surah baqarah-a thorough discussion.
-
What do you think and what is your opinion of the ongoing linguistic translation attempt of this surah and others at www.servantofthelight.com
It appears real good based on break up of words and meanings as per Lanes, although it probably could still be improved linguistically to bring it as close as one could possibly try to bring it, to the magnificient words of our Rabb.Peace
-
what do you understand by A L M?
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/002.011.gif
Alif; consonants of Arabic alphabet ( ‎, Laa'm and Mee'm. Initial letter Alif has no speech sound and is not conjoined with the succeeding consonants of the word, while Laam and Meem are conjoined, and both have above them ancillary glyph/prolongation sign/mark which extends/stretches the sound value of the letter to which it is added. It reflects that the Book in hand is in the language that has letters and other marks, representing that its writing system is letter-diacritic combination based, resulting in the combination of sounds that form a syllable, rather than a single sound.The prolongation mark reflects that the following letter is still with which it is joined resulting in pause as consonant ends with still resulting in natural pause in its pronunciation "Laa'm". And so has the consonant the prolongation sign suggesting that it is to be pronounced with stretched sound to make the last still letter vivid in sound ending in natural pause "Mee'm- ". Prolongation sign will also appear when the following consonant is "Hamza, " which can distinctly and audibly pronounced only if the preceding letter is pronounced elongate. It may be noted that the prolongation sign is not the equivalent nor it represents hamza followed by alif.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0000.%20Haroof%20particles/01.%20Initial%20particles.htm
-
I consider the following explanation by Imam Farahi(R.A), here presented by Mr. Shehzad Saleem,the editor of monthly Renaissance(www.monthly-renaissance.com) to be the most plausible one
". ??(Alif-lam_mim)In religious parlance, these letters and others similar to them are called the Hurf-i-Muqatta?t (the separated letters). They are found at the beginning of some twenty-nine srahs of the Qur?n. Rz, in his exegesis on the Qur?n has enlisted some twenty one opinions about what these letters represent. He has pointed out that most scholars and researchers regard them to be the names of the respective srahs in which they occur. He says that grammarians like Khall and Sbwayh and most theologians are of this view. He quotes Qifl in the following words
, , , , . ,
The Arabs would name things after such letters. They called the father of Hrithah Ibn Lm Al-T? as ?? (lm). They called ?brass? as ??, ?money? as ?? and ?clouds? as ??. Similarly, they called a mountain ?? and ?fish? as ??.1
Ghmid is also of the opinion that these letters are the names of respective surhs (ref. 1). His words are
The way they are placed in the beginning of some twenty nine surahs of the Qur?n and the way they are referred to by the demonstrative pronouns ?? (dhlika) and ?? (tilka) show that they are names of the respective surhs.
Consequently, many of these srahs are generally referred to according to this pattern, for example Th, Ysn, Sud , Qf and Nn (all these letters are actually the Hurf-i-Muqatta?t of the respective srahs). However, there remains the question of why the srahs are named in this way. Many scholars have attempted to answer the question, but what they have proposed is far from being satisfactory. Farh (d 1930 AD), a scholar of the sub-continent, has presented an explanation which might hold the key to the problem.2 The following paragraphs briefly discuss his theory.3
Those who are aware of the history of the Arabic alphabet know that it has been derived from the Hebrew alphabet, which itself has its roots in the alphabet used in ancient Arabia. Farh is of the view that the letters of this parent alphabet, unlike English and Hindi, do not represent phonetic sounds only, but, like the Chinese alphabet, symbolize certain meanings and objects which usually assume the shape of the objects and meanings they convey. He goes on to assert that it was these letters which the early Egyptians adopted and after adapting them according to their own concepts created the Hieroglyphic script from them. The remnants of this script can be seen in the tables of the Egyptian Pyramids.
There are some letters whose meanings have persisted to this day, and the way they are written also somewhat resembles their ancient forms. For example, it is known about the Arabic letter ?? that it is used to mean a cow and was represented by a cow?s head. The letter ?? in Hebrew is called Bayt and means Bayt (house) as well. The Hebrew pronunciation of ?? is Jaymal which means Jamal (camel). ?? stands for a serpent and is written in a serpent?s shape. ?? represents a water wave and also has a related configuration.
Farh presents Srah Nn in support of his theory. The letter ?? even in today?s alphabet denotes its ancient meaning of fish. In this srah, the Prophet Jonah (sws) has been addressed as Shibu?l-Ht (Companion of the Fish). Farh opines that it is because of this reference that the srah is called ??. He goes on to say that if one keeps in consideration the examples given above, it is quite likely that the abbreviated letters by which other srahs commence are placed at the beginning of the srahs to symbolize a relation between the topics of a particular srah and their own ancient connotations.
Some other names of the Qur?nic Srahs reinforce Farh?s theory. Srah Th, for example, begins with the letter ?? which represents a serpent, as has been indicated before. After a brief introduction the tale of Moses (sws) and his rod, which is transformed into a snake, has been depicted in it. Other Srahs as ?? and ??, which begin with the letter ?? Tuay, also portray this miraculous anecdote.
Srah Baqarah, which begins with the letter ??, is another example which further strengthens Farh?s claims. It has been indicated before that the letter ?? had the meaning of a cow associated with it and was represented by a cow?s head. Srah Baqarah, as we all know, contains the anecdote of a cow and its sacrifice.
Another aspect of the srahs which begin with the same letter is a similarity in their topics and even in their style and construction. For example, all srahs which begin with ?? basically deal with Tawhd (monotheism). It would be appropriate here to point out that the letter ?? also stood for Allah, the One and Alone.
