I was about to apostate but then i found the Quranist path
-
seekingthetruth,
You are entirely right in your reply to Hizbullah. GOD will not punish you for what you believe but for your actions even if what you believe in will surely affect your actions.
There is no concrete evidence in itself of a Creator because the Creator is the existence so you need to behold and realize that GOD is not separate from yourself to have the perfect evidence plus grow spiritually. If you can believe in/realize yourself then you have faith in GOD.
And the first realization which is very important to make is that you have two you (schizophrenia?), the beast and you and listening to the beast to much is listening to Shaytaan/Satan (Satan, the word, means literally tempter), your instincts. And the jinn people may speak so much about is earthly/material desire affinity.
And there is not really any "god" in existence but a grand consciousness called 'The Rabb' which realm (Allah) you can realize yourself in.
Satan is not really a separate entity but our desires basically. It is a constant struggle against our schizophrenic selves. One which is the soul (the real you/consciousness/could-be-Allah) and one which is the attached flesh, the beast. Listening to the "robot" beast you control too much is disastrous because you may succumb to it and reach a condition of permanency, but like Jesus said in the Biblical Gospels "separate the spirit from the flesh". And being in the image of Allah is not to be under a dictator but is actually a great relief. One should experience it.
Because of what I wrote above there are also no religions because there is no object of worship but only immerse and assimilate yourself in ONE image which is Allah, since there is just ONE constancy effect.
It is due to teachings like these our friend Jesus was blatantly murdered a couple of millennia ago. The sects could not stand his controversial ideas against their own projection of what GOD is. His most severe blasphemies according to them was "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" and when he said "You are forgiven", for who can forgive sins but GOD (according to them).
The knowledge of no separate GOD has been with people for thousands of years, but the sects silence the knowledge rapidly and they do not accept that part. This is why there is no distinct GOD entity in Buddhism because they kept a little of the teachings.Salaam
Salam,
I agree with you to some extent, but i still find some ideas a little bit confusing to me.
I found this theory before, but i have some questions about it. If there is no existence of the God, who is gonna judge people in the day of Judgment? is the hereafter true? Who did write Quran? I read about spirituality without religion and the one wholeness and i like it, i think it related to the original Buddhist philosophy, right? I agree with you that there is no a separated creature called Satan, also i do not believe that there is supernatural creatures called Jinn. Jinn is a group of people who control their lives under cover. what do you think about that?
Regards,
-
seekingthetruth,
There is a certain combined personality called 'Rabb' in Arabic (Sustainer/Foundation/Creator) which is the "platform" itself which will and can affect everything with minute control. But if a person was too shallow or too undeveloped when the day comes it is rather their condition which will bring doom upon them than it is GOD which throws them in something called Hell. Your life struggle is to enter the realm of GOD (Allah) and remaining without being let in is what is Hell basically.
The word 'Gehenna' (traditionally Hell) means to be attached to the flesh basically and this is what it refers to. Quran, even in its distorted state, mentions that they will be given new skins (bodies) and this is basically what the text refers to.
There is thus not a dogmatic dictator (GOD) sitting on a throne judging who goes in or not because it does not work this way. It is the condition of your soul which will determine where your destiny is. This is why the Arabic Quran uses S - L - M (م to refer to its adherents because it (the root) literally means soundness. The goal of a Muslim is to reach a condition of perfection of the soul. This word has been abused throughout history to induce a kind of worship of an image called Allah however which the realized person is supposed to be immersed in.
The "Hereafter" is a dissolution of the flesh, your beast body which you have and you shall be like an angel, physically bodyless. You will exist in a symbiotic state with your Creator.
Obviously speaking further details about that topic is difficult since it would mean talking about things beyond basic comprehension. Just accomplishing the first step is incredibly difficult for most people.Hypothetically speaking, you are probably then used as angels/malekateh are used now. It is irrelevant at hand, since our own salvation here is of the essence to us.
Traditional sources say Muhammad Rasul'Allah wrote Quran. I am not sure who, but I theorize that 'Ali Ibn Abu Talib' wrote it and the spirit of 'Muhammad' dictated to him (not a specific person). This is why I believe no one is allowed to draw any image of Muhammad because it would be like drawing an image of GOD/ALLAH. I think the inclusion of Muhammad as an actual person in prayer is a misconception and ignorance whereas it was meant to be spiritually like a Muhammad.
