questions on muhammad, sufism, etc.

unknownuser

peace ahmed

Very well done.

However, saying the shahadah in my prayer i believe i am not doing it to convince Allah, more strengthening my faith. To me mentioning God's qualities etc... strenghtens my faith. I am talking about the one in 318. Not the comical Abu Hurairah version. Though you are abolutely right it is not necessary at all. It's what's in the heart that counts. Good points

wildguest1956

How do you explain that many translators have rendered it with "and" ?
cf http//www.islamawakened.com/Quran/29/45/default.htm

Peace

if the above is a question for me

look bro, i don't really give a fuss if it is but or and, the translators got the but & and wrong many times anyway as well i look at it by hearing it how it sounds in Arabic not really how it is read in english, now i don't give a fuss if it is but or and because the context will not change

Zikr Allah is Akbar from Salat

because

Zikr Allah happens at all times while Salat happens at specific and limited time

Salam

Peace Ahmed,

I strongly doubt of the translation of wala by but, because of the following points

The Arabic word for but is lakin, or wa-lakin

Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but (wa-lakin) they realise (it) not.

Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but (wa-lakin) they do not know.

la can be used for negation. It that case, wa-la = and not

Then guard yourselves against a-Day when one soul shall not (la) avail another, nor (wa-la) shall compensation be accepted from her nor (wa-la) shall intercession profit her nor (wa-la) shall anyone be helped (from outside).

Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Him ye have neither patron nor (wa-la) helper.

la can also be used to emphasize something. It is is then translated by indeed, or surely.

The (Qur'an) is indeed the message (la-thikrun), for thee and for thy people; and soon shall ye (all) be brought to account.

Verily in this is a Message (la-thikra) for any that has a heart and understanding or who gives ear and earnestly witnesses (the truth).

And Allah most certainly knows (Wa-la-yaAAlamanna) those who believe, and as certainly (Wa-la-yaAAlamanna ) those who are Hypocrites.

Wa-la-yaAAlamanna = and - surely - he knows

Therefore, to come back to , wa-la-thikru can be translated in 2 ways

wa-la-thikru = and not remembrance => and the remembrance of God is not the greatest
wa-la-thikru = and surely remembrance => and surely the remembrance of God is the greatest

The second way seems better by tasreef.

This is this way several translators have rendered this verse

(Yusuf Ali) and remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt
(Shakir) and certainly the remembrance of Allah is the greatest
(Malik) and surely the remembrance of Allah is the greatest indeed
(Maulana Ali) and certainly the remembrance of Allah is the greatest
(Asad) and remembrance of God is indeed the greatest

Looking forward for your comments

Peace

unknownuser

Peace JM

I told you man earlier that it does not matter with me if it is a but or and now, the context stays the same

so let's consider it "and", the translation should be

and surely remembrance => and surely the remembrance of God is greater

the bolded part is now accurate as well according to the arabic words

cheers

wildguest1956

Peace JM

I told you man earlier that it does not matter with me if it is a but or and now, the context stays the same

so let's consider it "and", the translation should be

and surely remembrance => and surely the remembrance of God is greater

the bolded part is now accurate as well according to the arabic words

cheers

Ahmed,

As you may know, some Sufis (among them, Martin Lings) have distorted this verse to prove that their rituals are better than salat.

They have distorted it by translating wa by "but''. Thus, they have fabricated an opposition between salat and dhikr.

However, as it is showed by verses and , the salat is a mean to remember God, therefore, there is no point in opposing or comparing salat and dhikr.

Peace

PS why are you translating akhbar by "greater" instead of "the greatest" ?

unknownuser

Ahmed,

Peace bro

As you may know, some Sufis (among them, Martin Lings) have distorted this verse to prove that their rituals are better than salat.

Actually I never knew that, but thanks for telling me, however I take rituals as the meaning of Salat if rituals means to connect to Allah

They have distorted it by translating wa by "but''. Thus, they have fabricated an opposition between salat and dhikr.

Well, I didn?t do that, it was Allah who said that Zikr Allah is Akbar from Salat

However, as it is showed by verses and , the salat is a mean to remember God, therefore, there is no point in opposing or comparing salat and dhikr.

Well, you may save this argument to Allah on the JD then, because it is clearly a comparison by Allah regarding the Zikr and the Salat, I think you missed how Zikr is Akbar from Salat

2945 is telling us that the Salat preserveth from lewdness and iniquity, then it added that Zikr Allah is Akbar, i.e. Zikr Allah is higher in motivation to preserveth from lewdness and iniquity, obviously because Zikr Allah can happen all day long at any time and during all that time that we remember Allah we will be motivated to preserveth from lewdness and iniquity

PS why are you translating akhbar by "greater" instead of "the greatest" ?

