Linguistic riddle solved, for those who want to learn

Kaiokenred

Peace Kaiokenred;

A part this subject on the vocable allah, i will really want to know the performance of your QM to explain phenomena, as it seems to me that Plank wrote on light has nothing to do with the reality...
IAnyway i hope that it is not getting you out of the way?

Peace

You want scientific stuff then look here http//servantofthelight.com/

Kaiokenred

We need first to understand that word "God" in English as well all equivalent concepts in other languages are referring to title not a name. God means "A deity or entity which is worthy of human." The author of Quran denied this concept by word Allah= One who is not a deity for worship. Please think this differencing concept of word God is cause of most, if not all conflicts in the world always. Why would a Universal entity create such a chaos? Is there a chaos in any of other his laws? However, concept of no deity for worship if accepted will bring humanity together.

However, to understand our Rabb one can look around to find affirmations. But there are some seeming conflicts might confuse one. However, if were to pay attention to himself/herself. Think if I could or do exist all by myself? One will find answer as big resounding "no". This shall confirm existence of Rabb (a sustainer, maintainer, foster and accomplisher).

It's even worse, most linguistics agree the word God comes from some word I forgot from some language I forgot, that means "that which is invoked", mushrikeen much?

bkanwar2

It's even worse, most linguistics agree the word God comes from some word I forgot from some language I forgot, that means "that which is invoked", mushrikeen much?

Good going Kaiokenred, origin is word god in English is not know with certainty. It is new title/name. Its origin some attribute to Sanskrit word "hu" meaning "call upon, invoke, implore".

Arabic word illah's meaning is certainly preserved as "a deity for worship and adoration".

Script of Quran so far appears preserved. Its meanings seem preserved in archives of language. Need to find these. Quran is simple but not easy to understand in its current form, especially with the noise surrounding it. If there is any interpolation of Quranic text, I am sure it shall become manifest as rest is understood.

Kaiokenred

Good going Kaiokenred, origin is word god in English is not know with certainty. It is new title/name. Its origin some attribute to Sanskrit word "hu" meaning "call upon, invoke, implore".

Arabic word illah's meaning is certainly preserved as "a deity for worship and adoration".

Script of Quran so far appears preserved. Its meanings seem preserved in archives of language. Need to find these. Quran is simple but not easy to understand in its current form, especially with the noise surrounding it. If there is any interpolation of Quranic text, I am sure it shall become manifest as rest is understood.

When translating you should also use the old quran even in Arabic. The modern Quran published today is different from the original one, and by that I'm saying the arabic words were altered

good_logic

Peace Kaiokenred.

Did anyone before badar understand the Koran? Do you believe in the last prophet or any prophet/ messenger?

Is anyone else going to understand/translate it or is it exclusive to Badar alone?

How long before we get the whole translation from Badar?

Is there any chance that Badar is human and he may make mistakes in his translation?

Since we do not understand, explain to us please.
Peace.

Kaiokenred

Peace Kaiokenred.

Did anyone before badar understand the Koran? Do you believe in the last prophet or any prophet/ messenger?

Is anyone else going to understand/translate it or is it exclusive to Badar alone?

How long before we get the whole translation from Badar?

Is there any chance that Badar is human and he may make mistakes in his translation?

Since we do not understand, explain to us please.
Peace.

Did anyone before badar understand the Koran? Do you believe in the last prophet or any prophet/ messenger?

I know Muhammad was a prophet, not sure about others. And yes other before Badar understood the Quran, and then it got corrupted and very few people if any remained that knew the real meaning.

Is anyone else going to understand/translate it or is it exclusive to Badar alone?
Well whoever wants can examine Lane Lexicon and translate it, but Badar is the only translator who's totally free of concepts that came from hadiths and other corrupted stuff, at least from the translators I know

How long before we get the whole translation from Badar?
Why ask me? Also remember that Badar has a life.

Is there any chance that Badar is human and he may make mistakes in his translation?

Sure, but just like his signature says, he's always open to correct them no? It's not like he's making any major mistakes either

good_logic

Peace Kaiokenred.

Please reflect on what you are saying. You are making Badar an "Idol"

... In fact their idols inflict great pain upon them ( invent laws/rules , Write their own words, Add/ takeaway?) and confuse their religion for them?
My advice is

73 You shall follow what is revealed to you from your Lord. ( Only the word of GOD!) Do not follow any idols. ( Do not follow the words of men!) Rarely do you take heed!?

Peace

Kaiokenred

Peace Kaiokenred.

Please reflect on what you are saying. You are making Badar an "Idol"

... In fact their idols inflict great pain upon them ( invent laws/rules , Write their own words, Add/ takeaway?) and confuse their religion for them?
My advice is

73 You shall follow what is revealed to you from your Lord. ( Only the word of GOD!) Do not follow any idols. ( Do not follow the words of men!) Rarely do you take heed!?