It could be that they did it for so long they forgot why they do it (mention Muhammad) and then human conjecture got involved. The word M - Hamad means literally to be of good stature (Praiseworthy). The 'm' is just a grammatical prefix to give attribute reference in a context (ex. thereof + attribute).
A "problem" in Arabic and semitic culture (for scriptural understanding) is that people can be called standard words (their names mean things like Goodly - Hassan or Praiseworthy/goodly stature - Hamad) so it could be confusing if one can not decipher a text properly. Later scribes added symbols to distinguish between proper noun or standard noun, but nothing says they are necessarily right in their interpretation. The diacritics are not native with the text according to me but added later. They are not necessary to decipher and understand the text if you become skilled at how the language is truly intended to be read and spoken.Religion or not religion, we are part of it rather than to make a separation of this phenomenon. Separation is called Paganism.
Jinn is a faithless person, no matter what it looks like/constitution. Faithless, in this regard, means that it is desirous and indulges in its own beastly desires. This goes hand in hand with that Satan is not a separate entity but a projection/consequence of ourselves. It was Adam's desire/temptation that made him disobey the order by The Rabb. And what lured him was something fleshly, he begun indulging in the flesh while he was not absorbed/attached to a physical beast body but that become apparent to him then.The whole thing is an ancient parable for us to be able to relate to something. The Jann (serpent) was just the temptation, impure thought. The curse is that we have to feed on the flesh for a while in mortal bodies (beasts) and while we have to do it to sustain the animalistic body, we should only keep it alive and sound and not indulge ourselves in immense desires. That is the most important lesson in our whole faith.
This is why in the traditional sectarian doctrines why should avoid things like adultery or vain sex for that sake and adopt chastity and preferably if we were married once and our spouses die it could be advised to just remain widowed, for example. In many sectarian doctrines one should only eat the minimal amount of food and not give it unnecessary foods. There is a truth behind it. Not hoard/love money, because it is desire. Not, preferably, love any material item either.
But we should love our neighbor as ourselves because that is part of the living and GOD is Rabb of the living, and preferably love our enemy too since he may become our neighbor (in the realm).
We should honor our parents because they were our creator just as the Rabb created Adam. They gave you life, triggered it and the Holy Spirit entered you and you were being born. They did a deed of GOD.
And so on... I could preach for hours.
Regarding the etymology of Jinn. It has some misconception associated with it. The concealment is that they are blind to the desires of this world and not gifted with ability to comprehend. They could be seen as your common atheist whose perception is clearly desirous and gives in to their instincts.
But in truth the concealment connotation is because jinn covers or is the flesh itself (earth). When you are succumbed to the world then you are a jinn. You are not aware of anything else spiritual. The reason in Arabic why jannat is referring to garden is because it is a piece of land literally. The 't' is giving it substantiation. It is something that covers a surface, hence jannat, but the actual word refers to what covers it, i.e. part of the flesh/world. It has brought misconception. Jinn as individual is a worldly character.
Hope that helped in terms of inspiration.
Salaam -
seekingthetruth,
There is a certain combined personality called 'Rabb' in Arabic (Sustainer/Foundation/Creator) which is the "platform" itself which will and can affect everything with minute control. But if a person was too shallow or too undeveloped when the day comes it is rather their condition which will bring doom upon them than it is GOD which throws them in something called Hell. Your life struggle is to enter the realm of GOD (Allah) and remaining without being let in is what is Hell basically.
The word 'Gehenna' (traditionally Hell) means to be attached to the flesh basically and this is what it refers to. Quran, even in its distorted state, mentions that they will be given new skins (bodies) and this is basically what the text refers to.
There is thus not a dogmatic dictator (GOD) sitting on a throne judging who goes in or not because it does not work this way. It is the condition of your soul which will determine where your destiny is. This is why the Arabic Quran uses S - L - M (م to refer to its adherents because it (the root) literally means soundness. The goal of a Muslim is to reach a condition of perfection of the soul. This word has been abused throughout history to induce a kind of worship of an image called Allah however which the realized person is supposed to be immersed in.