Because if it is ?the greatest? is has to be ?Al Akbar?, when the Al is dropped then the word is to compare two entities, this is Arabic grammar, of course you expect the second entity to come after the word of comparison ?Akbar?, but it was mentioned earlier ?The Salat preserveth from lewdness and iniquity? and the Arabic Balagha will omit it from being repeated again

Peace

wildguest1956

PS why are you translating akhbar by "greater" instead of "the greatest" ?

Because if it is ?the greatest? is has to be ?Al Akbar?, when the Al is dropped then the word is to compare two entities, this is Arabic grammar, of course you expect the second entity to come after the word of comparison ?Akbar?, but it was mentioned earlier ?The Salat preserveth from lewdness and iniquity? and the Arabic Balagha will omit it from being repeated again

Peace

The Arabic sentence is thikru Allahi akbaru.

For it to mean that dhikr is greater than salat, it should have been something like this thikru Allahi akbaru min salat.

But it is not what Allah have said, so, we cannot state it.

In the Arabic language, a comparative (like akbar) without a term of comparison (like min salat) is becomes a superlative.

Akbar is the elative form of the adjective kabr. The elative combines the meanings of comparative (greater than) and superlative (most great). However, the elative is only explicitly a term of comparison when used with the preposition min, e.g. Allhu akbar min mala'ikatihi, "Allah is greater than His angels", Allhu Akbar min kulli shay "Allah is greater than all". Without a term of comparison, the elative conveys the superlative quality "greatest", "supreme."
http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir

Please correct if I am wrong.

Peace

unknownuser

PS why are you translating akhbar by "greater" instead of "the greatest" ?

Because if it is ?the greatest? is has to be ?Al Akbar?, when the Al is dropped then the word is to compare two entities, this is Arabic grammar, of course you expect the second entity to come after the word of comparison ?Akbar?, but it was mentioned earlier ?The Salat preserveth from lewdness and iniquity? and the Arabic Balagha will omit it from being repeated again

Peace

The Arabic sentence is thikru Allahi akbaru.

For it to mean that dhikr is greater than salat, it should have been something like this thikru Allahi akbaru min salat.

But it is not what Allah have said, so, we cannot state it.

In the Arabic language, a comparative (like akbar) without a term of comparison (like min salat) is becomes a superlative.

Akbar is the elative form of the adjective kabr. The elative combines the meanings of comparative (greater than) and superlative (most great). However, the elative is only explicitly a term of comparison when used with the preposition min, e.g. Allhu akbar min mala'ikatihi, "Allah is greater than His angels", Allhu Akbar min kulli shay "Allah is greater than all". Without a term of comparison, the elative conveys the superlative quality "greatest", "supreme."
http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir

Please correct if I am wrong.

Peace

Hi

As i explained, the context is very clear, what you dropped is "Wa Le...."

(45)

This Le that you dropped is the key letter that will make Zike Allah Akbar is 100% related to what was before it "The Salat Tanha an Al Fashaa Wa Al Mounker", i.e. Zikr Allah is Akbar in achieving that, and this is confirmed by the Le

your lack of the Arabic language is obvious, because 100% Allah SAID IT that Zikr Allah is Akbar from the Salat in avoiding Fahshaa and Munker

now for you to say that Allah didn't say it when HE DID SAY IT is a clear cut conjecture, sorry

Reagrding the second question, the word Akbar when used with Allah, the second compared entity is dropped, but the Quran Aloners say the sentence "Allah Akbar" never appeared in the Quran, hence for them it does not eixt, so why using it with Allah as the greatest while the Al is ommitted?

The Greatest = Al Akbar

see, for sure 1 = 1

hence

The = Al

Salam

wildguest1956

PS why are you translating akhbar by "greater" instead of "the greatest" ?

Because if it is ?the greatest? is has to be ?Al Akbar?, when the Al is dropped then the word is to compare two entities, this is Arabic grammar, of course you expect the second entity to come after the word of comparison ?Akbar?, but it was mentioned earlier ?The Salat preserveth from lewdness and iniquity? and the Arabic Balagha will omit it from being repeated again

Peace

The Arabic sentence is thikru Allahi akbaru.

For it to mean that dhikr is greater than salat, it should have been something like this thikru Allahi akbaru min salat.

But it is not what Allah have said, so, we cannot state it.

In the Arabic language, a comparative (like akbar) without a term of comparison (like min salat) is becomes a superlative.

