"Elaziz" or "Al-Azeez"?
-
Peace,
You are confusing the issue. Of course Arabic was not a theological language; it is an everyday language for any people... However, when it comes to Qur'anic terminology, there is a HUGE difference between calling someone "azeez" and "AL-azeez", or "rabb" and "al-rabb". This is the clear distinction between the words "(i)llah" and "Allah". These are completely different titles and attributes.
I am not thinking it's appropriate to refer to Yousuf and the king by this tiltle. I am not actually calling his king anything other than king. It's the quraan. I put a translation for al3azeez and you chose a different one to make it "impossible" to call some one almighty, and then say I said he could be called "almighty"? I do not agree with the meaning of al3azeez being almighty or being specific to God. And the King was not referred to as "al3azeez".
If you understand the Qur'anic language when it mentions God, it would be illogical for a man to be given the attribute of "al-azeez". Even if you call him "azeez", the dominant description is the word "al", which promotes absoluteness and singularity in these words... For example, in the Qur'an, the word "kitaab" can be referring to any book; but the words "alkitaab" automatically imply the divine scripture... The attribute of "al-azeez" means "the powerful" or "the glorious", and it can be used as a literal meaning for "the almighty". The Egyptian king was given this title, according to your translation, because the words speak of the wife of "al-azeez" (or "elaziz". So, either this is talking about the ruler's wife, or this is talking about the almighty's wife. Which do you think?
Who said he was a governor or a prince? From where did PM or you get him these positions?
These are not translations of the Arabic term "al-azeez"; this is a translation of the Egyptian term "elaziz". Since this is used as an Egyptian title, it is not translated in Arabic language. The Egyptian term "elaziz" is translated as a prince, king, governor, ruler, or high authority in an Egyptian government.
Do you hve any proof that Egyptians called their princes "3azeez"? I did not know that they spoke Arabic. Whatever they called them, it has been translated into Arabic, and 3azeez in Arabic is not prince. There's not even a title for prince in Arabic.
The word "elaziz" is not Arabic, it's from the Egyptian/Khemetic language, similar to modern-day Wolof.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Wa Alaykun Salaam Fahad,
Hold on... confused So, you say that the title "al-azeez" can't be applied to Allah unless it's accompanied by another title? -\
Yes. "Al-azeez", on its own, is used in the Quran as human attribute, as you have seen, and not a divine one.
What about instances where the qur'an uses the terms "al-rahman" separate from "al-raheem"? Because they are separated, does this make them inapplicable? Whether the scriptures say "the mighty the wise", or if they simply say "the mighty", the description is still given to Allah...
Ar-rehman on its own has been used as a divine attribute in the Quran. I don't remember seeing ar-raheem used separately as divine attribute. If anyone has please remind me of it, thanks. I have also not seen "ar-rehman" and "ar-raheem" used for any human anywhere in the Quran.
And again, this is a title, not a position. Terms like "almalik"/the king can be used to refer to humans who hold the position in their governments; but titles like "alrahmaan", "alraheem", "alazeez", "alnaafiu", "aladheem", and other such titles can only be applied to God, not to men...
I'll explain about "al-malik". But first can you please tell me why you think "al-malik" can be used for humans, but "al-azeez" cannot be? Thanks.
-
The attribute of "al-azeez" means "the powerful" or "the glorious", and it can be used as a literal meaning for "the almighty".
Aziz
I understand that confusion arises only when we omit the distinction evident in two different words while translating them according to the perceptions infolded in certain English words. Qur'an nowhere suggests translating as Almighty, the one who possess all the might; having supreme unquestionable power over everything. Qur'an draws a distinction line between and and consequently the holder of it would respectively be called and . Both are distinct from each other.
?Certainly all power, collectively, is for Allah?
When has been qualified here we can say that Allah is Almighty.Power enables control, command, rule, domination, governance, sovereignty over others.
?Certainly all control, rule, command, domination, governance, sovereignty, is for Allah, collectively?
