47:35
-
peace jm. Sarwars and qxp sound like the most reasonable of the translated verses you posted.Khalifas is also interesting. Peace.
-
peace jm. Sarwars and qxp sound like the most reasonable of the translated verses you posted.Khalifas is also interesting. Peace.
For watadAAoo ila alssalmi, QXP is the only translation which does not use the negation. I think it is a mistake. Can someone confirm ?
It seems that alssalmi in that verse means "peace" in the sense of "submission".
So, "crying for peace" (Yusuf ali), "cry out for peace" (Pickthall), "beg for peace" (Asad) would be better than "calling for peace" (Arberry) or "ask for peace" (free-minds).waantumu al-aAAlawna has been translated in multiple ways.
Examples- "you are the uppermost" (Maulana Ali)
- "you will surely gain the upper hand (Malik)
I think waantumu should be rendered with present tense, not future.
So, the meaning of al-aAAlawna would be "the uppermost" ("on a higher moral ground"). It should not be about superiority in war.To sum up, for me, the best translations are the ones of Maulana Ali and Shakir. Asad and free-minds are good too.
Please note verse is also worth to consider.
Looking forward for other opinions.
Peace
-
Peace
Most translations are accurate, here is my own literal one and you can judge for your self
(35)
Don't show weakness by calling for peace while you have the upper hand and Allah is with you and your deeds will not be left without account
yes I agree with you that the verse is talking about a hostile enviroment between the believers and the rejectors "a war for example, verbal or pgysical" and Silm can mean surrender, and this can also mean peace by surrendering or peace by submitting to the enemy, like when Japan did with the USA in WWII
Peace
-
I have had a look to Openburhan to gain a better understanding of this verse.
See http//www.openburhan.com/pages/obf6d3.html
But I don't understand why salam is translated by "submission" (or "peace" in the sense of "submission").
Can someone with good knowledge of Arabic tell me whether it is the same word as usual ?
I would like to understand why, in these cases, salam means "submission" while, usually, it means "peace".Thanks in advance
I have found sa-la-ma used in the Qur'aan for mankind who has the gift of free will to surrender. I note in 383 & 1315 the addition of the words willingly and unwilling since all creation there has been included. I also note the malaika sujud and other inanimate things sujud. They have no free will to surrender.
Sa-ja-da=submit, submission = (English) The state of being submissive; acknowledgement of inferiority or dependence; humble or SUPPLIANT BEHAVIOR; meekness; resignation. The act of submitting; the act of yielding to power or authority; OBEDIENCE; COMPLIANCE.
Sa-la-ma = surrender= (English) To give up possession of; to yield; to resign; as, TO SURRENDER A RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, OR ADVANTAGE. give up or agree to FOREGO to the power or possession of another, surrender to something, to allow yourself to be controlled or influenced by something, to say officially that you want to stop fighting because you realize that YOU CANNOT WIN.
The obvious outcome of surrender is PEACE and security. In my humble understanding the two words are not synonyms. God?s controllers have been made submissive to mankind.
SUBMIT (SA-JA-DA)
? to obey someone when you have no choice about it because they have power over you? to give a plan, piece of writing etc to someone in authority for them to consider or approve
? to agree to obey a person, group, or set of rules
? refer for judgment or consideration
? accept or undergo, often unwillingly
SUBMISSION (verbal noun)
? The state of being submissive; acknowledgement of inferiority or dependence; humble or suppliant behavior; meekness; resignation.
? The act of submitting; the act of yielding to power or authority; obedience; complianceSURRENDERSA-LA-MA)
? To give up possession of; to yield; to resign; as, to surrender a right, privilege, or advantage.
? to say officially that you want to stop fighting because you realize that you cannot win
? surrender to, to allow yourself to be controlled or influenced by something
? to give up something that is important or necessary, often because you feel forced to
? give up or agree to forego to the power or possession of another
? relinquish to the power of another; yield to the control of another
? relinquish possession or control over
-
peace,
The logic of the sign suggests the word for "silm" is "peace", because it would not be a weakness to call for "submission/surrender".
I think it is not about surrendering to God, but about surrendering to the enemies.
I have had a look to Openburhan to gain a better understanding of this verse.
See http//www.openburhan.com/pages/obf6d3.html
But I don't understand why salam is translated by "submission" (or "peace" in the sense of "submission").
