Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. General Issues / Questions
  3. General Issues / Questions
  4. Who Was the Pharoah of Moses

Who Was the Pharoah of Moses

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Issues / Questions
318 Posts 31 Posters 17.7k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • N Offline
    N Offline
    noble
    wrote on last edited by
    #181

    Sis Samia, salam wa rahma,

    what I favour is that whatever beit is in the ayat 2127, it was already a Sanctuary, or already housed a Sanctuary, which fell into disuse, or was destroyed, or became derelict...

    what the ayat is saying is use the place (beit) of that Sanctuary and from it raise the Sanctuary again.... so its foundations are raised from it as it existed already...

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • H Offline
      H Offline
      huruf
      wrote on last edited by
      #182

      Yes it does contain the word "ghaith". But how is this verse related to the subject of Yousuf? My post to Nabil was about the story of Yousuf and Misr.
      I mean, what context brought this verse in this thread?

      I may have known when it started. Right now, I thank God that I still know my name. It could be worse.

      Salaam

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Offline
        S Offline
        Samia
        wrote on last edited by
        #183

        Sis Samia, salam wa rahma,

        what I favour is that whatever beit is in the ayat 2127, it was already a Sanctuary, or already housed a Sanctuary, which fell into disuse, or was destroyed, or became derelict...

        Salaam Nabil and tanks for the response.

        Who built it, then, before Ibrahim so that by his time it was already ruined?

        what the ayat is saying is use the place (beit) of that Sanctuary and from it raise the Sanctuary again.... so its foundations are raised from it as it existed already...

        It did not say (use the place).
        What is the meaning of (raise the foundation from a "building&quot? Is there even such an expression when talking about buildings and foundations?

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • N Offline
          N Offline
          noble
          wrote on last edited by
          #184

          Salam Sis Samia,

          Well it is meaningful to me, a foundation is an underlying structure and a skeleton for a building, there is no other way around it, it had to be there, as the foundations were there, it is self evident from the sentence, and you need to raise the "building/sanctuary" from them...

          Now how would Ibrahim know where to build it, there is always wahy and inspiration from Allah... It should be Bakkah, and the obvious candidate is the first Man Adam, then Nooh... etc

          Now where is Bakkah... maybe in Yemen? Allah knows, but forensic work in archeology is the answer...

          I do not think anymore that Bakkah is in Palestine (a Roman name)...

          Peace

          Nabil )

          Salaam Nabil and tanks for the response.

          Who built it, then, before Ibrahim so that by his time it was already ruined?

          It did not say (use the place).
          What is the meaning of (raise the foundation from a "building&quot? Is there even such an expression when talking about buildings and foundations?

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Offline
            M Offline
            Mazhar
            wrote on last edited by
            #185

            Sis Samia, salam wa rahma,

            what I favour is that whatever beit is in the ayat 2127, it was already a Sanctuary, or already housed a Sanctuary, which fell into disuse, or was destroyed, or became derelict...

            what the ayat is saying is use the place (beit) of that Sanctuary and from it raise the Sanctuary again.... so its foundations are raised from it as it existed already...

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • E Offline
              E Offline
              exodus
              wrote on last edited by
              #186

              What is the meaning of (raise the foundation from a "building&quot? Is there even such an expression when talking about buildings and foundations?

              Why not take it as "foundation of belief" (foundation of Abrahamic religion) instead of a structural foundation? It is obvious that Abraham used a structure for declare his belief to travelers. Then Abrahamic belief founded during these times around this structure.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • I Offline
                I Offline
                IMHO
                wrote on last edited by
                #187

                No one is disputing "rain" being the meaning of "ghayth". The only problem is that this word is not mentioned anywhere in the story of Yousuf.