Peace

You're honestly the total opposite of your username

bkanwar2

Linguistic understanding of word Allah has been on the internet at several sites for over two years now. So far there has not been a critique. However, following was sent to me to address the concerns raised.

"I read your article about the name "allah" and its etymology / grammar. You may be right - I don't know - but not for the reasons you have given there. To form an argument worth the name, you need to show that "alathi" has been contracted elsewhere in the way you claim it has here. But you don't do that in the article. Can you do this? Do you have an example? I would be interested to see it.

I feel you do need to produce this (or something similar) to retain credibility, since the concept you claim for the word "allah" is central to your presentation.

Kind regards,

Sam "

I am sure the writer is asking. If there is proof from current Quranic translations as to word "alathi" is contracted as "al". Since, I have referenced linguistically to be the case. Both, A Grammar of The Arabic Language by William Wright (Vol. 1 page 269 D) and Lexicon of Arabic Language by Edward Lane (Vol 1, page 74) have cited it with examples to be a linguistic reality.

More importantly, can it be proven by current translation of Quran. Yes, not one, but multiple examples.

677

Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."

799

Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!

Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used it is at most places translated in meaning of "alathi".

We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu'ran is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathi = who, La = not and finally illah . This would mean ?One who is not illah?.

If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word ?illah? into the translation; this word which actually is a phrase would mean ?One who is not a deity for adoration or worship (God)?.

This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?

Why should we trust this non-sense?

These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.

Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; Just explore the language of the Qur'an that is presented from the Qur'an itself.

First of all let us analyse what traditionalists interpret this word to be?

And why they are wrong?

The word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al = in English ?The? and illah , meaning ?God? but in reality ?a deity for adoration and worship?.

Although, in actuality this "Al" is a contraction of the word and legitimately could be written as "Al" . Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane and Grammar of William Wright.

Let us turn to Qur'an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur'an, where a preposition ?Lee? is added in to a word containing a definite article ?Al? . Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article ?Al? joins with ?Lam? of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur'an itself.

21 Alif of ?Al? gone, lam is present and preposition ?Lee? added.
47 and 432, is the word same concept.

However, for the word when the same preposition is added. We find that the ?Lam? of the supposed definite article ?Al? also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as (in reality one can not type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).

Example, 12 and 115 more places 222, 298 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.

Whereas, Allathi being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article "Al". As if there would have been an "Al", it should look like this and not

Let us continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is "Alif" like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another Alif above. (In newer, print version the "alif" above Shadda is taken a fatha shape instead of 'alif" like in this example as well. The gradual changes happening without anybody paying attention to these).

Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the ?Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets?. This would be a apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.

Let us analysis why it is wrong. If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this shadda in place once the ?Al?, if it were really ?Al? of definite article. As in the phrase is gone , as in the example above of . However, we find in the Qur'an that this is not the case. Hence, this shadda is not due to ?Al? of a definate article coming before the word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of Allathi. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already ?Alif? at the start which is not considered a ?Sun letter?. Hence no shadda would be have been added as cited above.

This clearly shows that the persistence of this shadda is due, not to the shadda of ?Al?; but in truth, indicates a real doubling of the consonants.

This means inescapably, that one were to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word . Allathi (written as a contration in script as "Al&quot, La and illah. This would further imply that the middle shadda is suggesting ?two lams? and two alifs?.

Hence, if translated word for word, this word or more accurately phrase would mean ?One who is not a deity for adoration and worship?.

uq

Peace bkanwar2,

Irrespective of the etymology of the word , its mode of use by 6th century Arabs is such that it is necessarily understood as a substantive whose rendition to English is "God".

So, effectively, the first post of this thread bears the weight of a grain of sand in the face of a gust.

bkanwar2

Any grain of truth even equal to a grain of dust has potential and shall become a sand storm. I hope to live long enough to see the flasehood belown away by the sand storm.

Indelwyn

while Allah manifests all reality from the inside-out

Sounds like Wicca. Same exact principle.

bkanwar2

Sounds like Wicca. Same exact principle.

That is my friend Abdun Nur's thought process. I do not think that I can agree or disagree based upon limited linguistic understanding of Quran at this time. However, he is one of those blessed person, who underststood Allah as "One who is not a deity for worship" before, I understood the concept through language.

You may like to ask him this question at his website.

http//www.servantofthelight.com/

marifhaq

Dear All,salam

Let me tell you my take about who is Allah? In sura 112 there is a arbic word,"SAMAD" and one of its popular meanings is,"ONE THAT DOES NOT NEED ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY,BUT EVERYBODY NEED EVERYTHING FROM HIM".So his worship etc.is to follow the natural rules that you think are correct to the best of your knowledge.Then on the day of audit if anything you did is found to be wrong,then He is there to forgive you.So no need to take any tension just do every thing rightfully and that is all.thanks.

