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. Questions/Comments on the Quran
  4. Resolve the confusion--pronoun in 16:66 and 23:21

Resolve the confusion--pronoun in 16:66 and 23:21

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Questions/Comments on the Quran
101 Posts 10 Posters 4.3k 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.
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    Mazhar
    wrote on last edited by
    #81

    One should never forget Arabic is a pro-drop language. Its prepositional phrases show to the critical reader, who is aware of grammar rules, what is elided. Word by word translation for Arabic is the choice of those who know not Arabic.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M Offline
      M Offline
      mmkhan
      wrote on last edited by
      #82

      Salam,
      Both the words are different. See their morphology.

      Salaam,

      Sorry I disagree. It came from the same root.


      A3in-Raa-Baa - Raa-Seen-Laam


      You cannot say RuSuLan is a different word and not belong to the root of RaSooL.

      May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
      mmKhan

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Offline
        M Offline
        Mazhar
        wrote on last edited by
        #83

        Salaam,

        Sorry I disagree. It came from the same root.


        A3in-Raa-Baa - Raa-Seen-Laam


        You cannot say RuSuLan is a different word and not belong to the root of RaSooL.

        May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
        mmKhan

        Sorry, this is no comparison in morphology.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Offline
          M Offline
          Man_of_Faith
          wrote on last edited by
          #84

          One should never forget Arabic is a pro-drop language. Its prepositional phrases show to the critical reader, who is aware of grammar rules, what is elided. Word by word translation for Arabic is the choice of those who know not Arabic.

          Who said anything about word-by-word interpretation. Anyway it is a way to learn at first. Affixes and prepositions etc are important for the Arabic language, that is true, but it does not matter if the grammatical rules that you use are wrong. What I meant is that Arabic sentence design is very different from English, for example, and when you read it you "think" in a different way. It becomes a different order. This is essential to remember when you attempt to make a translation.

          English is a pro-drop language, and it drops the pronouns way more frequently than Arabic. In fact I feel that Arabic actually keeps pronouns very often to the extent it sounds dull in English if you directly translate it. In this manner Arabic can on the other hand feel more exact and non-misunderstandable, as long as you use the proper grammar rules. By all means it depends on the speaker of the language really. Some people speak it lazily and drop certain words because it is more comfortable. Just watch the transformation of the English language.

          Have faith

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Offline
            M Offline
            Mazhar
            wrote on last edited by
            #85

            Who said anything about word-by-word interpretation. Anyway it is a way to learn at first. Affixes and prepositions etc are important for the Arabic language, that is true, but it does not matter if the grammatical rules that you use are wrong. What I meant is that Arabic sentence design is very different from English, for example, and when you read it you "think" in a different way. It becomes a different order. This is essential to remember when you attempt to make a translation.

            English is a pro-drop language, and it drops the pronouns way more frequently than Arabic. In fact I feel that Arabic actually keeps pronouns very often to the extent it sounds dull in English if you directly translate it. In this manner Arabic can on the other hand feel more exact and non-misunderstandable, as long as you use the proper grammar rules. By all means it depends on the speaker of the language really. Some people speak it lazily and drop certain words because it is more comfortable. Just watch the transformation of the English language.

            Have faith

            From MOF; It is a pleasant post to me.

            The word order in sentences of English and Arabic has variations but it does not mean that both languages have different types of sentences, either by structure or meaning. First step is to recognize a sentence, its beginning and end since unlike English it has no stop signs. Translation will be in two steps; after morphological parsing and after syntactical parsing . Most of available translations were done only by following first process, thereby, they had blurred or distorted perceptions.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • M Offline
              M Offline
              Man_of_Faith
              wrote on last edited by
              #86

              The lack of punctuation is clearly a big disadvantage for the interpretation. And sometimes passages cut the same context into many fragments so it is confusing to read. It is at least a sign to me that some ignorant person sat down and fragmented the discourse into passages.

