Linguistic riddle solved, for those who want to learn
-
Peace good logic,
It was basically what I meant. Certain, as long as no one can prove me the opposite, which I honestly doubt. I am certain and I have no doubt.
My mind is made up, but I am never impossible. But there is simply no probability that one can convince me the Quran is not authentic. I am a man of faith, o brother, but I am also a man of logic.
Also if there are any claimed errors in the Quran, they are likely to be misinterpretations.
Peace bro' !
-
No linguistic objections so far. The point in discussion is that Quran is a book, as we define in current understanding. It is written in certain language by humans like us. I am presenting the understanding of this book based upon the rules of written language. Which is completely different than current translation. Hence, defenders of current translation; who by no means can be considered as defender of the real Quran, need to bring linguistic argument that current translation and understanding is correct. Instead of bringing more mis translated vereses.
Please, bring your linguistic arguments, in order to defend that the current translation of this word under discussion is" Al Illah" or "the god" or "the deity for worship". Why it is written as , instead of ? The later should be the spelling, if current translation and understanding is correct, not the former spellings.
Regards
-
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.
Salaam bro,
RED nope
BLUE Quranic proof svp
Who ever wrote it down it was for sure with permission of Allah.
Furthermore, besides the written text of The Quran we have also the audio of The Quran. Your text does not fit the audio and therefore contradicts 1037. But I am afraid you have mistranslated 1037 in such away that your theory still holds.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.
RegardsBrother in the other thread I was and still am happy to learn from you but on 1 condition, that is, that you will teach me your understandings with verses from The Quran to support your claims.
I am not allowed to follow Bukahry or Wiiliam Wright or Lexicon etc to understand The Quran. I hope I am clear now with what I meant there. If your basis for your theories/definitions/etc are from Wiiliam Wright or lexicons or any other source besides The Book we call The Quran then we have no basis for our discussion.364
but like before I am afraid that the teachings of Wiiliam Wright gave you also other understandings on this verse.
Salaam,
Bender -
Bro are you saying that current translation of Quran is the real meanings of Quranic text? If your answer is yes. There is nothing further to discuss between us.
If you also agree that current understanding of Quran based upon a translation of Quran several hundred years after its origin was done by people other than prophet or his companions. In this case, what method you would you use to confirm, if this understanding is in fact, what original text says?
-
Bro are you saying that current translation of Quran is the real meanings of Quranic text? If your answer is yes. There is nothing further to discuss between us.
If you also agree that current understanding of Quran based upon a translation of Quran several hundred years after its origin was done by people other than prophet or his companions. In this case, what method you would you use to confirm, if this understanding is in fact, what original text says?
Salaam brother,
What do you mean with the current translation of Quran?
Salaam,
Bender -
No linguistic objections so far. The point in discussion is that Quran is a book, as we define in current understanding. It is written in certain language by humans like us. I am presenting the understanding of this book based upon the rules of written language. Which is completely different than current translation. Hence, defenders of current translation; who by no means can be considered as defender of the real Quran, need to bring linguistic argument that current translation and understanding is correct. Instead of bringing more mis translated vereses.
Please, bring your linguistic arguments, in order to defend that the current translation of this word under discussion is" Al Illah" or "the god" or "the deity for worship". Why it is written as , instead of ? The later should be the spelling, if current translation and understanding is correct, not the former spellings.
Regards
How would your definition of Allah be consistent with the following ?
(114)
-
How would your definition of Allah be consistent with the following ?
(114)
Of course He is God, but perhaps the word "worship" should not be used, "to honor" would be better, and LOVE God, with the idea that we submit heart, soul, and body, to His Divine Laws, which we all already do, willingly or unwillingly, because there is only God and God is running everything! )
Is there ever anything at all, but God? ???
peace
-
Salaam brother,
What do you mean with the current translation of Quran?
Salaam,
BenderWhat believers and non believers alike accept as real Quran and Quranic concepts are based upon a translation done few hundred years after its original writting. This translation is mostly based upon Hadith/History. So if you claim not to accept hadith, how come you are accepting this translation as real Quran?
Regards
-
What believers and non believers alike accept as real Quran and Quranic concepts are based upon a translation done few hundred years after its original writting. This translation is mostly based upon Hadith/History. So if you claim not to accept hadith, how come you are accepting this translation as real Quran?
Regards
Salaam brother,
I am stil not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about the arabic text/sound of The Quran or the translations? Do you mean the arabic text/sound of The Quran is a translation?
Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam brother,
I am stil not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about the arabic text/sound of The Quran or the translations? Do you mean the arabic text/sound of The Quran is a translation?
Salaam,
BenderThe understanding/concepts that every one considers as real Quran, are translation of Arabic text/sound. This understanding/concepts are not based upon what actual text means, if understood based upon knowledge of language rules. The current understanding/concepts are almost all based upon Hadith/Historical accounts.
-
The understanding/concepts that every one considers as real Quran, are translation of Arabic text/sound. This understanding/concepts are not based upon what actual text means, if understood based upon knowledge of language rules. The current understanding/concepts are almost all based upon Hadith/Historical accounts.
Peace,
What was first every day language use or language rules derived from language use such as this in 1863?
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Arabic-English_Lexicon.png/379px-Arabic-English_Lexicon.png
-
The understanding/concepts that every one considers as real Quran, are translation of Arabic text/sound. This understanding/concepts are not based upon what actual text means, if understood based upon knowledge of language rules. The current understanding/concepts are almost all based upon Hadith/Historical accounts.
Salaam brother,
Ah I see what you mean now. But I do not agree with red. From your posts I can see that you use lexicons and arabic grammar rules to understand The Quran. What is the difference between man made hadiths and man made lexicons and grammar rules? Looks to me the same.
You would have a point if you can proof that the lexicons and grammar rules were there before The Quran and that The Quranic arabic is based upon lexicons before The Quran and The Quranic structure is based on the arabic schoolgrammar rules.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam brother,
Ah I see what you mean now. But I do not agree with red. From your posts I can see that you use lexicons and arabic grammar rules to understand The Quran. What is the difference between man made hadiths and man made lexicons and grammar rules? Looks to me the same.
You would have a point if you can proof that the lexicons and grammar rules were there before The Quran and that The Quranic arabic is based upon lexicons before The Quran and The Quranic structure is based on the arabic school grammar rules.Salaam,
BenderBrother one straight forward answer would to please understand some basics of language as a science. However, it appears to me that you are sincere in seeking clarification. I will try my best to direct you in a direction where if you were to strive, should be able to find your own answers.
What is a language? It is a difficult question. Please try to read some about language, so you have a better idea about it.
A simplistic view, "we use language to express inner thoughts and emotions, make sense of complex and abstract thought, to learn to communicate with others, to fulfill our wants and needs, as well as to establish rules and maintain our culture".
How do we do it? Common form is by speech? What is speech? Sound symbols uttered to express thoughts. Culturally every society associate concepts to these symbols. So there is no inherent meaning to these sound symbols, except whatever concepts/meanings a given culture associate to such symbols.
Another way of expressing language i.e., thoughts is by witting down on a paper and assigning meanings to written symbols equivalent to spoken sounds. The written expression is relatively verry new for humans as compared to spoken form and has evolved over time.
Furthermore, it is also true the languages change over time and become completely different from one spoken years ago as well can become extinct. Although, emergent new language due to evolution, may carrying the same name but no resemblance as regards meanings/concepts.
Let me give an example from English for this phenomenon.
Beowulf
Verse Indeterminate SaxonHw?t! We Gardena in geardagum,
?eodcyninga, ?rym gefrunon,
hu ?a ??elingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing scea?ena ?reatum,5
monegum m?g?um, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Sy??an ?rest wear?
feasceaft funden, he ??s frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weor?myndum ?ah,
o???t him ?ghwylc ?ara ymbsittendraCan you understand this? If no how do we understand it? By translating this text, into modern spoken English. How could it be translated? By knowing the rules of the language, it is written in, all of those.
Now question is, if natives speakers know rules of their own language and speak by knowing formal rules? Not at all at consious level. Most do not even know what rules are in their language. But if one has to understand a text in their own language like English above or users of other languages. They have to learn rules of spoken language and how these rules were expressed in written form.
Who describes these rules? Speakers of the language in question. So who wrote rules of Quranic Arabic.? Speakers of the language.
Who translated Quran, when it became alien to even its own speakers? These were supposed speakers of language with understanding of rules of the language.
So then what is the fuss?
Well the translation does not hold up when litmus test of rules of language are applied to it. Hope it is easy enough to help to understand the issues on hand. Which indeed are complex, especially from a common person?s prospective
-
Brother one straight forward answer would to please understand some basics of language as a science. However, it appears to me that you are sincere in seeking clarification. I will try my best to direct you in a direction where if you were to strive, should be able to find your own answers.
