Proper Name "Muslim"
-
Salaam all,
Really sorry for the late reply. The last week had been disastrous for me.
From the discussion going, and by re-reading the related verses, it does seem that my proposal of treating "muslimin" should be rejected.
And thus, it is just a common noun.
Although if "submitter" is not considered a good translation, then we probably should create another one.Many thanks to Ayman, Ahmed, and Samia for the Arabic knowledge.
=adley=
-
The sons of Israel and Muhammad follower are called "moslem" as long they abide to Allah's law, if otherwise, they are called "musyrekeen" eventhough they are doing rituism.
-
Peace all,
Thank you Adley for starting this thread and making some excellent observations.
I used to think that the word "muslim" is just a common noun to mean "one who submits/surrenders". However, perhaps I was wrong and this word is a proper name "Muslim" after all. The reason being 2278.
So, in , it is Muslim, a proper name too.
2278 can be seen as a proper name...
Proper names are not translated. Hence, names such as Ibrahim/Abraham, Ismail/Ishmael Ishaac/Isaac and Maryam/Mary are similar in Hebrew, English and Arabic with some phonetic variations and cross-language mispronunciation. For example, Ibrahim is a proper name and hence in the great reading it is not translated into Arabic from what it meant in Kanaanite or whatever ancient language Abraham spoke.
Let's think about this for a minute. Were Abraham's followers named what would have been at their time a gibberish word from a future language that wasn't even invented yet? I don't think so.
Proposing that "al-muslimeen" in 2278 is a proper name is no different than proposing that 1400 years ago the followers of the prophet were actually called "The Submitters" long before Modern English was invented. Saying "The Submitters" to Arabs 1400 years ago or "Al Muslimeen" to Ibrahim's followers a few thousand years earlier would have sounded just as gibberish as saying "Qasdhwdkfvwdhcv" to people on this thread. It will still be gibberish to everyone here even if thousands of years from now some yet to be invented language will have "qasdhwdkfvwdhcv" as a meaningful word.
Ayman,
In the Quran, the verb samma and its derivatives are always followed by a proper noun.
That implies that the word muslim, in the verse (but not necessarily in all the verses) has to be seen as a proper noun too.Each community of people has a name, and, in the verse , God has stated that the right name for the community of people who have decided to submit to God is ?Muslim?. This is the way I understand it.
Since the Quran is in the Arabic language, God has given an Arabic word. God could have used the language of Abraham, or the language of Moses, but He has chosen the Arabic language.
It is true the proper nouns are usually not translated, but there are exceptions. Allah is a translation, Isa too. In the same manner, the names of the towns are usually translated.
I know you will disagree with almost 100% of this post, but this is my opinion. For me, Allah, Quran, Muslim, and Islam are proper names, although they can be seen as common names too?
Proper nouns (also called proper names) are the names of unique entities. For example, "Janet", "Jupiter" and "Germany" are proper nouns. Proper nouns are capitalized in English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, and this is one easy way to recognise them. This fails, however, in German, in which nouns of all types are capitalized.
All other nouns are called common nouns. For example, "girl", "planet", and "country" are common nouns.
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example "There can be many gods, but there is only one God."
The common meaning of the word or words constituting a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For example, someone might be named "Tiger Smith" despite being neither a tiger nor a smith. For this reason, proper nouns are usually not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated. For example, the German surname Kn?del becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English (not the literal Dumpling). However, the translation of placenames and the names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors is common and sometimes universal. For instance, the Portuguese word Lisboa becomes Lisbon in English; the English London becomes Londres in French; and the Greek Aristotels becomes Aristotle in English.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_nounAllah, Quran, and Muslim are special and unique entities. In every language, special and unique entities are given a proper name.
Therefore I see nothing wrong for these words to be proper nouns, despite they can have a meaning as common nouns too.Typically, you use to identify the Quran by ?the great reading?, whereas there is no ?great? in the Arabic al quran. When I use the word ?Quran?, instead of the translation ?reading?, I am, like you with the qualifier ?great? emphasizing on the fact I am speaking about a very special and unique reading. This is the basic role of a proper noun.
Peace
-
The Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye, have no Faith, but ye (only) say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah, 'for not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
The Arabs say that do they?
-
Salaam Ahmed
That's a very good example So,muslimeen is not a proper name, nor of a (third category)Actually the Quran used the word ?Muslimin? to indicate a human submitting to another human as in power
Saying exalt not yourselves against me and come to me in submission.
(31)
In the above verse it is an adjective but again it still refering to those who submit to Solaiman
salam
-
Non Moslems when they follow to law of what God has revealed to him called as - under the soveriegnity of Islam - muslim. Muslim is a terms for a subject who doing surenderness to Allah's deen voluntarily or unwillingly (QS.3/83).
-
Peace be upon you
What if we were not named as Muslims?
