Alkhineer is a noun in the light of the Reading

marie

Salam Joe, Wakas, mquran, all,

Thanks for your answers and criticisms.

I think that's nice work, but maybe there's another condition here. Let me show you.

Ta Ba 'Ayn (to seal/imprint) versus Za' Ta' Mim (to seal/imprint)

Ayatin

Is it not a guide for those who inherited the land after them, that if We wished We could have punished them immediately for their sins? And We stamp (wanatbaAAu) on their hearts (quloob), so they do not hear.

Today, We shall seal (nakhtimu) their mouths, and their hands will speak to Us, and their feet will bear witness to everything they had done.

Two different words have identical meanings.

Agree, two words can have a common meaning like the example you quoted. I think there is a nuance between khatma and tabaAAa according the context of their occurences. If we look some derivatives which have the same root than the verb tabaAAa, there are TabAA, tabeeAa which mean character, nature, temperament.

I do not support the strict one word for one meaning approach, but that is not the point of this post.

Agree, there are several words which can have a common meaning.

You may be interested in the following word
A word which means 'to be spoiled' and is used in relation to food 'yatasannahu' in 2259

root siin-nun-ha

The root of the verb "yatasannahu" is siin-nun-alif pronounced as sanaa /

I prefer "they have not changed" than spoiled.

A derivative from the verb "sanaa" is used in 1526, masnoon which also means changing in arabic "mutaghayyir"
1526. And We have created man from a clay hardened and shaped/sounding/malleable (masnoon).
Walaqad khalaqna al-insana minsalsalin min hama-in masnoonin

Something rotten or unwholesome is called 'khabith'. Its opposite is tayyib.

You are right, khabeeth is oposed to tayyib/good. In the light of the Reading, khabeeth is not used to mean rotten but unwholesome/bad/Evil/wicked (758, 837, 1426, 2426).

The wicked women are for the wicked men, and the wicked men are for the wicked women, and the good women are for the good men, and the good men are for the good women. These people are innocent from what statements have been made, and for them is forgiveness and a generous provision.

Alkhabeethatu lilkhabeetheena waalkhabeethoona lilkhabeethati waalttayyibatu lilttayyibeena waalttayyiboona lilttayyibatiola-ika mubarraoona mimma yaqooloona lahummaghfiratun warizqun kareemun

5/60 uses the phrase 'kunu khanazir'.

I'd like to add other example similar than (koonoo qiradatan../be "like" apes... ) (7166)

Say, "Even if you turn into rocks or iron!
Qul koonoo hijaratan aw hadeedan

Peace

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Marie,

You are right, khabeeth is oposed to tayyib/good. In the light of the Reading, khabeeth is not used to mean rotten but unwholesome/bad/Evil/wicked (758, 837, 1426, 2426).

Unwholesome. Ok

I'd like to add other example similar than (koonoo qiradatan../be "like" apes... ) (7166)

Say, "Even if you turn into rocks or iron!
Qul koonoo hijaratan aw hadeedan

WELL DONE. Excellent. I never saw this one before.

Wakas

peace,

The root of the verb "yatasannahu" is siin-nun-alif pronounced as sanaa /

I prefer "they have not changed" than spoiled.

According to Lane, Dictionary of Quran, and Concordance of Quran the root is siin-nun-ha.

The core meaning of siin-nun-ha is time, specifically through time, hence its releated meanings become mouldy/spoiled etc.

Ok. But do you agree that all roots should have one basic , unchanging meaning even if the meaning cannot be transposed into a single English word?

I have not studied this so I have no opinion on it, nor have I seen any evidence/research suggesting this. Normally, there is a common meaning, but like I said, I have not studied this specific so I cant say.

Wakas

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Wakas,

I have not studied this so I have no opinion on it, nor have I seen any evidence/research suggesting this. Normally, there is a common meaning, but like I said, I have not studied this specific so I cant say
.

Fair enough. Do think about the tarteel process though? If we are to bring similarities together, what would be the point if the meanings of each occurence was different?

