"We" vs God Alone
-
Peace,
I will only respond to the two comments of worth here which may solve your confusion (you really do just argue to be contrary. It is very disheartening).
Where did I say this (underlined)? Actually, I do not differentiate between the grammar rules of MSA and CA as you do. And I said more than once that the difference between them is vocabulary, but neither grammar nor morphology.
Samia, Go find the very first threads when we began to talk about this. The first thing that i told you was that in CA you can use maa to negate present tense but not in MSA. You claim that there is no difference between CA and MSA and then say that maa is used to negate present tense in all COLLOQUIAL (you call them spoken) Arabics (is mish qwayyis Quranic Arabic as well? As you are implying that dialects and Quranic Arabic are the same). I think you are clear on the fact that it is considered grammatically wrong to write maa yaqoolu (he does not say), instead of laa yaqoolu in written Arabic (i.e. Fushaa. But Samia is referring to MSA when she mentions written Arabic even though she doesn't know it). Samia then says, "AHA look! So how can the Quran be in written Arabic when the grammar says you can't say maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu? But in spoken Arabic (she mean's Arabic dialects) you can! So the Quran was written using spoken Arabic! (still referring to dialect) and not written Arabic!"
But what Samia refuses to understand is that any grammar book that says that you can't say maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu is an MSA grammar book (demonstrating the slight difference in grammar between CA and MSA). If you read a CA grammar book you will see how maa yaqoolu and laa yaqoolu are interchangeable.
Samia also had the audacity to say that you can not use maa for past tense negation (i.e. maa qaala). Ehawk clarified that she was wrong about that. But only Samia remains confused because she cannot stick to one thing. I say present, she says past, I say past and then she says present again. What the HELL is that!!????
As for the dual and plural issue. Samia is again utterly confused and basing her opinion upon her confusion. The Quranic example that uses dual and then refers to it as plural is talking about TWO GROUPS of people. Let's do a little word/logic problem here If I have two groups of 20 per say, how many people do I have in total? 40. So in the case of two groups of 20 I can refer to them as TWO GROUPS or as THEM plural. Let's take it down to two groups of 3 . . . same deal. So if I have fi'ataani, i.e. two groups of people, then I can talk about those two groups in dual or in plural becuase they are two and more than two at the same time. Samia it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
You say that in Classical Arabic you can't use maa to negate present tense or past tense, and since the Quran does this to you it is not in Classical Arabic. Then you say that you are just talking about past tense and that in past tense Classical Arabic you can't use maa (as in maa fa&ala) and you say that only lam can be used (as in lam yaf&al).
I have explicitly explained to you that if you think that you cannot use maa in the above ways in CA it is because you are reading MSA grammar books (MSA does have slightly different grammar than CA), because the CA books are clear on this and you are obviously not reading them.
If CA was the spoken language of old and the written of today, and according to you, the quraan is in CA, why doesn't the quraan respect the rules of grammar, and even morphology, set by Arab linguists? Or rather, why didn't CA linguists tailored CA graamar according to the quraan's language?
It all depends on what Arab linguists you are reading. If you pick up a book and it says that something you see in the Quran is not grammatically correct (i.e. maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu, maa fa&la for lam yaf&al) then you are reading a book by modern Arab linguists addressing the slightly different MSA. CA linguists did not tailor anything. They only wrote down the language use of CA speakers of the Old Arab tribes. Everything you see in the Quran can be explained reading grammar books for CA (Again beware that CA and MSA are both called Fushaa mistakenly, so if you see that they are saying that maa yaqoolu for laa yaqoolu is incorrect or that maa fa&ala for lam yaf&al is incorrect then you are reading an MSA grammar book). I can show you in Wright's grammar of the Arabic language where maa yaqoolu and maa fa&ala are clearly explained as Classical Arabic and you even proved this by the poetry you posted. Please Samia, wisen up and realize the truth of this matter. Being contrary will only continue to make you look worse and serve to confuse you even more. I am not confusing you, you are confusing yourself.
