"Elaziz" or "Al-Azeez"?
-
I see no arabic in your post.
You're talking about the actual Arabic script? What will that prove? Maybe you're unaware of this, but the Qur'an was originally preserved through oral memorization and recitation. So, the contexts of the scriptures are maintained through the pronounciation and recital, not through the Arabic script. The Arabic script of the Qur'an is no more than the translator's interpretation of what the word is and what it looks like in Arabic. That's why I gave you the translation and the pronounciation of the words; that way, you can determine the context...
-
Peace to all,
In the Qur'an, the story of Joseph is explained in detail. In this story (contained in Chapter 12), both the ruler and Joseph are called specific titles which many Islamic scholars have interpreted to be "al-azeez" (the powerful). However, through a closer look at this story, it appears moreso, at least in my opinion, to be using the title "elaziz", which is the title for an Egyptian ruler. Throughout the rest of the scripture, the title "al-azeez" (the powerful) is a title reserved specifically for God ALONE. Which one is more literally and historically accurate, based on the Qur'an? Were Joseph and the king called "elaziz", as in Egyptian rulers or governors, or were they called "al-azeez", as in "the powerful"?
Peace,
Ahmad
Was Yousof a ruler of Egypt? confused
Provide the arabic.
You're talking about the actual Arabic script? What will that prove? ) Maybe you're unaware of this, but the Qur'an was originally preserved through oral memorization and recitation. So, the contexts of the scriptures are maintained through the pronounciation and recital, not through the Arabic script. The Arabic script of the Qur'an is no more than the translator's interpretation of what the word is and what it looks like in Arabic. That's why I gave you the translation and the pronounciation of the words; that way, you can determine the context...
al or el are different ways of writing the definite article . The "i" in aziz could be a short vowel, so alziz or elaziz could be written (is this what you want? This could corrupt your count of the yaa's ). However, the "ee" in alazeez or elazeez wil most probanly be a long vowel and will be written
-
Was Yousof a ruler of Egypt? confused
According to 1254-56, Joseph did attain a prominent position in Egypt. Verse 55 even mentions him as being in charge of the country's treasuries, which indeed puts him among the ruling class. So, this would make him eligible for the Egyptian title of "elaziz", which is equal to a governor or high authority in the land.
-
Here is the full Verse in Arabic. Hope it helps to whoever wants to cross reference and debate the topic at hand.
Peace.
(121)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(122)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(123)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(124)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(125)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(126)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(127)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12
Yusuf (Joseph)
(129)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1210)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1211)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1212)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1213)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1214)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1215)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1216)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1217)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(121
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1219)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1220)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1221)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1222)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1223)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1224)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1225)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1226)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1227)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(122
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1229)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1230)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1231)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1232)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1233)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1234)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1235)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1236)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1237)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(123
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1239)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1240)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1241)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1242)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1243)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1244)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1245)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1246)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1247)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(124
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1249)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1250)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1251)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1252)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1253)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1254)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1255)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1256)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1257)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(125
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1259)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1260)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1261)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1262)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1263)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1264)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1265)
Yusuf (Joseph)

-
All of these passages are references about Joseph and the ruler/king of Egypt. So, "elaziz" (the title for an Egyptian ruler or governor) would be very fitting in these passages. In my opinion, the title "al-azeez" would not be fitting here, since throughout the rest of the Qur'an, "al-azeez" (the powerful) is a title given only to God... What's your take on this?
Peace,
Ahmad
There are three main characters in chapter 12
The noble who bought Yousof for a fist full of dirhams, and whose wife was alluded at as "the wife of the noble/ al 3azeez".
The king who wanted an interpretation of the dream
Yousof, who was addressed as "al 3azeez" the first time by his brothers pleading with him to let go of their brother.It's very clear that "3azeez" is not a "king", nor is it an official title. We do not know that Yousuf's first master has any governmental office. Yousuf's request of the king was not to make him (a nole) but to put him in charge of the agriculutre (treasure of Egypt) marketing.
Yousuf's brothers were not pleading with him in-as-much as his official status, but they were doing an appeal to mercy (his father is an old man) and so they were just calling him Oh noble one! -
There are three main characters in chapter 12
The noble who bought Yousof for a fist full of dirhams, and whose wife was alluded at as "the wife of the noble/ al 3azeez".