Akbar is the elative form of the adjective kabr. The elative combines the meanings of comparative (greater than) and superlative (most great). However, the elative is only explicitly a term of comparison when used with the preposition min, e.g. Allhu akbar min mala'ikatihi, "Allah is greater than His angels", Allhu Akbar min kulli shay "Allah is greater than all". Without a term of comparison, the elative conveys the superlative quality "greatest", "supreme."
http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir

Please correct if I am wrong.

Peace

Hi

As i explained, the context is very clear, what you dropped is "Wa Le...."

(45)

This Le that you dropped is the key letter that will make Zike Allah Akbar is 100% related to what was before it "The Salat Tanha an Al Fashaa Wa Al Mounker", i.e. Zikr Allah is Akbar in achieving that, and this is confirmed by the Le

I don?t understand why the la makes clear that dhikr is greater than salat.
Could you elaborate ?

your lack of the Arabic language is obvious, because 100% Allah SAID IT that Zikr Allah is Akbar from the Salat in avoiding Fahshaa and Munker

Could you elaborate ?

now for you to say that Allah didn't say it when HE DID SAY IT is a clear cut conjecture, sorry

Could you elaborate ?

Reagrding the second question, the word Akbar when used with Allah, the second compared entity is dropped, but the Quran Aloners say the sentence "Allah Akbar" never appeared in the Quran, hence for them it does not eixt, so why using it with Allah as the greatest while the Al is ommitted?

It is true that some ?Quran Aloners? are of the opinion that "Allah Akbar" has no place in Islam, but I was only using this sentence for a grammatical explanation.

According to your theory, "Allah Akbar" means "Allah is greater". But greater than what ?

The Greatest = Al Akbar

see, for sure 1 = 1

hence

The = Al

Salam

I have showed you an grammar rule that says that akbar is an elative, and that, without a term of comparison, an elative becomes a superlative.
(cf http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir)

I you think that this rule is wrong, please bring some evidences.

Peace

unknownuser

I don?t understand why the la makes clear that dhikr is greater than salat.
Could you elaborate ?

Salam

Good that you realized it is La not Le, my fault sorry, The La connects the two sentences, in fact this connection is required otherwise the two sentence with the Wa and without the La may not make sense grammatically, therefore the La is required to tell us what is less Akbar than Zikr Allah regarding the action of ?Fahshaa and Munkar Nahi?,

If the second part is stand alone ?without any adjacent sentences? like this

Zikr Allah Akbar, then the sentence will be missing logic, now if we consider the sentence before it as the missing logic then it should be repeated after Akbar but this will be odd because it was mentioned before it, I hope you see it this time, the Wa and La effectively linked the two sentences together, the Wa alone is enough to link the two sentences however this can be argued but the Wa and La together surely linked the two and the link here is a comparison because of the key word ?Akbar? now what we are comparing is clear from the context which is ?which is bigger in motivating us to stay away from Fahshaa and Munkar, is it Salat or Zikr Allah??, the answer was given by Allah

?Wa La Zikr Allah Akbar? and the La confirms this answer

It is true that some ?Quran Aloners? are of the opinion that "Allah Akbar" has no place in Islam, but I was only using this sentence for a grammatical explanation.

I think it was an odd comment from me anyway, what I meant is any sentence where we will use the comparison form of a root, it must have both entities that we are comparing UNLESS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALLAH, where we can omit the second entity for example Allah told about Himself in the Quran that He is Arham Al Rahmeen, ?The two entities were mentioned? but in another location He described Himself as ?Rub Akram? without the second entity been mentioned

According to your theory, "Allah Akbar" means "Allah is greater". But greater than what ?

As I said bro, when it comes to Allah, the Arabic language accommodates to drop the second entity exactly as He said in the Quran ?Iqra Wa Rabuka Al Akram?, now you answer the question please, Allah is Akram than what?

I have showed you an grammar rule that says that akbar is an elative, and that, without a term of comparison, an elative becomes a superlative.
(cf http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir)

Only when we talk about Allah, any other comparison and Allah is not an Entity in?m, then the two entities should be mentioned

However forget even the above, let?s talk a bit of logic

In Arabic there is no such thing as in English regarding

(er) to compare two entity

and

(est) to highlight the best of entities

in Arabic it works like this

->to compare two entities ?er? we need to drive the comparison word from the root to be on the wazn of of ?Afaal?, i.e

Ka Ba Ra, will become Akbar

Then we use the word as such WITHOUT ?AL? to compare the two entities, as well we should mention the two entities, before and after the comparison word ?exception according to the Balagha are allowed?

An example is like this

Mohammad is Akbar than Ahmed, Mohammad is GREATER than Ahmed

-> to highlight the best of entities ?est? we use the same word BUT WE MUST ADD THE AL TO IT

i.e.

