What is Al Asar?
-
Surah 103 1
I think of the gift for protection.
?Waw? is usually used as conjunct. It is also consider as a letter for swearing and in fact in modern Arabic still it is used for this purpose. However, Wright points out more uses and meanings as ?I think of?, ?I remember? ?O that!? (Wright VOL. 2 page 217 rem at the bottom of the page).
A definite noun from root, usually translated as ?time?. Although, this meaning is also present in lexicon. However, if one were to pay close attention to root meanings there is no meaning that even comes close to meaning of time. Literal meaning is ?he squeezed it? or ?extracted the juice?. This root tropically also means ?a gift? as well means ?protection?. These two meanings are chosen due to context of other Suras so far.
Surah 103 2
Indeed, which needs to be preserved from being lost or side-stepped.
An accusative particle meaning, ?indeed, certainly surely?.
It is usually considered a definite noun from root meaning ?man? or even mankind. Since having a definite article at the beginning would limit the scope or define its meaning to only certain man. Which would not fit the purpose and meaning traditionally considered as correct, a grammatical rule was created. The rule is that, this ?al? is a defining ?al?, for whole of the genus. Hence here it would mean ?the whole mankind?, instead of just ?the man?. This appears an attempt to make grammar rule to rationalize already established meaning and not to get to real meanings by following the rules of grammar.
(Unfortunately, this whole mind frame of current Muslims is a major problem and hurdle in understanding Quran. They accept and staunchly believe that current translation of Quran is the real Quran. This even applies to followers of Quran only. They are willing to accept another person?s translation as authority without considering that the person in question no mater how well intended. He was not able to finish the task of translation of whole of the quran).
Despite all this jargon about explaining the ?al? at the beginning, there is no form/measure to explain this construct as a noun in the language. However, if it were to be considered a verb of form VII from root and middle ?waw? changing into ?elif? due ?ajwaf? rule of weak verb. Also the first letter is substituted with . Its actually shape should be without substitution of first letter. With such substitution allowed in the language it became . The ?al? here is contraction of ?Allathi? just like in ?Allah?. The root meaning is ?he preserved it, or kept it?. The form/measure adds meanings of ?need to be?
The ?Lam? is further emphasis. It is difficult to translate in English with so much emphasis. It is followed by a particle with several meanings. Here due context ?from? is chosen.
A undefined noun from root meaning ?he lost or lost and suffered diminution or he circumvented?.
Surah 103 3
If those do not safeguard it by laboring in the incorrupt manner, then you direct and urgently admonish them with wisdom, justice and facts; as well with the endurance and self restraint.
Traditionally it is considered as an exceptive particle meaning ?except?. But it can also be combination of meaning ?if not?. This meaning is used here due to context over meaning of except.
A plural relative noun meaning ?those?
A 3rd person plural perfect verb of form IV from root meaning ?he became safe or secure?
?waw? conjunct translated as ?by? followed by a 3rd person perfect verb from root meaning ?he worked, acted or labored?
A definite active plural participle from root meaning ?it and he became good, incorrupt or just?
?waw? conjunct translated as ?then? followed by a 3rd person perfect verb with prefixed 2nd person pronoun meaning ?you?. Its root is meaning ?he enjoined?.
?Bee? a particle meaning ?with? followed by a definite/defined noun from root meaning ?it was or became suitable to requirements of wisdom, justice, truth and facts?.
It is explained above.
?Bee? a particle explained above followed by a defined/definite noun from root
meaning ?he became enduring and withheld his tongue and soul from inpatients?. -
For anyone who realizes and agrees that Quran could only be understood via applying rules of language it is written in. The linguistic explanation/rules and rationale is given to verify. It is admitted upfront that there may be mistakes in application of linguistic rules. Upon independent verification, if one finds a mistake, please do point out for discussion and if mutually understood as correct. This translation will be edited accordingly.
Regards,
-
Which language was the Quran innately written in and how does Wright know about it and its grammar?
Quran was written in the language that was spoken 1400 years ago in desert of Arabia. It is currently know by the name of Classic Arabic. The speakers of the language from its natives lineage, as well people of other lineages, who learned the language wrote the rules of that language in their spoken language still called Arabic. These books were translated into German language by Germans. William Wright translated it into English language. Hope this brief synopsis helps.
