Linguistic riddle solved, for those who want to learn
-
Bender,
It is opinion yes, but it is also based on linguistics and logical analysis and is the answer to what Allah means.
"He who doesn't worship" does not hold as an argument because there is no logical answer given to why.
Be well
Amenuel -
Dear all, based upon improved understanding of word Allah. I have started to revise the translation. Here just first two verses.
Surah 11
The joy, for one who does not worship is in the extreme, lasting concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
Surah 12
The value and merit for one who does not worship is to be the foundation (Rabb) of all disciplines of knowledge.
-
I would like to address a few points.
-
It is extremely anomalous to orthographically adjoin to a verb. This type of adjoining doesn't occur once in the Quran, and I have never seen it written as such in Classical Arabic. Thus, the proposal of the contiguous merger of three words (a pronoun, a particle, and a verb) in contravenes orthographic principles.
-
In the reading of af via 'im, which I assume you are using, an initial Hamza is not elided like it is in other readings (as in Warsh or Qln), therefore, entertaining your theory as true, should correctly be pronounced, and written, as , you simply cannot elide the medial Hamza belonging to the verb. Thus, the proposal of a Hamza-initialled verb existing in contravenes enunciatory principles.
-
To suggest that cannot be a noun derived from and which both, over time, mutated to become for ease of pronunciation is in my estimation far-fetched. Thus, the proposal of and not being precursors to the word whilst proposing a three-worded phrasal precursor for an orthographic compound contravenes etymological principles.
-
It goes without saying that is fully inflected in Classical Arabic, whereas the perfect tense verb in Arabic is indeclinable and is fixed with a Fata in the singular masculine third person ( ), as such, entertaining your theory as true, we should not see in the Quran the word being inflected with anything other than a Fata. Thus, the proposal of a perfect tense verb terminating contravenes the most basic syntactical principles.
In my view, to propose a theory on a subject and endorse it with the greatest fervour, whilst demonstrating a blatant disregard for the most basic rules governing the subject, is a shocking testament to the reckless audacity of the .
Finally, it never fails to bewilder me as to why people find the need to reinvent the meanings of the plainest words. Is it an attempt at reinvention? Is it a forceful impression of one's desires upon the word of God? Or is it simply a headline-grabbing stunt? Whatever the reason, there really is no need for it.
Sorry, I somehow missed "uq" your comments. First of let me thank you for reasoned linguistic comment. Allah analyze as " " is a nominal sentence and not a just one word. It is orthographically written as
is the subject of the sentence.
a negative verbal sentence in itself as predicate or object of the nominal sentence.
Hope now it will help you to understand.
Regards,
-
-
Salam bkanwar2,
I understood your proposition the first time round.
My response was that your proposition is invalid based on the 4 points I gave.
I am glad that you did or at least so you say. Hence, there would be point to further this discussion.
Critique
"1. It is extremely anomalous to orthographically adjoin to a verb. This type of adjoining doesn't occur once in the Quran, and I have never seen it written as such in Classical Arabic. Thus, the proposal of the contiguous merger of three words (a pronoun, a particle, and a verb) in contravenes orthographic principles."
Response
Your point number # 1 is irrelevant to the discussion. I have never implied that is adjoining to the verb in the analysis. Furthermore, there is at least one example from Quran that it can be the case. Unfortunately, Hamza is elided in script making proving it difficult. However, here it can not be "Lam" of imperative as it does take sukoon.
2431
Critique
"2. In the reading of af via 'im, which I assume you are using, an initial Hamza is not elided like it is in other readings (as in Warsh or Qln), therefore, entertaining your theory as true, should correctly be pronounced, and written, as , you simply cannot elide the medial Hamza belonging to the verb. Thus, the proposal of a Hamza-initialled verb existing in contravenes enunciatory principles."
Response
Neither the medial Hamza is elided in pronunciation nor in writing. Both Hamzas of preceding "La" and "alah" are written as one above the shadda as dagger alif and now resultant two successive "Lams" because of moving Hamza over shadda are combined as one and written below the shadda.
It is indeed an anomalous writing. If not show me a single example from the whole of the Arabic language?
Critique
"3. To suggest that cannot be a noun derived from and which both, over time, mutated to become for ease of pronunciation is in my estimation far-fetched. Thus, the proposal of and not being precursors to the word whilst proposing a three-worded phrasal precursor for an orthographic compound contravenes etymological principles."
Response
If what you assert is indeed the case (I mistaken thought so as well that it was illah). Where is the second Hamza of illah in writing? It should be written after the middle alphabet below shadda? Whereas, here we find only "Ha"
Critique
- It goes without saying that is fully inflected in Classical Arabic, whereas the perfect tense verb in Arabic is indeclinable and is fixed with a Fata in the singular masculine third person ( ), as such, entertaining your theory as true, we should not see in the Quran the word being inflected with anything other than a Fata. Thus, the proposal of a perfect tense verb terminating contravenes the most basic syntactical principles.
Response
Okay when inflection helps the traditionalist case it is all kosher, otherwise it was added later and should be gotten rid of.
Regards
-
Salam bkanwar2,
I understood your proposition the first time round.
My response was that your proposition is invalid based on the 4 points I gave.
Let us talk about more basics, which can be very easy to verify. How many total alphabets are in and why?
Regards
-
Peace bkanwar,
I am not sure why you used the examples you did to support your assertion that "al" is a contraction of "alladhee".
It is not the "al" in "al qawm" that renders the understanding of "those who", but rather the definite article "al" in conjunction with the word "qawm".
Imraan
-
Peace bkanwar,
"Baitun sagheerun", means "a small house". "Al baitu sagheerun" means "the house is small". "Al baitu(al)ssagheeru" means "the small house". In the last example, "al" is not a contraction of "alladhee" even though the meaning is the same as "the house that is small".
Imraan
-
Peace bkanwar2,
It would seem that we differ on the underlying principles upon which we base our respective arguments.
I strongly believe that Classical Arabic grammar and lexicon are to be used in understanding the Quran.
It would seem that you believe otherwise.
Debate cannot continue without common ground.
Peace!
-
Peace bkanwar2,
It would seem that we differ on the underlying principles upon which we base our respective arguments.
I strongly believe that Classical Arabic grammar and lexicon are to be used in understanding the Quran.
It would seem that you believe otherwise.
Debate cannot continue without common ground.
Peace!
I am so sorry you felt this way. However, due our interaction, I have learned something by contemplating upon your arguments. Here is what should be the spelling of Allah.
= =
Feel free to comment. I will greatly appreciate any language based critique to get to the truth.
Regards,