The word most near to is perhaps . It is wrong to presume that none other than Allah could be called or . Anyone could be in some area/field, like governor, Finance Minister having authority. As for the distinction of Allah, it has been clarified
-
Peace Fahad,
I'll explain about "al-malik". But first can you please tell me why you think "al-malik" can be used for humans, but "al-azeez" cannot be?
The answer to this is simple. A "malik"/king is a title and status that is held by men in certain countries and governments. So, if a reference is made about "al-malik" of a certain place, this is obviously being used as a manmade title... However, when it comes to "al-azeez", which means the mighty, the glorious, the powerful, or even the almighty, these are not political positions. They are attributes that only God possesses. The Arabic word "aziz" itself is taken from the root "izzah", meaning power and might. So, who can be called "the powerful", "the mighty", or "the almighty"? Are these words fitting for a man, especially considering the viewpoint in the Qur'an that Allah possesses all power and authority?
peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
This post by Mazhar is appropriate for this thread as well...
It is a wrong perception and a plain negation of information contained in the Qur'an.
Therefore whosoever so willed he remembered/secured in memory/memorized/ read/conveyed it {Grand Qur?an} to others;
in papers; considered exalted/life giving and kept at elevated places, purified; upon which this Quran is written by the hands of those honorable, pious and just writers who write nicely making every word distinct/evident/prominent {for all Arab and Non Arab reader}.
-
The answer to this is simple. A "malik"/king is a title and status that is held by men in certain countries and governments. So, if a reference is made about "al-malik" of a certain place, this is obviously being used as a manmade title...
The question is, SHOULD al-malik be held as a title or attribute by men? If so, why not al-azeez?
However, when it comes to "al-azeez", which means the mighty, the glorious, the powerful, or even the almighty, these are not political positions. They are attributes that only God possesses.
But bro, we have no Quranic evidence for that.
The Arabic word "aziz" itself is taken from the root "izzah", meaning power and might. So, who can be called "the powerful", "the mighty", or "the almighty"? Are these words fitting for a man, especially considering the viewpoint in the Qur'an that Allah possesses all power and authority?
Al-malik comes from the root m-l-k, meaning the one who has power/control/dominance, and according to the Quran, the mulk of the skies and the earth belongs to Allah. So if al-malik can be used as a human attribute, then al-azeez can also be used. I mean, if the Quran does not have a problem, then we shouldn't have a problem either, right?
-
Ok, let me explain.
The attributes al-malik and al-azeez have not been used for Allah anywhere in the Quran. These are attributes used for humans.
A human can be al-malik/king/controller, the one who has al-mulk/power, the one who dominates. But Allah is the one who owns and grants al-mulk(3/26), who owns the yaumaddeen(1/3), the day when no person will have mulk for another (82/17-19).
Hence He is not merely al-malik but al-malikul-haqq (20/114, 23/116) (i.e. the Real/True King, the Beneficent and Everlasting King). Al-malik is human attribute.
Other attributes involving mulk
Al-malikul quddoosus salaamul mo?minul muhayminul azeezul jabbaarul mutakabbiru (59/23)
Al-malikil quddoosil azeez (62/1)
In the same manner Allah is not al-azeez. Al-azeez is the attribute used for a human in Yousef?s story.
A misconception is that the Quran has around a hundred attributes of Allah. The truth is that the divine attributes in the Quran are far greater in numbers. For example
Al-azeezur-raheem is one attribute. Al-azeezul-wahaab is another and different from Al-azeez ar-raheem. Al-azeez al-ghaffaar is another and different from the previous two and so on.
-
The question is, SHOULD al-malik be held as a title or attribute by men? If so, why not al-azeez?
The Arabic title "al-malik" simply means the king or ruler. Since there were other nations that had leaders called kings, this is an actual title that can be applied to men. However, the attribute "al-azeez" means the powerful or the mighty, and this is an attribute that only God possesses. The titles "al-azeez" and "al-malik" are completely different...
But bro, we have no Quranic evidence for that.