Regards,
-
Quran was written in the language that was spoken 1400 years ago in desert of Arabia. It is currently know by the name of Classic Arabic. The speakers of the language from its natives lineage, as well people of other lineages, who learned the language wrote the rules of that language in their spoken language still called Arabic.
What are the authoritative pre-Islamic sources that indicate the authenticity of the Classic Arabic morhopholoy besides Sbawayhi the Persian linguist of the end of the 8th century?
-
What are the authoritative pre-Islamic sources that indicate the authenticity of the Classic Arabic morhopholoy besides Sbawayhi the Persian linguist of the end of the 8th century?
Sibawayhi is only one of them. There were two schools one in Basra and other at Kufa that worked on it. Please check out preface by Mortimer Sloper Howell's Arabic Grammar book to know where did work of language rules writing started. It started at the request of Ali.
-
Sibawayhi is only one of them. There were two schools one in Basra and other at Kufa that worked on it. Please check out preface by Mortimer Sloper Howell's Arabic Grammar book to know where did work of language rules writing started. It started at the request of Ali.
Ali who?
-
Sibawayhi is only one of them. There were two schools one in Basra and other at Kufa that worked on it. Please check out preface by Mortimer Sloper Howell's Arabic Grammar book to know where did work of language rules writing started. It started at the request of Ali.
So it was sponsored/organized by the alleged fourth ruler/exploiter/an subject of political worship and taxation, hence was politically/religiously motivated and if I understood correctly no authentic Arabic linguistic or at least poetic sources of this particular linguistic tradition was preserved for comparative analysis with Quranic consonantal text. Doubt it is of any use to me. Thanks.
-
So it was sponsored/organized by the alleged fourth ruler/exploiter/an subject of political worship and taxation, hence was politically/religiously motivated and if I understood correctly no authentic Arabic linguistic or at least poetic sources of this particular linguistic tradition was preserved for comparative analysis with Quranic consonantal text. Doubt it is of any use to me. Thanks.
Neither there is an original written manuscript of Quran, nor language rules were written from day one of its inception. The Chronological comparison of older manuscripts available in public domain attest to evolution of the text over time to its final version of the text we have today. The rules of the language as well lexicon were written to explain this evolved text and not the older manuscripts. There is only one translation written by Tabari, which is considered as De-fact o Quran until now and it was all based upon hearsay.
Therefore, there are only few choices regarding Quran based upon above facts.
-
Consider Quran a lost cause and the book of a lost language. Since all people speaking that language are long dead. No rules were written by them right away and all were written over time by lots of people. Furthermore, current text is also an evolved form with signs and marks not present in oldest manuscripts available. Hence, oldest manuscript can not be understood.
-
Continue to accept Tabari's Hearsay based De Fact o Quran as the real Quran continue doing what Muslims are now doing for 1200 years. Which is to follow hearsay.
-
Final one, accept the reality above. Use current text with all its marks. Use first rules of the language available, if no rules exist use reason and logic within the confines of existing rules to translate Quran. Once translated, evaluate this translation based upon standards of reason and logic, leaving tradition, held understanding and beliefs on side. If this translation fits the standards of reason and logic, accept and adopt. Otherwise, reject as non-sense. However, the later should be done entirely based upon use of reason and logic and not because it contradicts held beliefs of centuries.
Regards,
-
-
Neither there is an original written manuscript of Quran, nor language rules were written from day one of its inception. The Chronological comparison of older manuscripts available in public domain attest to evolution of the text over time to its final version of the text we have today. The rules of the language as well lexicon were written to explain this evolved text and not the older manuscripts. There is only one translation written by Tabari, which is considered as De-fact o Quran until now and it was all based upon hearsay.
Are you sure about that? Because i doubt that's true.
-
If you have doubts, please present your evidence, refuting my claim.
Salam/Peace, the only evidence i can't think of right now is Sanaa Manuscript that was found in Yemen, yes i know it's whole but hear me out.
There is a 4-part E-Books named Arabia The Untold Story and you wonder what does it involve in this topic? Well the books involve Quran heavily and exposing the Zionist & Orientalist corruption involving the geography in the Quran. And i recommend checking them out
Book 1 Search for Pharaoh
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/1st-E-Book_Search-for-Pharaoh.pdfBook 2 Road of the Patriarch
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/2nd-E-Book_Road-of-the-Patriarch.pdfBook 3 Israel and Sheba
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/3rd-E-Book_Israel-and-Sheba.pdfBook 4 The Assyrian Storm
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/4th-E-Book_The-Assyrian-Storm.pdfAlso there is these verses
8521
Bal huwa qur'?nun maj?dun
No,it is a glorious Qur'an.