Can someone with good knowledge of Arabic tell me whether it is the same word as usual ?
I would like to understand why, in these cases, salam means "submission" while, usually, it means "peace".Thanks in advance
I have found sa-la-ma used in the Qur'aan for mankind who has the gift of free will to surrender. I note in 383 & 1315 the addition of the words willingly and unwilling since all creation there has been included. I also note the malaika sujud and other inanimate things sujud. They have no free will to surrender.
In , it is indeed aslama, from the root Siin-Lam-Miim. But in , I see yasjudu, from the root Siin-Jiim-Dal.
Sa-la-ma = surrender= (English) To give up possession of; to yield; to resign; as, TO SURRENDER A RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, OR ADVANTAGE. give up or agree to FOREGO to the power or possession of another, surrender to something, to allow yourself to be controlled or influenced by something, to say officially that you want to stop fighting because you realize that YOU CANNOT WIN.
The obvious outcome of surrender is PEACE and security. In my humble understanding the two words are not synonyms. Gods controllers have been made submissive to mankind.
There are several derivatives of the root Siin-Lam-Miim.
One of them is islam, which means "submission", and another one is salam which should mean "peace".salam is generally translated by "peace".
But in some cases, it seems to mean "submission" (or "surrender").In , there is the word alsilmi.
It is translated by "islam", "submission" by most of the translators.
Only Arberry, Maulana Ali, free-minds, and qaribullah have chosen "peace".In , there is the word alssalama.
It is translated by "surrender", "submission" by most of the translators.
Only Sale have chosen "peace", and free-minds "amnesty".In , there is the word alssalama.
It is translated by "surrender", "submission" by all translators.So, it seems that the derivative salam of the root Siin-Lam-Miim can mean "submission", like its derivative islam.
One thing we can notice is that, in each case, there is the preposition al before salam.
That's why I suggest alssalmi may have as inner meaning "submission".
It would mean "surrender" in the sense " to say officially that you want to stop fighting because you realize that you cannot win".
The only other time the exact same derivative ("silm") occurs is in 861, according to PRL.
Is silm another derivative of this root (other than salam and islam) ?
In that case, what is its specific meaning ?
Why is not alsilmi (from ) from the same derivative ?Peace
-
Peace
In , it is indeed aslama, from the root Siin-Lam-Miim. But in , I see yasjudu, from the root Siin-Jiim-Dal.
Yes, this was pointed out because the English translators treat these two words as synonyms but they are not.
You are missing the subtle difference and making the same application. Islam is not submission. It is surrender. The word submission is from the root sa-ja-da.
-
I think it is not about surrendering to God, but about surrendering to the enemies.
You didn't understand my point. It is not a weakness to call for submission/surrender thus using "submission/surrender" for "salm" doesn't make sense. When one has the upper hand, to call for peace could be seen as a weakness, hence this is the more logical choice.
Is silm another derivative of this root (other than salam and islam) ?
Yes, please check PRL or openburhan or Dictionary of Quran.
In that case, what is its specific meaning ?
It doesn't necessarily have to have a specific meaning unique to itself.
Why is not alsilmi (from ) from the same derivative ?
Its from the same root, however according to Concordance of Quran, "al ssilm" in 2208 is in the common gender form.
As a side note the core meaning of siin-jiim-dal is giving recognition/acknowledgement, as per my understanding of analysing the classical arabic meanings and every occurrence in 'the reading'.
Wakas
-
An interesting article here (in french)
http//oumma.com/Que-dit-vraiment-le-Coran-Guerre,4775Ce segment se lit ? fa l? tahin? wa tad?? il?-s-silm ?.
C?est ce passage qui, nous dit-on, est compris par tous les ul?mas et traduit par tous les traducteurs comme signifiant ?Ne faiblissez pas , et n?appelez pas ? la paix.? Rapidement, mentionnons que ? silm ? signifie ? paix ?.
-
Le premier verbe ? tahin? ?, ? faiblir ?, est incontestablement marqu? par la n?gation ? l? ?, l? tahin? , ce qui signifie sans aucun doute ? ne faiblissez pas ?.