                Salaam Samia
                As always happens this thread gets diverted from the subject and gets lost in translation. It's great that followers of te Quran scrutinize new findings.
                For your convenience I am putting here what Pazuzu said about this subject
                Reply 74 You mention the word "Yughthu". This is derived from "Ghayth". And the word apperas many times in the Quran in the context of RAIN..................
                So although I agree with you that "ghayth" or "igathah" is the general term for "help or aid", however, as you can see, the context of the above verses clearly indicates rain.
                So why should we deal with the verses concerning Joseph any differently?

                Reply 76;I already have. I've read TONS about it, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that the Nile River (and not rain) has always been the lifeblood of Egypt. As long as the Nile river flows, they are OK.
                peace

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Offline
                  S Offline
                  Samia
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #188

                  Why not take it as "foundation of belief" (foundation of Abrahamic religion) instead of a structural foundation?

                  bravo

                  It is the foundaton of the belief of Abraham (6 161). The beit itself is the collection of this foundation, which are instructions of the Straight Path (6151-153).
                  Ibrahim is a messenger, not a builder, who destroyed stones not raised them.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S Offline
                    S Offline
                    Samia
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #189

                    Yes exactly. We are TOLD the place of the "beit" where no idols (whatever they are) are set as legislators beside God.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Offline
                      S Offline
                      Samia
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #190

                      Salaam Samia
                      As always happens this thread gets diverted from the subject and gets lost in translation. It's great that followers of te Quran scrutinize new findings.
                      For your convenience I am putting here what Pazuzu said about this subject
                      Reply 74 You mention the word "Yughthu". This is derived from "Ghayth". And the word apperas many times in the Quran in the context of RAIN..................
                      So although I agree with you that "ghayth" or "igathah" is the general term for "help or aid", however, as you can see, the context of the above verses clearly indicates rain.
                      So why should we deal with the verses concerning Joseph any differently?

                      Reply 76;I already have. I've read TONS about it, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that the Nile River (and not rain) has always been the lifeblood of Egypt. As long as the Nile river flows, they are OK.
                      peace

                      Salaam IMHO
                      Thank you for bringing the quote itself. As I said, i read the whole thread one go and I know I read something along these lines.
                      This is where the error started "This derived from Ghayth", because a simple visit to any lexicon would show this error, and that "Yughathuu" and "Ghayth" are two different words with two different roots and thus two different meanings. t then became one of the arguments that support the theory that Yousuf was not in Egypt.
                      Saying that "the context shows it means rain" is not true. The desire to make it mean rain and following the traditional tafsir is the context.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • N Offline
                        N Offline
                        Noon_dhe_plume
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #191

                        Salaam IMHO
                        Thank you for bringing the quote itself. As I said, i read the whole thread one go and I know I read something along these lines.
                        This is where the error started "This derived from Ghayth", because a simple visit to any lexicon would show this error, and that "Yughathuu" and "Ghayth" are two different words with two different roots and thus two different meanings. t then became one of the arguments that support the theory that Yousuf was not in Egypt.
                        Saying that "the context shows it means rain" is not true. The desire to make it mean rain and following the traditional tafsir is the context.

                        Salaam Samia -- likewise reading in proper context it can never be rain...

                        89 when you were seeking relief

                        1249 furthermore comes from after that Aam (season) in it will be given relief the mankind and in it they will press

                        1829 and if they call for relief they will be given relief

                        4228 and He The One Who sent down the relief from after what they despaired and spreads His mercy and He The Guardian The Praiseworthy

                        http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000090.pdf

                        Signifying aid, or succor; or deliverance from difficulty, distress, or adversity, and revenge; and aid to release from difficulties, distresses, or adverse circumstances.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • M Offline
                          M Offline
                          Mazhar
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #192

                          Salaam Samia -- likewise reading in proper context it can never be rain...

                          89 when you were seeking relief

                          1249 furthermore comes from after that Aam (season) in it will be given relief the mankind and in it they will press

                          1829 and if they call for relief they will be given relief

                          4228 and He The One Who sent down the relief from after what they despaired and spreads His mercy and He The Guardian The Praiseworthy

                          http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000090.pdf

                          Signifying aid, or succor; or deliverance from difficulty, distress, or adversity, and revenge; and aid to release from difficulties, distresses, or adverse circumstances.

