Qatala and 'amaata
-
There is an egyptian writer who lives and teaches in Spain, educated in Al Azhar in islamic knowledge, who is really great, Houssain Labrass. He has pubished in his facebook a short not one synonims, which are not 100% synonims. That is, they are synonims by use but no by root. Two such are
qatala and 'amaata
'amaata is really to kill, that is the proper word for that meaning, whereas
qatala, by root means to
"parar o someter la energ?a o fuerza de algo o alguien, en su intensidad m?xima puede llevar a la muerte y de ah? la relaci?n en el uso"
stop or subdue somebody's or something's energy or strength. At its highest intensity it can cause death and from that comes its use as a synonim of 'amaata.
This may allow us to deal with that qatala that sometimes seems out of place. I have not checked yet but probabbly it will show what is really meant in the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
Thanks for the input! Much appreciated!
I'm starting to think that the language of the quran perhaps isn't so buried and hidden from sight as I used to think. I thought the language had changed so much that most of the change traces had been lost. Now I begin to think that perhaps the language of the quran is not far away, or hidden, at all. Perhaps it is much more simple than we expect and make it. Perhaps that only thing which keeps us in linguistic confusion and mystery is our own entrained blindness to see what is in front of us. Perhaps nothing is lost at all.
I know that some people are against the use of dictionaries and grammar to find meaning in the quran, but I'm starting to think that perhaps guidance happens on a totally broad front, including on a purely linguistic level, where words and grammar indeed are in focus. After all, a text is made up of exactly that words and grammar. Perhaps we should not reject the idea of dictionaries and grammar, but instead have a focus on purifying the dictionaries and grammars by restoring misaligned focus and bring back lost items into the lime light. Perhaps words and meanings are not lost, but just ignored. I find it hard to believe that the language, i.e the correct word meanings, and grammar, would have been lost, to a text that is supposed to be otherwise so pure and precise. Without the language, we don't have the text, and we have nothing.
Perhaps it's just a matter of approaching this situation in a balanced way, where we question the current/traditional understanding of the text, by listening to our intuition and to our common sense, and then go and see what's up with the words and grammar. Like with everything, this is also the time to be cautious and exercise balance and humbleness. Some people will try to force a new understanding on the existing words, which will be an equally bad thing as the old twisted understanding. We must not go to any extreme, nor clinging blindly on to traditional understanding, nor trying to invent new things without sound judgement. Both are equally disconnected from reality.
Perhaps it would be useful if there was a sort of collection of quranic arabic words and their alternate meanings, like a kind of dictionary which shows alternatives to the current understandings. It could be like living research material... easily accessed for those who wish to dig into it. Perhaps a separate category in the forum...
Peace
-
I think we should all strive to make sense. Whenever something leaves in us some unsatisfaction, little or great, something that against our best will still does not completely click we should not leave it alone. I do not mean to become obsessive, but kind of put it on hold, let it rest and settle and then be aware whenever something connected to it comes up. Finally something that makes us say ?That's it happens and it clicks. The worst thing I think it to be dogmatic. We are never so authoritative, nobody is, as to be dogmatic.
Also, and too bad for people who keep bashing Arabs, I know some of them who are very open and interested and knowledgeable, like the one I mentionned, and they must be justly valued when they investigate in Qur'an because many times they have clues we don't.
I have diverged many times with a good Spanish forum friend from Morocco who is really in love with the Qur'an and its language and has really fantastic insights, and after some time he has written to me to tell me exactly that I was right and he was wrong. But the knowledge, born of having a deep thirst for knowledge and having the tools, and a fantastic command of the language plus so much reading in Arabic and the love of it make for great findings and insight.
And I must say also, it is no wonder the Qur'an is in Arabic, it is the one language, at least of those I know, that can conceivably speak to last because its configuration is so much germinal and can be validated in so many contexts that it keeps having full meaning even in circumstances and contexts where in other languages everything would have to be changed. And I say so in spite of my being in love with my own language, but each language has its own genius and for the Qur'an Arabic is the one completely fitting. Or at least that allows to develop an Arabic which is specifically quranical within the chasis of the Arabic language.