-
Le deuxi?me verbe ? tad?? ?, ? appeler ?, n?est pr?c?d? que de la pr?position de liaison ? wa ?, et il n?est marqu? directement par aucune n?gation ou autres pr?positions grammaticales. Cependant, ce verbe d?apr?s sa graphie ? ?, ? tad?? ?, semble conjugu? sur le m?me mode que le verbe ? tahin? ? et l? r?side pr?cis?ment la difficult? principale de ce verset. En effet, ? cause de l?absence de pr?position devant ce verbe ? tad?? ? la phrase ne se comprend pas directement et, cons?quemment, sept hypoth?ses de lecture au minimum, et non pas une seule comme on le pr?tend, peuvent ?tre propos?es afin d?en pr?ciser la structure grammaticale et le sens
a)- La premi?re hypoth?se postule que la n?gation l? marquant le premier verbe, ? tahin? ?, gouverne aussi en sous-entendue le verbe ? tad?? ?. On lirait alors comme ceci ? fa l? tahin? wa tad?? ? ce qui se comprend ?Ne faiblissez pas, et n?appelez pas ? la paix?, le sous-entendu n?gativant alors le verbe ? appeler ?. Cette possibilit? est grammaticalement correcte, mais, il resterait ? prouver que cette n?gation, un ordre pouvant devenir un interdit, soit r?ellement sous-entendue. Pr?tendre qu?un verbe, un mot, une pr?position, sont sous-entendus en un texte doit reposer sur des ?l?ments probants, et ce, d?autant plus, lorsqu?il s?agit de la ? Parole ? de Dieu.
Ce cas de figure est pourtant le plus fr?quemment retenu, et l?on cite g?n?ralement l?avis de Az-Zamakhshar?, philologue de la fin du IV?me si?cle de l?H?gire, mutazilite, mais unanimement reconnu pour sa haute comp?tence en la mati?re. Effectivement, il mentionne cette possibilit? comme grammaticalement probable et valide cette lecture, mais sans pour autant fournir de preuves ? cette hypoth?se.
b)- La deuxi?me hypoth?se suppose que le verbe ? tad?? ? est au subjonctif et que la particule gouvernant ce subjonctif, elle aussi sous-entendue, serait ? in ?. Dans ce cas l?on comprend alors ? Ne faiblissez pas, et si vous appelez ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force Dieu est avec vous?? La possibilit? de faire la paix est ici clairement indiqu?e.
Comme pr?c?demment, cette deuxi?me possibilit? grammaticale est tout aussi correcte, et le m?me Az-Zamakhshar? la signale clairement en son tafs?r. Mais, curieusement, lorsqu?on fait mention de cet auteur de r?f?rence cette citation est tronqu?e ! J?ajouterais que d?autres pr?positions r?gissent le subjonctif ainsi si l?on suppose que la pr?position sous-entendue serait ? li ?, ce que rien selon cette logique n?interdit, on obtient alors ?Ne faiblissez pas, afin que vous puissiez appeler ? la paix lorsque vous ?tes en position de force?? D?autres possibilit?s seraient tout aussi th?oriquement envisageables en fonction des pr?positions choisies.
c)- La troisi?me hypoth?se de lecture est cit?e par Tabari, le grand commentateur de la fin du III?me si?cle de l?H?gire, respect? sp?cialiste de la langue coranique. Apr?s avoir rappel? la premi?re hypoth?se, il mentionne que le verbe ? tad?? ? pourrait tout aussi bien ?tre au subjonctif. On supposer en cas que la pr?position sous-entendue ?tant alors g?n?ralement ? an ?. D?autres exemples coraniques de cette particularit? sont bien connus comme par exemple en S42.V35. L?on doit alors comprendre ainsi ? Ne faiblissez pas, et que vous appeliez ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force Dieu est avec vous ?? Le sens au final est identique ? la lecture pr?c?dente.
d)- La quatri?me hypoth?se est aussi cit?e par Tabari. Il mentionne ainsi l?avis de Ibn Zayd, commentateur du Coran de la g?n?ration dite des Suivants, qui explique le verset en sp?cifiant que le premier verbe est une n?gation ? ne faiblis pas ?, et le second une affirmation ? appelle ? la paix ?. On notera que Ibn Zayd estime que ces deux verbes, semblant pourtant ? la deuxi?me personne du pluriel ( ne faiblissez pas?.appelez?), doivent ?tre compris ? la deuxi?me personne du singulier, le sujet ?tant ici le Proph?te SBSL. Le ph?nom?ne est connu, le Coran repr?sente un ?tat de la langue arabe bien ant?rieur aux normalisations grammaticales du II?me si?cle, et le texte coranique comporte de nombreuses particularit?s grammaticales, accord des verbes, des temps, des pronoms, etc. qui au regard du canon de la langue arabe post?rieur seraient des ?incorrections?. Selon l?avis de Ibn Zayd ont lit alors ?Ne faiblis pas, et appelle ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force??