The king who wanted an interpretation of the dream
Yousof, who was addressed as "al 3azeez" the first time by his brothers pleading with him to let go of their brother.So, even though the entire remainder of the Qur'an refers to God ALONE as "al-azeez" (or "al 3azeez", you think it's appropriate to also refer to Joseph and the king by this title as well? -\ The Arabic word "azeez" doesn't mean "noble", it means "powerful, mighty or glorious". So, you are actually calling Joseph and his king "the mighty" or "the glorious", or especially "the powerful". Do you think these are fitting titles for them?
By the way, I just noticed that the Progressive Moslem translation is fairly accurate in this instance, and it correctly translates this word as "elaziz"/governor instead of "al-azeez"/the powerful. I hadn't gotten a chance to look at all the translations regarding this term prior to my posting this thread. It can also be translated as an Egyptian prince or any other authority figure.
Yousuf's brothers were not pleading with him in-as-much as his official status, but they were doing an appeal to mercy (his father is an old man) and so they were just calling him Oh noble one!
This is wrong. First of all, "azeez" does NOT mean "noble". But regardless of this, the brothers of Joseph were appealing to a higher authority, in their mind, an Egyptian who presided over them and controlled their situation, which is exactly what an "elaziz" is. If they were simply appealing for the mercy of someone, if it was fitting for them to call the man "the powerful", then they certainly would've had no problem calling Joseph "al-raheem"/the merciful... You also have to take into consideration that the ONLY people throughout the entire reading called by this title were Egyptian authorities. hmm Indeed, the message mentions other people in authority in other countries, but none of them are ever called "al-azeez" or "elaziz". This is because (1) "al-azeez" only applies to God and (2) "elaziz" only applies to an Egyptian authority. So, based on these facts, nobody else was worthy of being called either of those two names. The exception was the Egyptian pharaoh of Moses, and this was long after the title was desisted due to the change in governmental structure (i.e. from "malik"/king to "faraaun"/pharaoh) around 200 years after Joseph...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam alaikum.
Peace to all,
In the Qur'an, the story of Joseph is explained in detail. In this story (contained in Chapter 12), both the ruler and Joseph are called specific titles which many Islamic scholars have interpreted to be "al-azeez" (the powerful). However, through a closer look at this story, it appears moreso, at least in my opinion, to be using the title "elaziz", which is the title for an Egyptian ruler. Throughout the rest of the scripture, the title "al-azeez" (the powerful) is a title reserved specifically for God ALONE. Which one is more literally and historically accurate, based on the Qur'an? Were Joseph and the king called "elaziz", as in Egyptian rulers or governors, or were they called "al-azeez", as in "the powerful"?
Peace,
Ahmad
I don?t think that Allah is al-azeez. He is al-azeez al-hakeem, al-azeez al-aleem, al-azeez al-hameed, al-qawi al-azeez etc. I haven?t seen ?Al-azeez? on its own used as a divine attribute in the Quran.
-
Here is the full Verse in Arabic. Hope it helps to whoever wants to cross reference and debate the topic at hand.
Peace.
(121)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(122)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(123)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(124)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(125)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(126)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(127)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12
Yusuf (Joseph)
(129)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1210)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1211)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1212)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1213)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1214)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1215)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1216)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1217)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(121
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1219)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1220)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1221)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1222)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1223)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1224)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1225)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1226)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1227)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(122
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1229)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1230)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1231)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1232)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1233)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1234)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1235)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1236)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1237)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(123
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1239)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1240)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1241)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1242)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1243)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1244)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1245)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1246)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1247)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(124
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1249)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1250)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1251)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1252)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1253)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1254)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1255)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1256)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1257)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(125
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1259)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1260)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1261)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1262)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1263)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1264)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1265)
Yusuf (Joseph)
&#
-
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1266)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1267)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(126
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1269)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1270)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1271)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1272)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1273)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1274)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1275)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1276)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1277)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(127
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1279)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1280)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1281)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1282)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1283)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1284)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1285)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1286)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1287)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(128
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1289)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1290)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1291)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1292)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1293)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1294)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1295)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1296)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1297)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(129
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1299)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12100)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12101)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12102)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12103)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12104)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12105)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12106)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12107)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(1210
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12109)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(12110)
Yusuf (Joseph)
(
-
Wa Alaykun Salaam Fahad,
I don?t think that Allah is al-azeez. He is al-azeez al-hakeem, al-azeez al-aleem, al-azeez al-hameed, al-qawi al-azeez etc. I haven?t seen ?Al-azeez? on its own used as a divine attribute in the Quran.