                          Salam Noon,

                          It is always difficult to break the "hardened nuts". However, one should keep trying. Both the Roots have delicate middle consonant. Rules for modification both for waw and ya are same. Rain is not used for subject and object being AnNaas. Here AnNaas in nomincate is the proxy subject of the passive verb having indicative mood, reflecting continuity-habitual state. Rain is for the Land, City, dwelling. "People were intermittently/continuosly/throughout rained" in itself is odd statement.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Offline
                            S Offline
                            Samia
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #193

                            Salam Noon,

                            It is always difficult to break the "hardened nuts". However, one should keep trying. Both the Roots have delicate middle consonant. Rules for modification both for waw and ya are same. Rain is not used for subject and object being AnNaas. Here AnNaas in nomincate is the proxy subject of the passive verb having indicative mood, reflecting continuity-habitual state. Rain is for the Land, City, dwelling. "People were intermittently/continuosly/throughout rained" in itself is odd statement.

                            Salaam Mazhar

                            You are right regarding the roots with a weak consonant, especially when they are in the same place as another root.
                            But it is not just the root we should stick with. There is the pattern of the derived words/ verbs that should also be taken into consideration. This also affects the transitive and non transitive verbs.

                            When Ndp mentioned in his previous post the verb "" of root gh y th, I did not pay attention to the root he put, and I constructed my response accordingly as if the root was Gh Wau Th. When I read the root, I felt something was wrong. And it was wrong. gh y th cannot have a present tense with an alif.
                            Root and pattern are characteristics of the Arabic language and have nothing to do with classical Arabic alone. Any colloquial Arabic respects them to a great extent. This is not grammar, but universal grammar, and it is the way Arabic creates words and expands itself.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • E Offline
                              E Offline
                              exodus
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #194

                              Here AnNaas in nomincate is the proxy subject of the passive verb having indicative mood, reflecting continuity-habitual state. Rain is for the Land, City, dwelling. "People were intermittently/continuosly/throughout rained" in itself is odd statement.

                              I totally agree on this point. Rain may be just one of the reasons of abundance but not same think. Rain may also be one of the reasons of famine. For example, excessive rain caused many fatal disasters in UK or somewhere else.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • N Offline
                                N Offline
                                noble
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #195

                                Salam,

                                for desert dwellers and nomads (bedouins), precipitation of water (rain) and relief go hand in hand...

                                in any event, if you wish to exclude rain from relief in Joseph's story, you have a serious problem, as flooding of rivers happens with increase in rain, very rarely with increase in flow from the source.... for a very simple reason that such increase in flow are like tsunamis, and very destructive... or are too slow to make a reasonably quick difference...

                                pazuzu carries on an interesting response on the Muhammad thread, which is attractive and logical I think...

                                but with flurry of opinions and counter opinions, we might be in danger of becoming like the Bani Israel of old, being very argumentative, and exaggerating in our faith...

                                after all our life is short, and we will soon die, and all this universe is transient, and nothing of it will remain... does this mean we should abandon research, no, but also it does not mean that we should fight over it... )

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • N Offline
                                  N Offline
                                  Noon_dhe_plume
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #196

                                  Peace,

                                  for desert dwellers and nomads (bedouins), precipitation of water (rain) and relief go hand in hand...

                                  They weren't all Bedouins, events in the story happened in/around cities, and the verse says clearly relief not rain.

                                  1230 and said women in the city/town woman the mighty seeking to seduce her youth about himself thus infactuated her love indeed surely see her in error clear

                                  in any event, if you wish to exclude rain from relief in Joseph's story, you have a serious problem, as flooding of rivers happens with increase in rain, very rarely with increase in flow from the source.... for a very simple reason that such increase in flow are like tsunamis, and very destructive... or are too slow to make a reasonably quick difference...