8522
F? lawHin maHf?Zin
In a tablet, preserved.Once you read all of the books and the 2 verses i have shown, you may get a conclusion the Original Quran may be in Yemen. I can help but notice that the Sanaa Manuscript was found in Yemen.
Salamun Aleykum/Peace be upon you. group
P.S Just letting you know i am not a skilled debater '(
-
Neither there is an original written manuscript of Quran, nor language rules were written from day one of its inception. The Chronological comparison of older manuscripts available in public domain attest to evolution of the text over time to its final version of the text we have today. The rules of the language as well lexicon were written to explain this evolved text and not the older manuscripts. There is only one translation written by Tabari, which is considered as De-fact o Quran until now and it was all based upon hearsay.
Therefore, there are only few choices regarding Quran based upon above facts.
-
Consider Quran a lost cause and the book of a lost language. Since all people speaking that language are long dead. No rules were written by them right away and all were written over time by lots of people. Furthermore, current text is also an evolved form with signs and marks not present in oldest manuscripts available. Hence, oldest manuscript can not be understood.
-
Continue to accept Tabari's Hearsay based De Fact o Quran as the real Quran continue doing what Muslims are now doing for 1200 years. Which is to follow hearsay.
-
Final one, accept the reality above. Use current text with all its marks. Use first rules of the language available, if no rules exist use reason and logic within the confines of existing rules to translate Quran. Once translated, evaluate this translation based upon standards of reason and logic, leaving tradition, held understanding and beliefs on side. If this translation fits the standards of reason and logic, accept and adopt. Otherwise, reject as non-sense. However, the later should be done entirely based upon use of reason and logic and not because it contradicts held beliefs of centuries.
None of what you said in its whole abundance is of any practical use and is not even a refute to my initial claim above, even confirms it. There does not have to be an original copy of the Quran since the text is more or less preserved albeit in different recitation traditions, with additional nuns and waws here and there, but overall they are pretty much identic. All of the more or less old copies discovered had absolutely no grammar in them, except occasional dots, which if anything hints to the Yemeni and later Babylonian Talmudic traditions, and hence has no indication of dialect called 'Classic Arabic'. But were there any authentic linguistic copies or works of the same linguistic tradition/time period for comparison, that would be another story. But given the lack of it it is merely your personal belief based on hypothetical thinking and lacks any authoritative historical confirmation. It is plain scholasticism to be exact.
Also I would like to see you debate with any one of the modern Arabic grammatists of your choice, preferably of Arabic rather than the Orientalist descent, such someone from Al-Azhar Uni or of similar scholarly background (not that I care for his/her background, but rather to make debate more authentic and less biased by the likelihood of opponent's possible inclination towards alternative Quranic theories), either video debate or text based, as long as the other side may confirm his/her identity.
My question remains unanswered/semi-answered with no particular observable historical information, if we are to accept it as an answer, nor I ever asked what options do 'we' have 'left' with the Quran, it is up to every individual in particular and is not limited to these three options though.
-
-
Salam/Peace, the only evidence i can't think of right now is Sanaa Manuscript that was found in Yemen, yes i know it's whole but hear me out.
There is a 4-part E-Books named Arabia The Untold Story and you wonder what does it involve in this topic? Well the books involve Quran heavily and exposing the Zionist & Orientalist corruption involving the geography in the Quran. And i recommend checking them out
Book 1 Search for Pharaoh
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/1st-E-Book_Search-for-Pharaoh.pdfBook 2 Road of the Patriarch
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/2nd-E-Book_Road-of-the-Patriarch.pdfBook 3 Israel and Sheba
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/3rd-E-Book_Israel-and-Sheba.pdfBook 4 The Assyrian Storm
https//www.quranite.com/wp-content/uploads/4th-E-Book_The-Assyrian-Storm.pdfAlso there is these verses
8521
Bal huwa qur'?nun maj?dun
No,it is a glorious Qur'an.