              Peace

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Offline
                M Offline
                Mazhar
                wrote on last edited by
                #87

                The lack of punctuation is clearly a big disadvantage for the interpretation. And sometimes passages cut the same context into many fragments so it is confusing to read. It is at least a sign to me that some ignorant person sat down and fragmented the discourse into passages.

                Peace

                The "puntuation" in Arabic of Qur'aan is the best world over. The only difference is that it does not have separate marks but case endings are the tool for puntuation which leave no room for incorrect interpretation when both morphological and syntactical processes are employed for analysis.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Offline
                  M Offline
                  Man_of_Faith
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #88

                  As long as you know the language, that works well, yes.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M Offline
                    M Offline
                    mmkhan
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #89

                    Sorry, this is no comparison in morphology.

                    Salaam,

                    Well, so how will you define morphology in and .
                    Can you please clarify? Thanks.

                    May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
                    mmKhan

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Mazhar
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #90

                      Salaam,

                      o

                      Well, so how will you define morphology in and .
                      Can you please clarify? Thanks.

                      May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
                      mmKhan

                      Both are broken plurals; one feminine and the other masculine. The issue was with relation to relative adjective http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/07.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Sura%20009/7.%20Arbi%20Ain%20Ra%20Ba%20language/4.gif. Rasulun does not have relative adjective.

                      You can read about Relative adjective in any grammar book.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • M Offline
                        M Offline
                        mmkhan
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #91

                        Both are broken plurals; one feminine and the other masculine. The issue was with relation to relative adjective http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Tabweeb%20Part%202/07.%20Roots%20originating%20in%20Sura%20009/7.%20Arbi%20Ain%20Ra%20Ba%20language/4.gif. Rasulun does not have relative adjective.

                        You can read about Relative adjective in any grammar book.

                        Salaam,

                        It was not rAsulUn but it was rUsUlAn.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • B Offline
                          B Offline
                          Bender
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #92

                          I don't waste my time to see the invisible through imaginative-hallucination; I see the words of the Book that mirror every reality, visible and invisible because I accept the Book is written in human language.

                          salaam,

                          1997

                          Mazhar translation
                          Thereby, for reason of its universality and permanence, We have certainly rendered it Grand Qur'aan easy, open and facilitative for reading and comprehension by transcribing it in the mother tongue Arabic language of you Muhammad .

                          The purpose of its facilitative rendering is that you the Messenger might give glad tidings-guarantee on the strength of this Grand Qur'aan to those who endeavor to remain cautious and avoid conduct inspired and governed by emotion in reverence and fear of Allah the Exalted;

                          And so that you the Messenger may admonish, with this Grand Qur'aan, the excessively argumentative people.

                          I still believe one needs a very big imagination to come up with these kind of translation. If you think I am wrong, then I have a couple of questions if you do not mind.

                          I think I have already shown you that the language of the Quran is NOT the language of your school language.
                          Besides this, does not mean Arabic in The Quran. Your understanding on this is based on some faulty early exegeses.

                          Salaam,
                          Bender

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • M Offline
                            M Offline
                            Mazhar
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #93

                            Salaam,

                            It was not rAsulUn but it was rUsUlAn.

                            Singular was quoted and the other is its plural. Concentrate on Relative adjective.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • M Offline
                              M Offline
                              Mazhar
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #94

                              salaam,

                              1997

                              Mazhar translation
                              Thereby, for reason of its universality and permanence, We have certainly rendered it Grand Qur'aan easy, open and facilitative for reading and comprehension by transcribing it in the mother tongue Arabic language of you Muhammad .

                              The purpose of its facilitative rendering is that you the Messenger might give glad tidings-guarantee on the strength of this Grand Qur'aan to those who endeavor to remain cautious and avoid conduct inspired and governed by emotion in reverence and fear of Allah the Exalted;

                              And so that you the Messenger may admonish, with this Grand Qur'aan, the excessively argumentative people.

                              I still believe one needs a very big imagination to come up with these kind of translation. If you think I am wrong, then I have a couple of questions if you do not mind.