Ali_Omar

Hi,

Why are we all seemingly talking past each other? ?

There are, at least, two issues here, that of the quranic grammar, and that of the meaning of verses when seen together.

Arabic grammar is not as simple as Marie put it, but the references that she used from our present quran are quite clear, and her observations are very good.
I do believe that the language used in the quran is accurate, but the references used here are all based on diacritical marks, and I do not believe those are original, but added in at a later stage.

In other cases in the Arabic language you do not always have the ending of an adjective tally with that of the noun it refers to, but it must, among other things, agree in gender, like ?bayt qadiim? = an old house, and female, like ?jariidah qadiimah?= an old newspaper, etc.

Therefore, are the specifications of nouns vs. adjectives, as described by Marie, put there by God or by humans?
I believe it is more useful if we can discuss the matter at hand in a more open way.

Regds

Ali Omar

TheNabi

Salaam Ali,

Good advice.

Joe

marie

Salam Wakas, all,

peace,

The root of the verb "yatasannahu" is siin-nun-alif pronounced as sanaa /

I prefer "they have not changed" than spoiled.

According to Lane, Dictionary of Quran, and Concordance of Quran the root is siin-nun-ha.

The core meaning of siin-nun-ha is time, specifically through time, hence its releated meanings become mouldy/spoiled etc.

You are right for the root.
According lisan alArab Both tasannaha/ (root siin-nun-ha / &#64427 and tasanaa/ (root siin-nun-alif / have a common meaning taghayyara /
to change, modify, deteriorate, transform, vary, renew.

I lean towards the basic meaning which is change than mouldy/spoiled which is a valid interpretation.

marie

Salam Ali Omar,

You wrote

I do believe that the language used in the quran is accurate, but the references used here are all based on diacritical marks, and I do not believe those are original, but added in at a later stage.

You raised a good point, since the author of the Reading is not a human, then the internal structure of the Reading which is based on logic and the nature of each word (adj, noon, adv, vb, pron, masc, femin....etc) is not man made because of the writing of the words independently of diacritical marks and their sequences.

Not all the references used here are based on diacritical marks because some rules can be extracted from the text without diacritical marks/tashkeel.
I will try to give you some examples about the agreement between a word (green text) and its adjective (red text) based only on their writing

Say I do not find in what is inspired to me forbidden to a one eater to eat except that it be already dead, or running blood, or the meat of pig, it"the prohibited food" is foul/unhealthy/unpure; or what is corruptly dedicated to other than God. Whoever is forced without seeking disobedience or transgression, then your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

Qul la ajidu feema oohiyailayya muharraman AAala taAAimin yatAAamuhuilla an yakoona maytatan aw daman masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin fa-innahu rijsun aw fisqan ohilla lighayri Allahibihi famani idturra ghayra baghin wala AAadinfa-inna rabbaka ghafoorun raheemun

One cannot read these daman masfoohan in other way because both are ended with the same letter alif , consequently the use of the vowel "a" called "alfatha" in daman masfoohan is the only solution.

Idem the vowel "a" in fisqan is the only way to read it because of the alif at the end of this word .

About maytatan and lahma, one can think to read them in different ways
lahma, lahmu, lahmi,
maytatan, maytatun, maytatin
but the two last readings of lahm and mayta are excluded because they should be in agreement with word daman and fisqan.
All these words have the same situation in the sentence and they are under the same rule.

Here another example
After kana/yakoonu the word which specifies the subject (for example the messenger in 2278] is ended with the vowel "a" with "alif" (shaheedan/ or without "alif" like lahma in 6145 when it is followed by a noon "khinzeerin"

That the Messenger may be a witness for you
liyakoona alrrasoolu shaheedan (&#65165 AAalaykum (2278

This is the same rule used in 6145 and it is independently of diacritical marks, In 6145, maytatan or daman or lahma or fisqan represent a sequence with the same statute insithe the verse and are under the same rule.
The subject in 6145 is the prohibited food which is
maytatan
aw/or
daman /
aw/or
lahma..
aw/or
fisqan /
etc

If "khinzeer" is an adjective of lahm, lahm should be written as lahman/ instead of in the same way than daman/ and fisqan/.
khinzeer should be writen as khnizeeran / in agreement with instead of .