e)- La cinqui?me hypoth?se est due aussi ? Tabari. Il s?agit en fait d?un autre cas de ce que Tabari nomme subjonctif de substitution et il paraphrase le verset comme suit ? Ne soyez pas faibles ? leur ?gard, et vous les appelez (ou tu les appelle) ? la paix et ? la conciliation. ? Signalons qu?une particularit? orthographique de la langue arabe emp?che de savoir si Tabari a voulu dire ? appelez-les ? ou ? appelle-les ?, cette derni?re possibilit? ?tant directement li?e ? celle ?voqu?e par Ibn Zayd. A la note 8 nous montrons qu?au final le verbe appeler est en ce cas l??quivalent d?un imp?ratif faible. On traduit alors selon l?accord retenu le verset de deux mani?res
-
? Ne faiblissez pas, et appelez ? la paix?? et c?est cette solution qui semble avoir ?t? retenue par le Professeur Hamidullah ainsi que par M. Gloton.
-
? Ne faiblissez pas, et appelle ? la paix?? et il s?agit l? de la traduction que j?ai personnellement retenue.
Concernant cette derni?re possibilit? de traduction et afin que les arabisants n?en perdent pas imm?diatement leur latin et leur sang-froid, nous aurons parfaitement not? le changement de pronom personnel. Mais, pour ne pas alourdir l?expos?, nous expliciterons ce fait ? l?avant dernier point de la partie III.
Les quatre derni?res propositions offertes par l??minent Tabari pourraient nous suffire comme justification. Ceux qui voudront arr?ter l? leur lecture le peuvent, l?argument d?autorit? satisfaisant g?n?ralement les chercheurs. Mais, face en r?alit? ? plusieurs possibilit?s, sur quels crit?res placer ? la plus haute marche du podium la bonne solution ?
A vrai dire, l?argument d?autorit? et m?thodologiquement faible, si ce n?est nul, et ce que je ne reconnais pas aux autres je ne peux l?accepter pour moi-m?me. Ainsi, il conviendra d?expliquer par quels crit?res rigoureux et concordants l?on peut prouver la validit? d?un choix. C?est donc l? l?objet de la suite de notre m?thodologie ex?g?tique.En toute rigueur, au terme de cette premi?re ?tape essentielle nous pouvons faire le bilan suivant Sept propositions de compr?hension et donc de traduction sont ? retenir
1 - ?Ne faiblissez pas, et n?appelez pas ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force??
2 - ? Ne faiblissez pas, et si vous appelez ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force??
3- ?Ne faiblissez pas, afin que vous puissiez appeler ? la paix lorsque vous ?tes en position de force??
4 - ? Ne faiblissez pas, et que vous appeliez ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force??
5 - ? Ne faiblis pas et appelle ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force??
6 - ?Ne faiblissez pas, et appelez ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force??
7 - ? Ne faiblissez pas, et appelle ? la paix quand vous ?tes en position de force??
Ainsi Il n?existe pas, comme on le pr?tend, une seule lecture possible mais bien sept. Grammaticalement toutes ces hypoth?ses ont la m?me valeur th?orique. De plus, et en r?sum?, cette premi?re approche ne produit au final que deux sens, mais oppos?s ou contradictoires Appeler ? la paix ou pas ? On notera qu?une seule possibilit? sur sept s?oppose ici au principe de paix
Cependant, nous avons fait remarquer que l?on ne disposait pas d??l?ments permettant d?affirmer que telle ou telle pr?position ?tait sous-entendue pour expliquer la forme et le statut apparents de notre verbe ? tad?? ?, ? appeler ?. Ainsi, les trois derni?res propositions (5-6-7) sont-elles largement pr?f?rables puisqu?elles ne font pas recours ? ce proc?d?, elle ne se permettent pas de supputer sur un ?ventuel sous-entendu de Dieu. Nous d?velopperons cette id?e au dernier point de la deuxi?me partie. -
-
Peace,
Here are somme transalations of .