This is FALSE. The Qur'an makes it clear that all power and might belong to God (2165; 671; 1065; 515. Since there is no power independent of God, then nobody else is fitting for the title "al-azeez", or the powerful.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
The Arabic title "al-malik" simply means the king or ruler. Since there were other nations that had leaders called kings, this is an actual title that can be applied to men. However, the attribute "al-azeez" means the powerful or the mighty, and this is an attribute that only God possesses. The titles "al-azeez" and "al-malik" are completely different...
So you are suggesting that except Allah none could be considered and called . But Quran is the Book which has been described as in 4141.
-
So you are suggesting that except Allah none could be considered and called . But Quran is the Book which has been described as in 4141.
The scripture is called a "kitaabu azeez" (mighty or powerful book). This is using the word "azeez" as an adjective describing something else, which comes from God. And I already showed you the clear difference between citing something as "azeez" and as "al-azeez"... The power of the scripture still comes from God, which is why a book that is not inspired by Allah will not be called "azeez". All power comes from God...
-
All power comes from God...
but for understanding/accepting it, the word is NOT since power is something different and it is power that makes someone as The Dominant.
Perhaps this post slipped your attention
I understand that confusion arises only when we omit the distinction evident in two different words while translating them according to the perceptions infolded in certain English words. Qur'an nowhere suggests translating as Almighty, the one who possess all the might; having supreme unquestionable power over everything. Qur'an draws a distinction line between and and consequently the holder of it would respectively be called and . Both are distinct from each other.
?Certainly all power, collectively, is for Allah?
When has been qualified here we can say that Allah is Almighty.Power enables control, command, rule, domination, governance, sovereignty over others.
?Certainly all control, rule, command, domination, governance, sovereignty, is for Allah, collectively?
The word most near to is perhaps . It is wrong to presume that none other than Allah could be called or . Anyone could be in some area/field, like governor, Finance Minister having authority. As for the distinction of Allah, it has been clarified
-
Okay, Mazhar. You have your views, and I have mine...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
The scripture is called a "kitaabu azeez" (mighty or powerful book). This is using the word "azeez" as an adjective describing something else, which comes from God. And I already showed you the clear difference between citing something as "azeez" and as "al-azeez"... The power of the scripture still comes from God, which is why a book that is not inspired by Allah will not be called "azeez". All power comes from God...
How about replacing "azeez" with "raheem" and "alazeez" with "alraheem"?
-
How about replacing "azeez" with "raheem" and "alazeez" with "alraheem"?
It doesn't matter. Saying "azeez" and "raheem" are not the same as saying "alazeez" and "alraheem", at least not in my view. Do you think these are the same?
-
I agree with you. So a human can be "raheem", can't they?
Sure, I think a human can be "raheem". However, the Qur'an sets the precedent for these terms. In today's modern Arabic, the word "raheem" can apply to anyone who's nice, kind, and compassionate; but in the scriptures, it doesn't refer to anyone except God... I believe the context of the Qur'an should be measured through the Qur'an, and since God is the only one called "raheem" in the scriptures, He is the only one to whom this attribute applies IN THE SCRIPTURES, not in everyday life... In everyday life, anyone can be called "azeez", but this is not the case in the scriptures... Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my interpretation of Qur'anic terms. If God is called "alrahman alraheem", BOTH of these terms apply to God, whether they're used together or individually...
-
But we have just agreed that raheem is not alraheem?
Correct, raheem is not alraheem...
-
If God is called "alrahman alraheem", BOTH of these terms apply to God, whether they're used together or individually...
Who has said that "Ar Rehman" is a 'term'? Ar Rehman is the personal name of Allah, NOT attribute even. Only Ar Rehman is exclusively used for referring to Allah. And there is ONE attribute which cannot be used for anyone other than Allah and that is , used only once in the Quran.
And another fact exclusive to Allah is
NONE else has that distinction.
And yet another distinction exclusive to Allah is that He is NOT and everything else that exists is either or from .