الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
-
It is pretty simple and accurate as it is. Why do you think it needs any change?
These are not words of men that might have room of improvement.
Wonderful, an excellent catch. Let me reword it.
Assalamo Alaikum,
I will appreciate pointation of mistakes and omissions and improvements and suggestions how to make the analysis, grammer, syntax, morphology, concordance, statistics, Concatenation/Contiguity and Colligation attempted by me, more simple and easy to comprehend, regarding the Aa'yat 2 of Surat Alfateha.
Aa'yat 2 of Surat Alfateha
-
It is pretty simple and accurate as it is. Why do you think it needs any change?
These are not words of men that might have room of improvement.
If you?re stuck in this kind of thinking and belief, I am afraid you will never be able to understand the message. Although the message is from One and Only. But it is preserved by us humans. Why do you feel we would have done a different job here, as compared to distribution of Risq (resources of sustenance). He has provided enough for every one. But do we find every one having enough of these? Ever thought why? Because, we human are given responsibility for distribution of these resources. Same way message is his, but the translations were done by humans. These translations are what you are calling as accurate and as words not from men. Indeed, these translations are by men.
If one were to dig into archives of language and apply others preserved principles to same text meanings start changing, start becoming more profound, logical and universal.
Let us look at some examples.
This write up stands as a challenge from language of Quran to be proven wrong by any one.(Please mind it, "a chanllenge from Quran itself, not from me".
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?.
Let us look at Al Fathia
Surah 11
This is the timeless sign conveying the knowledge from the One, who is not a deity for worship and adoration. About the abundant and effortless state of life that mankind cannot conceive by themselves, from your sustainer and maintainer. The greatest mercy from the One.
Surah 12
The decree for all width and breadth of land, on account of the One, who is not a deity for worship and adoration. One rearing, fostering, nourishing and accomplishing all created beings, capable of acquiring knowledge.
Surah 13
The abundant and effortless state of life, that mankind cannot conceive of by themselves, from your sustainer and maintainer. The greatest mercy from One-
Surah 14
- which is with you at all times, for you to follow.
Surah 15
Be aware, we do not want you to be servants and worshippers; therefore you shall keep yourself clear of this pain in future.
Surah 16
You must not break and demolish the path, which is original and most straight, undeviating and unceasing.
Surah 17
The original and straight path is pleasant and delightful on which, I make life easy. I have set a banner and a standard for you, to avoid irreparable damage to yourselves. Who become angry and revengeful with this path, will be greatly confounded and perplexed; even unable to see the right course.
Peace,
Badar
-
-
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?.
While playing with the words of the Book, in fact you are making mockery of yourself. Read first sentence. There is no such thing called Shadda of "Al". Shadda means symbol/indicator that two same consonants are here the first without vowel/showing it is "sakin" which has to be pronounced and the other with vowel. Shadda reflects a syllable; Consonant + Consonant + vowel.
Do you know what "Allathi " is? Put it in Arabic.
-
Dear Mazhar, please read again and again. May you see the light, as I have no explicit reasons to doubt your sincerity. You will not be able to come up with any other explanation of this Shadda, except one given in the write up above. If this were to be a combination of and as claimed by almost all traditionalists. There is an "alif" after "Al" before "Lam" of "Illah". Hence, no reason to have shadda on Lam of illah, "a shamsi letter" as there is a "Qamari letter" Alif of illah preceeeding it. If it were a combination of a particle "Al" and word "illah", it should appear in script as and not as .
Peace,
Badar
-
Dear Mazhar, please read again and again. May you see the light, as I have no explicit reasons to doubt your sincerity. You will not be able to come up with any other explanation of this Shadda, except one given in the write up above. If this were to be a combination of and as claimed by almost all traditionalists. There is an "alif" after "Al" before "Lam" of "Illah". Hence, no reason to have shadda on Lam of illah, "a shamsi letter" as there is a "Qamari letter" Alif of illah preceeeding it. If it were a combination of a particle "Al" and word "illah", it should appear in script as and not as .
Peace,
Badar
I am not talking about Definite Article "al". I am asking you about your thought that it is a phrase, one part of which you consider "Allathi ". What do you mean by "Allathi " and how do you write it in Arabic. And am asking about your assertion shadda of ?Al? which I think is something non existent, otherwise please quote where have you seen/read it.
-
Dear Mazhar, what you have highlighted is a widely know claim, that is a proper noun of our Rabb due to definate article making illah a proper noun. However, what I am saying is that this is not a definate article here, instead a contraction for . Please see Wright and Lane both under asserting that could be written as . If you find it hard to find, please let me know, shall provide you referances for pages, from both.