Imagine if it was not for the verse ?It is him who named you Muslims" after 1400 years by which name will the followers of Gods last message be known as. You can pick. Imagine in every language every country and every different sect and view, having a different name to describe them, other than ?Muslim?; imagine the confusion. I guess some words are better left un-translated. The word has a meaning (Ahmed pointed out an important example )when we read through the Quraan the word is indirectly defined and added with meaning. The seriousness of the word is obvious from the following verse.
2132
Pickthall The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying) O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).
Transliteration Am kuntum syuhada_'a iz hadara ya'qu_bal maut(u), iz qa_la li banihi ma_ ta'budu_na mim ba'di, qa_lu_ na'budu ila_haka wa ila_ha a_ba_'ika ibra_hima wa isma_'ila wa isha_qa ila_haw wa_hida_(n), wa nahnu lahu_ muslimu_n(a).
Today all of us call our selves Muslims instead of something else.
Maybe Abraham would have used another word in another language to name the submitters of one God; unfortunately the later generations chose to be known as Christians or Jews and not as submitters to God.
-
Salaam JM, all,
Sorry for being late, I just got back from Bali.
Bro JM, I can understand how you decide "Muslim" and "Allah" as proper names. But how about "Islam" and "Quran"? Which verses that state these proper names?
=adley=
Because, when an name refers to something unique and special, it is often turned as a proper name.
Examples United States, United Kingdom, Human Rights, First World War?Peace
-
Peace JM
In the Quran, the verb samma and its derivatives are always followed by a proper noun.
That implies that the word muslim, in the verse (but not necessarily in all the verses) has to be seen as a proper noun too.The word "ism" in Arabic can refer to proper and common nouns. There is nothing in the great reading that suggests otherwise. This is why The God is said to have "attributes" (i.e. common nouns). This is why they are translated.
Each community of people has a name, and, in the verse , God has stated that the right name for the community of people who have decided to submit to God is ?Muslim?. This is the way I understand it.
Since the Quran is in the Arabic language, God has given an Arabic word. God could have used the language of Abraham, or the language of Moses, but He has chosen the Arabic language.
It is true the proper nouns are usually not translated, but there are exceptions. Allah is a translation, Isa too. In the same manner, the names of the towns are usually translated.Allah is not a translation in English. It is a transliteration like Ayman. Isa is also a transliteration in English. People transliterate Allah because they wrongly take it as a proper name.
I know you will disagree with almost 100% of this post, but this is my opinion. For me, Allah, Quran, Muslim, and Islam are proper names, although they can be seen as common names too?
The word "allah" is certainly not a proper name according to the great reading. We hear in one passage (I don't remember the number now) "huwa allah fi alsamawat wa al-ard...". Such constructs with the pointing device "huwa" are not used with proper names so "allah" is definitely a common noun. In fact, the meaning intended is "huwa al-ilah fi alsamawat wa alard" (he is the god in the heavens and the earth).
Similraly, the word "quran" refers to other readings and is used in passages such as 1778 where it cannot be a proper name. The same goes for "muslim" and "islam".
Proper nouns (also called proper names) are the names of unique entities. For example, "Janet", "Jupiter" and "Germany" are proper nouns. Proper nouns are capitalized in English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, and this is one easy way to recognise them. This fails, however, in German, in which nouns of all types are capitalized.
All other nouns are called common nouns. For example, "girl", "planet", and "country" are common nouns.
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example "There can be many gods, but there is only one God."
The common meaning of the word or words constituting a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For example, someone might be named "Tiger Smith" despite being neither a tiger nor a smith. For this reason, proper nouns are usually not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated. For example, the German surname Kn?del becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English (not the literal Dumpling). However, the translation of placenames and the names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors is common and sometimes universal. For instance, the Portuguese word Lisboa becomes Lisbon in English; the English London becomes Londres in French; and the Greek Aristotels becomes Aristotle in English.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_nounPhonetic adjustment and distortions during transliteration from one language to another is not translation.
Allah, Quran, and Muslim are special and unique entities. In every language, special and unique entities are given a proper name.
Therefore I see nothing wrong for these words to be proper nouns, despite they can have a meaning as common nouns too.Typically, you use to identify the Quran by ?the great reading?, whereas there is no ?great? in the Arabic al quran. When I use the word ?Quran?, instead of the translation ?reading?, I am, like you with the qualifier ?great? emphasizing on the fact I am speaking about a very special and unique reading. This is the basic role of a proper noun.
Actually, literally the word "quran" means "intense/great reading", since the "an" adds intensification (as in "sultan" great/intense authority, as opposed to "sulta"/authority).
Peace,
Ayman
-
Hello All
Actually the word Rumman (A type of fruit) is a proper noun and on the same wazn as Quran, 5568
Cheers
-
Peace JM
In the Quran, the verb samma and its derivatives are always followed by a proper noun.