I also agree that dictionnaries are not useless, just as translations are not useless. It is like food, you do not have to eat all the food that is in the market, you choose according to your tastes, capacity and needs. But you do not abstain from food because some or much doe snot suit you.
Salaam
-
'amaata is really to kill, that is the proper word for that meaning, whereas
It is absolutely erroneous understanding. It means natural death. A man gets alientated from the company of living either by natural death or Qatl/Zibh killed, slaughtered, murdered by others.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.157p.gif
And if you people are murdered in the way of Allah the Exalted or you died a natural deathWord by word parsing 3157
-
It is not so, Houssain is speaking about synonims by use and synonims by root. By root amaata is to make die, to cause to die. Qatala is what is said, the question is to decide in each instance.
maata is to die form I, amaata y to make die, to kill, form IV of the same root. The question is to determine to what extent where and how the qatala by use is meaning really kill in the Qur'an. We know perfectly that there are many instances where it is not to kill. Ant the atuomatic translation as "kill" has done many wrongs to the Qur'an.
My examination of the instances where 'amaata occurs shows that it always refer to God. it is God to make die, and so it is translated.
To me it means, a person may intend to make a person extinct by attrition or by whatever means, BUT whatever a person does, it is only God who makes die. Power of life and death rests con God. On people me rest the intentions.
The meaning of qatala by root is as said
stop or subdue somebody's or something's energy or strength. At its highest intensity it can cause death and from that comes its use as a synonim of 'amaata.
The question is that we are not used to say God kills, and instead of saying so we say that God makes die, that is a matter of niceties, because we do not have the agent of somebody giving a blow or of an accident killing somebody, we need the physical explanation of killing, We need it, but God says die, and we die, just as God says "be" and we are. We may believe we give life when we give birth or that we kill when we want somebody to die and contrive to it, but it is only God who is able to kill, or make die.
Or what is the difference then between maata and 'amaata?
Salaam
-
It is not so, Houssain is speaking about synonims by use and synonims by root. By root amaata is to make die, to cause to die. Qatala is what is said, the question is to decide in each instance.
maata is to die form I, amaata y to make die, to kill, form IV of the same root. The question is to determine to what extent where and how the qatala by use is meaning really kill in the Qur'an. We know perfectly that there are many instances where it is not to kill. Ant the atuomatic translation as "kill" has done many wrongs to the Qur'an.
My examination of the instances where 'amaata occurs shows that it always refer to God. it is God to make die, and so it is translated.
To me it means, a person may intend to make a person extinct by attrition or by whatever means, BUT whatever a person does, it is only God who makes die. Power of life and death rests con God. On people me rest the intentions.
The meaning of qatala by root is as said
stop or subdue somebody's or something's energy or strength. At its highest intensity it can cause death and from that comes its use as a synonim of 'amaata.
The question is that we are not used to say God kills, and instead of saying so we say that God makes die, that is a matter of niceties, because we do not have the agent of somebody giving a blow or of an accident killing somebody, we need the physical explanation of killing, We need it, but God says die, and we die, just as God says "be" and we are. We may believe we give life when we give birth or that we kill when we want somebody to die and contrive to it, but it is only God who is able to kill, or make die.
Or what is the difference then between maata and 'amaata?
Salaam
Both the roots are neither synonyms nor synonymous. Death and killing/murder-individually or in battle are also neither synonyms nor synonymous. The apparent effect of both is however similar, that the man gets alientated from the living companions.
