Lets Make a Qur'an! (Translation) Lets make a Translation!
-
Salamun Alaikum.
This may help http//www.free-minds.org/Old/articles/gods_system/rahman.htm
And by the way... whether to leave "Allah" in transliteration or use "God" has also been a matter of fierce debate.
Regards,
ArmanWhat is your opinion on that? I think saying "God" is good in the sense that English readers might have less prejudice, but today the "sense invoked" by "God" is a very bad one, and generally people imagine something very silly, but Allah has even less meaning for people, and often invokes in the most ignorant of people "Other God" or "Evil God" (though I might not mind "Evil God" too much, it is far from what the word Allah means), so I am willing to reproduce the word to capture more of its sense from the Semitic languages, which had those implications I mentioned earlier which can be seen in the links I had posted in the first post.
What is your opinion and please continue to move on and keep going through each thing and why you prefer it and making commentary and helping out! Thank you so much for continuing!
I think that translating the word Allah to its meaning or implied meanings even might be better, since the term generally referred to whatever "was" "was actually" the "absolute ultimate", almost like speaking about "Ultimate Reality" or "The Real Greatest First Foremost Beyond Utmost Ultimate Power", so it generally always was attached to words with those implications, besides the basic "causing fear, causing one to worship fearfully" and things like that.
So always in the "god lists" of the ancient Semitic speakers, they would put something with the 'L or 'LH (' is the glottal stop or "uh" sound) root for the "first" or the "utmost" on the list, the "King" that is "beyond" or "above" or "over" everything else, from which all the other natural powers they would speak of descended.
-
What is your opinion on that? I think saying "God" is good in the sense that English readers might have less prejudice, but today the "sense invoked" by "God" is a very bad one, and generally people imagine something very silly, but Allah has even less meaning for people, and often invokes in the most ignorant of people "Other God" or "Evil God" (though I might not mind "Evil God" too much, it is far from what the word Allah means), so I am willing to reproduce the word to capture more of its sense from the Semitic languages, which had those implications I mentioned earlier which can be seen in the links I had posted in the first post.
I personally prefer "Allah" for the same reasons as you have described... and perhaps also because I personally emotionally connect with the word "Allah" more... but I often use God/Allah interchangably and wouldn't mind "God" in a translation.
The link I provided is about the words "Rahman" and "Rahim"... and I believe it has some stong arguments.
Regards,
Arman -
I personally prefer "Allah" for the same reasons as you have described... and perhaps also because I personally emotionally connect with the word "Allah" more... but I often use God/Allah interchangably and wouldn't mind "God" in a translation.
The link I provided is about the words "Rahman" and "Rahim"... and I believe it has some stong arguments.
Regards,
ArmanThank you! I prefer the term Allah more than God too for the same reasons.
-
The article says
"Usage, not etymology and certainly not dictionaries, is always the ultimate determining factor in word-meanings"
which I was also basically saying. I'm still reading, but they are acting like Rahm as Womb is the only meaning, while its "usage" in Arabic, which you can see in the Lane Lexicon showed "suffering with" as an important use of the root, almost "symbiotic suffering" which occurs also for those with a "womb" but that is not its exclusive meaning and the sense of "womb" as "origination" is not present, but the sense of "suffering with" is as can be seen by the other words with the root. It sounds blasphemous almost to say God is the Suffering God in the sense that we are the ones who suffer, but it seems to be talking about what is mentioned in the Qur'an about Allah completely encompassing all information and experience fully and having all knowledge inside and out and being extremely close to people and also an invocation of that quality.
"Ra-Ha-Miim =
Rahima - He favored, benefited, pardoned, or forgave him. To love, have tenderness, mercy, pity, forgiveness, have all that is required for exercising beneficence.
Tarhamu - He had mercy, pity, or compassion on him; he pitied or compassionated him much.
Arham - Wombs (singular) womb, i.e. place of origin. The receptacle of the young in the belly.
Ruhmun - Relationship, i.e. nearness of kin, connection by birth; relationship connecting with an ancestor. A connection or tie of relationship.
Rahman - it is active participle noun in the measure of fa'lan which conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness.
Rahim - it is in the measure of fa'il which denotes the idea of constant repetition and giving."Though it isn't mentioned in the above, the idea of "origination" is not present in the word Arham, but rather the "symbiotic connection" aspect which can be seen in all the other words and the aspect of "nearness" and in the Lane lexicon it gives clear examples of "symbiotic suffering".