Mohammad is Al Akbar = Mohammed is THE GREATEST

I you think that this rule is wrong, please bring some evidences.

Peace

I didn?t think that it is wrong, I didn?t look at its validity in anyway because I need not to, I learnt Arabic since I was a baby and I?m positive of what I?m telling you about

There are many examples in the Quran that proves what I said, but I will need some time to find it and I?m really busy but I will try to do it some time later

You can start with ?Iqra Wa Rabuka Al Akram?, my question to you, whom Allah is Akram than?

But please consider the following before you answer

when we talk about Allah, the second compared entity in a comparison may be dropped
to achieve the ?est? in Arabic like ?the greatest, the fastest etc?.? then we use the same word of comparison but it must be WITH THE AL, ?Al Akbar, Al Assraa etc??

Salam

unknownuser

Hello JM

Let me show you how the Balagha works in the Quran, the Balagha simply means ?the highest level of the language?, its main propose is to say the most rich meaning with the least amount of words and you will find many of these type of Balagha all around the Quran, in fact the Arabs learnt it from the Quran as far as I believe, let?s look at this very appropriate example

And those who disbelieve say The hour shall not come upon us. Say Yea! by my Lord, the Knower of the unseen, it shall certainly come upon you; not the weight of an atom becomes absent from Him, in the heavens or in the earth, and neither less than that nor greater, but (all) is in a clear book

(3)

-> We can see two words of comparison used in the verse, they are

Asghar (smaller)
Akbar (greater)

the verse is telling us the Allah knows every single atom in the heaven and earth, and even knows everything that is smaller than that , can you see that the second entity is mentioned after the comparison word, clearly it is ?Min Zalik?, however when Allah continued He said ?nor greater?, He never repeated ?Min Zalik?, why you reckon He did that?

Well, this is called Balagha brother, He does not need to repeat it after it was said once and the context clearly suggest that it is there but was omitted imagine it was said like this

?Wa La Asghar Min Zalik, Wa La Akbar Min Zalik?

it sounds really odd for someone like me

Salam and good night

wildguest1956

I don?t understand why the la makes clear that dhikr is greater than salat.
Could you elaborate ?

Salam

Good that you realized it is La not Le, my fault sorry, The La connects the two sentences, in fact this connection is required otherwise the two sentence with the Wa and without the La may not make sense grammatically, therefore the La is required to tell us what is less Akbar than Zikr Allah regarding the action of ?Fahshaa and Munkar Nahi?,

It seems to me that the la only means ?indeed?, or ?surely?.
See http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6003.msg92621#msg92621

If the second part is stand alone ?without any adjacent sentences? like this

Zikr Allah Akbar, then the sentence will be missing logic, now if we consider the sentence before it as the missing logic then it should be repeated after Akbar but this will be odd because it was mentioned before it, I hope you see it this time, the Wa and La effectively linked the two sentences together, the Wa alone is enough to link the two sentences however this can be argued but the Wa and La together surely linked the two and the link here is a comparison because of the key word ?Akbar? now what we are comparing is clear from the context which is ?which is bigger in motivating us to stay away from Fahshaa and Munkar, is it Salat or Zikr Allah??, the answer was given by Allah

?Wa La Zikr Allah Akbar? and the La confirms this answer

The sentence Zikr Allah Akbar is missing logic if you assume that akbar is a comparative, but not if you consider it to be a superlative.

It is true that some ?Quran Aloners? are of the opinion that "Allah Akbar" has no place in Islam, but I was only using this sentence for a grammatical explanation.

I think it was an odd comment from me anyway, what I meant is any sentence where we will use the comparison form of a root, it must have both entities that we are comparing UNLESS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALLAH, where we can omit the second entity for example Allah told about Himself in the Quran that He is Arham Al Rahmeen, ?The two entities were mentioned? but in another location He described Himself as ?Rub Akram? without the second entity been mentioned

Why is there an exception only when we are talking about Allah ?
Did you find it in a grammar book ?

What is the compared term in Qul ayyu shay-in akbaru shahadatan (from )?
Is not akbar a superlative in this sentence ?
In english, a translation like ?Say which thing is the greatest in testimony? surely make sense. But it is obvious that ?Say which thing is the greater in testimony? is bad, isn?t it ?

According to your theory, "Allah Akbar" means "Allah is greater". But greater than what ?

As I said bro, when it comes to Allah, the Arabic language accommodates to drop the second entity exactly as He said in the Quran ?Iqra Wa Rabuka Al Akram?, now you answer the question please, Allah is Akram than what?

In this sentence, there is al before akram, so, akram, is clearly a superlative.
Therefore, it is not a good example.