I hope you can see diacritical marks are not essential to understand the grammar and the internal structure in 6145.

Salam

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Marie,

Is there a mu'jam/concordance detailling grammatical forms like how you're quoting below? Or did you find the tanwin-ending words from your memory? If that's the case, wow and good job!

Ali_Omar

Dear Marie,

Thank you for the further explanation.
I am not a linguist, I only know Arabic from a general point of view, therefore I will have to study what you said a bit closer.
But it does not seem to tally with my knowledge of Arabic grammar, as it is.

I agree that if a word ends with ?alif?, the most natural thing is to put an ?a? sound on the letter preceding it, if no other information is given.

But I can not quite follow your statement about the need of ?lahm? to be written with an ?alif? in order to be followed by an adjective.
As far as I know there is nothing wrong in saying, for instance, ?lahm ladhiidh? (delicious meat) so I fail to understand why it can not also be said ?lahm khinzeer? meaning meat that seems anything BUT delicious. (if dictionaries are anything to go by)

Anyway, I will try to look further into it, given time.
For my diet it does not matter, one way or another, whether the pigs meat is forbidden or not, as I see no need to order it anyway. But it would be nice to know what the koran says about this subject, as the pig is a matter of controversy amongst many people.

Regards

Ali Omar

marie

Salam mquran, Ali Omar, all,

Salaamun alaikum Marie,

Is there a mu'jam/concordance detailling grammatical forms like how you're quoting below? Or did you find the tanwin-ending words from your memory? If that's the case, wow and good job!

This is my own analysis of the writing of the words in the Reading. The Reading itself provides the rules of its internal structure. 6145 is a good example to anderstand the statute of khinzeer for the word "lahm" by analyzing what is written before and after. One can see a great logic in this internal structure.

But I can not quite follow your statement about the need of lahm to be written with an alif in order to be followed by an adjective.

The internal structure of the Reading is based on great logic, if khinzeer is an adjective for "lahm", then "lahm" must be ended with alif like 1)daman masfoohan before and 2) "fisqan" after.

Lahma khinzeerin (6145) is the same sentence than lahmu alkhinzeeri (53) and lahma alkhinzeeri (2173, 16115). All these verses are under a rule determined by the internal struture of the Reading and prove that alkhinzeer is a noon and not an adjective.

4912 illustrates the same structure than "Lahma khinzeerin" (6145); "lahma akheehi" means lahm of his brother. akhee is not an adjectve for lahma in the same way than khinzeer for lahm.
Both khinzeerin and akheehi are with alksra (i). Based on the writing of Akheehi, this word cannot be read in other way such as "akhahu" or "akhoohu" because of the letter ya () which is between the letter "kh"/ and "ha"/ in the word , once again the Reading provides how to read the words which have the same statute after the word "lahm". Praise to the God, the criterion is inside the Reading.

As far as I know there is nothing wrong in saying, for instance, lahm ladhiidh (delicious meat) so I fail to understand why it can not also be said lahm khinzeer meaning meat that seems anything BUT delicious.

OK, It is not upon us to choose how to read this sentence, because the internal structure of the Readind fixes the rule.
According the rule applied to what is said before "lahma khinzeerin", this sentence cannot be read lahmin khinzeerin or lahmun khinzeerun because the rule is fixed and illustrated by the writing of "daman masfoohan" before "lahma khinzeerin" and "fisqan" after it.
If some doubt remains about the statute of khinzeer in 6145, then according the satatue of alkhinzeer in 53, 2173 and 16115, this doubt collapses definitively.
See the example given in 6146, the cattle/albaqari and the sheep/alghanami are the noun for the fat like alkinzeer or the meat.
The internal struture of the Reading is is marvelously tied up by the God )

mquran

Salaamun alaikum Marie,

This is my own analysis of the writing of the words in the Reading. The Reading itself provides the rules of its internal structure. 6145 is a good example to anderstand the statute of khinzeer for the word "lahm" by analyzing what is written before and after. One can see a great logic in this internal structure.