So basically the "Compassionate" or "Full of Compassion" or "Extensive in Empathy" and "Ever Giving of Respite/Mercy/Grace/Leniency" stuff like that, also based on compassion and fully knowing the experience of people inside and out, a quality only Allah has, as only Allah has the complete knowledge of what it is exactly to be "be" a certain person or how it feels, we may be concerned for them, but we can't actually "know" what it is like to "suffer as them" which is knowledge that Allah fully encompasses, so only Allah is the actual literal Compassionate, but the modern sense of the word implies "Benevolent" which is somewhat a sense, but Allah is not always giving people pleasure and good, so is not "omni-benevolent" but is literally "Compassionate" or has "Full Empathy" which no one else actually has at all or is capable of.
It certainly does not appear to mean "All Mighty", and the quality being invoked is compassion "Have mercy on me, see my plight, see my suffering" and implications like that. Often the words relate to "nearness of kin" but this is also related to the "suffering with" or "suffering together" root idea which Lane has given good examples for (if you could find those things I would appreciate it greatly, since I'm having trouble accessing his book right now)
"She declares this asking for protection from Al-Rahman to the ?intruder? I don't know why that guy thinks that is a point, it still works as "Compassionate one/See My Plight" I seek refuge in the compassionate one who knows my plight is near me, etc.
Though he continues to make good points, it still was "used" differently by people and the root associated with it means nearness, symbiotic suffering, and things like that. So even though this guy makes good points for sure (that Allah is not omni-benevolent), and that terror is associated with the usage in the Qur'an, such can also be considered a trembling from "nearness" or "presence".
He mentions the Surah Al Rahman, but that Surah repeatedly shows God's attention and nearness to everything and then repeatedly says "which of the favors of Allah do you deny" over and over, so does seem associated with both nearness, attention to all things, and benefaction.
"He also includes a warning in this first set of ayat in this Sura to people not to be inequitable in weighing"
Because any wrongdoing is doing wrong to the creation of Allah who is near and knows, it doesn't mean "All Powerful" in this case, which there are words for, just because everything Allah does is "All Powerful" doesn't make the meaning of this title certainly refer to that, or else so many more titles might also be "Almighty" and all the titles can be changed to Almighty, but they each have meanings.
Why does he say that the names are opposite? One is "Full" the other is "Ever Giving", so it invokes the fullness and the giving aspect. The one who knows your plight fully and is the benefactor that gives out all mercy or benefit that there is to be given out. I can see those as aspects people would want to invoke, rather than invoking disaster or anything.
Why wouldn't someone say "have compassion on me" rather than being afraid and saying "All Powerful Destroyer!" or something. In the Bible, El Shaddai, which is often translated as Almighty, means "The Destroyer" (though it has other meanings as well that people prefer, that is an example where it is pretty clear in its usage that it is not referring to "breasts" or necessarily a "mountain" but the power of God through the Destructive aspect from the root which means "destroying".
The writer makes convincing seeming points, and I agree that "omni-benevolence" is not necessarily what is being referred to here as much as nearness and literal compassion.
The writer said
"(Note that one of the meanings of ?creation? is ?transformation?, to completely change one thing into an entirely different thing, an act which is the done only by Allah, and which cannot be done to Him - by definition!) The Qur'an mentions repeatedly that Allah creates whatever He wills (Surat Al-Rom 3054, Al-Shura 4249, Al-Qasas 286, in the present tense, and describes the conception and growth of each human fetus as an act of creation by the Creator, (see Surat Al-Zumar 396, Abas 3019) and the germination and growth of plants from seeds as an act of creation by the Creator, in each individual instance, or, as He so eloquently asks in Surat Al-Waq'aa (in paraphrase) relating to the plants we people plant in the ground "Did you cause them to germinate and grow, or did We grow them?" This means that He is constantly and continuously interacting with all creation."This is what I've also been saying throughout the forum which many people seem to reject or deny.
"both continuously creates, Al-Rahman, and continuously watches and listens to and sees and provides for and responds to all that exists, Al-Raheem,"
Though everything in the Qur'an refers to the great powers of Allah generally, "might" in the sense of "terrible power" or "violent strength" don't seem to be referenced specifically in the meaning of the term Rahman directly, so to translate it with really no reference to its root meaning. If he prefers that and would like the Qur'an to define it, then he might prefer versions which leave it entirely untranslated so that only the things around it can be understood.
I don't generally like duality stuff, especially when people think it is necessary.