I have showed you an grammar rule that says that akbar is an elative, and that, without a term of comparison, an elative becomes a superlative.
(cf http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir)

Only when we talk about Allah, any other comparison and Allah is not an Entity in?m, then the two entities should be mentioned

However forget even the above, let?s talk a bit of logic

In Arabic there is no such thing as in English regarding

(er) to compare two entity

and

(est) to highlight the best of entities

in Arabic it works like this

->to compare two entities ?er? we need to drive the comparison word from the root to be on the wazn of of ?Afaal?, i.e

Ka Ba Ra, will become Akbar

Then we use the word as such WITHOUT ?AL? to compare the two entities, as well we should mention the two entities, before and after the comparison word ?exception according to the Balagha are allowed?

An example is like this

Mohammad is Akbar than Ahmed, Mohammad is GREATER than Ahmed

-> to highlight the best of entities ?est? we use the same word BUT WE MUST ADD THE AL TO IT

i.e.

Mohammad is Al Akbar = Mohammed is THE GREATEST

I clearly understand your logic, but, in the link I have given (http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir), it is said that ?Mohammad is Akbar? (without the al) is possible, and would also mean ?Mohammad is the greatest?.

I you think that this rule is wrong, please bring some evidences.

Peace

I didn?t think that it is wrong, I didn?t look at its validity in anyway because I need not to, I learnt Arabic since I was a baby and I?m positive of what I?m telling you about

There are many examples in the Quran that proves what I said, but I will need some time to find it and I?m really busy but I will try to do it some time later

You can start with ?Iqra Wa Rabuka Al Akram?, my question to you, whom Allah is Akram than?

But please consider the following before you answer

when we talk about Allah, the second compared entity in a comparison may be dropped
to achieve the ?est? in Arabic like ?the greatest, the fastest etc?.? then we use the same word of comparison but it must be WITH THE AL, ?Al Akbar, Al Assraa etc??

Salam

Could you bring a justification for your rule (1) ?when we talk about Allah, the second compared entity in a comparison may be dropped? ? Why would it be only possible when we talk about Allah ?

Does not the usage of akbar in prove that it is not restricted to the case when we talk about Allah ?

How would you translate hadihi aqdam-u ?l-mudum-i fi-l-alam-i ?
If you don?t know, you can find the response in this thesis below, page 123.
http//user.uni-frankfurt.de/~kremers/papers/thesis.pdf

Peace

unknownuser

It seems to me that the la only means ?indeed?, or ?surely?.
See http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6003.msg92621#msg92621

Please bro, I hate jumping from a thread to another, you can put it briefly in here if you want me to read it, however I ask you how you justify that the letter L means Indeed?

I?m not saying it does not mean that, but it seems you are following a context to understand the meaning, but a native Arab speaker will surely have an edge on you in understanding the context of the Arabic language

And surely

But

And

Any of the above will not change the context meaning that Zikr Allah is akbar than Salat in motivating us to stay away from Fahshaa and Munkar

The sentence Zikr Allah Akbar is missing logic if you assume that akbar is a comparative, but not if you consider it to be a superlative.

So what do you think is the ;possibility would you take it as 50 50 that it is comparative superlative?

If you do then fine therefore, it is either me is wrong or you are wrong, and this sounds fair to me

Why is there an exception only when we are talking about Allah ?
Did you find it in a grammar book ?

Yes I did and that back then when I was a child this is how we were taught at Arabic schools, don?t forget that the Quran tuned the Arabic language and the arabs learnt a lot of things from it regarding the language

What is the compared term in Qul ayyu shay-in akbaru shahadatan (from )?

Oh come, on an Arabic child will recognise that, the compared entity is two, the Shahada of Allah and the Shahada of humans, and surely the Shahada of Allah is Akbar than the Shahada of humans

Is not akbar a superlative in this sentence ?

I don?t see it this way because Shahada came after Akbar, as well Akbar does not have the Al

In english, a translation like ?Say which thing is the greatest in testimony? surely make sense. But it is obvious that ?Say which thing is the greater in testimony? is bad, isn?t it ?

Irrelevant because we are discussing the Arabic language not the English language

In this sentence, there is al before akram, so, akram, is clearly a superlative.

I agree that this one is superlative because it has the Al, so let me ask you why you want Akbar to be superlative and it does not have the Al?

Therefore, it is not a good example.

Of course it is, I was using your logic in being mixed up with the word switout the Al and with the Al

Sometimes you suggest that Akbar is superlative while it does not have the Al, the you say about Akram that it is superlative because it has the Al, mate I?m sure there are some sort of confusion in here, if it was on my side then it is caused by you, LOL

I clearly understand your logic, but, in the link I have given (http//www.answers.com/topic/takbir), it is said that ?Mohammad is Akbar? (without the al) is possible, and would also mean ?Mohammad is the greatest

100% wrong and is nothing but a guess

it is clear that the word akbar does not have the Al, so why you add ?The? in your translation?