Well done, then )

I have a mu'jam for the roots, of course but not for the grammar forms. I have begun compilation for the various wazn (questions like what is it 'kafir' but not 'mukfir' like why isn't 'salim' but 'muslim') but of course, that's a huge task.

Ali_Omar

Dear Marie,

I still fail to see what you see, concerning grammar of the quranic text, but that may of course be due to my own shortcomings on the subject.
Grammar is most definitely not my ?thing? ? , which makes it even more difficult for me, but I do try.

You say that your understanding of verse 6.145 is due to the internal structure of the quran, and quite frankly I do not find the internal structure to be that simple.
If it was not up to us to choose how to read a word in a sentence, then what you say is that diacritical marks should not have been put into the quran in the first place. I would say that I kind of agree with you there.

There are numerous examples where only the vowel signs guides the pronunciation of a combination of nouns and adjectives, like

7.59 albaladu alttayyibu = good/pure land

Without the ?u?-sound at the end the words could be thought to have different endings.

And even with the diacritical marks in place they are put in such a way that the words have different endings like

7.64 qawman Aameena = misguided nation

and so on.

I would love to have it as simple as you claim, but, like I said, I fail to see it.
However I will, when I find time to do it, try to find out more, even with my rather inadequate knowledge of grammar.
In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would continue to inform me concerning your findings.scholar

Regards

Ali Omar

Grourself

Peace,

What is flawed in this analysis is the ?AW?, ?or?. The use of aw as opposed to ?am? is a clue to the contents of the list.

This is the same rule used in 6145 and it is independently of diacritical marks, In 6145, maytatan or daman or lahma or fisqan represent a sequence with the same statute insithe the verse and are under the same rule.
The subject in 6145 is the prohibited food which is
maytatan
aw/or
daman /
aw/or
lahma..
aw/or
fisqan /
etc

AW indicates an alternate similitude. AM indicates a alternate different proposition.

The use of aw indicates the items on the list are similar and related to condition, in other words, not sanctioned by nature but by condition, fisqan.

marie

Salam Ali Omar,

You say that your understanding of verse 6.145 is due to the internal structure of the quran, and quite frankly I do not find the internal structure to be that simple.

This is not my understanding but the internal structure doesn't let us another choice to read the verse differently than "lahma khinzeerin" for different reasons

In 6145, there is a sequence of a prohibited foods
1 or 2 or 3 or 4....(1)maytatan or 2)daman masfoohan or 3)lahma khinzeerin or 3)fisqan)...

These prohibited foods have the same statute in the verse, then they should be under the same rule.
2 (daman) and 4 (fisqan) illustrate through their writing how we have to read them.
3 (lahm khinzeer) cannot be read in the same manner than 2 (daman masfoohan) because the alif at the end of daman and masfoohan is missing at the end of lahm and khinzeer.
Since lahm has the same statute than daman and fisqan, we read it with alftha (a) i.e. "lahma".
About khinzeer, the Reading itself shows us the rule which governed the word after lahma (see my last post).

If we consider lahm khinzeer outside the context of this verse, one can think that khinzeer can be an adjective for lahm like your last example "lahm ladhid/delecious meat".
This is why we have to consider the satute of each word regarding to what is said before and after. The internal structure is based on logic not on anarchy.
One cannot read the verse like "maytatun or damanan masfoohan or lahmin khinzeerin/lahmun khinzeerun or fisqan"

"Daman masfoohan" and "fisqan" are like beacons on a road which indicate the curve to be followed. Let us not forget that this listed food have the same statute in the verse. Tanween is not for the design but each vowel illustrates a specific statute for each word.