At the end of his writing he says "Raheem" means "receptive" when it doesn't mean receptive, it is the one that has the particle that makes it mean "dispensing" rather than "receptive", so more like what he described as the "yang", while all the implications of "suffering" from Rahman" would relate to "receptivity" in the sense of knowing the suffering of people.
-
Oh God. It takes years to make an accurate translation of Quran after what scholars and clerics have done with it.
At least if you would do it yourself. I am looking for help, but not from people who trust traditional sources without blinking.
Salaam
-
How about using the Latin word 'Deo' instead of Allah or God?
Just kiddin'. )
-
Oh God. It takes years to make an accurate translation of Quran after what scholars and clerics have done with it.
At least if you would do it yourself. I am looking for help, but not from people who trust traditional sources without blinking.
Salaam
I'd like you to offer your translations here as well if possible, it will help people gain insight possibly, but especially with an explanation of how you determined the things specifically and their basis, like if you determine a certain word to mean something, then all those connections to the letter "J" or whatever which led you to make the word what it means and so on.
-
Peace
Great thread FreedomStands, although personally I almost never read long posts but that's
my personal preference.Peace FreedomStands@
How do you translate the term 'qurn' ()?
How about Qaf-Ra-Alif = to recite/read, compilation, collection, reading, recitation,
explanation, study, investigation.God bless
peace
-
How about using the Latin word 'Deo' instead of Allah or God?
Just kiddin'. )
I don't mind that, but really for Allah it literally meant the Ultimate, also with El, as one can see with not only the applied epithets but how Allah or El or whatever other variants was always placed at the "head" or "top" as the originator of all the powers of nature, that is King over that and Ultimate and Beyond all of them.
-
Peace
Great thread FreedomStands, although personally I almost never read long posts but that's
my personal preference.How about Qaf-Ra-Alif = to recite/read, compilation, collection, reading, recitation,
explanation, study, investigation.God bless
peace
Thank you so much! I do hope you find the strength to read my commentary and posts here as I think you may enjoy it and even possibly find what I've written to be exciting!
-
Salamun Alaikum
Somehow I seem to be caught into a circular argument which I always try to avoid. So this will be my last and conclusive opinion on this topic
- Power / Glory is possibly a secondary implied meaning of the arabic word "ism", but it is not the primary meaning.
- The modern English word "Name" does carry finer shades of secondary meanings of "Power" / "Glory" just like Arabic ism. Example By the name (power) of Law, I order you to surrender. His name (Glory) spread accross the countries.
Since, the English word "Name" carries both the primary and secondary meanings similar to Arabic "ism", "Name" is the near-perfect translation for this word which would be difficult to match by any other word.
- I believe generally readers of Qur'an translation should have the intelligence to understand that "By the power of Allah" can be an interpretation of "By the name of Allah", I do not feel the need to spoon feed readers like this.
If the purpose of this thread is to get the best interpretation of Qur'an and put it in English words - I'll respectfully step aside because I do not support the idea that Qur'an has one best interpretation. I'll keep an eye on this thread though in case there is something new or interesting that comes out of the process.
Best wishes in your endeavor.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanSalam Arman,
Who said the English word "Name" carry the meaning of power? There is no logic in it, but it has sense of identification to keep in memory, as Naa is to seek and Ma is the memory/mind.
As I read Arabic "bism" has the meaning, kept to identify or kept to distinguish.
-
Salamun Alaikum.
Here is what I currently feel about Rahman and Rahim.
Both the words invariably come from the root Ra-Ha-Mim, which implies ?womb?. I do not see any disagreement from linguistic experts on this.
In Arabic language Rahman (ن and Rahim (م are two common adjectives derived from this root where Rahman implies ?Compassionate? in a general sense, and Rahim implies ?Merciful? towards a specific subject.
Most translators of Qur?an accepted the above two commonly known meanings. However, the point they usually missed is that the Ar-Rahman (ِ in verse 11 is NOT the same as the common Arabic term Rahman (ن implying ?Compassionate?. The author intentionally changed the spelling (dropped the alif off? which was later fed back as a ?long jabar? when dialectic marks were introduced).
Ar-Rahman (ِ as we see in verse 11 is NOT a common Arabic spelling ? classical or otherwise. Any Arabic language expert on the forum ? please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my understanding here.