What is a language? It is a difficult question. Please try to read some about language, so you have a better idea about it.
A simplistic view, "we use language to express inner thoughts and emotions, make sense of complex and abstract thought, to learn to communicate with others, to fulfill our wants and needs, as well as to establish rules and maintain our culture".
How do we do it? Common form is by speech? What is speech? Sound symbols uttered to express thoughts. Culturally every society associate concepts to these symbols. So there is no inherent meaning to these sound symbols, except whatever concepts/meanings a given culture associate to such symbols.
Another way of expressing language i.e., thoughts is by witting down on a paper and assigning meanings to written symbols equivalent to spoken sounds. The written expression is relatively verry new for humans as compared to spoken form and has evolved over time.
Furthermore, it is also true the languages change over time and become completely different from one spoken years ago as well can become extinct. Although, emergent new language due to evolution, may carrying the same name but no resemblance as regards meanings/concepts.
Let me give an example from English for this phenomenon.
Beowulf
Verse Indeterminate SaxonHw?t! We Gardena in geardagum,
?eodcyninga, ?rym gefrunon,
hu ?a ??elingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing scea?ena ?reatum,5
monegum m?g?um, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Sy??an ?rest wear?
feasceaft funden, he ??s frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weor?myndum ?ah,
o???t him ?ghwylc ?ara ymbsittendraCan you understand this? If no how do we understand it? By translating this text, into modern spoken English. How could it be translated? By knowing the rules of the language, it is written in, all of those.
Now question is, if natives speakers know rules of their own language and speak by knowing formal rules? Not at all at consious level. Most do not even know what rules are in their language. But if one has to understand a text in their own language like English above or users of other languages. They have to learn rules of spoken language and how these rules were expressed in written form.
Who describes these rules? Speakers of the language in question. So who wrote rules of Quranic Arabic.? Speakers of the language.
Who translated Quran, when it became alien to even its own speakers? These were supposed speakers of language with understanding of rules of the language.
So then what is the fuss?
Well the translation does not hold up when litmus test of rules of language are applied to it. Hope it is easy enough to help to understand the issues on hand. Which indeed are complex, especially from a common person?s prospective
Salaam brother,
Thx for your reply. If I understood you correctly then you are saying that we are forced to use lexicons and learn grammar rules because lexicons and grammar rules were made by the people who spoke and understood the language of The Quran, right? This would be only correct IF The Quran was based on them and this is clearly not the case.
RED So you are trying to correct man made translations of The Quran with man made rules of The Quran?
My guess is that you will never succeed with this, because both of them (the translation and the grammar) are not compatible with The Quran.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam brother,
Thx for your reply. If I understood you correctly then you are saying that we are forced to use lexicons and learn grammar rules because lexicons and grammar rules were made by the people who spoke and understood the language of The Quran, right? This would be only correct IF The Quran was based on them and this is clearly not the case.
RED So you are trying to correct man made translations of The Quran with man made rules of The Quran?
My guess is that you will never succeed with this, because both of them (the translation and the grammar) are not compatible with The Quran.
Salaam,
BenderSo Brother show me an example of what you consider as The Quran?
Regards,
-
If I don't know a word of Arabic and want to understand the Qur'an, where from should I start from? If I'm not suppose to use the man-made dictionaries (which I'm also starting to believe) from what word am I supposed to begin? If we are to look in the Qur'an for the meaning of the word what if the word is used only once and we cannot find other uses to compare and draw the common line...
bkanwar2 is there any other word in the Quran in the similar form of the word where you claim "..."Al" is a contraction of the word "
and also we didn't get an answer to
How would your definition of Allah be consistent with the following ?
(114)
-
If I don't know a word of Arabic and want to understand the Qur'an, where from should I start from? If I'm not suppose to use the man-made dictionaries (which I'm also starting to believe) from what word am I supposed to begin? If we are to look in the Qur'an for the meaning of the word what if the word is used only once and we cannot find other uses to compare and draw the common line...
bkanwar2 is there any other word in the Quran in the similar form of the word where you claim "..."Al" is a contraction of the word "
and also we didn't get an answer to
How would your definition of Allah be consistent with the following ?
(114)
Response to your first part has been already given on Page 6 of this thread. Which is as follows, please see link below as well.
"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", 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?.
Logged
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599853.50The second part of your inquiry, I will answer over weekend. It requires explanation. Althought, it is given here.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603969.msg299614#msg299614
-