Chapter 2 (verses 51-100)
-
salams,
brother mz357, i dont know how you can say you are not interested in arabic, yet you proceed to "translate" the most sophisticated arabic document in the world.
i agree with trying to use quranic/arabic lexicons to help understand the Quran. but you cannot do that without a basic understanding of the arabic language.
arabic is not the same as english. There is no such thing as a contraction of 2 words... there is no such thing as "bookcase," i.e. 2 roots for 1 word. there are no such words in arabic! all arabic words have just ONE root. if you actually spent any time with the LANE lexicon you claim to use, you would know this.
as far as the ability to extract what a root is in a given word, you need to know some grammar for that.
the word khanz does not occur in the quran. of course yara (to see) does appear, many times.
but even if khanz did appear, it has nothing to do with the word khinzeer.. lane should have khinzeer under the root (kha-noon-zain-ra). If it's not there, check another lexicon because i have several in which it is there, and it means specifically, pig.
so while i encourage open-minded invididual exploration of the quran, you have to have some common sense. if you don't know anything about arabic grammar or roots or wazn of words, then you have to realize you are on thin thin ice.
wassalam
ps- i am hoping that you are just extremely naive, or that you are just a kid, and hopefully you are not trying to lead muslims astray. -
Salaams Br.
I can't say how much of an expert in arabic you are,but i have mentioned preiviously,the splitting of words is mainly done in the Quranic dictionary,if you have or can get one then ,i may be able to point some definitions on where it has used the splitting method,But i don't take you as an expert in arabic and am not claiming to be one- ,by the way this method can be used in urdu which originated from arabic and in english so no reason why it shouldn't be used-As the quranic dictonary has also ,linguastically done.I havn't yet checked lanes for this ,but from what i have seen,it must have some words aswell explained in this manner ,and when i find those all the arabs here may know how much they know of their own lingo - As much as the quran no dought.
Peace Br.
-
wassalam
i'm no arabic scholar, but i have studied a significant amount of the grammar.
i think what you are talking about is something different. often times different roots can be related. 4 letter roots can sometimes be related or similar to the 3 letter roots, but not the SAME. just related. for example, it is interesting linguistically that the root kha-noon-zain and kha-noon-zain-ra are both dealing with a kind of meat. sometimes in arabic if you have a 3 letter root and you just permutate the order, you get different roots with similar meanings.
but i will repeat, there is no word in arabic that has 2 roots. i dont have lane's on me, but i have seen lane's in the past. i have 3 other lexicons at home including lisaan al arab. if you understood arabic grammar you would know this because that is the whole basis for a lot of the grammar. there are no contractions of 2 roots in arabic at all.
bro i dont mean it offensively, but i know for a fact that "the splitting of words" cannot have been done ANY quranic dictionary (and i have 3 of them here, including one that derives a lot of lane as a source).. and for you to say so is really misleading and frankly i think bordering on lying becuz of the resolution with which you are making these claims.
-
Instead of using your imagination,you need a Quranic Dictioner and i only paid about $20. Br. its the one waqas recomanded and zein ,for god sake use your intelect instead of your imagination,
May be you make up things for the world without proof,i am not like you and if i say its there ,then its there ,for you to cary on up the garden path without even authenticating something is beyond everyone .
Salaam-use your God given 20 dollers and authenticate without calling someone names smart guy.
Thank you.
-
Peace be upon you brother,
Lets remain peaceful brothers. These are some deeply emotional topics that we discuss here, lets stay on the path while we discuss them.
-
salams
bro mz357, the internet is a strange place because it brings together all sorts of strangers. it's just hard to believe that you really are being serious. either you are just messing around with the people on this forum, or are extremely naive... to pretend that you are positive when you aren't, i just have never met someone that behaves this way.
the thing that really tipped me off that something doesn't "smell right" about you is that you mentioned that you aren't even interested in Arabic.
anyway, is lane's lexicon actually 20 dollars? I am sure it's a lot more than that. I think around 100, i have read it in the past and it is a nice work.. the only one of it's kind in English.
I guess you didn't catch this point in my past few posts so let me say this really carefully....
I already have 3 Quranic dictionaries (lexicons).
Already means they are sitting right behind me in my bookshelf and I use them REGULARLY. And I DID look up what you have said and found both roots... a separate one for kha-na-za, and a separate one for kha-na-za-ra. No where was it mentioned that khinzeer is derived from khanz and yara (2 roots).
They are
-
Lisaan ul-Arab (in 18 volumes)
-
Taj-ul-Uroos (in 10 oversized volumes)
-
Lughaat-ul-Quraan (4 volumes)
On the same bookshelf is a series of Arabic grammar books (nahwa al wadih) 6 volumes, which i have read through the secondary level.