The "Hereafter" is a dissolution of the flesh, your beast body which you have and you shall be like an angel, physically bodyless. You will exist in a symbiotic state with your Creator.
Obviously speaking further details about that topic is difficult since it would mean talking about things beyond basic comprehension. Just accomplishing the first step is incredibly difficult for most people.Hypothetically speaking, you are probably then used as angels/malekateh are used now. It is irrelevant at hand, since our own salvation here is of the essence to us.
Traditional sources say Muhammad Rasul'Allah wrote Quran. I am not sure who, but I theorize that 'Ali Ibn Abu Talib' wrote it and the spirit of 'Muhammad' dictated to him (not a specific person). This is why I believe no one is allowed to draw any image of Muhammad because it would be like drawing an image of GOD/ALLAH. I think the inclusion of Muhammad as an actual person in prayer is a misconception and ignorance whereas it was meant to be spiritually like a Muhammad.
It could be that they did it for so long they forgot why they do it (mention Muhammad) and then human conjecture got involved. The word M - Hamad means literally to be of good stature (Praiseworthy). The 'm' is just a grammatical prefix to give attribute reference in a context (ex. thereof + attribute).
A "problem" in Arabic and semitic culture (for scriptural understanding) is that people can be called standard words (their names mean things like Goodly - Hassan or Praiseworthy/goodly stature - Hamad) so it could be confusing if one can not decipher a text properly. Later scribes added symbols to distinguish between proper noun or standard noun, but nothing says they are necessarily right in their interpretation. The diacritics are not native with the text according to me but added later. They are not necessary to decipher and understand the text if you become skilled at how the language is truly intended to be read and spoken.Religion or not religion, we are part of it rather than to make a separation of this phenomenon. Separation is called Paganism.
Jinn is a faithless person, no matter what it looks like/constitution. Faithless, in this regard, means that it is desirous and indulges in its own beastly desires. This goes hand in hand with that Satan is not a separate entity but a projection/consequence of ourselves. It was Adam's desire/temptation that made him disobey the order by The Rabb. And what lured him was something fleshly, he begun indulging in the flesh while he was not absorbed/attached to a physical beast body but that become apparent to him then.The whole thing is an ancient parable for us to be able to relate to something. The Jann (serpent) was just the temptation, impure thought. The curse is that we have to feed on the flesh for a while in mortal bodies (beasts) and while we have to do it to sustain the animalistic body, we should only keep it alive and sound and not indulge ourselves in immense desires. That is the most important lesson in our whole faith.
This is why in the traditional sectarian doctrines why should avoid things like adultery or vain sex for that sake and adopt chastity and preferably if we were married once and our spouses die it could be advised to just remain widowed, for example. In many sectarian doctrines one should only eat the minimal amount of food and not give it unnecessary foods. There is a truth behind it. Not hoard/love money, because it is desire. Not, preferably, love any material item either.
But we should love our neighbor as ourselves because that is part of the living and GOD is Rabb of the living, and preferably love our enemy too since he may become our neighbor (in the realm).
We should honor our parents because they were our creator just as the Rabb created Adam. They gave you life, triggered it and the Holy Spirit entered you and you were being born. They did a deed of GOD.
And so on... I could preach for hours.
Regarding the etymology of Jinn. It has some misconception associated with it. The concealment is that they are blind to the desires of this world and not gifted with ability to comprehend. They could be seen as your common atheist whose perception is clearly desirous and gives in to their instincts.
But in truth the concealment connotation is because jinn covers or is the flesh itself (earth). When you are succumbed to the world then you are a jinn. You are not aware of anything else spiritual. The reason in Arabic why jannat is referring to garden is because it is a piece of land literally. The 't' is giving it substantiation. It is something that covers a surface, hence jannat, but the actual word refers to what covers it, i.e. part of the flesh/world. It has brought misconception. Jinn as individual is a worldly character.
Hope that helped in terms of inspiration.
SalaamMan of faith,
Thank you for these interesting informations. Regarding the Rab, i read a similar opinion to this, but also it says that there are many Rabs and the creator is one which is Allah, so Allah is the highest Rab of those Rabs, those Rabs responsible for the universal rules so they organise the universal and so on. Some opinions consider Jibreel is one of them.
i like this point of view regarding Hell and Jinn, very convincing, but about the God, what do you think about the creator? who is gonna be the creator of all this?