                                  It takes less than a minute to Google Flooding of the Nile and that the ancient Egyptians did not know about the rain in the southern mountains therefore Qur'an is precise and they were told correctly in the prophesy ...

                                  1247 said you will plant seven snyn (years) as usual so what you harvest so leave it in its ears only/except little from what you eat

                                  1248 furthermore comes from after that seven severe eat/consume what you advanced for them only/except little from what you stored

                                  1249 furthermore comes from after that Aam (season) in it y-gh--th will be given succor/relief the mankind and in it they will press

                                  The flooding cycle

                                  The three stages of the Egyptian flood cycle were Akhet, the time of the Nile flood, Peret, the sowing time, and Shemu, the time of harvest. Without this cycle people would die from starvation.The flood cycle was so predictable that the Egyptians even based their ancient calendar on it. Akhet was the first season of the year, between the months of June and September. Peret or the Egyptian Autumn season marked the time when their crops grew in the fields and were harvested, running from October to mid-February. Shemu was the third and last season of the Egyptian year which ran from mid-February until the end of May; it essentially signalled the spring season of the Egyptian calendar.

                                  ==Importance for Egypt== Were it not for the Nile River, Egyptian civilization could not have developed, as it is the only significant source of water in this desert region. Its other importance was the fact that it was their gateway to the unknown world. The Nile flows from south to north, to its delta on the Mediterranean Sea. It would flood each year, bringing in silt-laden waters; when the waters receded the silt would stay behind, fertilizing the land,the silt would be helpful for growing crops. If a flood was too large it would wash over mud dykes protecting a village. A small flood or no flood at all would mean famine. A flood must be of just the right intensity for a good season.

                                  The ancient Egyptians did not realize that the flood in fact appeared due to rains on the mountains to the south, and it was seen as the annual coming of the god Hapi. The rains would swell the different tributaries and other rivers that joined to become the Nile River.

                                  End of the flooding

                                  In 1970, with the completion of the High Dam at Aswan, the annual flooding cycle in Egypt came to an end. Today, farmers must use fertilizers to keep their land productive, as the deposits of silt no longer occur each year.

                                  pazuzu carries on an interesting response on the Muhammad thread, which is attractive and logical I think...

                                  but with flurry of opinions and counter opinions, we might be in danger of becoming like the Bani Israel of old, being very argumentative, and exaggerating in our faith...

                                  after all our life is short, and we will soon die, and all this universe is transient, and nothing of it will remain... does this mean we should abandon research, no, but also it does not mean that we should fight over it... )

                                  Of course, we're not arguing; his posts are non-factual, non-Qur?an, based on careless study and hearsay which has been proven and instead of defending his opinions he does perpetual posts runs away offending people showing him clear proofs of his errors which he then calls his own thread a circus and the cheerleaders/clowns with no input applaud. bravo

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • H Offline
                                    H Offline
                                    huruf
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #197

                                    Peace,

                                    They weren't all Bedouins, events in the story happened in/around cities, and the verse says clearly relief not rain.

                                    1230 and said women in the city/town woman the mighty seeking to seduce her youth about himself thus infactuated her love indeed surely see her in error clear

                                    It takes less than a minute to Google Flooding of the Nile and that the ancient Egyptians did not know about the rain in the southern mountains therefore Qur'an is precise and they were told correctly in the prophesy ...