                              I think I have already shown you that the language of the Quran is NOT the language of your school language.
                              Besides this, does not mean Arabic in The Quran. Your understanding on this is based on some faulty early exegeses.
                              Salaam,
                              Bender

                              Strange; did you not notice what I have been loudly proclaiming on this forum that all the old translations/exegeses are faulty in one respect or the other; and particularly later ones since these are copied from Jewish translator who did translation not for academic purposes but merely playfully--Rodwell.

                              Do you see any similarity of my translation in any earlier translation?

                              I still believe one needs a very big imagination to come up with these kind of translation

                              "Big imagination" might cause what Qur'aan calls "disease within hearts"; only rational behaviour is needed to understand this kind of translation becuase it is based on academic rules and every particle is taken care in transference to target language.

                              I think I have already shown you that the language of the Quran is NOT the language of your school language.

                              It is but childish. I said Qur'aan is in the language of peoples, it is living language of millions and millions of people. What makes it difficult for you to digest that Qur'aan is written in Arabic language and language is always governed by rules, and these rules can be studied in school.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • B Offline
                                B Offline
                                Bender
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #95

                                Strange; did you not notice what I have been loudly proclaiming on this forum that all the old translations/exegeses are faulty in one respect or the other; and particularly later ones since these are copied from Jewish translator who did translation not for academic purposes but merely playfully--Rodwell.

                                Do you see any similarity of my translation in any earlier translation?

                                Salaam,

                                No I do not see any similarity, your translation is from a differrent level.

                                "Big imagination" might cause what Qur'aan calls "disease within hearts"; only rational behaviour is needed to understand this kind of translation becuase it is based on academic rules and every particle is taken care in transference to target language.

                                Do people who have a disease in their hearts know they have a disease in their heart or do they think they are acting rational?

                                It is but childish. I said Qur'aan is in the language of peoples, it is living language of millions and millions of people. What makes it difficult for you to digest that Qur'aan is written in Arabic language and language is always governed by rules, and these rules can be studied in school.

                                Yes you say a lot, it does only not mean that what you say is also true.

                                Salaam,
                                Bender

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • M Offline
                                  M Offline
                                  Mazhar
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #96

                                  Thanks, Bender

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • A Offline
                                    A Offline
                                    Aladin_Azra
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #97

                                    وَإِنَّ لَكُمْ فِي الْأَنْعَامِ لَعِبْرَةً نُّسْقِيكُم مِّمَّا فِي بُطُونِهِ مِن بَيْنِ فَرْثٍ وَدَمٍ لَّبَنًا خَالِصًا سَآئِغًا لِّلشَّارِبِينَ

                                    وَإِنَّ لَكُمْ فِي الْأَنْعَامِ لَعِبْرَةً نُّسقِيكُم مِّمَّا فِي بُطُونِهَا وَلَكُمْ فِيهَا مَنَافِعُ كَثِيرَةٌ وَمِنْهَا تَأْكُلُونَ

                                    All translators religiously following the traditional exegeses relate the masculine singular pronoun and feminine pronoun to feminine plural noun occuring in exactly identical first sentences in both Ayahs.

                                    I could not find any rule in Arabic grammar to agree with all of them. Can you reconcile?

                                    Maybe these pronouns are not related to el-en'aam, but to maa' (masculine) in 1665 and šejeret (feminine) in 2320. If you look you'll see that 1666 finishes with li-l-šaaribeen (for the drinkers) and 2321 finishes with we min-haa te'kuloon (and from it they are eating), and 2320 with li-l-aakileen (for the eaters). Word buToon is not necessarily "bellies". I haven't study these enough, it's just my thought on this "issue".

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • J Offline
                                      J Offline
                                      jkhan
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #98

                                      Maybe these pronouns are not related to el-en'aam, but to maa' (masculine) in 1665 and šejeret (feminine) in 2320. If you look you'll see that 1666 finishes with li-l-šaaribeen (for the drinkers) and 2321 finishes with we min-haa te'kuloon (and from it they are eating), and 2320 with li-l-aakileen (for the eaters). Word buToon is not necessarily "bellies". I haven't study these enough, it's just my thought on this "issue".