Hold on... confused So, you say that the title "al-azeez" can't be applied to Allah unless it's accompanied by another title? -\ What about instances where the qur'an uses the terms "al-rahman" separate from "al-raheem"? Because they are separated, does this make them inapplicable? Whether the scriptures say "the mighty the wise", or if they simply say "the mighty", the description is still given to Allah... And again, this is a title, not a position. Terms like "almalik"/the king can be used to refer to humans who hold the position in their governments; but titles like "alrahmaan", "alraheem", "alazeez", "alnaafiu", "aladheem", and other such titles can only be applied to God, not to men...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
You're talking about the actual Arabic script? What will that prove? ) Maybe you're unaware of this, but the Qur'an was originally preserved through oral memorization and recitation. So, the contexts of the scriptures are maintained through the pronounciation and recital, not through the Arabic script. The Arabic script of the Qur'an is no more than the translator's interpretation of what the word is and what it looks like in Arabic. That's why I gave you the translation and the pronounciation of the words; that way, you can determine the context...
Post an mp3 with an oral recital of the arabic.
-
Post an mp3 with an oral recital of the arabic.
How would I post an oral recitation? Where would I get that file from?
-
Has the quran changed?
I don't understand the question... Has the qur'an changed since when? Also, there's a difference between the actual scripture changing and the interpretation of the scripture changing. Which are you talking about?
-
So, even though the entire remainder of the Qur'an refers to God ALONE as "al-azeez" (or "al 3azeez", you think it's appropriate to also refer to Joseph and the king by this title as well? -\ The Arabic word "azeez" doesn't mean "noble", it means "powerful, mighty or glorious". So, you are actually calling Joseph and his king "the mighty" or "the glorious", or especially "the powerful". Do you think these are fitting titles for them?
Ahmad
I am not thinking it's appropriate to refer to Yousuf and the king by this tiltle. I am not actually calling his king anything other than king. It's the quraan. I put a translation for al3azeez and you chose a different one to make it "impossible" to call some one almighty, and then say I said he could be called "almighty"? I do not agree with the meaning of al3azeez being almighty or being specific to God. And the King was not referred to as "al3azeez".
By the way, I just noticed that the Progressive Moslem translation is fairly accurate in this instance, and it correctly translates this word as "elaziz"/governor instead of "al-azeez"/the powerful. I hadn't gotten a chance to look at all the translations regarding this term prior to my posting this thread. It can also be translated as an Egyptian prince or any other authority figure.
Who said he was a governor or a prince? From where did PM or you get him these positions?
This is wrong. First of all, "azeez" does NOT mean "noble". But regardless of this, the brothers of Joseph were appealing to a higher authority, in their mind, an Egyptian who presided over them and controlled their situation, which is exactly what an "elaziz" is. If they were simply appealing for the mercy of someone, if it was fitting for them to call the man "the powerful", then they certainly would've had no problem calling Joseph "al-raheem"/the merciful...
Do you hve any proof that Egyptians called their princes "3azeez"? I did not know that they spoke Arabic. Whatever they called them, it has been translated into Arabic, and 3azeez in Arabic is not prince. There's not even a title for prince in Arabic.
Call him al raheem"? rotfl If you speak Arabic, you would not utter this nonese. Why? Because he imprisoned their brother?
You also have to take into consideration that the ONLY people throughout the entire reading called by this title were Egyptian authorities. hmm Indeed, the message mentions other people in authority in other countries, but none of them are ever called "al-azeez" or "elaziz". This is because (1) "al-azeez" only applies to God and (2) "elaziz" only applies to an Egyptian authority. So, based on these facts, nobody else was worthy of being called either of those two names. The exception was the Egyptian pharaoh of Moses, and this was long after the title was desisted due to the change in governmental structure (i.e. from "malik"/king to "faraaun"/pharaoh) around 200 years after Joseph...
