A very important Question
-
Peace,
Better start a poll.
I disagree with whatsoever so called grammar rules.
alQuraan is precise and perfect and it has it's own rules, no external rules can be applied to the Book of Allah.May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Hi,
I do not think that i get your point. Do you mean that a written letter is replaced by another letter in the reading? Or in the meaning?
In both cases i do not think it is true, if true this will lead to more diversities in interpretation and it won't be regulated.
Regards,
-
It is both. The rule says that certain alphabets are interchangable in writting. This change although legitmate per rule. But it would change root letters and hence meanings. You are correct in your assertion this makes understanding of real meanings difficult, but not impossible. The real meaning can still be decided based upon meanings of other words in the verse and flow of the topic discussed in several verses before and after a verse containing such word. Which currently is not the case in translation.
Would it create a controversy? You bet it would. But then what is new about it, isn't whole Quran made controversial? The purpose is to get to the truth and not to defend held beliefs. This is atleast for me, how about you all?
Regards,
-
Many versions of Quran replace with in words due to the perception that the pronunciation is closer to the latter choice. and is one example. is the original style though.
Some versions of Quran skip to insert madda on letters, even though it is important for interpretation and not only pronunciation.
These are examples of deviations of the text easily observable by merely taking a look at different Quran versions.
I also think that most diacritical marks are insertions by scribes to "improve" readability. and and and etc are not native with the text but are supposed to help with pronunciation despite them not even needed to know pronunciation. However, I see that madda on letters is original. It gives modifying letters/affixes independent meaning in words rather than modifying another letter.
For example, in alef (without madda) makes it mean "be with" for the ending letter to mark that is with someome. It modifies .
In the alef has a negating effect and causes the word to mean 'no/not'. The alef is not supposed to be taken as an independent letter but modify meem.
In (with madda) the alef is independent and causes the word to mean thereof be, because alef is a letter meaning 'be' innately.
Scribes and scholars have been completely oblivious of this fact since many neglect writing it in transcripts and many translators/interpreters choose wildly between the word's two different meanings separated by the madda on alef. They could be doing this because they had no other choice because interpretation in false inferences would become utterly illogical. It would cause inconsistency in passages where something else has always been the natural choice. I noticed that particularly in nonsensical passages stemming from a Pagan mindset.
Salaam
-
Hello,
I got your point. It's been years since the last time i was studying Arabic grammer, but what i remember from Arabic classes, this rule is applied to vowel letters, which are ( , , ), the change would be in the root of the word and according to morphology of the derived arabic word. In this case it is called "" . For excample the root " " for the morphology of " " the derived word would be " " instead of "".
Another case is when the pronunciation of the derived morphology is very hard or impossible, so some letters are replaced by others and it is called "". An example is The root is " " , the morphology of the derived word is "" , then the derived word will be "" instead of "". Notice that the "" is replaced by "".
Maybe there are more instances, but this is what i remember. Beer in mind in thoses 2 cases the root is known and the morphology is known, so it is easily possible to know the replaced letters and know the real meaning since each letter and each morphology has it' own meaning, beside the meaning of thr root its self. All these rules are found under a branch called " ". It would be more useful if i have the punctuation in my keyboard, so i could illustrate further.
Regard,
-
Hello,
I got your point. It's been years since the last time i was studying Arabic grammer, but what i remember from Arabic classes, this rule is applied to vowel letters, which are ( , , ), the change would be in the root of the word and according to morphology of the derived arabic word. In this case it is called "" . For excample the root " " for the morphology of " " the derived word would be " " instead of "".
Another case is when the pronunciation of the derived morphology is very hard or impossible, so some letters are replaced by others and it is called "". An example is The root is " " , the morphology of the derived word is "" , then the derived word will be "" instead of "". Notice that the "" is replaced by "".
Maybe there are more instances, but this is what i remember. Beer in mind in thoses 2 cases the root is known and the morphology is known, so it is easily possible to know the replaced letters and know the real meaning since each letter and each morphology has it' own meaning, beside the meaning of thr root its self. All these rules are found under a branch called " ". It would be more useful if i have the punctuation in my keyboard, so i could illustrate further.
Regard,
Those are grammatical reasons for replacing letters. There are reasons of substitution of letters based upon just the site of pronunciation in speaking. Lane gives examples in the beginning of introduction of each alphabet. Please see example below. It is this kind of change or substitution, that I am discussing. According to this Siin and Sad are interchangeable.
http//www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Lane/
http//www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Lane/Regards,
-
Salam,
Thank you for the link, it is a whole new rule for me. Some islamic scholars think that Quran has its own grammar, that some Quranic grammar may be applied in Arabic but not vise versa. If this rule is applied in Quran it is gonna be confusing and difficult to understand it. Your questions is very important indeed.
Regards,
-
Salam,
Thank you for the link, it is a whole new rule for me. Some islamic scholars think that Quran has its own grammar, that some Quranic grammar may be applied in Arabic but not vise versa. If this rule is applied in Quran it is gonna be confusing and difficult to understand it. Your questions is very important indeed.
Regards,
Yes indeed, it will have long lasting ramifications. I have applied this rule in my other post "Alif Lam Miim" in deciding the meanings of word Salaat. Please see, how smooth the translation is gotten and coherent as well.
Regards,