I think that Quran was written by Jibreel and transferred by Muhammad.
For the words " Islam - slm - jannat" and the Arabic language structure that you've mentioned above, i completely agree with you since my mother tongue is Arabic, but i thought Jannat is the plural of Janna which means a garden, The "" is for the plural.
Regards,
-
Salaam,
You are right about Allah and Rabb, but you have to turn them around. Rabb is only One and it is the personality "GOD". Allah is rather the realm and affinity people realize themselves in. No righteous person calls upon GOD by Allah in Quran for a reason. You will not see Ya Allah in it. And Allah is usually narrated in plural in Quran, for a reason.
Here is an extract from a passage of Quran with Jannat(eh).
Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 35
And We said "O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in this garden, and eat freely thereof, both of you, whatever you may wish; but do not approach this one tree, lest you become wrongdoers."
It is cool you are native Arabic speaker, but there are certain misconceptions in how it should be interpreted. Personally I would say is AlJannateh, the letter also exists in Hebrew with another symbol and is pronounced "teh". As far as I am concerned that is a kind of compound of and . I do not consider it plural.
Okay. The traditional understanding is likely Jannah. Anyway, I hope you get the point. refers to earthly/worldly.
I am researching on the Quranic (classical) Arabic and I have noticed that the Arabic as known by people and the real interpretation are different somehow. I am not an expert I would say yet, but I am unbiased. I try to learn it like a child would but since I am 32 years old I am not as fast as a child would learn.
Why things are like this I do not know. It is as if Arabic was unspoken for a long time and then resumed upon or someone found a strange text somewhere and then studied it heavily with strong sectarian bias and derived an interpretation.
In my current world (as a childly interpreter) or would mean "Lowly Integrity Characteristic It" to show it speaks of an substantiated object (noun) which would refer to that it is like we say a "garden". I understand I have a peculiar way of understanding for you. I interpret the part of to make the previous word before suffix reflexive on it. Arabic is a very logical language (also Hebrew is) and it paints or describes what it likes to say with its letters rather than having the structure of other languages.
So based on that with jannah or jannateh I see that as a worldly/earthly possession which was likely a garden in elder times when people were mostly involved in agriculture. Your property is a jannah or jannateh.
In the narration with the two men with gardens, they compare their properties.
But if you are worldly/fleshly then you are a jan.
I have been criticized about this before, but I regard this is where the expression 'gentile' comes from which derives from what the Jews refer to others through in English through Latin Gens.
Regarding Arabic plural affixes I am still comparing traditional grammar versus my own unbiased research without trying to become biased. It is very possible that the attached is supposed to mark singular, but then it would be jannateh instead of jannat.
There is also to compare with 1187 and Shu'aybs where by that logic it would make it salawa + your.
You perhaps consider me lost, but you at least have to applaud me for my independence. I think my lack of bias will pay off eventually. I reinvent the wheel instead of risking being another biased interpreter.
If you like you could help me in Private Messaging if I have a question. I am interested in some external bias for the sake of cross-checking and research from a modern everyday Arabic speaker.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
You are right about Allah and Rabb, but you have to turn them around. Rabb is only One and it is the personality "GOD". Allah is rather the realm and affinity people realize themselves in. No righteous person calls upon GOD by Allah in Quran for a reason. You will not see Ya Allah in it. And Allah is usually narrated in plural in Quran, for a reason.
Here is an extract from a passage of Quran with Jannat(eh).
Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 35
And We said "O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in this garden, and eat freely thereof, both of you, whatever you may wish; but do not approach this one tree, lest you become wrongdoers."
It is cool you are native Arabic speaker, but there are certain misconceptions in how it should be interpreted. Personally I would say is AlJannateh, the letter also exists in Hebrew with another symbol and is pronounced "teh". As far as I am concerned that is a kind of compound of and . I do not consider it plural.
Okay. The traditional understanding is likely Jannah. Anyway, I hope you get the point. refers to earthly/worldly.
I am researching on the Quranic (classical) Arabic and I have noticed that the Arabic as known by people and the real interpretation are different somehow. I am not an expert I would say yet, but I am unbiased. I try to learn it like a child would but since I am 32 years old I am not as fast as a child would learn.