This is a fallcy. If the qur'aan spoke of similar situations in other land and used different "titles" only then can you say azeez is a "title" for Egyptians only. Show us a different title used in the qur'aan for people other than Egyptians. This is a genuine question Are you an expert in Egytiology? How do you know that "The exception was the Egyptian pharaoh of Moses, and this was long after the title was desisted due to the change in governmental structure (i.e. from "malik"/king to "faraaun"/pharaoh) around 200 years after Joseph..."?
You are speaking of "titles". Titles are not translated if they do not have the equivalent in the target language. The pharoah was kept as it is, and it's not Arabic. God does not have titles, but attributes. He chose words that we understand and use. These words were already in the Language, the quraan did not invent them, nor did it ask people not to use them. The language of the quraan is not a theological language. It's a very ordinary, street language and every word has a meaning and can be used for anything.
-
Peace all,
Please note that in the same chapter, Youssof is describing himself as "3aleem" (knowledgeable), while one can argue that this attribute is only for the god.
1255
And also, while I was searching for this verse, I noticed this one
1244
It is the same word as in "rabb al-3alameen" which most translate as "lord of the worlds" while it is very clear from this verse and others that the word "3alameen" refers to "people of knowledge".
Just some food for thought...
-
Peace all,
Please note that in the same chapter, Youssof is describing himself as "3aleem" (knowledgeable), while one can argue that this attribute is only for the god.
1255
And also, while I was searching for this verse, I noticed this one
1244
It is the same word as in "rabb al-3alameen" which most translate as "lord of the worlds" while it is very clear from this verse and others that the word "3alameen" refers to "people of knowledge".
Just some food for thought...
Most of God's attributes are normal words that could be used anywhere else if needed. Arabic was never a theological language. When these attributes are translated into English, they seem "specific" to God, because then they are not normal words that could be used freely in any topic. That's why native speakers of Arabic would never find these words inappropriately used to "humans" because we freely use them in everyday language.
-
Peace,
You are confusing the issue. Of course Arabic was not a theological language; it is an everyday language for any people... However, when it comes to Qur'anic terminology, there is a HUGE difference between calling someone "azeez" and "AL-azeez", or "rabb" and "al-rabb". This is the clear distinction between the words "(i)llah" and "Allah". These are completely different titles and attributes.
I am not thinking it's appropriate to refer to Yousuf and the king by this tiltle. I am not actually calling his king anything other than king. It's the quraan. I put a translation for al3azeez and you chose a different one to make it "impossible" to call some one almighty, and then say I said he could be called "almighty"? I do not agree with the meaning of al3azeez being almighty or being specific to God. And the King was not referred to as "al3azeez".
If you understand the Qur'anic language when it mentions God, it would be illogical for a man to be given the attribute of "al-azeez". Even if you call him "azeez", the dominant description is the word "al", which promotes absoluteness and singularity in these words... For example, in the Qur'an, the word "kitaab" can be referring to any book; but the words "alkitaab" automatically imply the divine scripture... The attribute of "al-azeez" means "the powerful" or "the glorious", and it can be used as a literal meaning for "the almighty". The Egyptian king was given this title, according to your translation, because the words speak of the wife of "al-azeez" (or "elaziz". So, either this is talking about the ruler's wife, or this is talking about the almighty's wife. Which do you think?
Who said he was a governor or a prince? From where did PM or you get him these positions?
These are not translations of the Arabic term "al-azeez"; this is a translation of the Egyptian term "elaziz". Since this is used as an Egyptian title, it is not translated in Arabic language. The Egyptian term "elaziz" is translated as a prince, king, governor, ruler, or high authority in an Egyptian government.
Do you hve any proof that Egyptians called their princes "3azeez"? I did not know that they spoke Arabic. Whatever they called them, it has been translated into Arabic, and 3azeez in Arabic is not prince. There's not even a title for prince in Arabic.
The word "elaziz" is not Arabic, it's from the Egyptian/Khemetic language, similar to modern-day Wolof.
Peace,
Ahmad