That implies that the word muslim, in the verse (but not necessarily in all the verses) has to be seen as a proper noun too.The word "ism" in Arabic can refer to proper and common nouns. There is nothing in the great reading that suggests otherwise. This is why The God is said to have "attributes" (i.e. common nouns). This is why they are translated.
I was referring to the verb samma.
See http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6422.msg99227#msg99227Each community of people has a name, and, in the verse , God has stated that the right name for the community of people who have decided to submit to God is ?Muslim?. This is the way I understand it.
Since the Quran is in the Arabic language, God has given an Arabic word. God could have used the language of Abraham, or the language of Moses, but He has chosen the Arabic language.
It is true the proper nouns are usually not translated, but there are exceptions. Allah is a translation, Isa too. In the same manner, the names of the towns are usually translated.Allah is not a translation in English. It is a transliteration like Ayman. Isa is also a transliteration in English. People transliterate Allah because they wrongly take it as a proper name.
I was meaning that allah is a translation of its equivalent word(s) in the bible.
I know you will disagree with almost 100% of this post, but this is my opinion. For me, Allah, Quran, Muslim, and Islam are proper names, although they can be seen as common names too?
The word "allah" is certainly not a proper name according to the great reading. We hear in one passage (I don't remember the number now) "huwa allah fi alsamawat wa al-ard...". Such constructs with the pointing device "huwa" are not used with proper names so "allah" is definitely a common noun. In fact, the meaning intended is "huwa al-ilah fi alsamawat wa alard" (he is the god in the heavens and the earth).
As I have said, I see no problem for a word to be used as a common noun in some places, and as a proper noun in other ones.
It can be used as a proper noun when it refers to something unique and special. Like the word ?god? in English in the sentence "There can be many gods, but there is only one God."
See also the word ?right? here http//www.un.org/Overview/rights.htmlSimilraly, the word "quran" refers to other readings and is used in passages such as 1778 where it cannot be a proper name. The same goes for "muslim" and "islam".
Proper nouns (also called proper names) are the names of unique entities. For example, "Janet", "Jupiter" and "Germany" are proper nouns. Proper nouns are capitalized in English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, and this is one easy way to recognise them. This fails, however, in German, in which nouns of all types are capitalized.
All other nouns are called common nouns. For example, "girl", "planet", and "country" are common nouns.
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example "There can be many gods, but there is only one God."
The common meaning of the word or words constituting a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For example, someone might be named "Tiger Smith" despite being neither a tiger nor a smith. For this reason, proper nouns are usually not translated between languages, although they may be transliterated. For example, the German surname Kn?del becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English (not the literal Dumpling). However, the translation of placenames and the names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors is common and sometimes universal. For instance, the Portuguese word Lisboa becomes Lisbon in English; the English London becomes Londres in French; and the Greek Aristotels becomes Aristotle in English.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_nounPhonetic adjustment and distortions during transliteration from one language to another is not translation.
Yes, indeed?
Allah, Quran, and Muslim are special and unique entities. In every language, special and unique entities are given a proper name.
Therefore I see nothing wrong for these words to be proper nouns, despite they can have a meaning as common nouns too.Typically, you use to identify the Quran by ?the great reading?, whereas there is no ?great? in the Arabic al quran. When I use the word ?Quran?, instead of the translation ?reading?, I am, like you with the qualifier ?great? emphasizing on the fact I am speaking about a very special and unique reading. This is the basic role of a proper noun.
Actually, literally the word "quran" means "intense/great reading", since the "an" adds intensification (as in "sultan" great/intense authority, as opposed to "sulta"/authority).
Peace,
Ayman
-
AB has already given a counter example.
-
If you think quran should be translated as ?great reading? in every occurrence, then you should correct your article here http//www.free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/name.htm
IMHO, translating quran by ?great reading? in verses like gives a strange result.
We have sent it down an Arabic great reading (quran), perhaps you will be logical.
Peace
-
-
Peace JM,
- AB has already given a counter example.
Unfortunately, all that AB gave is another example of how he is clueless about Classical Arabic. The word "ruman" in 5568 comes from the root "RMN" so the Arabic letter "noon" is part of the root. Thus, its weight (wazn) is Fu3AL NOT Fu3LAN like "quran" (root "QR'A".
- If you think quran should be translated as ?great reading? in every occurrence, then you should correct your article here http//www.free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/name.htm
The article was written a while back and I am sure that it needs some corrections.
IMHO, translating quran by ?great reading? in verses like gives a strange result.
