Significance of alef in بِاسمِ
-
Hi
this is from Edip's book ~ critical thinkers for islamic reform,
So, I tried that Quranic educational tool. I asked the imam to grab the pen and
write down the beginning of chapter 96 ?Bismillahirrahmanirarrahim. Iqra
bismi rabbika allazi khalaq? That's it. Surprise he did not wish to write it.
Perhaps he was scared to continue engaging in a Socratic dialog. Had he written
those few words, I would ask him why he wrote both words the same. Surely, he
would be justified to spell them the same, since both were pronounced the same
and meant the same. Then, I would ask him to look at the spelling of the Quran.
He would notice that the one in Bismillah was consisted of three letters, BSM,
but the one in the following verse was spelled with an extra aleph, BISM. So,
even if we assume that Muhammad did not write the revelation of the Quran
with his own hand, even if we believe in the stories of him dictating to scribes,
he must have at least known the letter Aleph. If he knew Aleph, then he was at
least 1/28th literate! ?I proved that he knew the letter Aleph and now it is your
turn to prove that he did not know the letter B, the second letter in alphabet,? I
would nicely ask. If our imam got stuck again, I would perhaps go forward and
ask him about the different spelling of Mecca and Becca or the curious spelling
of Bastata in verse 769. -
The reason for this is obvious for those who have witnessed the prophetic mathematical code of the Quran (7430-37) and unclear for those who cannot witness it due to ignorance and arrogance '(for instance see 7146).
The number of letters in Bismillah are 19. With an extra Alif it would be 20.
For more information please see
http//19.org/category/yuksel/19-gods-signature-in-nature-and-scripture/
Peace,
Edip -
"This regular hamza(t) at the beginning of a word is called the "disconnecting hamza(t)" . This is often an original letter and it must be pronounced always.
The other type of hamza(t) which lacks the sign is called the "connecting hamza(t)" . That one is never an original letter and it is only pronounced when it is the first thing that comes out of the mouth. Arabs added this kind of hamza(t) to some words for merely phonological reasons, namely because they hated to start talking by pronouncing a "still" letter, that is, a consonant that is not followed by any vowel. The connecting hamza(t) is somewhat similar to the French "liaison."
http//arabic.tripod.com/Alif2.htm
Not to be fascinated by digital gimmics, Arabic is a language of Syllables.
-
Mazhar -- Thanks for your help.
My observations
• I find 3 occurences of and 4 occurences of
• All 7 words begin with
• I don't believe there are any "disconnecting hamza(t)" in these words; and I believe the latter 4 each have a "connecting hamza(t)"
I am struggling to understand how your post relates to these observations, nor what rule or convention would add a "connecting hamza(t)" to the middle of a word (i.e. ِ. Did I misunderstand something?
What I also notice is that the the use of is always followed by (i.e. ) whereas the use of is not. Is this merely coincidence?
-
"connecting hamza(t)" to the middle of a word (i.e. ِ
It is not a word. It is a phrase. is a rare two consonant word like some othhers, In all three occurrences without connecting hamza prepositional phrase is at the start of speech and is followed by a word beginning with connecting hamza(t). May be you find some clue in it.
-
Mazhar -- Thanks for your help.
My observations
• I find 3 occurences of and 4 occurences of
• All 7 words begin with
• I don't believe there are any "disconnecting hamza(t)" in these words; and I believe the latter 4 each have a "connecting hamza(t)"
I am struggling to understand how your post relates to these observations, nor what rule or convention would add a "connecting hamza(t)" to the middle of a word (i.e. ِ. Did I misunderstand something?
What I also notice is that the the use of is always followed by (i.e. ) whereas the use of is not. Is this merely coincidence?
Salaam,
Thank you for this info
Salaam,
Bender -
And may peace be with you Bender -
You are welcome. I just wish someone could help me make sense of it )
Salaam SAbboushi,
At the moment I have no idea
You said I find 3 occurences of and 4 occurences of
I could only find 2 occurences of in 1141 and in 2730. Where is the 3rd one?Salaam,
Bender -
Mazhar
In all three occurrences without connecting hamza prepositional phrase is at the start of speech and is followed by a word beginning with connecting hamza(t).
It took me a few days to process this. Are you saying that the 3 occurences of differ from the 4 occurences of in another way, namely that when used as the first word of a sentence, is used?
Also, are you saying that in the 4 occurences, the alef is not a connecting hamza(t)?
Confused... but trying to get through it!
-
Hours of research later... so many questions (
-
If an Arabic grammarian were asked to translate (in writing) these phrases into Arabic ("In the name of God", "So glorify the name of your Lord", "Read in the name of your Lord", for what reason(s) would they (or would they not) choose to use or in each case?
-
The link provided by Mazhar on hamza(t) leads me to believe that the hamza wasl is only pronounced if it is the first utterance of a statement; but in all 7 cases I have cited, the preposition insures that a hamza wasl is not pronounced. Is that correct?
-
Since there is a difference between writing and speaking is a word whose first letter is not vowelled (such as ) always (or generally?) written with a hamza wasl regardless of whether it is not the first thing uttered in a statement?
Thanks for any help--
Samir -