a statement he is to be asked to bring the evidence if he is truthful with regard to what he says. If he can't bring the evidence then we have to say that what he says is nothing but conjecture and speculative assertion.
-
when this book says "bring forth proof if you are truthful" who is it directed towards?
2111, 393, 3183, 4122 (Allah is the most truthful), 771 (burden of proof on a messenger), 7106 (Pharoah asking Moses for proof), 1038 (those who refuse the authenticity of the Quran as from Allah asked to bring another one), 1113, 1132, 157 (unreasonable demands need no proof), the list goes on and on.
Mazhar is correct. It's a principle, not just a snippet of history. So 2111 could equally be "The Sunnis and Shia say "none shall go into heaven unless he is a Sunni or Shia", Say Bring your proof if you are truthful". If we are to take it as snippets of history, a significant portion of the Quran would be nullified.
-
Salaams Maz,All,
The Book has given you a principal
The book did give us a principal - but the problem is a lot of the principals given are incorrect as they don't agree with the real world, and using a dictionary people have realised that a lot of the principles are wrong words - and that is all.
So you can try the different meanings of words to see which makes sense- use lanes dictionary.
one example - the book says men were physically changed into monkeys and pigs - and people have accepted this for many hundreds of years but only know, like progod, people are saying it differently - using dictionaries.
I hope i didn't missunderstand you.
Salaam.
-
Peace,
I would like to say one thing though - the languages become rigid as they get established in time , but when a language first starts off it hardly has any rules and the quran came at such a time , so the grammer rules didn't apply as much then - i think
No offense MZ, I have been following what you are saying and find it all very, very relevant. However I could not disagree with the above statement more. Grammar is the glue that makes language work and has and always will be important. The reason we find that grammar in our modern languages is not always in line with how we speak is because our book grammar is usually based upon archaic dialects or specific dialects of our language groups and we speak different dialects which don't follow all of the same rules.
Classical Arabic grammar came about from studying all of the usages of Old Arabic and its dialects. It is an archaic langauge now which is why modern Arabs who speak a Modern forms of Arabic, especially modern standard which is a revised version of Old Arabic with dialect influences, find Old Arabic difficult with all its case endings, cumbersome or awkward and want to say that Old Arabic didn't follow all of those rules that they read about because they don't use them in their modern evolutionized dialects of the language (Like Spanish, latin and french evolved from Latin, but cannot be considered Latin anymore, However oddly, Modern Arabic dialects are still considered Arabic (because of the influence that Arab nationalism, tribal organization & Arabization in Islam had on the once non-Arab peoples of the Middle east and North Africa).)
Grammar did matter and when you read about (Old) Classical Arabic grammar, not just Modern Fushaa rules, you are studying how the old Arabs used their language, no, they didn't think of their language in the terms of "grammar" and grammatical rules but still followed these rules even though they had no names for them and it just felt natural to them. The names and the classifications of these uses and usages of the language came latter, but the Old Arabs still used them naturally even before they had names for them.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaams progod,
of course i agree with that , but i suppose depends how a person says it - i mean the strength of the grammer initially i am sure must be zero , with words appearing and gradually some form of grammer appearing in time.
Like the first steam engine - look what happened to engines later rockets to the moon very intricate structures indeed similar to the process of grammer Or language rules - i think.
God Bless.
-
Peace,
Languages do evolve I agree, that is why there are modern Arabic dialects and a standard MSA which is modeled off of Old Classical Arabic. But Old Classical Arabic was a form of language that developed by the 3rd or 4th century (I think this can be proved by rock inscriptions and even greek inscriptions). until it widely started to change after the Islamic conquests and after the Hadeeths; which are the last expression of the Classical language as what people spoke when they told stories, rumors and such.
That is about a 500 to 600 year stint. And this is really only one development of what were languages before it and what are the languages after it. It was preserved mainly due to the fact the Quran uses this linguistic delopment called Classical Arabic. And for that reason we study it and learn it to read the Quran. The language has kept its popularity because of the influence of the Arabs and Arab loving & Arabic-language loving Muslims who stll form a major population in the world. So it still has influence on modern Arabic dialects and Modern Standard Arabic. After the hadeeths the language of the Arabs widely started to change mixing with Aramaic and other languages in the Middle East and North Africa. I'm not sure how much Himyarite (which is most likely the ancestor of modern day Mahri in yemen, and the gulf states) had on the evolution of the Arabic dialects (in that region) all of which are unique to different Arab countries but which show a good deal of uniformity and loyalty to words being based off of Classical Arabic although their pronunciation or twists are not very Classical Arabic. All of these dialects which are as Arabic as Spanish & Italian are Latin are only still called Arab becuase of the popular tend to Arabicize and claim Arabic ancestry despite other ancestries. This is why most of these peoples consider themselves Arabs and naturally their dialects, Arabic.