As a side note, different Arabic dialects keep Classical Arabic features in different degrees. Sudanese dialect has more Classical features then other dialects (due to the intensity of Quranic schooling). Iraqi dialect kept the Eeh of Classical Arabic found the Quran (the Sudanese wrongly say Ay), Iraquis, thinking that Old Arabs also spoke their present day dialects, say that this is the Quran speaking like the people, when Arabic dialects didn't exist when the Quran was around and Classical Arabic was the language of the people. Lastly you claim that all Arabs who don't learn CA can still understand it. You are wrong. Most Arabs if they didn't go to secular schools and learn MSA, they were in Quranic schools and learn CA from the Quran and the Hadeeth and have it explained to them in dialect! So you can find a completely uneducated person who can generally understand MSA because they studied CA in religious schools and because dialects are full of MSA and CA expressions pronounced only with a different accent. It was the same for any Spanish speaker in 1300 AD who studied the then Latin Bible with a priest for a while. If that person went to the courts in Rome or spoke to a Roman guard he would generally understand, despite the fact that he speaks a bastardized dialect of Latin (like the Arabic dialects) and not real Latin (like Arabic dialect speakers don't speak real Arabic). Still you can meet people in isolated villages who don't watch TV and don't have Quranic schools that do not understand CA or MSA very well at all.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I have a friend who studied latin and not knowing a lick of Italian went to Italy and understood pretty much everything everyone was saying there. For a dialect speaker it is not too hard for them to generally understand MSA (CA can create some more difficulties for them). But ask them to speak it and the buck stops there. They are passive bilinguals, my dear. Which was facilitated by their speaking a language derived from real Arabic. You will find that pidgin/creole English speakers can do the same thing. Take any country Jamaican or Geechee speakers and sit them in front of the TV for a while, or just have them study the Bible for a while and they can pick up Standard English relatively easily.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam ehawk 35
Yes, whenever it is in the meaning of "sex" of human beings. If not, it is not men. I did not see it as meaning "sex", because that will create many contradictions. There is no harm in choosing the more reasonable meaning if it exists.
As for "nisaa'" how did you search it? Under "imra'a" or under "nas' "? Wasn't there any meaning for this or a plural? Again, as long as another word exists and fits the meaning better, no harm in choosing it.
Maybe it would be better for the discussion if you discuss my choice of a meaning over another, since both meanings exist in the qur'aan.
It means now one has to tell you how to consult an arabic dictionary.What is your source which says that "Nisaa " is "NOT plural " of "imraatun"??
-
It means now one has to tell you how to consult an arabic dictionary.What is your source which says that "Nisaa " is "NOT plural " of "imraatun"??
I did not say it is not the plural of "imra'atun". I said it is also the plural of another word, under which you search for the "plural" of imra'atun.
-
I did not say it is not the plural of "imra'atun". I said it is also the plural of another word, under which you search for the "plural" of imra'atun.
This is very strange my sister.You say one thing and deny right away.This is what Progod is crying for.
Look at your wordsSalaam POF
"Rijaal" does not primarily mean "men". It means those who seek; on foot. It could be "men" or "women". Also, "nisaa'" is not the plural of "imra'a" but the plural of "nas' " the delayed; remainder, left behind. We find both meanings in the quraan.
You categorically said that Nisaa is not plural of "imraatun" and now you are denying it.
-
Salaam Aleikum everybody,
I have a question that I would like all three of you guys to answer for me (ehawk35, Samia and Anwar) if you would be so kind to do so.
In the Arab world, when an important figure such as a president or ruler of an Arab country is giving an "official" address or speech to the people and when Journalists or Politicians are speaking over the Television or radio waves, which grammatical rules or patterns are they utilising to express their ideas? Mind you I am NOT talking about vocabulary, I am inquiring only about the grammatical patterns with which they are conveying their thoughts.
Is it
A). The grammar rules of Spoken Dialects ?
B). The grammar rules of Modern Standard Arabic ?
Or
C). The grammar rules of what is known as Classical Arabic ?
Peace peace ,
Damon. -
Actually I have a second question...
When two Arabs from two different countries, each having its own dialect, meet up and conversate which grammatical patterns do they use to express themselves to one another? Again, I am not speaking of words or idioms.