Below another similar example

9.24 Say If your 1) fathers, and 2) your sons, and 3) your brothers, and 4) your wives, and 5) your clan, and 6) money
9.24 Qul in kana 1) abaokum wa 2) abnaokum wa 3)-ikhwanukum wa 4) azwajukum wa 5) AAasheeratukum wa 6) amwalun...

In 924, fathers, sons, brothers, wives, clan, money have the same statute in the verse and they are under the same rule. Moreover 1) abaokum and 2) abnaokum are the beacons to be followed. According their writing, they have only one reading, abaokum and abnaokum and not aba-ikum/aba-akum and abna-ikum/abna-akum

According the internal structure of the Reading, the subject after the article "kana/yakoonu" is with the vowel "u" called alddama and the two beacons 1) and 2) confirm it (924). And the word which specifies the subject is with the vowel "a) called alfatha (see 6145, 2278 in my last post)

There are numerous examples where only the vowel signs guides the pronunciation of a combination of nouns and adjectives, like

7.58 albaladu alttayyibu = good/pure land

The vowel "u" depends on the statute of albalad in this verse, please analyse by yourself what is common between all the words with the same statute, you will anderstand GW why the vowel "u" is used instead of another vowel.

Independently of diacritical marks, alttayib is an adjective of albalad; the two words started with al.
According the context, this sentense can be read as albaladi alttayyibi or albaladu alttayyibu or albalada alttayyiba. Whatever their endeing, alttayyib always remains an adjective for albalad

Other examples
2229 albayti alAAateeqi / the ancient sanctuary

In 2229 albayt doesn't have the same statute than albalad in 758, but both alttayyib/pure/good and alAAateeqi/ancient are the adjectives for albalad/land and albayt/housse/sanctuary. They have the same writing independtly of their satutes and diacritical marks

albayt alAAateeq
albalad alttayyib

And even with the diacritical marks in place they are put in such a way that the words have different endings like
7.64 qawman Aameena = misguided nation

According the writing of qawman and AAameen, they have only one reading qawman and not qawmun and AAameena and not AAamoona (2766)
Aameen is a specific case, may be you expect to read "qawman Aameen" with the same vowel "a"

Aameen is the plural form of aAAma ().
According the context, one can use AAameen/ or AAamoon/ like in 2766.

The plural form of in the same way than can be written only in two manners 1) and 2)
(singular form),1) and 2) (plural form)
muslim/ (singular form), 1) muslimeen/ and 2) muslimoon/ (the plural form), you can found several examples in the Reading.

There is a specific thing with , one cannot use it in the singular form with the vowel "u" or the vowel "i" like basser / the seer (650). This caracteristic is due to the letter

I would love to have it as simple as you claim, but, like I said, I fail to see it.

You should persevere and you will see GW the logic which controls the insternal structural of the Reading.

In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would continue to inform me concerning your findings

You are most welcome. The question is often more interesting than the answer. Please if you have another question, I will be glad to discuss it with you in the light of the Reading.

May the God improve our understanding.

Salam

marie

Salam Grourself,

The use of aw indicates the items on the list are similar and related to condition, in other words, not sanctioned by nature but by condition, fisqan.

Thanks for your clarification and this is what I meant by statute. Because of my poor english, it is diificult for me to find the good words.

Grourself

Peace,

This similar conditional aspect "aw" excludes lahma khinzeer as being a creature. It is the condition of the lahma that is similar to flowing blood and carrion.

marie

Peace,

This similar conditional aspect "aw" excludes lahma khinzeer as being a creature. It is the condition of the lahma that is similar to flowing blood and carrion.

Sorry for the confusion, we don't speak at all about the same thing. When I say that these prohibited foods have the same statute in 6145 that doesn't mean any similitude between them.

For example, the subject in different sentences can be different thing 'human or animal or vegetal or house or rock...), they represent the subject in their respective sentences. this is what I call the same statute of some words.