The difference in both the quoted verbs is of Form I and IV.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00086.%20Maut%20Meem%20Waw%20Ta%20death%20matter/30.gifVerb Perfect; third person; singular; masculine; Subject pronoun hidden; - Verbal Noun. (1)3144(2)984=2http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00086.%20Maut%20Meem%20Waw%20Ta%20death%20matter/38.gif Verb Perfect; Third person; Singular; Masculine; ; Subject pronoun hidden; - Verbal noun. (1)5344=1
Form IV Causative - Causing someone or something to perform the action of Measure I.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/00086.%20Maut%20Meem%20Waw%20Ta%20death%20matter/10.gif Verbal Noun/Noun definite; masculine; singular; nominative. (1)2133(2)2180(3)415(4)418(5)478(6)4100(7)5106(661(9)1417(10)2399(11)6310=11
/ --
This death causes the alienation of a person from the living.Death is faced by a person only with the prior explicit permission of Allah. This will explain the difference between Form-I and Form-IV. In Form-I the subject of the verb is the person himself who died.
-
Harmony be upon you,
Actually I think that Mazhar may be right on this one, i.e. amaat means the condition when one is dead whereas the other word means to cause one to become dead, by other words murder.
This discussion may help me understand the meaning of the Arabic letter as well.
Be of one with God
-
When it is form IV it is always God who does de dying of the diers. He dies them. It is not alienation or whatever. God has the power of lide and death, he is the only one who has that power. Nobody kan kill anybody except that God dies him or her and conversely nobody can become alive without God making him or her alive.
Mawt is death, maata is die, amaata is to make die. With a bullet you can make sometody die.
The q-t-l in the Qur'an it has been dealt with in this forum has posed problems all the time and definitely there are ayas where it simly does not fit at all except that we think anything goes, because finally the Qur'an doesn't make sense, like many islamophobes uphold. But obviously for those who believe in the qur'an we do not have to be satisfied with any nonsense nomatter how much or hao many have been upholding it. Like slavery to name one.
The question is what the basic meaning of the root q-t-l is, becuse what was said in the first message of this thread is precisely that, that in usage both have been treated as sinonimous, but that by root they are not. And there are othe non synonimous by root in the Qur'an which haeve created problems because of that. Like dhabaha.
Salaam
-
Spiritual harmony be upon you,
Well, I agreed with Mazhar according to my current understanding. Q - T - L according to it suggests that someone does something towards someone as a course of action. My personal issue with understanding has been the in the Arabic linguistic sense, but it may sooner or later come clearer. However, with Q - T - L I would interpret it as Express/make - (condition) - . It could also be that Q - T - L refers to having a fight or dispute with someone.
In Arabic and the root of languages where it comes from the language very literally speaks of the action one does or describes the action/condition in a very literal sense.
A'maata suggests a condition of being, noteworthy since the marks the condition of 'being'. Regardless of dead or not in the interpretation it marks a condition in which someone is in, i.e. = be, thereof = be = .
That is my current stair on which I am right now in terms of understanding of the Arabic language.
Anyway; it may or may not help discussion here, but it could be kept in mind.
Something of similitude with Q - T - L is K - T - B which comprises of the letters "manipulate" - - = with, commonly referred to as "decree", but it can also refer to something by which you judge with or which "course of action to perform". Anyway, I have found that when the word structure and the word being subjective wants to have some effect on another object then is used as third letter of a trilateral word. You can refer that to other words which also relate the action to other objects such as which you have an example of in 239 although I would argue that it means "deny".
I understand that it is a difficult matter to speak of words on morpheme level, but at least by always analyzing words this deep I often discover inconsistency in traditional interpretation. With 'ketab' i have known for quite a long time that it can impossibly refer to a "book", but when I reached further into deep analysis I could also verify this on a literal level.
The 'q' in qatal has a very concrete meaning of expression and is used also to mean "say" in "qul" () which would literally mean "express that". And also in musadeQeen, and in... QUR'AN which may be referred to as "expression concrete ' be one".
What most Arabic words have in common is that they need to be mentally associated with physical objects to mean it or otherwise it is always abstract, and many times it needs help words to be associated with something such as "sujud" would not immediately refer to (physical) "prostration", but only if explicitly referring to it such as together with a word for down, for example. Sujud literally means "the condition of having a humble spirit".