-
Peace,
Damon. It is usually a combination of A and B. They will often go in and out of dialect but they will refrain from using certain phrases considered too dialect or pronunciations considered too dialect. This influence of dialect on MSA has made it, depending on the speaker, virtually missing in all case endings and ending ta marbootas.
To give an example. In CA the basmalatun is
bismillahi rahmaani raheemi
in MSA it would me more like bi isim allaah arrahmaan arraheem
In dialect it would be
Besem malla erahimaan eraheem
Take into account the greeting Al-salaamu &alaikum w rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
In MSA it would be more like al-salaam &alaikum w rahmatillaah wa barakaatuh
In dialect it would be slaam &alaikmoo rahem-talla ubaraakaat(eh)
Or
CA Al-lughatul-Arabiyyatu
MSA Al-lugha Al-Arabiyya
Dialect Al-lugha/Il-ligha a-Arabiyyah (dialects often leave out lams or pronunce them very lightly. &laa becomes just &aa &alaa sha'ni becomes &ashaan with a drop of all hamzas and all case endings excpet for adverbs like taqreebAN approximately or haqqan)I don't know if that clarified anything, but to be clear leaders will either just talk in dialect or most likely they will speak in an MSA heavily influence by dialect prounciation of words and they will stick alot of dialect in there.
You will rarely come accross an al-jazeerah broadcaster who pronounces every case ending, and good sudanese Arabic speakers will even include tajweez rules and other very Quranic words. I heard a Sudanese broadcaster talking about hajj and he said hijj. This is in the Quran and any other Arabic speaker would have objected to this pronunciation. I loved it!!!!!
Godbless,
AnwarI'll be happy to show people how Arabic dialects are bastardized versions of real Arabic and how much they differ form CA (or in some cases their similarities or retained archaisms which are stricken from MSA like the use of maa).
Here is some more trivia. Shwai shwai which is dialect for 'a little bit' comes from Classical Arabic use of sha'an sha'an in the diminuitive i.e. shuway'an shuway'an. Or the egyptian ma&alesh which comes from maa &alaika shai'un, ayshwhat which comes from ayu shay'in (which thing), etc. etc. Dialects due to typic pidgin corruption shorten shay'un into 'sh.' We can look at a Quranic phrase like maa dhalamoonaa shay'an and through corruption get an easy egyptian negation using 'sh' after the verb like 'maa dhalamoonash' They did us no wrong. In MSA 'that/this' is dhaalika in CA it can be dhaa/hadhaa, dhaaka dhalika or the very Quranic dhaalikum/kunna/kumaa depending on the audience. In dialect (egyptian and Sudanese) only daa is used. It is clearly a corruption of dhaa and dhaa is never used for dhalika in MSA. (not to be confused with the mansoob dhaa from dhoo like abaa from aboo).
-
Peace,
Damon to your second question
It is a mixture of dialect and MSA. They will do their best to speak a dialect-pronounced MSA and will fish for common words and pronunciations. The closer the regions the less dificult the task. Dialect is so natural for them it is hard not to speak and they find MSA and especially CA very snooty and artificial. It is like if we were to talk really proper to each other over the phone. Grammar patterns will be predominantly dialect with MSA vocab and some straight MSA pronunciation if they don't understand each other. Different individuals have different capacities for understanding other countries' dialects.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Actually I have a second question...
When two Arabs from two different countries, each having its own dialect, meet up and conversate which grammatical patterns do they use to express themselves to one another? Again, I am not speaking of words or idioms.
It depends on whether they have enough vocabulary of the MSA and on whether they know which MSA word stands for which of their dialect. They apply the grammatical rules of the spoken (relaxed grammar), even when they have to borrow expressions or/and vocabulary from MSA, to make themselves understood. This "dialect", in fact, is known as "the colloquial of the educated", because of the ability to switch between the MSA and their own dialects. It's a kind of "neutral" spoken Arabic.
-
For your first question
Salaam Damon
I do not know how gammatical rules of CA are different from those of MSA. So, I will only consider MSA (applies grammar rules) and the spoken dialects (no strict grammar rules).