                                    1247 said you will plant seven snyn (years) as usual so what you harvest so leave it in its ears only/except little from what you eat

                                    1248 furthermore comes from after that seven severe eat/consume what you advanced for them only/except little from what you stored

                                    1249 furthermore comes from after that Aam (season) in it y-gh--th will be given succor/relief the mankind and in it they will press

                                    Of course, we're not arguing; his posts are non-factual, non-Qur?an, based on careless study and hearsay which has been proven and instead of defending his opinions he does perpetual posts runs away offending people showing him clear proofs of his errors which he then calls his own thread a circus and the cheerleaders/clowns with no input applaud. bravo

                                    I hate it to be a spoiler, but I have done again all over to chack conjugations, to check Lane, to check several other dictionnaries, and I have to say regarding

                                    yughaath in 12.49

                                    From Lane Book I
                                    page 2314, top of middle column

                                    .) And ,1 .4, aor. .W, (, , MOb, is
                                    1,) inf. n. as above, (0,) The land was watered W
                                    with rain. (, 0, Mpb, V.) ,; 3 JI 4 The in
                                    people rwe rained upon; rain fU upon the people
                                    . (TA.) And L aS b'

                                    (S, 0, Mpb, TA) originally Ut4. (TA.) _
                                    Jj. 0 tA S The blosom hone. (O, ,TA.) (
                                    See also 4 in art. %i. b
                                    !

                                    I am sorry, I do not know how to make the arabic letters apear in the quote, but please go to the Lane itself and check.

                                    And the verb is, as far as I can see is form IV

                                    and hier is the conjugation

                                    http//acon.baykal.be/index.php?r3=&r2=&r1=&type=IV&pvowel=a&ivowel=a

                                    type IV
                                    perfectum active

                                    perfectum passive

                                    imperfectum active

                                    imperfectum passive

                                    and here from

                                    http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=12&verse=49

                                    (1249
                                    yughthu
                                    will be given abundant rain V ? 3rd person masculine singular (form IV) passive imperfect verb

                                    But as it happens conjugation of the verb with gh-w-th IV in the same in the same mood exactly alike, that is it could be either one.

                                    I am not going to enter any fencing on this. I have seen two translations in Spanish where they translate as Samia a Noon say , as relief or socour, but I hae seen others translations where it is given as rain, and the root is about rain and as far as I can judge the big problem put up by those who say it should relief is that it is awkward in the context to speak of rain.

                                    And there is this statement of Samia

                                    When Ndp mentioned in his previous post the verb "" of root gh y th, I did not pay attention to the root he put, and I constructed my response accordingly as if the root was Gh Wau Th. When I read the root, I felt something was wrong. And it was wrong. gh y th cannot have a present tense with an alif.
                                    Root and pattern are characteristics of the Arabic language and have nothing to do with classical Arabic alone. Any colloquial Arabic respects them to a great extent. This is not grammar, but universal grammar, and it is the way Arabic creates words and expands itself.

                                    I do not get exactly what is the problem with gh-y-th, Why cannot gh y th have a present tense with alif?

                                    As far as I can see, it is not proscribed from conjugations and has been admitted by many people. Pazuzu is an Arabic speaker...

                                    What I guess Samia and Noon want to say is that it is a matter of usage.

                                    So please clarify on what exactly you claim that it is not possible that it would be gh-y-th

                                    Salaam

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • H Offline
                                      H Offline
                                      herbman
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #198

                                      Salam, peace to all,

                                      The Great Reading is "vague" concerning the location of where the story takes place.
                                      Giving any conclusion as, it is in Yemen, Egypt, Babylone etc is quite hazardous.
                                      Misr in the Great Reading point to any town/location not to a country/state.
                                      Many people (including me) are biaised because quick extrapolation are made, archeology is not a 100% precise e.g. this little joke
                                      a french, an english and an arab are speaking about the discoveries they made in their country
                                      the french - we found in France when digging an iron wire, our ancestors were already using telegraphy
                                      the english - we found in UK when digging an copper wire, our ancestors invented the telephony
                                      the arab- we found nothing when digging, our ancestors invented the cell phone

                                      Do you know what I mean now!