                                      Thanks for bringing this old threads into spotlight... For me, i am stuck.. these are serious issues to be comprehensively addressed ... whatever you have written don't give any sense to be honest..

                                      Salam everyone...
                                      in Arabic when a sentence ends as (HI) it should be singular (masculine) only or can be used for plural (more than two) according to accepted grammar ... I found all to be singular and masculine..

                                      Same in Arabic HA .. is singular (feminine) or plural (more than two)...

                                      So i don't understand why it said THEIR belies for ButuniHI and THEIR Belies for ButuniHA...
                                      why not ButuniHIM or ButuniHUNNA..
                                      I think there is a special pattern in Quran where what Author has in mind is not reflected in words..Unless we perceive it..
                                      I am researching them... if i come across with a positive and comprehensive consequences, i would in sha allah share with you, if not i will keep quiet.. Coz God knows best..
                                      thank you

                                      Sorry i missed to explain two concerned verses

                                      6612 "And Maryam, the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into her through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient."

                                      2191 "And the one who guarded her chastity, so We blew into her through Our angel, and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds."

                                      the above two verses for me the Author has intended against what we presume to be... one is to the womb/belly God refers and the other God refers to HER (Maryam) but literally God has done what He has done i.e. through which what God did Maryam got pregnant..

                                      FeeHI here is meant to Bely of Maryam ...
                                      FeeHA here is meant to Maryam herself..

                                      That's my take for these two complicated verses.. i will let you know about others verses..

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • A Offline
                                        A Offline
                                        Aladin_Azra
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #99

                                        Maybe buToon means "latency" or something similar, and it can mean that water (maa&#039 is not in its normal state, but its state is latent (in milk). Thus buTooni-hi could mean the latent state of water. Similar could be for šejer.

                                        If this is the case, maybe it can explain why the pork is forbidden, and it could (possibly) be due to pigs eat everything and these things they ate are latent in their meat.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • N Offline
                                          N Offline
                                          NK
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #100

                                          I found the following answer on the net. I am posting it for the benefit for others. I found it very useful.

                                          "What you're describing Is a actually called "اسم الجنس الجمعى" (Collective Generic Noun), not "اسم الجمع" (Collective Noun), so, what's the difference ?
                                          A collective noun is a word that describes a plural that doesn't have a singular variation, for example, the word "نساء" means "women", you can't get a singular variation from this word, for a singular woman we use the word "امرأة" which is a completely different word, so the word "نساء" actually have no singular, same with "إبل" "camels", again, no singular form, a singular camel is "جمل".
                                          The Collective Generic Noun (CGN) is a word that describes a plural, which gets its singular variation by adding the letter "ة" at the end of it, like the examples you gave "تين - تينة" "سمك-سمكة" and so on.
                                          So now, what's the difference between a CGN and a normal plural ?
                                          Generic nouns don't describe multiple objects, they describe the "kind" of object, for example
                                          سمكة - singular - a fish
                                          سمكات \ أسماك - plural - fishes (multiple)
                                          سمك - CGN - fish (in general)
                                          So the CGN is used when you mean the kind of thing, "I like fish أحب السمك" , but the normal plural is used when you mean a certain number or amount of the thing "I ate 4 fishes أكلت 4 سمكات", you can't describe a CGN with a numerical value ( unless you use a preposition like I ate 4 OF the fish أكلت 4 من السمك ) .
                                          So, to recap with another example "ورق" (CGN) means paper (in general), if I say "ورقات or أوراق" (normal plural) I mean (sheets of paper), the singular is (CGN+ ة ) = ورقة (a sheet of paper).
                                          And finally, another difference between the two is that
                                          All (non-human) plurals take singular feminine pronouns (exهذه سمكات)
                                          All CGNs take singular masculine pronouns (exهذا سمك)"

                                          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