I think it goes back to the mastering of MSA. I have only listened to Egyptian and Sudanese presidents, and Gaddhafi, who all spoke their dialect. The last speech I heard was by Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan when he said "3alayyat talaaq quwwaat alumam almuttahida ma betkhush alsudan!! I will divorce my wife/ves if the UN peace forces enter the Sudan".
If the speech is written, then it will be in MSA and they will read it out (some still make mistakes since the written material does not show vocalization).
During the meetings of the Arab League, some strictly speak MSA so that everyone understands, some read a little and then continue in their own dialects, switching codes to and fro.
(Once Numeiri (of Sudan) was reading a speech on the Teachers' Day, and he read " We applaude teachers for their good behaviour " as "wa nu7ayyil mu3allim Ali Hasan Sal-luka we applaude the teacher Ai Hasan Salluka".
-
Salaam progod
A few comments on your first post
- bismillahir rahmaanir raheem is considered, not just borrowed as a whole, but also a divine sentence, since it only exists in the quraan. I have never heard an Arab, no matter what their educational standard is, pronounce it differently. The same goes to "assalaamu 3alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu". Unless it is shortened as in "salaam 3alaikum" (rarely used) and in the Egyptian (for goodbye) salaamu 3alaiku.
2; Dialects do not leave out the laam of "al the"; and they very well differentiate between the lunar and the solar laams (allaam ashamseeya wallaam alqamariyya as in ash-shams wal qamar the sun and the moon). So they say allughal 3arabiyya (since the "tu" is case ending, it will not be pronounced in the spoken).
-
Egyptians say "3aleshaan"; sudanese "3ashaan" for "because".
-
In the sudanese dialect there is "daak" for "dhaak".
-
Peace,
- bismillahir rahmaanir raheem is considered, not just borrowed as a whole, but also a divine sentence, since it only exists in the quraan. I have never heard an Arab, no matter what their educational standard is, pronounce it differently. The same goes to "assalaamu 3alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu". Unless it is shortened as in "salaam 3alaikum" (rarely used) and in the Egyptian (for goodbye) salaamu 3alaiku.
I guess not Sudanese my dear. But I have heard other dialect speakers say this. As I said Sudanese tend to be very Quranic in alot of ways even in their dialect. I have heard Palestinians and Iraquis pronounce it the way I told you. Especially the last phrase, that is straight corruption of CA. Shall we go into dialect conjugation next?
2; Dialects do not leave out the laam of "al the"; and they very well differentiate between the lunar and the solar laams (allaam ashamseeya wallaam alqamariyya as in ash-shams wal qamar the sun and the moon). So they say allughal 3arabiyya (since the "tu" is case ending, it will not be pronounced in the spoken).
Not when they speak slowly but in standard rapid speech, it will drop often.
- Egyptians say "3aleshaan"; sudanese "3ashaan" for "because".
Lebanese say &ashaan as well for so that. All of it's meanings come from 3alaa sha'ni . . .
Lastly, would you mind responding to the post above about CA, MSA and the use of maa using the post. I would really like to reach a common understanding with you. Because you seem to be confounding alot.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam progod
Sure, I'll respond. But first I have to make sure that we mean the same when we speak of MSA. The reason is when you write that such and such is "pronounced" in this or that way in MSA.
My understanding is that MSA and CA are not spoken languages. If you mean the way it is "read", then this has nothing to do with MSA, but with the reader. The examples you gave are the same in MSA and CA (which I still don't know how much it differs from MSA other than in vocabulary).
-
Peace All,
Thanx Samia and Anwar for answering my questions.
Please look at the emphasis I have placed in bold letters in your quotes...
Peace,
Damon. It is usually a combination of A and B. They will often go in and out of dialect but they will refrain from using certain phrases considered too dialect or pronunciations considered too dialect. This influence of dialect on MSA has made it, depending on the speaker, virtually missing in all case endings and ending ta marbootas.
I don't know if that clarified anything, but to be clear leaders will either just talk in dialect or most likely they will speak in an MSA heavily influence by dialect prounciation of words and they will stick alot of dialect in there.