8522
F? lawHin maHf?Zin
In a tablet, preserved.Once you read all of the books and the 2 verses i have shown, you may get a conclusion the Original Quran may be in Yemen. I can help but notice that the Sanaa Manuscript was found in Yemen.
Salamun Aleykum/Peace be upon you. group
P.S Just letting you know i am not a skilled debater '(
I have chosen not to be distracted by history. As there is also historical evidence that there never existed a town in Arabia where current Kaaba and Mekka are at the time of Alexander the Great in the maps made of the area by his advance mapping team for the area. Hence, the simplest approach in my assessment of the complex situation is following given in the red below.
Neither there is an original written manuscript of Quran, nor language rules were written from day one of its inception. The Chronological comparison of older manuscripts available in public domain attest to evolution of the text over time to its final version of the text we have today. The rules of the language as well lexicon were written to explain this evolved text and not the older manuscripts. There is only one translation written by Tabari, which is considered as De-fact o Quran until now and it was all based upon hearsay.
Therefore, there are only few choices regarding Quran based upon above facts.
-
Consider Quran a lost cause and the book of a lost language. Since all people speaking that language are long dead. No rules were written by them right away and all were written over time by lots of people. Furthermore, current text is also an evolved form with signs and marks not present in oldest manuscripts available. Hence, oldest manuscript can not be understood.
-
Continue to accept Tabari's Hearsay based De Fact o Quran as the real Quran continue doing what Muslims are now doing for 1200 years. Which is to follow hearsay.
-
Final one, accept the reality above. Use current text with all its marks. Use first rules of the language available, if no rules exist use reason and logic within the confines of existing rules to translate Quran. Once translated, evaluate this translation based upon standards of reason and logic, leaving tradition, held understanding and beliefs on side. If this translation fits the standards of reason and logic, accept and adopt. Otherwise, reject as non-sense. However, the later should be done entirely based upon use of reason and logic and not because it contradicts held beliefs of centuries.
Regards,
-
-
Furthermore, the Sanna Manuscript is never claimed by anybody to be the original manuscript. By original, I am referring to the one that Sunni's claim was completed in Abu Bakar's time and was preserved with Hafza prophet's wife. Which supposedly Uthman use to canonize before destroying others. Even the others claimed to be Manuscripts from Uthman's time are very doubtful to that time.
-
I have chosen not to be distracted by history. As there is also historical evidence that there never existed a town in Arabia where current Kaaba and Mekka are at the time of Alexander the Great in the maps made of the area by his advance mapping team for the area. Hence, the simplest approach in my assessment of the complex situation is following given in the red below.
Salam/Peace i never mentioned Kaaba, Mekka & Alexander the Great. In fact i agree that Kaaba & Mekka are not towns. Didn't they surface in 900s? Anyway my point is that original Quran that is preserved in a tablet in Yemen. Simply read the E-Books if you are interested.
-
Furthermore, the Sanna Manuscript is never claimed by anybody to be the original manuscript. By original, I am referring to the one that Sunni's claim was completed in Abu Bakar's time and was preserved with Hafza prophet's wife. Which supposedly Uthman use to canonize before destroying others. Even the others claimed to be Manuscripts from Uthman's time are very doubtful to that time.
I wonder does Abu Bakr or Uthman really exist? As of now i haven't seen historical evidence of Abu Bakr or Uthman. Sorry if i was ignorant.
-
I wonder does Abu Bakr or Uthman really exist? As of now i haven't seen historical evidence of Abu Bakr or Uthman. Sorry if i was ignorant.
Or Ali or pretty much anyone until the late Abbasid period who can be confirmed by the Western Roman sources. The Ummaya opponents, at least so it seems, appear to be faked individuals, or at least their history was corrupted by the party that won the war.
-
Salam/Peace i never mentioned Kaaba, Mekka & Alexander the Great. In fact i agree that Kaaba & Mekka are not towns. Didn't they surface in 900s? Anyway my point is that original Quran that is preserved in a tablet in Yemen. Simply read the E-Books if you are interested.
Post a link to this original tablet.
-
I wonder does Abu Bakr or Uthman really exist? As of now i haven't seen historical evidence of Abu Bakr or Uthman. Sorry if i was ignorant.
We can agree on that. This is what my conclusions are. Even for that matter, Mohammad as depicted in the history.