Why things are like this I do not know. It is as if Arabic was unspoken for a long time and then resumed upon or someone found a strange text somewhere and then studied it heavily with strong sectarian bias and derived an interpretation.
In my current world (as a childly interpreter) or would mean "Lowly Integrity Characteristic It" to show it speaks of an substantiated object (noun) which would refer to that it is like we say a "garden". I understand I have a peculiar way of understanding for you. I interpret the part of to make the previous word before suffix reflexive on it. Arabic is a very logical language (also Hebrew is) and it paints or describes what it likes to say with its letters rather than having the structure of other languages.
So based on that with jannah or jannateh I see that as a worldly/earthly possession which was likely a garden in elder times when people were mostly involved in agriculture. Your property is a jannah or jannateh.
In the narration with the two men with gardens, they compare their properties.
But if you are worldly/fleshly then you are a jan.
I have been criticized about this before, but I regard this is where the expression 'gentile' comes from which derives from what the Jews refer to others through in English through Latin Gens.
Regarding Arabic plural affixes I am still comparing traditional grammar versus my own unbiased research without trying to become biased. It is very possible that the attached is supposed to mark singular, but then it would be jannateh instead of jannat.
There is also to compare with 1187 and Shu'aybs where by that logic it would make it salawa + your.
You perhaps consider me lost, but you at least have to applaud me for my independence. I think my lack of bias will pay off eventually. I reinvent the wheel instead of risking being another biased interpreter.
If you like you could help me in Private Messaging if I have a question. I am interested in some external bias for the sake of cross-checking and research from a modern everyday Arabic speaker.
Salaam
Hello,
Sorry, it is completely my fault nope . I read the word Jannat as , and you meant . I apologize for that handshake . I think writing it as Jannah or Jannateh is clearer for me according to the pronounciation. Yes the word is a single garden. The plural would be be taking the off and replacing it with the 2 letters . There are other plural formulas for , like .
The root, the source or the origin of the word is . According to Arabic grammer and diacritics it become with emphatic . The meaning of the this word is cover or hide. So alot of words derived from that word have that meaning, in a way or another. For example
means embryo , which is hidden in his mother womb.
means insane or carzy, because his brain is not present or hidden, so he does not use it.
means jinn, according to traditional meaning the supernatural creatures that we can't see, but another opinion it means group of people who controls the public behind a cover so they do not know them " the government"- means heaven, as we did not see it yet.
- means garden, the garden is full of trees so it is covered.
There are alot of other meanings, but this is what i remembered. I hope this could help you in your research.
You are doing a great work. Interpretation of Quran without bias is very important to understand it. Keep your good work.
I agree with that Arabic is a confusing language. The standard or classic Arabic is so different than my dialect and to other different dialects too. I think you could compare it with the modern European languages. All of them are related to one origin, but then they differentiated in many languages, and every language has its own structure, vocabulary and grammer. May be the reason for these differences between the classic Arabic and Arabic dialects is not as huge as modern European languages is because muslims tend to learn Arabic with great care to read Quran. So, classic Arabic is affected by other languages to some extent, this limited extent make this relatively great difference between standard and classic Arabic. Alot of Arabs nowadays claim to consider Arabic dialects as complete separate languages and use it to in books and teaching, since the kids tend to use the dialect at home and the standard in school.
You are welcome and feel free to ask me for any thing about Arabic, i am not an expert, but i have some knowledge from highschool and i have some resources. Although it may be biased, but i am trying to prevent that biases. Modern everyday Arabic won't help in interpretation of Quran. The classic Arabic we use it nowadays is not like the standard Arabic before 1400 years or standard Arabic of Quran. So the best way to understand Quran, is using it's own language or with comparing it with the texts of that period. To make sure that the meaning did not change with days.
Regards,
-
Salaam,
So I think my method of learning is the way to go since teaching sources are heavily biased and the language is so old and distorted. It is also a pedagogy and an approach in my line of work in English learning.
A reason why I may wish to ask you is because I may compare some modern grammar with the one in Quran. I think some grammar as was used in Quran is not the same.
In fact I have discovered that certain prepositions are understood improperly. It is still a work in progress.