The use of aw indicates the items on the list are similar and related to condition,

I don't agree, Aw/Or can indicate an alternate different propositions. You can find several examples in the Reading.

443 wa-in kuntum marda aw AAala safarin aw jaa ahadun minkum mina algha-iti aw lamastumu alnnisaa
And if you are ill or traveling, or one of you has excreted feces, or you had sexual contact with the women

589 fakaffaratuhu itAAamu AAasharati masakeena min awsati ma tutAAimoona ahleekum aw kiswatuhum aw tahreeru raqabatin
its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave;

1331 Walaw anna qur-anan suyyirat bihialjibalu aw quttiAAat bihi al-ardu aw kullima bihi almawta
And if a Quran were to be used to move mountains, or to slice the Earth, or the dead were spoken to with it.

And they said We will not believe to you until you cause a spring of water to burst from the land
Waqaloo lan nu/mina laka hattatafjura lana mina al-ardi yanbooAAan
Or that you have a garden of palm trees and grapes, and you cause gushing rivers to burst through it.
Aw takoona laka jannatun min nakheelinwaAAinabin fatufajjira al-anhara khilalahatafjeeran
Or that you make the heaven fall upon us in pieces as you claimed, or that you bring God and the Angels before us.
Aw tusqita alssamaa kamazaAAamta AAalayna kisafan aw ta/tiya biAllahiwaalmala-ikati qabeelan
Or that you have a luxurious mansion, or that you can ascend into the heavens. And we will not believe in your ascension unless you bring for us a record that we can study. Say Glory be to my Lord. Am I anything other than a human messenger!
Aw yakoona laka baytun min zukhrufin aw tarqafee alssama-i walan nu/mina liruqiyyika hattatunazzila AAalayna kitaban naqraohu qul subhanarabbee hal kuntu illa basharan rasoolan

Salam

Ali_Omar

Dear Marie,

I believe Grourself is on to something here.

The ?aw? indicates same conditional aspects before and after the word. I.e.
443 mentions various specific conditions you are in.
589 mentions specific actions you do.
1331 mentions specific actions by means of the quran.
1790-93 mention specific conditions to render you above others.

6.145 mentions in general terms anything dead, any running blood, anything dedicated to other than God.
If we put in ?lahm khinzeerin? as ?flesh of pig? it is a specific item, not general like the other expressions, and therefore not in conformity with what is said before and after ?aw?.

As I have mentioned, I have forgotten most things concerning grammar, therefore excuse me if my reasoning is not according to grammatical rules.
I would like to have your comments on this aspect of the verses.

Regds

Ali Omar

unknownuser

Peace Ali,

The ?aw? indicates same conditional aspects before and after the word. I.e.
443 mentions various specific conditions you are in.
589 mentions specific actions you do.
1331 mentions specific actions by means of the quran.
1790-93 mention specific conditions to render you above others.

6.145 mentions in general terms anything dead, any running blood, anything dedicated to other than God.
If we put in ?lahm khinzeerin? as ?flesh of pig? it is a specific item, not general like the other expressions, and therefore not in conformity with what is said before and after ?aw?.

Good understanding Ali, though much in the same mutually inclusive reasoning as in yours, I had stated earlier

The blood (not specific to any animal), dead animals (not specific to any animal), carrion (not specific to any animal), gouged/thrusted/extorted meat (not specific to any animal), meat that is dedicated to other than GOD (not specific to any animal) and finally, the ill-seeming meat (not specific to any animal) are all that is required for our abstinence and all carry logical reasons. In 6145, pig?s meat is not contaminated by nature/origin but ill-seeming meat is? Why the animal pig???

On a sideline, even alcohol (not specific to any brand or brewery), gambling (not specific to casinos), lying/hatred/jealousy/anger/deceit/gossip/conjecture/cheat/etc (not specific to any circumstance or event) are all ordainments to forbearance/restrictions. Allah, the merciful, has allowed all such restrictions only on grounds of survival.

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4031&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=400