Godbless,
AnwarAnd in reply to my second question you said
Peace,
Damon to your second question
It is a mixture of dialect and MSA. They will do their best to speak a dialect-pronounced MSA and will fish for common words and pronunciations. The closer the regions the less dificult the task. Dialect is so natural for them it is hard not to speak and they find MSA and especially CA very snooty and artificial. It is like if we were to talk really proper to each other over the phone. GRAMMAR PATTERNS WILL BE PREDOMINATELY DIALECT with MSA vocab and some straight MSA pronunciation if they don't understand each other. Different individuals have different capacities for understanding other countries' dialects.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Samia,
Here is what you said in response to my questions...
It depends on whether they have enough vocabulary of the MSA and on whether they know which MSA word stands for which of their dialect. They apply the grammatical rules of the spoken (relaxed grammar), even when they have to borrow expressions or/and vocabulary from MSA, to make themselves understood. This "dialect", in fact, is known as "the colloquial of the educated", because of the ability to switch between the MSA and their own dialects. It's a kind of "neutral" spoken Arabic.
And...
For your first question
Salaam Damon
I do not know how gammatical rules of CA are different from those of MSA. So, I will only consider MSA (applies grammar rules) and the spoken dialects (no strict grammar rules).
I think it goes back to the mastering of MSA. I have only listened to Egyptian and Sudanese presidents, and Gaddhafi, who all spoke their dialect. The last speech I heard was by Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan when he said "3alayyat talaaq quwwaat alumam almuttahida ma betkhush alsudan!! I will divorce my wife/ves if the UN peace forces enter the Sudan".
If the speech is written, then it will be in MSA and they will read it out (some still make mistakes since the written material does not show vocalization).
During the meetings of the Arab League, some strictly speak MSA so that everyone understands, some read a little and then continue in their own dialects, switching codes to and fro.
(Once Numeiri (of Sudan) was reading a speech on the Teachers' Day, and he read " We applaude teachers for their good behaviour " as "wa nu7ayyil mu3allim Ali Hasan Sal-luka"
The reason that I asked this question is because Arabic, like all HUMAN languages, has always been a Spoken language. However, I have yet to come across any other situation where a living language of today has two sets of grammar rules, one considered to be Spoken rules and the other considered to be Classical rules.
Like all languages, there has been evolving (changes) of word meanings and usages which is why I am all for using Dictionaries of Arabic that include the idioms and usages of vocabulary as far back in the time line as possible such as Lisan Al Arab and Lane's Lexicon. All languages go through this evolution of words/vocabulary. However, as far as I know, no other language in the world has gone through this thing to where there are now grammar rules for todays spoken language and a different set of grammar rules for this same spoken language of yesterday. Arabic has always existed as a Spoken language. It sounds very unlikely that this language can mysteriously Re-invent itself over time and to that degree (to the degree such that a whole new set of grammar rules used to express oneself has evolved and is completely different from the original grammar rules that were used to express oneself in this same language).
To me it sounds like Samia is presenting the more Plausible argument especially when we consider WHO originally wrote these Classical grammar books, during the time period these books were written, the mindset/understanding of the quran these people obviously had back then and the fact that the people who ruled over them always seem to have erected Obstacles to prevent the commoner from engaging with the quran him or herself and thus forcing them to go to Scholars to find out what the quran is saying. Among the many sciences of the quran these scholars mastered, Classical (obsolete/un-used) grammar happens to be part of it.
My humble two cents. Thanx for allowing me to share my thoughts. I'm afraid I have nothing new or different to add to that.
Peace,
Damon. -
Peace,
These are my last comments as whoever wants to believe will and whoever doesn't won't.
MSA and CA are very similar. The fact is that CA has features that MSA has stricken out the use of maa for negation in addition to laa as well as 'in' for negation (no one has even talked about 'in' for negation). The use of case endings to distinguish subjunctive from normal present, etc. etc. For instance in MSA there is no difference between yaqoolu and yaqool, whereas in CA yaqoolu is he says/is saying and yaqool is subjunctive (he may/might say). That also includes the use of the exitive as in yaqulanna or yunbadhanna, which is no longer in use in MSA but is still apart of CA, as well as some vocabulary (because MSA is a reduced version of CA traditionalist will often borrow from CA and implant into MSA which helps to further create confusion about the difference between MSA and CA. However, uses of maa and 'in' for negation are either not understood or wrongly contributed to dialects when the dialects got this from CA in the first place.)