We have sent it down an Arabic great reading (quran), perhaps you will be logical.I don't see anything strange in the translation. If you see that the translation doesn't sound correct, this is not an issue because I am 100% open to better translations. So the question becomes what is a good translation for the Arabic word "quran". This is a legitimate question and I fully support trying to find a better translation.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Hey JM
I never heard of the a three letter word called (r m n), it sounds that someone else is the clueless not me, however as you just said, translating it great reading in many smakes a child laughs
Cheers
-
Hey JM
here is another example for you mate, "Rihan" is a proper name for a type of flower and ends with An, 5512
Cheers
-
Hey JM
Here is another one, "Murgan" which means "Coral" 5522
Cheers
-
Peace Ayman,
To my mind, translating quran by ?great reading? sounds very strange in . Translating it by ?reading? sounds good.
So, I cannot accept your point. Maybe we only have to agree to disagree.
As a side note, here is what you wrote about Arabic nahw.
Nahw itself has many errors in its rules and has become mostly useless. Thus, Modern Standard Arabic has largely done away with Nahw.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4434.msg64627#msg64627The great reading is not wrong but it is the later invented Nahw that is wrong.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=4434.msg65008#msg65008So, if the invented nahw (syntax) is not reliable, why would the invented sarf (morphology) be reliable ?
Peace
PS Are you an Arabic teacher ?
-
Salaam JM
Please allow me to reply to your question
So, if the invented nahw (syntax) is not reliable, why would the invented sarf (morphology) be reliable ?
There is quite a difference between the grammar set by Ibn Seebawyh et al and the grammar of the Qur'aan, to the extent that the Qur'aan would look full of "grammatical" mistakes. A simple example is the dual verb, which we were taught as being a compulsary conjugation for the dual subject. Not the case in te Qur'aan.
As for morphology (sarf), no such descrepancies exist. -
Salaam Ahmed
I know you are addressing JM, but I am addressing you and all non-native speakers for fear that you just confuse them. You seem to not understand what a root is. It is not a word, it is a group of letters, usually three, exceptionally four but not more, not linked by any tashkeel (vocalization), therefore it does not have a meaning. Even when we say the root of kitaab is k,t,b, these three letters do not have a meaning, unles you add some vowels (kataba, kutub, kutiba..etc) and then you have meaningfull words. The root is like the material of which a word is made.
And yes, (rumman) has a root of r,m,n.
The importance of the root system is that all the classical dictionaries have entries dependent on the root (its first or last letter), otherwise you can't use dictionaries like lisaanul3arab or al 3ain by al-Khalil ibnu Ahmed, or even Hans Wehr dictionary of Modern Arabic.
But even more important is the fact that the Arabic sentence is not order-sensitive. An English sentence is described by Subject - verb-object, or svo. If you do not understand any English, you will understand where to find the subject, the verb and the object/indirect object. In Arabic this is not the case
All four sentences could be translated in either Omar smacked Zaid or Zaid smacked Omar; but you cannot ,if you know your sarf, think that "daraba" is subject or object, because of the pattern; and you can't know the pattern if you do not understand the notion of root.
You, as native speaker, have no problem with that. You should have taught some non-native speakers to understand how things we take for granted are very complicted for them. So please, do not make fun of the root system and spread too much ignorance. It is more dignified to admit that you do not know it, than confusing others. -
Salaam Ahmed
Hello Samia
I know you are addressing JM, but I am addressing all non-native speakers for fear that you just confuse them.
Great, so you think I'm confusing them?
well, let me shock you then, this so called proper name and common name DOES NOT EXIST IN ARABIC, this is a foriegn invention based on some foriegn languages, so JM is 100% right in saying Quran and Allah are names
You seem to not understand what a root is.
Even if it is the case, I don't need to understand it because there no such use in arabic for it, cheers for the offer any way
It is not a word, it is a group of letters, usually three, exceptionally four but not more, not linked by any tashkeel (vocalization), therefore it does not have a meaning. Even when we say the root of kitaab is k,t,b, these three letters do not have a meaning, unles you add some vowels (kataba, kutub, kutiba..etc) and then you have meaningfull words. The root is like the material of which a word is made.
Thanks for the info, however it means nothing to me in figuring out the meanings of the Arabic words, this root thingy to figure the meaning is a Satan invention
And yes, (rumman) has a root of r,m,n.
No , it is, R M M
how about Murgan then?
The importance of the root system is that all the classical dictionaries have entries dependent on the root (it first letter or its last letter), otherwise you can't use dictionaries like lisaanul3arab or al 3ain by al-Khalil ibnu Ahmed, or even Hans Wehr dictionary of Modern Arabic.
Thanks for the info, but i don't use such dictioeries and never will because i don't need to
But even more important is the fact that the Arabic sentence is not order-sensitive. An English sentence is described by Subject - verb-object, or svo. If you do not understand any English, you will understand where to find the subject, the verb and the object/indirect object. In Arabic this is not the case
I'm sorry sister regardless I understand English or not, I'm not comparing Arabic with English, so I wondwer why you are explaining this comparison to me?, this is irrellevent
Cheers