Linguistic riddle solved, for those who want to learn
-
The understanding/concepts that every one considers as real Quran, are translation of Arabic text/sound. This understanding/concepts are not based upon what actual text means, if understood based upon knowledge of language rules. The current understanding/concepts are almost all based upon Hadith/Historical accounts.
Salaam brother,
Ah I see what you mean now. But I do not agree with red. From your posts I can see that you use lexicons and arabic grammar rules to understand The Quran. What is the difference between man made hadiths and man made lexicons and grammar rules? Looks to me the same.
You would have a point if you can proof that the lexicons and grammar rules were there before The Quran and that The Quranic arabic is based upon lexicons before The Quran and The Quranic structure is based on the arabic schoolgrammar rules.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam brother,
Ah I see what you mean now. But I do not agree with red. From your posts I can see that you use lexicons and arabic grammar rules to understand The Quran. What is the difference between man made hadiths and man made lexicons and grammar rules? Looks to me the same.
You would have a point if you can proof that the lexicons and grammar rules were there before The Quran and that The Quranic arabic is based upon lexicons before The Quran and The Quranic structure is based on the arabic school grammar rules.Salaam,
BenderBrother one straight forward answer would to please understand some basics of language as a science. However, it appears to me that you are sincere in seeking clarification. I will try my best to direct you in a direction where if you were to strive, should be able to find your own answers.
What is a language? It is a difficult question. Please try to read some about language, so you have a better idea about it.
A simplistic view, "we use language to express inner thoughts and emotions, make sense of complex and abstract thought, to learn to communicate with others, to fulfill our wants and needs, as well as to establish rules and maintain our culture".
How do we do it? Common form is by speech? What is speech? Sound symbols uttered to express thoughts. Culturally every society associate concepts to these symbols. So there is no inherent meaning to these sound symbols, except whatever concepts/meanings a given culture associate to such symbols.
Another way of expressing language i.e., thoughts is by witting down on a paper and assigning meanings to written symbols equivalent to spoken sounds. The written expression is relatively verry new for humans as compared to spoken form and has evolved over time.
Furthermore, it is also true the languages change over time and become completely different from one spoken years ago as well can become extinct. Although, emergent new language due to evolution, may carrying the same name but no resemblance as regards meanings/concepts.
Let me give an example from English for this phenomenon.
Beowulf
Verse Indeterminate SaxonHw?t! We Gardena in geardagum,
?eodcyninga, ?rym gefrunon,
hu ?a ??elingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing scea?ena ?reatum,5
monegum m?g?um, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Sy??an ?rest wear?
feasceaft funden, he ??s frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weor?myndum ?ah,
o???t him ?ghwylc ?ara ymbsittendraCan you understand this? If no how do we understand it? By translating this text, into modern spoken English. How could it be translated? By knowing the rules of the language, it is written in, all of those.
Now question is, if natives speakers know rules of their own language and speak by knowing formal rules? Not at all at consious level. Most do not even know what rules are in their language. But if one has to understand a text in their own language like English above or users of other languages. They have to learn rules of spoken language and how these rules were expressed in written form.
Who describes these rules? Speakers of the language in question. So who wrote rules of Quranic Arabic.? Speakers of the language.
Who translated Quran, when it became alien to even its own speakers? These were supposed speakers of language with understanding of rules of the language.
So then what is the fuss?
Well the translation does not hold up when litmus test of rules of language are applied to it. Hope it is easy enough to help to understand the issues on hand. Which indeed are complex, especially from a common person?s prospective
-
Brother one straight forward answer would to please understand some basics of language as a science. However, it appears to me that you are sincere in seeking clarification. I will try my best to direct you in a direction where if you were to strive, should be able to find your own answers.
What is a language? It is a difficult question. Please try to read some about language, so you have a better idea about it.
A simplistic view, "we use language to express inner thoughts and emotions, make sense of complex and abstract thought, to learn to communicate with others, to fulfill our wants and needs, as well as to establish rules and maintain our culture".