Dialect and CA are very different but have many things in common. Archaisms from CA abound the use of maa for negation (in this case to the exclusion of laa), the use of exitive only in some expressions but not as a grammatical concept. The differences are the dropping of all case endings except for certain expressions. The corruption of vowels even within the verb and corruption of letters for instance yaqoolu becomes yigool or yi'ool, pass tenses also change for instance &amaltu becomes &malta or &amalit and the list goes on and on. Words like muhammad or mukhtalit easily become Im-hamid or mikh-talit. The nominative plural such as dhaahiboona or faa&iloona is never used and instead of oona you have a fixed een similar to the fixed Hebrew plural eem. There have been some continuations however of Old Arabic pronuncations. For instance nabeeyun is really nabee'un and in CA both could be used. In dialect the hamza has dropped altoghether and becomes either a yaa like in the above, for instance qaa'ilun (a speaker/saying) becomes gaayil, &aa'iz (to need) becomes &aayiz. The ya also may be changed to a waw depending on the word. Samaa' becomes sima You also get interesting things like the Egyptian annahaar-daa (literally 'this daylight' i.e. dhaa alnahaaru) for today. In Iraqi a CA expression for with (wa iyaa) becomes wiyaa (CA wa iyaahu = Dialect wiyaa) whereas the Egyptian uses a corrupted form of ma&a (Ma&aaya), Outside in many dialects is barra which comes from barr (ground/earth) and literally means 'on the ground, earth' so it becomes 'outside.' In Iraqi janbun/janban become yam due to the meemization found in tajweed (Old Arabic pronunciation) when noon meets baa and the ya because it seems that in Old Arabic the j was in between as j and a y sound. Sudanese often pronounce the jim almost like ya, with minor fricative action going on at the roof of the mouth.
But I guess knowledge really can't compete with ignorance. The fact here is that people who call themselves Arabs will continue to call whatever they natively speak Arabic. Just like during Shakespeare's time and before what they spoke was called English (we say that Elizabethean English is only written but back then it was spoken too and it was just called English). The best example I could give was the example of Romance langauges and Latin, when back in the 1300's for instance Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian and the rest were all called Latin and considered dialects of Latin. This had nothing to do with upper classes and their efforts to keep knowledge from the proletariate class. Why must we force bogus ideologies onto real linguistic phenomena? Spoken Arabic during Muhammad's time (God bless him) and before him is CA and that is what we find in the Quran and the Hadeeths and the Pre-Islamic Poetries (even the speaches of Ibn Hajjaj (the ruler of Iraq during the early Islamic era). He said for example a'marranna (exitive use) ahadakum ay yakhruja min hadhaa albaabi wa yakhruja min hadhaa qad qata3tu ra'sahu. That is CA. MSA (despite the fact that it is using CA grammar in a different way would say sa a'mar ahadakum an yadhab min hadha al-baab wa idhaa dhahaba/yadhab min dhaalikal-baab sa aqta3 ra'sah) CA was studied and analyzed and put into books and taught and became the official langauge, whereas on the streets and in the towns CA was mixing with foreign languages and creating pidgins and creoles for common understanding on the street with Non-Arab populations. The Arabs and the non-Arabs (who later became Arabs) adopted these creoles and pidgins as their native languages on the street level. These pidgins and creoles are what formed what we call spoken Arabic today. And written Arabic is what died out as a spoken language despite the fact that it was preserved on paper and through the mouths of the educated. That is how Latin died out too as a spoken language and only up until 1500's did the Romance languages start to be called by the different ethnicities and lands that spoke these creole latins (Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese etc.). It is the same thing when we talk about the darijas/3aamiyyas and refer to them as Sudanese, Morrocan, Mauritanian, Jordanian, etc, etc. A spanish speaker generally understands portuguese, catalan and different italian dialects because they are all dialects (literally corruptions) of Latin and the same thing goes for Arabic. Arabic dialects are all corruptions of CA and MSA is a trimmed up CA with emphasis put more on sentence order and with a number of grammatical features from CA stricken out to simplify things. If all Romance countries adopted Latin as their official langauge you would also see a revival of many latin words in the dialect and Latin would hold more sway on these originally Latin dialects. Since they let this practice go after 1500 their dialects continued to evolved on their own and took pride in the corruptions of latin instead of learning proper latin (and even these creoles formed new Creoles with the beginning of the West African slave trade). This is not a matter of better langauge or worse language, good or bad. This is just the how languages evolve or die out and only survive as written languages like Latin and CA did. (again MSA is a trimmed up, modernized version of CA with slight grammatical differences).