Could you bring a justification for your rule (1) ?when we talk about Allah,

Excuse me bro, this is a matter of respect like Allah referring to Himself as We sometimes and many other things that violates the human grammar, however the believers took it as Allah is teaching us the proper grammar

the second compared entity in a comparison may be dropped? ? Why would it be only possible when we talk about Allah ?

as a matter of respect, and possibly IT HAS to be dropped with some comparative words like ?Akbar? because it will sound odd to say Allah is Akbar than something

therefore Allah Akbar should be translated as Allah is greater

if you translate it as Allah is the greatest then you clearly forged the translation because the Al does not exist,

you need to justify your addition to the non existence Al before I continue this issue with you

Does not the usage of akbar in prove that it is not restricted to the case when we talk about Allah ?

Did I ever said that Akbar should only be used with Allah?, well I did not, what I said when it is used with Allah, in 619 however we have two compared entities, The Shahada of Allah and the Shahada of the humans, you really have no point with 619

How would you translate hadihi aqdam-u ?l-mudum-i fi-l-alam-i ?

Clearly the word Mudun came after aqdam, hence we have the entities to compare and because the Al is in Al Mudun then we don?t need it in the word aqdam, and both words ?aqdam Al Mudun? will be tight together as ?Muddaf and Muddaf Ilih? therefore it has to be translated as oldest of The cities

Again you have no point

If you don?t know, you can find the response in this thesis below, page 123.
http//user.uni-frankfurt.de/~kremers/papers/thesis.pdf

Peace

I did translate it and gave an Arabic grammar hint

Now I ask you please to bring your points if you wish in here, I don?t jump between threads when I?m discussing something with anyone

This is my last comment to you regarding this subject of Akbar

Salam

wildguest1956

It seems to me that the la only means ?indeed?, or ?surely?.
See http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6003.msg92621#msg92621

Please bro, I hate jumping from a thread to another, you can put it briefly in here if you want me to read it, however I ask you how you justify that the letter L means Indeed?

The linked page is on the same thread.

I?m not saying it does not mean that, but it seems you are following a context to understand the meaning, but a native Arab speaker will surely have an edge on you in understanding the context of the Arabic language

And surely

But

And

Any of the above will not change the context meaning that Zikr Allah is akbar than Salat in motivating us to stay away from Fahshaa and Munkar

We cannot say that ?Zikr Allah is akbar than Salat? because there is not ?than salat? in the verse.
This is pure conjecture.

The sentence Zikr Allah Akbar is missing logic if you assume that akbar is a comparative, but not if you consider it to be a superlative.

So what do you think is the ;possibility would you take it as 50 50 that it is comparative superlative?

If you do then fine therefore, it is either me is wrong or you are wrong, and this sounds fair to me

I suggest we go deeper in the issue before eventually agreeing to disagree.
What is exactly your opinion?

akbar in is for sure a comparative
or
akbar in can be either a comparative or a superlative ?

Why is there an exception only when we are talking about Allah ?
Did you find it in a grammar book ?

Yes I did and that back then when I was a child this is how we were taught at Arabic schools, don?t forget that the Quran tuned the Arabic language and the arabs learnt a lot of things from it regarding the language

In what I have read, it is said that the elative can be either a superlative or a comparative, be it about Allah or not.

What is the compared term in Qul ayyu shay-in akbaru shahadatan (from )?

Oh come, on an Arabic child will recognise that, the compared entity is two, the Shahada of Allah and the Shahada of humans, and surely the Shahada of Allah is Akbar than the Shahada of humans

In that case, why do you not say about that the dhikr of Allah is better than any other dhikr (rather that better than salat) ?

Is not akbar a superlative in this sentence ?

I don?t see it this way because Shahada came after Akbar, as well Akbar does not have the Al

I don?t understand what difference it makes that the shahada comes after akbar.
Anyway, you have just said that is was a comparative with the implied term of comparison ?the Shahada of humans?, and a comparative with no term of comparison (or an implied one) is nothing but a superlative.

In this sentence, there is al before akram, so, akram, is clearly a superlative.

I agree that this one is superlative because it has the Al, so let me ask you why you want Akbar to be superlative and it does not have the Al?

Therefore, it is not a good example.