Peace,
Badar
-
I am not talking about Definite Article "al". I am asking you about your thought that it is a phrase, one part of which you consider "Allathi ". What do you mean by "Allathi " and how do you write it in Arabic. And am asking about your assertion shadda of ?Al? which I think is something non existent, otherwise please quote where have you seen/read it.
I agree there should be no Shadda here, if it were to be a combination of "Al" and "illah". As "Al" only gives shadda when attached to words starting with "shamsi" letters. Which is not the case here. Hence, I wrote this "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".
Peace,
Badar -
I agree there should be no Shadda here, if it were to be a combination of "Al" and "illah". As "Al" only gives shadda when attached to words starting with "shamsi" letters. Which is not the case here. Hence, I wrote this "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".
Peace,
BadarShadda means nothing else but simply "Consonant+consonant which has a vowel". The first consonant is the part of the earlier syllable which will result in a pause. And the next consonant with a vowel is the next syllable.
-
Good, now please apply this to the phrase and see your self if it is not equal to .
Peace,
Badar
I thought that by those simple indications I will be able to avert you from exposing openly the stupidity that has entered and engraved itself into your mind.
You wrote three words thinking it is a phrase/sentence embedded in Allah. Now tell what is ? It is a Relative Pronoun for singular masculine. And do you know what type of is this which you have written? It needs a predicate also. Dear get out of the fantasy and start reading Qur'aan in simple way, you can contribute a lot.
-
The second word of verse (12) is divided into 2 morphological segments. A preposition and proper noun. The prefixed preposition lm is usually translated as "for". The proper noun is in the genitive case (ر. Together the segments form a preposition phrase known as jr wa majrr ( ر. So the lm is a prefixed preposition and the second word "Illah" is a gentitive proper noun. Given the context of the surah and the verse itself, it points to the meaning that is already established.
"The praise is for Allah, Lord of the universe"
similar composition is given in
611
14391
1811
3411
3511unecessary curiousity in matters that are already clear and established leads one towards teh wrong path. refer to 5101
-
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00005.%20Hamad%20Ha%20Meem%20Dal/1.gif
Subject/Topic-/It is nominative with the apparent short vowel sign on the last consonant. + Allah Proper Noun, masculine; genitive.
The Predicate/Comment of a sentence may be a single word which will be in nominative case, a phrase, or an entire sentence. When it is an entire sentence, that sentence will have its own structure and all the rules will apply to it as well. If the Comment is a Prepositional Phrase, as is the case here; or an Adverbial Phrase we will need to assume an omitted/hidden verb to which these phrases will connect. That hidden verb, along with these phrases, would then become an entire/embedded sentence and then the comment for the greater sentence.Recurrence (1)0102(2)601(3)645(4)743(5)1010(6)1439(7)1675 (17111(9)1801(10)2328 (11)2715(12)2759(13)2793 (14)2963(15)3025(16)3401 (17)3501(13534(19)37182 (20)3929(21)3974(22)3975(23)4065=23
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Individual%20Ayaat/001.%20Al%20Fateha/01.02.htm
-
I thought that by those simple indications I will be able to avert you from exposing openly the stupidity that has entered and engraved itself into your mind.
You wrote three words thinking it is a phrase/sentence embedded in Allah. Now tell what is ? It is a Relative Pronoun for singular masculine. And do you know what type of is this which you have written? It needs a predicate also. Dear get out of the fantasy and start reading Qur'aan in simple way, you can contribute a lot.
Dear Mazhar this is what I am doing. But not finding many to understand the message.
Now tell what is ? It is a Relative Pronoun for singular masculine.
Now let me tell you what is, if you care to pay attention. It is a combination of a determinative particle, followed by not the particle but a demonstrative syllable for raising attention similar to particle followed by , a noun, of which significance is vague and unknown until, it is explained by, what follows it.
Therefore, to call simply a relative pronoun is too simplistic in scheme of the game, my Dear. If you like, I can improve further the understanding of word . But does anybody care about it?
Peace,
Badar
(P.S. Please note that, I have corrected spellings of in this post. There is typo in other posts, correct spellings are as in this post) -
bkanwar
It seems you have now even lost common sense. I asked you what type of La is this, and had you noticed that the last word of your meaningless utterence is accusative, you might have come to understand that La is of absolute negation, and it acts like Inna and modifies the hitherto called subject as accusative which will now be called Ism La. It needs a predicate to make any sensible statement.
-
Badar,
See page 1 of thread, or go the link and please acquaint your self with basics of Arabic before embarking upon etymology and formation of individual word.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Individual%20Ayaat/001.%20Al%20Fateha/01.02.htm
-
Dear Mazhar, please do not be part of those who have already confounded the message and truth with confusion and flasehood. I asked you a very simple question based upon jargon you wrote. Please give a simple answer. What is your understanding of term predicate? How are you implying to our discussion. Please try to elaborate with example, if you can.
Peace,
Badar