It appears that interpreters ignore if there is a madda on the alef after the word or not. It makes a huge difference to it. In the case of no madda it takes the meaning of 'no/not', but with madda it would mean 'what is'. Many scribes did not even write it out I noticed. And many translators do not pay attention to it and translate and as they like themselves it seems.
, the root, as I have been understood it, would imply worldliness/flesh. It does conceal ground as but humans are also enveloped/covered in something. I take it that the Arabic likes to imply to give in to the flesh. Everything on Earth is one way or another covered up unless it is dissolved.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
So I think my method of learning is the way to go since teaching sources are heavily biased and the language is so old and distorted. It is also a pedagogy and an approach in my line of work in English learning.
A reason why I may wish to ask you is because I may compare some modern grammar with the one in Quran. I think some grammar as was used in Quran is not the same.
In fact I have discovered that certain prepositions are understood improperly. It is still a work in progress.
It appears that interpreters ignore if there is a madda on the alef after the word or not. It makes a huge difference to it. In the case of no madda it takes the meaning of 'no/not', but with madda it would mean 'what is'. Many scribes did not even write it out I noticed. And many translators do not pay attention to it and translate and as they like themselves it seems.
, the root, as I have been understood it, would imply worldliness/flesh. It does conceal ground as but humans are also enveloped/covered in something. I take it that the Arabic likes to imply to give in to the flesh. Everything on Earth is one way or another covered up unless it is dissolved.
Salaam
Hello,
Keep your good work and feel free to ask me if i can help you with anything. I suggest that you take a look on "Alain lexicon". It is the 1st and the oldest complete Arabic lexicon.
Regarding & , i am not sure that i got your point, but i've searched Quraan now and if found that the madda does not affect the meaning. In fact, it has more meanings other than these 2 meanings.
For me, the root , would imply the soul, the hidden part of the human being, if we consider that the human is consisted of a visible part, which is the flesh or the physical part. Then the 2nd part is the soul, is the hidden part, which we can't see it.
Salam,
-
Salaam,
If you take a more closer look you will notice that and will make a difference. I hope you have a version of Quran which includes the symbols.
Whenever is used it is supposed to be interpreted 'not' and if is used then it is 'what is'. I have understood that this is an important grammar feature, and it is more than only giving a variation in pronunciation (long hollow sound). Alef is a peculiar letter in Arabic, it is like an assistant letter and as a sound/letter it is supposed to resemble 'be' (the state of being).
In and they work like this In the alef emphasizes/marks/negates the meem (thereof) and causes it to become a negative response that is 'not', and in the alef is independent in meaning, i.e. functions as its own letter which means it says "thereof be" or what is as traditionally interpreted.
An without madda does thus never carry its own meaning but modifies a word (individual letter to be exact) in some way. is an example, the alef modifies the word to say that kutub is with someone (I know traditional grammar says it is because of singular but I do not buy this). By the way, ketaab means decree/knowledge and not book. The word has somehow at some point in history adopted this definition. Check an old Arabic dictionary and you will see. means you possess this decree as knowledge.
I am searching right now whether might actually be the real Arabic word to refer to an actual book or writing. David/Dawood had a zabur and I think it refer to what he wrote down, i.e. some poems in glorification of the Rabb.
But I find no valid reason to consider ketaab as book. It sounds lame in many instances to the point that translators often play interpretation acrobatics with the word.
Quran is a viable word to say sort of testament, a narrative. Traditionalists say recitation, but that could also be in written form, i.e. recorded on paper. And a book can be lacking physical form but be remembered and thus be a recitation quite literally. Few had access to books when Quran was made anyway. Quran is a viable candidate for the relatively modern word book. But I still think writing (physical) is zabur.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
If you take a more closer look you will notice that and will make a difference. I hope you have a version of Quran which includes the symbols.
Whenever is used it is supposed to be interpreted 'not' and if is used then it is 'what is'. I have understood that this is an important grammar feature, and it is more than only giving a variation in pronunciation (long hollow sound). Alef is a peculiar letter in Arabic, it is like an assistant letter and as a sound/letter it is supposed to resemble 'be' (the state of being).
In and they work like this In the alef emphasizes/marks/negates the meem (thereof) and causes it to become a negative response that is 'not', and in the alef is independent in meaning, i.e. functions as its own letter which means it says "thereof be" or what is as traditionally interpreted.