                                      If anyone can help answering these simple questions maybe that will give some food in the subject
                                      1/ Is Pharaoh/Fir3awn a name or a title? (If it is a title, fine only one dynastie was using these titles so we know it is in Egypt, if not then it could be anywhere else including Egypt)
                                      2/ Is Misr a country/state in the Great Reading? (whether it is Egypt or not)

                                      Thanks

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • I Offline
                                        I Offline
                                        IMHO
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #199

                                        Of course, we're not arguing; his posts are non-factual, non-Qur?an, based on careless study and hearsay which has been proven and instead of defending his opinions he does perpetual posts runs away offending people showing him clear proofs of his errors which he then calls his own thread a circus and the cheerleaders/clowns with no input applaud. bravo

                                        Salaam Noon
                                        Pazuzu posts are by no means non factual; in reality he has been putting all the facts, replete with references and illustrations in front of us, and most of his arguments are based on the Qur'an. I would not call it a careless study, as he is basing his findings on references from many renowned scholors, and he makes no secret of it, and yes he has a right to put his opinions in his posts and so may we.
                                        As for his "perpetual posts" they are like the chapters of a book in the making, with different headings, and IMO he could put it togehter neatly in a book, but whether anyone has the courage to publish such a book is a whole different matter.
                                        peace

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          Samia
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #200

                                          I do not get exactly what is the problem with gh-y-th, Why cannot gh y th have a present tense with alif?

                                          As far as I can see, it is not proscribed from conjugations and has been admitted by many people. Pazuzu is an Arabic speaker...

                                          What I guess Samia and Noon want to say is that it is a matter of usage.

                                          So please clarify on what exactly you claim that it is not possible that it would be gh-y-th

                                          Salaam

                                          Salaam huruf

                                          It is a rule of conjugation, and thus pattern, not grammar. Verbs with a weak consonant (ya - wau or alif) undergo different transformation when conjugated, mostly according to set rules, sometimes completely arbitrary. The verbs in question both can have similar past tense ghaath. But the roots are different (gh- wau - th) and (gh - ya- th), and that's why they get confused with each other, even by some grammar books. When conjugated to the present, such verbs retain the original weak consonant. This is a set rule.
                                          A simple example is the two verbs with past tense (maat/ to die; and saar/ to walk). They have the consecutive rootsM-W-T and S-Y-R. When conjugated to the present tense they become Yamuut and Yasiir.

                                          As for the table you put for the conjugation of verb form IV It's all correct, but when I read that the root is gh ya th, I got a bit confused. It's like conjugating the verb (to rain) and then say I rain, he rains, you rain....correct conjugation wrong usage.
                                          This is what L-Lexicon paid attention to in page 2314 the verb in the passive is Tughath, but it used it only to the earth and did not conjugate it further, nor did it allude to the usage in the qur'aan of the verb "yughath". What I understand is that L- L knew that this verb with root (gh ya th) concerns the earth only. On page 2308 under gh wau th para 4 line 5 it says

                                          is used in the sense of ighatha, but is rare and is said (by some) to be from ghayth, not ighatha.

                                          This is why L-L did not put its conjugation under gh y th, nor did he put form IV or form X under gh ya th. You only find form I, II and V under gh ya th, which are not our concern here. He would also find that the conjugation you put for form IV cannot be from the root gh ya th.

                                          That is, maybe , what you are looking for, I mean the rare usage of form I conjugated to other than the earth. But it seems that L-L nor the other lexicons endorse it.

                                          So, yes..it's a question of usage...
                                          When I am confronted by similar linguistic problems, I have to check the usage of the word in the qur'aan. The qur'aan used both roots, gh y th and gh w th, but also used the expression (yunazzil ul ghayth). Other than that, and with the exception of verse 12 49, we have form X. One other verse (18 29) has both forms IV and X, but with the explicit mention of hot water, which is hardly gayth In the qur'aan,, ghayth is good rain, so they cannot have "ghayth" when in hell. "maTar", on the other hand, is used in the qur'aan as harmful or a thing for torture.

                                          I prefer in general to check the lexicons against the qur'aan, not the other way round. After all, Arabic language grew by the qur'aan. Before the qur'aan, Arabic was a limited, undeveloped language.

                                          I hope I answered your query.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Users