How do we do it? Common form is by speech? What is speech? Sound symbols uttered to express thoughts. Culturally every society associate concepts to these symbols. So there is no inherent meaning to these sound symbols, except whatever concepts/meanings a given culture associate to such symbols.
Another way of expressing language i.e., thoughts is by witting down on a paper and assigning meanings to written symbols equivalent to spoken sounds. The written expression is relatively verry new for humans as compared to spoken form and has evolved over time.
Furthermore, it is also true the languages change over time and become completely different from one spoken years ago as well can become extinct. Although, emergent new language due to evolution, may carrying the same name but no resemblance as regards meanings/concepts.
Let me give an example from English for this phenomenon.
Beowulf
Verse Indeterminate SaxonHw?t! We Gardena in geardagum,
?eodcyninga, ?rym gefrunon,
hu ?a ??elingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing scea?ena ?reatum,5
monegum m?g?um, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Sy??an ?rest wear?
feasceaft funden, he ??s frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weor?myndum ?ah,
o???t him ?ghwylc ?ara ymbsittendraCan you understand this? If no how do we understand it? By translating this text, into modern spoken English. How could it be translated? By knowing the rules of the language, it is written in, all of those.
Now question is, if natives speakers know rules of their own language and speak by knowing formal rules? Not at all at consious level. Most do not even know what rules are in their language. But if one has to understand a text in their own language like English above or users of other languages. They have to learn rules of spoken language and how these rules were expressed in written form.
Who describes these rules? Speakers of the language in question. So who wrote rules of Quranic Arabic.? Speakers of the language.
Who translated Quran, when it became alien to even its own speakers? These were supposed speakers of language with understanding of rules of the language.
So then what is the fuss?
Well the translation does not hold up when litmus test of rules of language are applied to it. Hope it is easy enough to help to understand the issues on hand. Which indeed are complex, especially from a common person?s prospective
Salaam brother,
Thx for your reply. If I understood you correctly then you are saying that we are forced to use lexicons and learn grammar rules because lexicons and grammar rules were made by the people who spoke and understood the language of The Quran, right? This would be only correct IF The Quran was based on them and this is clearly not the case.
RED So you are trying to correct man made translations of The Quran with man made rules of The Quran?
My guess is that you will never succeed with this, because both of them (the translation and the grammar) are not compatible with The Quran.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam brother,
Thx for your reply. If I understood you correctly then you are saying that we are forced to use lexicons and learn grammar rules because lexicons and grammar rules were made by the people who spoke and understood the language of The Quran, right? This would be only correct IF The Quran was based on them and this is clearly not the case.
RED So you are trying to correct man made translations of The Quran with man made rules of The Quran?
My guess is that you will never succeed with this, because both of them (the translation and the grammar) are not compatible with The Quran.
Salaam,
BenderSo Brother show me an example of what you consider as The Quran?
Regards,
-
If I don't know a word of Arabic and want to understand the Qur'an, where from should I start from? If I'm not suppose to use the man-made dictionaries (which I'm also starting to believe) from what word am I supposed to begin? If we are to look in the Qur'an for the meaning of the word what if the word is used only once and we cannot find other uses to compare and draw the common line...
bkanwar2 is there any other word in the Quran in the similar form of the word where you claim "..."Al" is a contraction of the word "
and also we didn't get an answer to
How would your definition of Allah be consistent with the following ?
(114)
-
If I don't know a word of Arabic and want to understand the Qur'an, where from should I start from? If I'm not suppose to use the man-made dictionaries (which I'm also starting to believe) from what word am I supposed to begin? If we are to look in the Qur'an for the meaning of the word what if the word is used only once and we cannot find other uses to compare and draw the common line...
bkanwar2 is there any other word in the Quran in the similar form of the word where you claim "..."Al" is a contraction of the word "
and also we didn't get an answer to
How would your definition of Allah be consistent with the following ?
(114)
Response to your first part has been already given on Page 6 of this thread. Which is as follows, please see link below as well.
"Linguistic understanding of word Allah has been on the internet at several sites for over two years now. So far there has not been a critique. However, following was sent to me to address the concerns raised.