I would argue that if you want to have an individual/character to cause the dieing you at least must say "". The other means that someone is .
Be of one with God
-
No, 'amaat is iv form It cannot be the state, it is like aslama, it is an action and if it is an action that fall on somebody else, that it is that somebody else which receives the action.
Salama might be a state, but aslama is an action. it cannot be otherwise, That is form IV.Salaam
-
There is an egyptian writer who lives and teaches in Spain, educated in Al Azhar in islamic knowledge, who is really great, Houssain Labrass. He has pubished in his facebook a short not one synonims, which are not 100% synonims. That is, they are synonims by use but no by root. Two such are
qatala and 'amaata
'amaata is really to kill, that is the proper word for that meaning, whereas
qatala, by root means to
"parar o someter la energ?a o fuerza de algo o alguien, en su intensidad m?xima puede llevar a la muerte y de ah? la relaci?n en el uso"
stop or subdue somebody's or something's energy or strength. At its highest intensity it can cause death and from that comes its use as a synonim of 'amaata.
This may allow us to deal with that qatala that sometimes seems out of place. I have not checked yet but probabbly it will show what is really meant in the Qur'an.
Salaam
Salaam,
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan -
Ok huruf. For me it is be and then word.
-
Mawt is death, maata is die, amaata is to make die. With a bullet you can make sometody die.
Hitting somebody by bullet resulting in his death is called killing a person and not making him die. A believer killed in war fighting in the cause of Allah is not made to die, he remains alive but we perceive him not as alive.
Mut-tum It does not make sense to say "you did the act to make dead". It simply means "you died".
But Allah says nobody can die without his prior permission. So form IV verb means to let somebody die a natural death.
Form IV Causative - Causing someone or something to perform the action of Measure I.
-
It is not alienation or whatever.
It is the job of AlMaut to alienate-segregate its object from the living.
http//www.haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/004.%20An%20Nisa/4.15s.gif
This restriction be kept till the death might cause their segregation-alienation;AlMaut is the Subject-doer of preceding verb.
-
Hitting somebody by bullet resulting in his death is called killing a person and not making him die. A believer killed in war fighting in the cause of Allah is not made to die, he remains alive but we perceive him not as alive.
Mut-tum It does not make sense to say "you did the act to make dead". It simply means "you died".
But Allah says nobody can die without his prior permission. So form IV verb means to let somebody die a natural death.
Form IV Causative - Causing someone or something to perform the action of Measure I.
In fact I think 'amaata means splitting hairs. That makes de hairs to alienate from the living hairs therefore causing a grammatical breakdown of the hairline.
I don't know whether I got it right, this airline alienation of the living splitting.
I'll go back to Houssain and ask if he has not yet split all the hairs ahead. Mainly he looks a bit bald.
Salaam .
-
Hi, in very simple terms
Qatala, is to lose your life because of external factors which have intents (Killing, torture, ...etc)
Amata, is to lose your life because of internal factors (Disease, old age, ...etc)
Peace
-
Hi, in very simple terms
Qatala, is to lose your life because of external factors which have intents (Killing, torture, ...etc)
Amata, is to lose your life because of internal factors (Disease, old age, ...etc)
Peace
First could also be caused without intent; a man got killed by Musa alahissalam.
For other, it is natural death; man reverting to the state of matter.
-
First could also be caused without intent; a man got killed by Musa alahissalam.
For other, it is natural death; man reverting to the state of matter.
thats why i said intent, Musa have intents, the torture have intents, however, if you got killed by lets a fall of great rock on your head (its external) reason for death yet Arabs doesn't call he qotela instead mata or halaka.
Take care
-
Peace all,
I don't intend to muddy further already-muddied waters, but qatala certainly implies the intent of the agent in their intent to cause death, in English the equivalent would be to kill or to murder.
Whereas, amaata does not imply the intent of the agent as intending to cause death, in English there is no equivalent except to use a phrasal compound such as to cause to die.