But in the end I think Psalms has a quote that goes something like don't correct a fool because they will scorn the wisdom of your words. So Samia if you just want to win, you win. And Damon if you think what she has said is more logical then, do you, you still have to learn the real purpose of a name and the real effect it can have when its meaning is not properly understood (I am just talking about the term Arabic but this also has ramifications with the word Islam). Mazhar, I hope you understood all that i had to say. But if you didn't oh, well God bless you. We only know what God has taught us, right?
Godbless all,
Anwar -
Just reading this through this thrread and I came to an understanding which currently fits for me
God created the world first then mankind - so the forces of nature existed before mankind. It is also reasonable to know that the forces of nature (acts of God) are what makes life easy or hard. - i.e optimum weather conditions are required for harvest.
The pagans worshipped the forces of nature - because thats all they could see with their eyes and so beleived them be in charge of their sustenance. By doing so there was great division accross the land - different peopel worshipping differnt forces - i.e some the moon others the sun maybe others the wind. But in truth God was ruler over all such forces - but together with God - they worked to execute Gods plans.
In the Quran is it possible that 'We' refers to God plus the forces of nature? As because 'We' in particular appears to be used with regards to action.
I can look back at certain times and see how circumstances were in very strange ways against what I wanted to achive - no matter how much I perserveered and tried - like I know a normal person would not face such constraints. But later in hindsight, I see how it may have been God trying to guide me away from my false desires. So therefore besides famine and earthquakes these forces of nature could take the form of people's emotions and thinking and actions?? Rather like in anceint Greek beleifs - the God of war and God of revenge etc. then it becomes easy to see how everything is just part of the Divine plan.
Also by this understanding it is easy to see how money can becoem the object to worship when we are dealing with teh matter that we think sustains us - or the obtaining of takes up most importance in our lives.
-
To me we = jibreel + God and possibly others.
How did the quran come down? Through Jibreel, The God frequency.
Remember Moses' meeting with God. It's also through Jibreel. If we carefully look at 278, we'll realize that it's neither God speaking, nor Moses, but a third
-
This one is interesting. I just skipped the middle post, So i don't know whether this is repeated or not.
I like to think the WE as the collaborative of everything in the universe. This includes the heavens, earth, angels, satan, trees, air, wind, sun, stars etc. Without any of these elements. This universe would not be what we perceive it is right now. Try this analogy. I am typing in this forum. Is it really me that is typing? I think it is my finger that is pushing the keyboard. Through my thoughts, i deliver my desire to express this thoughts through the nerves from my brain to my hand. My right brain brings the images that i want to express, my left brain translate it to english language that everybody that reads this post understand. My heart keeps the blood pumping to ensure my brain receives enough oxygen so that i could think properly. My eyes shows where my finger should be put on. And this collaborative process is, if we retrace it. Will always started from God.
So i think from the divine point of view, there's no declaration of singularity except for the Creator. Even angels don't call themselves as a singular 'I'. There's always WE. And I think for them it is arrogant, not thankful and disrespectful to God if they pronounce ourselves as a singular 'I'. But we humans had got used to call ourselves as a singular 'I'. So there's no feeling of guilt anymore. Should we start to realize this and use WE instead of I? Just my 2 cents ;D.
I think the divine (God and angels?) speaks to us through images. Remember the saying picture speaks a thousand words. It's a universal language IMHO. It came from the right brain and the left brain translates it to words that it understands. That why sometimes there's a lot of misinterpretations of words. It's the context that counts. Not the word by word. Heck even the text that we reads comes from images that we visualize from our eyes ;D ;D ;D. In the end the interpreter is the one who judged what kind of meaning he/she wants to except.
Peace.