So brother, you want proof that I am not just trying to trick you? Just open your own Quranic dictionary. How does it work? Based on roots right? Note, there is ONLY one root per word, in YOUR dictionary. In EVERY dictionary. All you have to do is pick any root, like dha-ra-ba or anything, fa-a'-la... under that heading, the lexicon lists all the words made from that root... is there ANY instance in which another root is brought in to make a new word? no... that is not how arabic works, and that is one of the wonderful things about Arabic. One root per word. This is such an elementary fact of Arabic.
yes, you dont know who i am and i dont know who you are. but what you are saying is very suspicious... that's why i said it seems like you are either lying or purposely misleading people. if i'm wrong, i apologize but i am just commenting on what i see.
also i have no intention of trying to convince you, i'm giving up on that... i was just surprised that no one else had refuted your points, so i had to speak up so that others are not misled by you. Because whether or not you believe it, you WERE misleading others towards something that was absolutely false.
also, people like you hurt our cause. The cause is freedom of thought when approaching the Quran... and the freedom to look up words in lexicons. I strongly support this... but people like you give us a bad name, and make us sound crazy or ignorant. I needed to speak up to make sure that that doesn't happen.
wassalam
-
-
salam shuaib
I have checked what mz357 wrote about khinzeer in The dictionary of the Holy Qur'an bu Abdul Mannan Omar. The book which i have is 1st edition , may 24, 2003
On page 166 Abdul Mannan Omar says
Khaniza to stink, to be evil and bad, be proud. Khinzir its a combination of two words khinz meaning bad and ara meaning I see) bla blaI strongly disagree with Abdul Mannan Omar and think, he has no idea about what he is talking about roll roll
Best regards,
sabo -
Salaams shoaib,sabo,
As i said i don't make up things as,you know you will answer for what you say especially regarding Allah ,or his prophets and all the things he has mentioned.But if we judge others without checking up facts then we are usually heading into mischeavous country.
And that to me is the aproach,with respects- of all traditionalists-i know as i was one.
By the way sabo there are other words the gentleman has split and then found their roots ,like Michael,Ismael and so forth.
Thanks for clarifying sabo.
-
Salam Mz,
I never accused you to be a liar. did I ?
All what i've said is that you have no knowledge about arabic language and this is not an offense, since no one is expected to have knowledge about all languages. It's something natural that some people have no idea about some languages.
I see that Abdul Mannan Omar has split Khanzeer, Michael, etc. But according to what I know about arabic I disagree with him.
About Michael he says The word is considered (who considers it??) as being a combination of mik and al which means who is like God.
first he doesn't provide any evidence nor analysis nor knowledge WHY is it considered like that and
second I consider no one to be like God and
third I don't consider everything printed on a sheet of paper to be absolutely correct and non questionable and
last I require evidence and analysis for such unusual claims which are considered to be NON-arabic claims.Best regards,
sabo -
Salaams sabo ,
actually i meant shaib was the accuser but still put that to a side.The method or the aproach this dictionery has used may not be liked by a vast majority of the muslim population as it hits right where it hurts especially with this offensive word Khanzeer.
But i have seen this method produce some remarkable results which make perfect sense ,let me explain.If ever you come to a word without a root,and you can't find it neither,for gods sake try splitting the word may be in different places , to me anyway you will find may be a two roots and they Br. do make perfect sense relative to the context concerned is what i have seen.
I have noticed nearly all words have roots but some of them more then one.
By the way i know some arabic but no not as good as you may be.
But then again using ones intellect is a good thing ,God has given us all.
Salaams and thanks.
-
salam guys
bro mz, i am sorry but i mentioned that you MIGHT be lying not that you were a liar. but you did also confuse me... you kept mentioning LANE
LANE is just like the traditional lexicons.. i have never heard of this new dictionary you are using... and from the sound of it, it sounds like he may have incorporated his own opinions into it. maybe he was trying to just say that the root of khinzeer is related to the root of khanz. of course, both are kind of dealing with meat, so it's interesting. but that does not mean the separate root khinzeer does not exist!
supposedly abdul mannan omar is deriving his sources from classical works, but the problem is i have those classical works and that is definitely not in there.
i have to say this is a really weird scenario for me, but still you can't blame me for being suspicious because you are taking such a cavalier attitude towards the quran... you can't translate the quran and then be so careless towards arabic.
anyway, i have told you that according to the more ancient classical lexicons... there is no support or basis for abdul mannan omar's techniques.
you mentioned this technique was used in other places. what are they?
ws
-
Salaams all,
Unfortunately ,i support QD view on being able to split words .Each word is made up of letters-so for a start you can split up a word into letters.
To me there are hundreds of words which are made up from two or more words.
Even though you are an arab i think ,it surprises me you are saying there are no words made from two or more smaller words joined togather,if so i will try and prove otherwise if Allah wishes,which i am sure he does.
So lets see what you are saying then plainly please,
ANYBODY?.And Salaams All.