"I read your article about the name "allah" and its etymology / grammar. You may be right - I don't know - but not for the reasons you have given there. To form an argument worth the name, you need to show that "alathi" has been contracted elsewhere in the way you claim it has here. But you don't do that in the article. Can you do this? Do you have an example? I would be interested to see it.
I feel you do need to produce this (or something similar) to retain credibility, since the concept you claim for the word "allah" is central to your presentation.
Kind regards,
Sam "
I am sure the writer is asking. If there is proof from current Quranic translations as to word "alathi" is contracted as "al". Since, I have referenced linguistically to be the case. Both, A Grammar of The Arabic Language by William Wright (Vol. 1 page 269 D) and Lexicon of Arabic Language by Edward Lane (Vol 1, page 74) have cited it with examples to be a linguistic reality.
More importantly, can it be proven by current translation of Quran. Yes, not one, but multiple examples.
677
Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."
799
Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!
Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used it is at most places translated in meaning of "alathi".
We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathi = who, La = not and finally illah . This would mean ?One who is not illah?.
If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word ?illah? into the translation; this word which actually is a phrase would mean ?One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)?.
This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?
Why should we trust this non-sense?
These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.
Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; Just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.
First of all let us analyse what traditionalists interpret this word to be?
And why they are wrong?
The word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al = in English ?The? and illah , meaning ?God? but in reality ?a deity for adoration and worship?.
Although, in actuality this "Al" is a contraction of the word and legitimately could be written as "Al" . Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane and Grammar of William Wright.
Let us turn to Qur'an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition ?Lee? is added in to a word containing a definite article ?Al? . Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article ?Al? joins with ?Lam? of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.
-
21 Alif of ?Al? gone, lam is present and preposition ?Lee? added.
-
47 and 432, is the word same concept.
However, for the word when the same preposition is added. We find that the ?Lam? of the supposed definite article ?Al? also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as (in reality one can not type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).
Example, 12 and 115 more places 222, 298 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.
Whereas, Allathi being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al". As if there would have been an "Al", it should look like this and not
Let us continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "Alif" like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another Alif above. (In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fatha shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The gradual changes happening without anybody paying attention to these).
Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the ?Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets?. This would be a apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.
Let us analysis why it is wrong. If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this shadda in place once the ?Al?, if it were really ?Al? of definite article. As in the phrase is gone , as in the example above of . However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this shadda is not due to ?Al? of a definate article coming before the word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of Allathi. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already ?Alif? at the start which is not considered a ?Sun letter?. Hence no shadda would be have been added as cited above.
This clearly shows that the persistence of this shadda is due, not to the shadda of ?Al?; but in truth, indicates a real doubling of the consonants.
This means inescapably, that one were to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word . Allathi (written as a contration in script as "Al", La and illah. This would further imply that the middle shadda is suggesting ?two lams? and two alifs?.
Hence, if translated word for word, this word or more accurately phrase would mean ?One who is not a deity for adoration and worship?.
Logged
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599853.50The second part of your inquiry, I will answer over weekend. It requires explanation. Althought, it is given here.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603969.msg299614#msg299614
-
-
salaam all
this is my opinion
ila means to in arabic.
ila houwa means to himla ilaha illa houwa means for me there is nowhere to go but only to him.
God is a word full of beliefs. Rabb(educator) is more clear.
Rahman and rahim are two opposed words. Rahman means who reject from rahm (womb=original jenna). Rahim is the opposite and means who forgive and accept in the jenna wich is the original womb of spirits.Old concepts of deity and godness with rituals is not for me.
peace
-
noshirk, how did you come to understand that rahmaan means reject from rahm? Sounds very interesting...
-
noshirk, how did you come to understand that rahmaan means reject from rahm? Sounds very interesting...
there is an interesting article in free-minds.org http//free-minds.org/al-rahman-al-raheem-most-important-pair
i also read an article of my french friend cheick dukhani
rahman and rahim are opposed like qatal (murderer) and qatil (murdered) are opposed.
cheikh dukhani listed all verses where these two terms are used.