Bender

By the way, the write up/break down of so to called word/noun, Allah, has been on this forum and several others for over 2 years. I hate to use word challenge, but it is like a linguistic challenge from Quran and its language. There has been no objection to it except for one that is already addressed in this link; citing its use, both in language and current translation of Quran, as well, from books of the language with due references.

Salaam brother,

The refutation is 5922
5922

Both ALLAH and "allathee la ilaha" are used in one sentence one after the other.
Ok maybe you will say that "allathee la ilaha" defines the meaning of the word ALLAH, but then we must do this trick also to other instances in The Quran.
For example
9217
9218
Thus "Allathee yutee malahu yatazakka" defines the meaning of the word "alatqa" and we can split the word "alatqa" in 4 parts Allathee, yutee, malahu and yatazakka.

Salaam,
Bender

bkanwar2

Dear Brother, due lack of time let me decode this verse and give the real meanings of only part of it, which is in red.

5922

"He is one who is not a deity for worship. Who does not at all belong to genus/species of deity for worship."

The first illah is in Rafa, the second one is in Nasab. The later would indicate that the second "La" is a La e NafeeAljins. Which means that such "la" denies each and everything or concept belonging to its genus/species.

How more strongly and vigorously do we want our Rabb to deny a concept of an illah i.e., a deity for worship than this denial?

Bender

Dear Brother, due lack of time let me decode this verse and give the real meanings of only part of it, which is in red.

5922

"He is one who is not a deity for worship. Who does not at all belong to genus/species of deity for worship."

The first illah is in Rafa, the second one is in Nasab. The later would indicate that the second "La" is a La e NafeeAljins. Which means that such "la" denies each and everything or concept belonging to its genus/species.

How more strongly and vigorously do we want our Rabb to deny a concept of an illah i.e., a deity for worship than this denial?

Salaam bkanwar2,

A couple of things

-- Do you think Allah was not capable of doing what you did? If He wanted to split that word in parts, it would be very easy form Him, don't you think?

-- In one of your topics you discussed this "Is it correct/okay to use Quranic verses out of context of full verses?"
So why did you stop in the middle of a sentence?

-- Your definition of an ilah which is "deity for worship" is not Quranic. In one of our early discussions you told me it's a definition given by religious, philosphers and scholars. This is not how it works brother nope
Why not "The moon deity"? This is also a defintion given for Allah by those who don't know. Or why not any other definition given by men? With other words what is your Quranic proof for your definition?

It looks to me that if you want to insert something to your definition of Allah then the red part of the next verse is for sure better then yours
2014

-- I have zero knowledge about arabic grammar bro, I don't know what "rafa" and "nasab" and "NafeeAljins" means.
But if we want to be creative then we can make of 5922 something like this

we have the same structure in 2088
2088
so we have to understand "Allahu Allaha" in the same way as "Wa-ilahu Musa". But I can not see this in your translation.

btw I agree totally with you that 5922 says
"He is Allah who is not an illah..."
But I think we have also to translate at least the next 2 words, thus
"He is Allah who is not an illah, except He..."
Can you give me 1 ayaat where this "ILLA" is missing?

I also like to know why you did not the same trick to "HUWA" (the first word)
HU = He
WA = and
Are there some special rules for this splitting of words?

Salaam,
Bender

ps. maybe it's better not to give verse numbers for verses which are not from The Quran. Some people might think that it's from The Quran.

bkanwar2

-- Do you think Allah was not capable of doing what you did? If He wanted to split that word in parts, it would be very easy form Him, don't you think?

Dear Brother do you think or believe that the book Quran as we have today was written by Allah himself? It was not, it was written by people like you and me. They wrote it according to the rules of their language, just like every one writes his/her language.

Are there some special rules for this splitting of words?

Yes my brother these rules are given in the write up above. Please pay attention to it. Please try to read rules of Shadda from link given for Wiiliam Wright.

Regards

Ayisha

Dear Brother do you think or believe that the book Quran as we have today was written by Allah himself? It was not, it was written by people like you and me. They wrote it according to the rules of their language, just like every one writes his/her language.

17.88 Say "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

11.13 Or they may say, "He forged it," Say, "Bring ye then ten suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah!- If ye speak the truth!

10.38 Or do they say, "He forged it"? say "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"

223-24 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.

peace

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Worth noticing is that there are people here who still think these are the words of God that Muhammad wrote down. That includes me.

But I respect those who have a different opinion about that.

Unless I get something solid to prove the Quran to be just a man-made fabrication I will continue to believe it is the only uncorrupted words from God, but my mind is always open to reform. My world would be seriously shaken up if the Quran proved to be man-made conjecture and, God willing, it is not the case.

May God show us the light