Godbless,
Anwar -
opf - you misunderstand what i meant by who it is directed towards - i was not referring to "snippets of history" at all
the problem is people involved in quran discussion like to throw around this idea of "bring forth your proof if you are truthful" and toss it in people's faces like some sort of weapon - i'm really not down with that
the idea that the root rwm refers to something other than romans is documented in lexicons and such - so the proof is there for whoever wants to see it. there is no need for me to bring forth anything, it's right there.
if people want to interpret it as romans that's up to them - i don't have to agree with them, however, and i will provide an alternative interpretation should i see fit. which is what i have done in this case.
oddly enough my interpretation is thus the complete opposite of a leaning towards historical snippets )
-
The only thing that is left is the grammatical implications. The reason I have not commented yet is because I have seen some verbs in odd genders within the Quran before, and I am waiting until I see this again before I go ahead and get to the bottom of it. I have seen how the may not even have to agree in gender if it comes before the noun, and although this seems to be against standard rules again I am waiting for a good example to get to the bone of the issue. For now I would tend to say the Romans with the feminine of groups (of people) being the reason why the verb is conjugated in the feminine. However, again I will comment appropriately when I come accross an exemplary case.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I need some pronunciation help here, in Arabic.
In 302 when we read "The Romans have won", what is the correct pronunciation in Arabic for this? gha la ba or gha li ba?
And in the next verse, so it reads as sa yugh la boon OR sa yugh li boon ?
-
I need some pronunciation help here, in Arabic.
In 302 when we read "The Romans have won", what is the correct pronunciation in Arabic for this? gha la ba or gha li ba?
ghulibati,
And in the next verse, so it reads as sa yugh la boon OR sa yugh li boon ?
same again sayaghliboona
both have kasra under the lam
-
there used to be a great site www.reciter.org but it wont seem to open now
found this which is same though
http//www.quranexplorer.com/quran/
-
I need some pronunciation help here, in Arabic.
In 302 when we read "The Romans have won", what is the correct pronunciation in Arabic for this? gha la ba or gha li ba?
And in the next verse, so it reads as sa yugh la boon OR sa yugh li boon ?
To say like that is to expose oneself as being non aware of even elementary Arabic, yet pretending to be a scholar of Qur'aan.
It is passive feminine perfect verb; First consonant has vowel Dhamm-u, second consonant has kasra, and in the end is vowel-less representing feminine which has been provided with vowel to break the cluster of two conseuctive vowel-less consonants. And is Ergative noun- in nominative case ending; definite, singular; feminine. Proper names of countries are feminince by signification, including Rome. "Rome has been defeated".
"" renders the imperfect verb to future alone, simple future. Verb imperfect, third person;plural; masculine; subject pronoun in nominative state; Mood indicative visible by . "Soon they will overpower/be victorious".
-
Ayesha, Thanks for your reply... what you are saying comes from the traditional pronunciation of these verses, and I already know that. I was asking about the pronunciation according to Layth's revised understanding of these two verses... but thanks anyway.
Mazhar, I think I am entitled to my opinion in differing from the traditional spellings of these verses. http//www.free-minds.org/moh4
I just asked a question about pronunciation NOT grammar, so keep relevant. People who pretend to be scholars would not ask questions...., you are overreacting unnecessarily.
-
To say like that is to expose oneself as being non aware of even elementary Arabic, yet pretending to be a scholar of Qur'aan.
is that for me or Hassan? ???It is passive feminine perfect verb; First consonant has vowel Dhamm-u, second consonant has kasra, and in the end is vowel-less representing feminine which has been provided with vowel to break the cluster of two conseuctive vowel-less consonants. And is Ergative noun- in nominative case ending; definite, singular; feminine. Proper names of countries are feminince by signification, including Rome. "Rome has been defeated".
"" renders the imperfect verb to future alone, simple future. Verb imperfect, third person;plural; masculine; subject pronoun in nominative state; Mood indicative visible by . "Soon they will overpower/be victorious".
??? ??? so after all that, is it 'li' or 'la' ?
-
Ayisha,
While I was typing, your message got uploaded. While I clicked to upload, I did get the warning that meanwhile another post has been posted but without going back I just clicked for uploading. You had correctly pointed out the spellings/pronunciation.
I just asked a question about pronunciation NOT grammar, so keep relevant.
.Pronunciation and grammer are interrelated. Pronunciation is because of vowels, and vowels determine the grammer and meanings. How could my comment be for your question, perhaps you have not even read the thread, and just innocently floated the question. If people, using the sentiment about traditionalists, try to invent further stupidities in the name of revised understanding of verses, by replacing dhamma-u with fatha, and another kasra with fatha, yet call it pronunciation, they need to be checked and exposed.