Which one is the best ?Let me gave you the meaning of the verse, Quran shouldn't be translated word by word.
God in the verse 35 from surat 47 ordered them(the Muslims) to not be weak when you meet the enemy, calling them for a period of peace or the real word is don't call them for an armistice, when you found yourself with a great and huge numbers from soldiers and materiels for War.
-
Where is "don't" in the Verse?
God in the verse described a situation where the Muslims are in a strong position, so he oredred them to not be weak. And they knew that they are strong position but they will call for a period of peace, so here God just mentioned what they will do but his aim is not do it .
( ) = do not be weak and then after this word it came " " then "( ) calling for a period of peace (an armistice). the verse will be like that on its meaning (Do not "be weak and Call for an armistice", so Typically is saying don't call for armistice if you're in a position of strength, that's why came after " " . why they would call for an armistice if they are stronger than their ennemies. you got it?
this is a way of make a negative sentence from the first and then the sentence will take a negative statement later in every word after "and" . let's change the way of the sentence " " you see I change the way of the sentence and it still the same thing (Do not "call for an armistice and be weak" .
-
God in the verse described a situation where the Muslims are in a strong position, so he oredred them to not be weak. And they knew that they are strong position but they will call for a period of peace, so here God just mentioned what they will do but his aim is not do it .
( ) = do not be weak and then after this word it came " " then "( ) calling for a period of peace (an armistice). the verse will be like that on its meaning (Do not "be weak and Call for an armistice", so Typically is saying don't call for armistice if you're in a position of strength, that's why came after " " . why they would call for an armistice if they are stronger than their ennemies. you got it?
this is a way of make a negative sentence from the first and then the sentence will take a negative statement later in every word after "and" . let's change the way of the sentence " " you see I change the way of the sentence and it still the same thing (Do not "call for an armistice and be weak" .
Can you quote me a single instance from the Grand Qur'aan in support of your logic that conjunction "waw" will carry forward the "prohibitive " without again using in the sentence? needs to be repeated every time.
See it here also
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/03.92-71.gif
And you people do not loose heart/slacken and nor feel grief; and you will be superior provided/subject to the condition that you are steadfastly believers. -
Can you quote me a single instance from the Grand Qur'aan in support of your logic that conjunction "waw" will carry forward the "prohibitive " without again using in the sentence? needs to be repeated every time.
See it here also
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/03.92-71.gif
And you people do not loose heart/slacken and nor feel grief; and you will be superior provided/subject to the condition that you are steadfastly believers.it'll be the same thing if we delete "" from " " but here God wanted to make things sure by making the first with "" and then make the second order with "" ..Do not be weak and do not be sad , this situation called "", there is a difference between this situation in this verse and the verse in the Thread. The verse in the Thread is not about "" because they will call for a period of peace and it was just to show that they are in a strong position . The second that you stated here is order from God for not being weak neither Sad, and they must be sure abou that. Your problem is you don't know the difference is that you compare a verse with a verse known that they can hold different situation with different kind of i.
-
it'll be the same thing if we delete "" from " " but here God wanted to make things sure by making the first with "" and then make the second order with "" ..Do not be weak and do not be sad , this situation called "", there is a difference between this situation in this verse and the verse in the Thread. The verse in the Thread is not about "" because they will call for a period of peace and it was just to show that they are in a strong position . The second that you stated here is order from God for not being weak neither Sad, and they must be sure abou that. Your problem is you don't know the difference is that you compare a verse with a verse known that they can hold different situation with different kind of i.
A "gem" from one who claims to be Arab.
-
A "gem" from one who claims to be Arab.
well, as I said I'm Arabic and Arab and everyone knows arabic very well he will agree with what I said word by word, so I'm not waiting someone ignorant to prove what I said. So Good luck .
-
Would someone determine the mood of the verb?
can you make your question clear because I didn't understand what do you mean by the mood of the verb? if you can write it in Arabic , it'll be good .
-
Whether it is active, passie, jussive, subjuntive, imperative
Typically the verb came with a situation of order, so I think it is imperative according to what you stated here in your post but we don't use Arabic like that, it is not english.
so here God like saying "do not Call for" not "Calling for=as they translated it", because there is a situation of showing them that they are in a strong position later, so there is no need of Calling for a period of peace. They can call for a period of peace if they are not in a strong position.