Of course it is, I was using your logic in being mixed up with the word switout the Al and with the Al

Sometimes you suggest that Akbar is superlative while it does not have the Al, the you say about Akram that it is superlative because it has the Al, mate I?m sure there are some sort of confusion in here, if it was on my side then it is caused by you, LOL

With the al, it is always the superlative.
Without it, it can be either a comparative or a superlative.
If there is a term of comparison (min + sthg), it is a comparative; and if there is no comparison term, it is a superlative.

Could you bring a justification for your rule (1) ?when we talk about Allah,

Excuse me bro, this is a matter of respect like Allah referring to Himself as We sometimes and many other things that violates the human grammar, however the believers took it as Allah is teaching us the proper grammar

the second compared entity in a comparison may be dropped? ? Why would it be only possible when we talk about Allah ?

as a matter of respect, and possibly IT HAS to be dropped with some comparative words like ?Akbar? because it will sound odd to say Allah is Akbar than something

therefore Allah Akbar should be translated as Allah is greater

if you translate it as Allah is the greatest then you clearly forged the translation because the Al does not exist,

you need to justify your addition to the non existence Al before I continue this issue with you

In English, a sentence like ?Allah is greater? is meaningless (even if sentences of that kind are sometimes used by the advertisers)... A comparative should be followed by ?than?.
So, Allahakbar can only be translated by ?Allah is the greatest?.

How would you translate hadihi aqdam-u ?l-mudum-i fi-l-alam-i ?

Clearly the word Mudun came after aqdam, hence we have the entities to compare and because the Al is in Al Mudun then we don?t need it in the word aqdam, and both words ?aqdam Al Mudun? will be tight together as ?Muddaf and Muddaf Ilih? therefore it has to be translated as oldest of The cities

Again you have no point

There is a al before mudun, so, aqdam is a superlative ??? What is this grammar rule according to which the al has not to be placed before an elative to make it a superlative ?
And what are the 2 compared entities?
Could you tell me what is your grammar book?

If you don?t know, you can find the response in this thesis below, page 123.
http//user.uni-frankfurt.de/~kremers/papers/thesis.pdf

Peace

I did translate it and gave an Arabic grammar hint

Now I ask you please to bring your points if you wish in here, I don?t jump between threads when I?m discussing something with anyone

This is my last comment to you regarding this subject of Akbar

Salam

A last question How would you translate waridwanun mina Allahiakbaru (from ) ?

Peace

unknownuser

Peace JM

man, i stated that my last comment was the last regarding the subject of Akbar, i donlt really want to waste the time of both of us, however because I didn't say Inshaallah when I said it will be my last comment by ,Mistake, it seems I will have ONE MORE comment to make regarding this subject Inshaallah, but bear with me a couple of days Inshaallah as I'm flat out currently, i didn't even read your comment fully yet

Salam

Alen

hello and peace!

i'm completely new to this forum. so please forgive me if i stray into some well covered topics. but my curiosity must be satisfied! er...

well, yeah, anyway...

muhammad i've read several things (unless i'm totally mistaken) in qur'an-only lit equating praying for and praising muhammad as making him equal to god. however, 33.56

God and His angels shower there blessings on the Prophet.
O believers, you should also send your blessings on him,
and salute him with a worthy greeting.

(ahmed ali translation)

the progressive muslims translation

3356 God and His Angels connect with the prophet. O you who believe, you shall connect with him, and yield completely.

and, i don't find it horribly different in essence. i'b be interested in seeing a breakdown of the arabic.

regardless, this would seem to allow for praying for and praising muhammad in salat and even leave room for salawat. not as equal to god, but more allong the lines of while we're connected to god in and immediately after salat, we might as well (should?) talk about the prophet, and "connect" with him, who's revelation we employ, etc. ((this might also indicate that the traditional shahada is not invalid if including "muhammadin rasulallah" (or which ever pronounciation you prefer).))

which brings me to i've noted folks talking about not elevating muhammad above other prophets (which i agree with in essence... i have a very special place in my heart for the prophets lao-tzu, siddhartha, isa, krishna, etc.), but 33.21

You have indeed a noble paradigm
in the Apostle of God

the p.m translation is even more interesting in this regard

3321 Indeed, in the messenger of God a good example has been set for you

so a focus on muhammad is certainly understandable for muslims. this does not necessarily mean that muhammad is superior, only that he kicks arse.

hadith ... i am pretty sympathetic to the arguements put forth that the hadith / sunnah are generally corrupt. but i don't think the more traditional argument (based in part on what i've just quoted and similar passages) is wholly wrong, that hadtih rose out of a desire to understand the life and personality of the prophet so that later muslims could follow such passages as 33.21. so for me the question becomes less "are the hadith valid?" and more "what hadith are useful / helpful and do not contradict the qur'an?" for me its not a matter of literal historical accuracy, but a question of whether or not the hadith contains wisdom which helps me to better understand the qur'an and draw closer to allah.