An without madda does thus never carry its own meaning but modifies a word (individual letter to be exact) in some way. is an example, the alef modifies the word to say that kutub is with someone (I know traditional grammar says it is because of singular but I do not buy this). By the way, ketaab means decree/knowledge and not book. The word has somehow at some point in history adopted this definition. Check an old Arabic dictionary and you will see. means you possess this decree as knowledge.
I am searching right now whether might actually be the real Arabic word to refer to an actual book or writing. David/Dawood had a zabur and I think it refer to what he wrote down, i.e. some poems in glorification of the Rabb.
But I find no valid reason to consider ketaab as book. It sounds lame in many instances to the point that translators often play interpretation acrobatics with the word.
Quran is a viable word to say sort of testament, a narrative. Traditionalists say recitation, but that could also be in written form, i.e. recorded on paper. And a book can be lacking physical form but be remembered and thus be a recitation quite literally. Few had access to books when Quran was made anyway. Quran is a viable candidate for the relatively modern word book. But I still think writing (physical) is zabur.
Salaam
Salam,
I'll give you some examples for &
Surat Al-Ma'ida, verse 36.
The first "" in the verse is without madda and it means "thereof", the structre of the sentence can't give the meaning of "not" for "" in this case. The second "" without madda also, means "not".Surat Al-Ma'idah, verse 28.
In this verse, "" is with madda and it means "not".Surat Al-Ma'ida, verse 24.
In this verse "" without madds and it means "as long as" or "since"Surat Al-Ma'ida, verse 3.
1st "" with madda and means "thereof". 2nd "" with madda and means "thereof". 3rd "" without madda & means "not". 4th "" without madda and it means "thereof".The root of is " " . The meaning of of its derived words depend on punctuation. I do not have punctuation in my key board, so in my local dialect "the old one" the word kuttab with emphasized "" means the place where people get knowledge or learning. "Kuttab" in classical Arabic means give some one a knowledge or teach. The meanings are alot and it depends on the morphology and the punctuation of the word, beside the structure of the sentence and presence of presumptions or evidences. So, Ketab may have both meanings.
I found the world "" in the Arabic dictionary means fold/ lap/ pleat. so the world "" would be the folded papers together which means "the written book".
I agree with you about the last point. In Arabic we say , for the phisycal form of Quran. It is a new word i guess.
I agree with you about the last point. In Arabic we say , for the physical and written form of Quran. It is a new word i guess. In Quran it was mentioned "" which is the plueral of "", but "" and its plural "" are not mentioned.
Regards,
-
Salaam,
I think a lot of the traditional understanding of grammar is wrong. I consider it has to do with and . There is no other way. No inventor of a language would make no easy separation between two words.
If there is a deviation then it is a scribe error.
Edit In the examples you gave I interpretation is highly doubtful and suspicious. I doubt whether they reallt speak of what translations say whereas and may as well say what I said.
Salaam
-
Salaam,
I think a lot of the traditional understanding of grammar is wrong. I consider it has to do with and . There is no other way. No inventor of a language would make no easy separation between two words.
If there is a deviation then it is a scribe error.
Edit In the examples you gave I interpretation is highly doubtful and suspicious. I doubt whether they reallt speak of what translations say whereas and may as well say what I said.
Salaam
Hello,
In these examples, i gave the possible meanings of them according to the presumptions in the sentences. In the first example, the 1st "" if i interpret it as "not", the sentence would be meaningless. The metaphrase would be " Indeed, those who disbelieve/blaspheme if they should have all (that is/ thereof) in the earth and the like of it with it" In the brackets the meaning of "", in this case it is impossible to meant "not".
Regards,
-
Okay. Thanks for your input, but I am still not convinced. I think there is a clear grammar rule.
I find that gross errors in translation make it look like that.
Salaam
-
Okay. Thanks for your input, but I am still not convinced. I think there is a clear grammar rule.
I find that gross errors in translation make it look like that.
Salaam
Hello,
Please let me know after you finish your research about the rule of the madda in "". To be honest, i've never thought about it before this discussion and the little search & examples i did to figure it out.
Salam,
-
About too apostate huh? Sounds exciting.