Rahim is used in context of forgiver ...
Rahman is used in conflictual context the creator of universe (for expulsed humans), the one we have to afraid of, the one we broke the contract with..peace
-
Aha, thank you very much I see what you mean by reject rahm now.
-
If I don't know a word of Arabic and want to understand the Qur'an, where from should I start from? If I'm not suppose to use the man-made dictionaries (which I'm also starting to believe) from what word am I supposed to begin? If we are to look in the Qur'an for the meaning of the word what if the word is used only once and we cannot find other uses to compare and draw the common line...
Salaam,
I forgot to reply to this.
RED You can take any definition you like and look if it holds in all instances. If it doesn't hold then change/improve the definition and test again etc etc etc. Always strive for better.
BLUE Lexicons will not help you any further. Their definition is as good as yours, it's also man made.
I try to look to the subject of the verse and in which way the word is used in the verse and I try to look at similar verses where the same construction is used and verses which have the same subject. After some study and if Allah wills, He will give you in time better and better knowledge of the word.
It's like in math, when you have an unknown. You can try to solve/approach such equations by using the knowledge of the known factors.btw for grammar the same.
Salaam,
Benderps This is my study method, I don't take any source outside The Quran besides Al-Rahmaan to teach me The Quran.
-
I have been looking at Sura Nimal Verses 60-64 as these contain following words.
These would mean, "how come a deity for worship along with Allah" . Now if we unpack meaning of Allah. It would mean "how come a deity for worship along with, one who is not a deity for worship".
Here is 2760
How come, he who has proportioned and fashioned man according to exact proportions that he could be exalted and upraised and that he was naturally disposed to do good. Then, made abode for you among the exalted and illustrious; so that we lead you to grow like them. Repeatedly, you look with your eyes then roll back, as incapable of becoming bright. What is wrong with you that you keep growing perplexed about it? How come a deity for worship is possible, along with, one who is not a deity for worship? Nay, they are people acting unjustly and inequitably.
-
We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathi = who, La = not and finally illah . This would mean ?One who is not illah?.
How in the world do you reach this conclusion.
AL-Heh is the AL article plus third person singular.
"Al-thi la elah" means "the one that is 'Who Is'. It does not make sense except if put within a context.
I understand that you run into controversy when you try to translate the Arabic using incorrect grammar induced by ancient ignorant scholars, but the error is in the 'la' of your research here. You make an excellent logical conclusion except that you have a wrong logical premise. You add something wrong into your hypothesis formula which is the meaning of 'la'.
I am curious why it happened that 'la' was so gravely corrupted as to mean something else, but the fact is 'la' does not mean 'no'. Probably the wonders of sectarianism caused this.
Be safe
Amenuel -
To solve this you have to consider that you use the right Arabic grammar.
-
To solve this you have to consider that you use the right Arabic grammar.
Peace Bro, please guide me to the right Arabic grammar. The Arabic grammar that is written by speakers of the language and not the one that someone conceives out of the blue. I am learning, willing to unlearn and re-learn.
Regards,
-
My dear bkanwar2, noshirk and man of faith ,
can you stop people the way they think..??never,in my opinion ,to understand the word, "allah" we have to go back when there was no Mohammad,no quran,but the word "allah" was there,etymology for this word cannot be done now, using quran or grammar .
Mohammad's father's name was Abdallah,Allah was the name of God of moon,now if you want to know more about Allah,read islamic history wriiten by Turk scholars,because they were to order putting a cresent on each of the towers (minars) at kaba in Macca,you still see them, and you also see them at minarets at tomb of Mohammad in the city of Madina in Saudi Arabia.
Turk were first to put cresent on islamic flags,tombs,domes minarets.only they can tell u the correct answer to this mystery,and they can also answer,why Allah chose to name himself as Allah, when He knew that this word is already in use for moon God as his partner..??this is a big question?only Turk scholars have the answer,read their history books,history of islam booksor talk to one of them via email,they were first to introduce domes,minarets cresent etc.I know some of the answer,but I am just a no body so who will listen to me.go search via google.thanks