thus, hadith about stoning people, out the window. while the hadith symbolically describing the prophet's "enlightenment" (for lack of a better word) experience (you know, the one with the horse and all) seems to me important for what it reveals.

sufism ... a bit of backstory what has drawn me to islam is, quite frankly, sufism. not that the mystical tracks within islam can really be contained in one term, but its a useful shorthand... so i'm using it. ... but, yeah sufism is more or less the door thru which i am entering islam, as such. so the few comments i've read on this forum were a little disturbing to me. in that i think a lot of folks misunderstand the intent (which, no need to tell me, is often different from the reality) of the teacher / student relationship within sufism. that is since sufism is basically about techniques for understanding one's nafs, cleansing the heart, drawing closer to god in love, etc. it makes sense that one might need a teacher, in the same sense that i have a teacher for aikido, or wish to aquire one for learning arabic, etc. but like any student / teacher relationship, it can be dangerous because you are giving up a little bit of autonomy by trusting someone to help you in a correct manner. i mean my aikido teacher could be totally teaching me bogus techniques, and an arabic teacher might be teaching me to say "i'm a cornhusking fishmonger" when i think s/he is teaching me to say "all praises to allah", or some such. naturally, in a spiritually charged situation, the stakes are a bit higher, but that does not negate the possible necessity of guidence.

of course one can get totally taken by some fraud, or give in to a cult of personality masquerading as devotion to allah. but, for example, the order in which i am seeking admitance is pretty forthright about the resonsibility of the dervish to check for themselves, and test the teachings, not accepting anything without question -- as per qur'an perscription. service, then, to one's shaykh does not mean the negation of any of these things, but instead is a technique for for learning viserally how to be a servant to allah, and by extention the world. indeed, in this order, one can tell elder dervishes by the fact that they are better at serving the new dervishes than the other way around. one of the sayings in the order (because kissing the ring of the shaykh is a custom) is when one kisses the ring of a shaykh, s/he kisses your feet. that is the shaykh is there to serve the dervish, not the other way around. the reversal of this is evidence that the shaykh in question is a false sufi, and should be abandonded -- they are not practicing humility and modesty.

so, ideally, a sufi order is a place in which everyone is learning how to serve everyone, as well as learning how to cleanse one's heart, etc. in this way it should be a model for any community of muslims.

i'll call it now... any thoughts, etc. would be wonderful!

thanks!!

peace!!!

jeff.

p.s. i've always wanted to be a jedi jedi via la obi-wan kenobi!

As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.

Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that we have to mention Muhammad's name in the prayer.
In fact, we are ordered to mention ONLY God in the prayer, because we pray ONLY to God.

As salamu alaykum.

lovelymoslems

Without saying Allahu Akbar, Allah has been Al Kabir. Allahu Akbar means you men do not just say that Allah is Akbar but make prove that Allah is Akbar i.e. Allah has a real authority to command you in every aspect of life. That will be true if men establish Allah's kingdom in earth, if other wise, you just say a meangingless word to Allah very time.

Samia

Salaam JM

I notice that you have two questions

the meaning of the "laam" in "la'kbar"
Whether "akbar" means "greater" or "greatest".
the laam is never used to mean "but"; it is used as a preposition to mean different things, but also as emphasis (before a verb or a noun). Here it is emphasis (indeed) as you put it.
The (min = than) is not indespensible for the comparative. I think Ahmed gave you a good example of a comparative without (min). The difference between superlative and comparative in Arabic is that the former is definite and the latter is indefinte
Akber comparative
Alakbar Superlative.

wildguest1956

The (min = than) is not indespensible for the comparative. I think Ahmed gave you a good example of a comparative without (min). The difference between superlative and comparative in Arabic is that the former is definite and the latter is indefinte
Akber comparative
Alakbar Superlative.

Could you check this link http//user.uni-frankfurt.de/~kremers/papers/thesis.pdf, page 123 ?

Peace

Samia

The example given is hathihi aqdamul muduni This is the oldest among the cities.
or
hathihi aqdamu madinatin this is the oldest city

"aqdamu" in both sentenses is definite by "idafa".

Is this what you mean?

wildguest1956

The example given is hathihi aqdamul muduni This is the oldest among the cities.
or
hathihi aqdamu madinatin this is the oldest city

"aqdamu" in both sentenses is definite by "idafa".

Is this what you mean?

You said that an elative needs a al ("the&quot to be a superlative.
Example akbar (without al) = "greater" (comparative) ; alakbar (with al) = "greatest" (superlative)

But, in these 2 examples, aqdam is a superlative, and there is no al.

Peace