-
What do you think and what is your opinion of the ongoing linguistic translation attempt of this surah and others at www.servantofthelight.com
I could not make sense of the translations at the site! One can conjures up such translation only when he/she disregards context, established rules of language
and usage! -
In religious parlance, these letters and others similar to them are called the Hurf-i-Muqatta?t (the separated letters).
Seperated from where? A Harf is a distinct and self independent part of Alphabet. The Huruf are the ones that give rise to a word, and not a word gives appearance to haruf. How can Haruf be termed as Hurf-i-Muqatta?t?
-
Ghmid is also of the opinion that these letters are the names of respective surhs (ref. 1). His words are
The way they are placed in the beginning of some twenty nine surahs of the Qur?n and the way they are referred to by the demonstrative pronouns ?? (dhlika) and ?? (tilka) show that they are names of the respective surhs.
Who uses ? (dhlika) for feminine ?
-
I could not make sense of the translations at the site! One can conjures up such translation only when he/she disregards context, established rules of language
and usage!Not being smart by any means, but when I looked hard at the great work of Lanes along with grammar work as in Wright, Fisher etc., it suddenly started to make sense as given at www.servantofthelight.com. May be it need to be looked at again through these great references by some one who has keen interest like yourself, in trying to be as close as possible to the understanding of this timeless message. May be the authors at that site can simultaneously shed light on their reasoning of understanding as well, and we all can see the same thing, no matter where it came from, as long as it is as close to the original text and makes perfect sense as a Book of guidance.
The only pre requisite would be that we have to look at everythhing with a clean slate of mind, without preconceived notions, and without blindly believing in people whom we may have all held in high esteem, and without really conjecturing on the meanings, and as long as it can be explained on the pure linguistic basis. After all it is a language and has been used extensively in Qur'Aan and the scribes must have followed their linguistic acumen, and must not have based the writing on conjectures, such as shape of the letter, history, or hearsay. We need to uncover the pure linguistic understanding as was present at the time of the Prophet (S) , otherwise we will keep conjecturing, keep giving longer and longer explanations of possible meanings and keep guessing.Peace and looking for truth always
-
We need to uncover the pure linguistic understanding as was present at the time of the Prophet (S) , otherwise we will keep conjecturing,
This thought/statement is in itself a conjecture. The record of the time of the Messenger are words of Qur'aan, its words are to be understood by its own words.
-
This thought/statement is in itself a conjecture. The record of the time of the Messenger are words of Qur'aan, its words are to be understood by its own words.
I fully agree that the words of Qur'Aan would be understood by the words of Qur'Aan itself as you stated. The above ststement is in itself clarifies, that assumptions, based on some right and some not so much right historical data, Books of Hadith, some right and some not so much right etc cannot be used alone to conjecture the linguistic meanings of Qur'Aanic words. Also we cannot assume the meanings of the words and letters used in the Qur'Aan just because they have been described by people whom we respect alone.
For it to be proved right or not right, it should fit into the linguistic understanding of lexicons, and some grammar rules, as we may be able to check them out with open minds. Once it fits the rigorous linguistic criteria and not merely because some one else has explained the meanings in so and so way, we can never reproduce the same linguistic translation. For any science to be true and correct, including the science of linguistics, it should reproduce the same results and meanings, as long as the established scientific rules ( in this case linguistic rules ) are applied. Once the same linguistic meanings are derived by consensus, and not just on individual whims and traditions, we can then use that data to translate it into meaningful sentences. It will be then upto the individual as to what message he or she wants to get out of it and whether he or she is willing to accept those principles or not. There should be however a complete reproducible methodology with consensus on the linguistic science of any literature. A cat should always be read and understood as cat and a bat should always be read and understoodd as bat. Details regarding the kinds of cat and bat then can be decided based on the context in which it is being it is used.Peace with hopes for a team which will join hands with open minds to accept correct and reject all wrong assumptions, even if it changes every thing. After all learning what truly our Rabb is telling us is more important than what others may be thinkingof it as.
Salam
-
If we start reading Qur'aan keeping aside passions and preconceived notions repetitively imprinted/inscribed on the memory, preferably deleting it, then We will find that Qur'aan's approach is too simple and scientific and makes its reader smootly flow with it while taking with each word of it a new proven fact. First word Bismi, Jar wa Majroor, second word possessive phrase; third adjectival phrase; 30% of grammer understood by first verse. Nowhere our eyes will find a variation in this relationship. Begining is with the code/name. You create and name the thing simultaneously, and for naming you need a language. From nothingness things can emerge when simultaneously there emerges a language for distinction and identification. The first relationship that emerged was of Creator and the created. Knowledge begins with knowing the code/name of the thing since nothing can be saved in memory unless it is coded. If you just want to know only about epstimology from Qur'aan, move to next word found in Qur'an about Ism/code. There it will tell you first names/codes of things were introduced to man and further point was told that seeing is not knowledge unless you know codes and differentiate between them for description. Move on with further information given therein and eventually you will reach where ultimate of knowledge is described, to know the purpose of creation, Taffakur, to know the objectivity and purpose and desire of the creator.
Take any concept and find its first time mention then place all mentions about it from the Qur'aan according to its sequence and you will find the complete flow and explanation provided you restrict to the accepted meanings and perception of the word contained in dictionaries, unless you find that Qur'aan has defined it differently. Ordinary dictionaries and grammer books will suffice.
The second declarative statement is Alhamdo Lillah. On creation this is the fact that became known to the created worlds. And the first verb used is Nabudo; the purpose of creation.
-
Can we delink a language from its contemporary traditions,culture,lore and usage?
What if we interpret Shakespeare only in the light of modern English?
Is it possible that one can grasp a text or langauge only with the help of a dictionary without any consideration for the context, any grounding in the classics of the language?