-
salam all
well br mz357, inshallah your studies will be fruitful.
here's a starting place for you, maybe it'll help maybe not. if khinzeer is derived from 2 roots, khinz, and yara... then there shouldn't be ONE root for khinzeer right? that is, you shouldn't be able to find the root for khinzeer, you have to find the separate split roots for khinz and yara(according to your logic).. the root for khinzeer should not exist by itself. so why is it, that the classic lexicons HAVE a separate root for khinzeer?
this is a simple test for you to test your theory. repeat this process for every word you THINK has 2 roots. if a word is made from 2 roots, then you should not be able to look it up unless you split it up... if you find that word in its OWN class, with its OWN root... then obviously, your theory/his theory is wrong.
wassalam
-
Salaams Shuaib,
Dissapointed you havn't even looked into lanes ,and like before you are puting forward something you want the world to believe.Because i think this is your belief.That is a traditional aproach.Let me explain my views and what lanes is saying,and then you can sharpen your wits and dissagree with lanes as as with the Quranic Dictionary,sory like sabo did.
Lanes isn't giving Khanz as a root of the animal , because he is calling it A'khazr -Swine
And therefor there is no root Khanz for a pig ,but it is for Bad ,stinking,altered ,magotty.
The swine is no where to be found with your said root Khanz in lanes.And thus Khanzeer are two words joined together and nothing about the
pig,at all.Bye.
-
wassalam br mz357,
well sorry i haven't looked into lane's. i actually dont have a copy of that, and it can be hard to find. not exactly standard reading.
i'm getting confused... so you have Lanes AND QD? or are you just quoting from QD?
and of course i am going to put forward what I believe. what else would i do. but i will say that it is not "traditional." just go to any other forum and find that out for yourself.
so explain this again... Lane is giving "A'KHAZR" as the word swine?? Can you tell me exactly what you mean so that I can check it in my lexicons?
Are you really looking at Lane's or just QD? Because my 3 lexicons ALL have the entry KHA-NOON-ZAIN-RA for khinzeer. You are telling me that entry is missing in Lanes??
And not only that, but Lane gives a totally new word for pig?? can you write a little more about this new word, what else day he say?
ws
-
Salaams shoaib,
Sorry Br. i got a little carried away there,i'll explain now.
Yes lans is saying the root of Khanzeer is KH-ZE-RE.But QD is saying ,the word Khanzeer is made of two words ,Khanz and to see ere. Thus giving us the meaning in a certain ayat as =Flash you see is Bad.
To me QD looks right And i personally believe Lanes has put this under this root in accordance with what he was told or in accordance with the quranic ayat translations given to him.
But inshaallah we need to look at other words which have two or more words embodied.
Salaams.
-
Peace,
A grammatical point
In the verse we have "lahmoo al-khinzeer" which can be transleted as "meat of the (khinzeer)". The point is that (khinzeer), whatever it means, is not an attribute of meat (not "n?ath" ), it's to define "meat" (of what) ( ).
I hope it's clear.
-
-
Salam all,
And thus Khanzeer are two words joined together and nothing about the pig,at all.
So now according to QD the word Khanzeer still means pig, see page 166
and according to Lane it also means pig, so whatever root it is coming from , the word khenzeer = pig, so i see no problem DIts like saying to someone in arabic "you are himar (donkey)" which in this case means stupid or having a loud voice. Still this doesn't change the fact that the word himar = donkey.
Also for something stinky or dirty in arabic you can call it khinzeer, but this doesn't change the fact, that khenzeer is pig
Best regards,
sabo -
salam guys,
subhanallah, that was really cool that you can post excerpts from Lane! I didn't even know it was on CDrom. that's incredible... and it was very helpful in explaining what bro mz was talking about.
the only thing i dont like about lane is that it's a bit too concise and so it can be a little bit confusing. so let me explain brother mz357, what actually he's saying.
Lane is differing from the other lexicographers in that he is providing a different root for Khinzeer. That's ok, sometimes there are differences of opinion.
The question is what is the root of Khinzeer. So let me back up and explain, how do you know the root of ANY word? There is something that usually helps, called wazn in arabic and Lane calls it "measure" in that excerpt.
Arabic is an almost algabraic language, and often follows formulas. You can insert a root into a formula sometimes, and produce words. For example, if you use a measure fi'leel (that is a common one, Lane mentions it too in that excerpt) which uses the root fa-'a-la. sooo, one theory is that khinzeer is a word using this formula, hence its root should be 4 letter kha-na-za-ra.
however, lane says he leans toward a less common use measure fin-'eel. This would change the deduced root to kha-za-ra.
Note, that this means Lane is saying there is only 1 root for khinzeer... not 2 as bro mz was suggesting. The only debate was whether this is a 3 letter root or 4 letter, whether or not to include the noon as part of the root or whether it was merely an extra letter as part of the wazn. (Like for example, tarkeeb from ra-ka-ba, the "ta" is NOT part of the root, its part of the wazn).
So you're back to the same conclusion, there is only one root for any Arabic word.. roots are NEVER combined. And like bro sabo said,
khinzeer is still pig.. the lexicographers were unanimous in explaining that much.
wassalam