So, what have we got here? A new term introduced by the author of Qur?an based on the root Ra-Ha-Ma (womb) which sounds like Rahman (Compassionate). Since this is a new term used by the author, it is appropriate that we seek the meaning of the word from the usage in Qur?an. And the usage of the term Ar-Rahman (ِ in Qur?an overwhelmingly imply that the meaning signifies the Power and Authority of Allah, rather than the compassion. (Refer to http//www.free-minds.org/Old/articles/gods_system/rahman.htm for a thorough analysis of Quranic usage of this term). Also notable that unlike Raheem, the term Ar-Rahman has never been used without the prefix Al (the) and never used to imply anyone other than Allah.
On a related point, the analogy of God and the creation as the mother and child in the womb is not a new one. A scripture older than Qur?an has used this analogy before
O Arjuna, My Prakriti or the material nature is the womb wherein I place the seed of spirit or Purusha from which all beings are born. (14.03)
Whatever forms are produced in all different wombs, O Arjuna, Prakriti is their body-giving mother, and the Purusha is the seed or life-giving father. (14.04)
(From Bhagavat Gita translation by Gita-society.com.)
What makes the analogy of womb so meaningful is that it works both ways. When we analyze the relationship between a mother and unborn child in her womb, we get two simultaneous perspectives. One ? the child?s complete dependence on the mother for its survival. Two - the mother?s unconditional and absolutely pure compassion for the child in the womb. These two relationships are not contradictory ? rather they are complementary to each other ? as if they are opposite sides of the same coin.
It is my understanding that Ar-Rahman (ِ and Ar-Rahim (ِ in verse 11 capture these two dimensions of our relationship with our Master. One we are completely dependent upon God for our continued existence and sustenance. That relationship is signified by the word Ar-Rahman (ِ. Then our Master is unconditionally Merciful to us. That relationship is signified by the word Ar-Raheem (ِ.
Thus the Quranic term Ar-Rahman (ِ carries more connotation of power and authority than compassion ? which is also supported by Quranic usage of the term. A fully elaborated translation of Ar-Rahman (ِ for me would be ?One who holds complete authority and control over every aspect of our existence and sustenance.? In absence of any other better word to signify this I accept English word ?Almighty? as a near proxy. (Suggestions about a more appropriate English term are welcome.)
For Raheem I prefer ?Merciful? but I am agreeable to any other near synonym ? compassionate / kind / benevolent etc.
Looking forward to more constructive discussion on the topic.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Regards,
ArmanThank You! Great contribution. Can you take into account the "fullness/extensiveness" aspect and the "dispensing" aspect that I mentioned earlier which I quoted? The womb association was not its primary association (though I don't disagree with all that you have said or any that you have said), but its primary association tended towards the idea of bonding, that is why other words with the root do not have any implication of "power over" but all relate to symbiotic bonding or kinship from the idea of "mutual suffering" or "suffering together" "suffering symbiotically", which is the aspect associated with the womb in this case, because we see no sign of the root having the idea of "womb as master or ruler over" in the other words I listed which refer to bonds of kinship. So though you aren't incorrect in what you say regarding Allah, it does not appear to be the actual sense associated with the root or the sense that womb is being used, since the other words would then have a sense of "ruling over" or "encompassing" or whatever else, but they do not at all, they have the sense of "symbiotic nearness" and that is why all those words connected to "kinship" are part of it. So womb in arham does not seem to be appearing in the sense of "authority" or else the rhmin the other words would also have that shade of "authority" "master and slave" but actually it has a historical sense of "kinship" that "what happens to me happens to you, what happens to you, happens to me" which is why the words womb, kin, compassion, pity, are all connected.
The "Almighty" definition would be fine, but it gives absolutely no clue of anything that might actually be referenced in the root of rhm (and Allah could have chosen a more appropriate term if it was the mightiness or power aspect implied rather than the root that implies bonding, and the Surah "Ar-Rahman" repeatedly speaks of "favors" and generally in the Arab context, womb did not refer to authority but to "suffering with you" and the Qur'an mentions "suffering" in those contexts at times.
4615
NOW We have enjoined upon man is goodness towards his parents. In pain did his mother bear him, and in pain did she give him birth; and her bearing him and his utter dependence on her took thirty months. and so, when he attains to full maturity and reaches forty years, he prays ?O my Sustainer! Make me so that I may forever be grateful for those blessings of Thine with which Thou hast graced me and my parents, and that I may do what is right that will meet with Thy goodly acceptance; and grant me righteousness in my offspring . Verily, unto Thee have I turned in repentance for, verily, I am of those who have surrendered themselves unto Thee!?1923
And the pangs drove her unto the trunk of the palm-tree. She said Oh, would that I had died ere this and had become a thing of naught, forgotten!Which is ironic that her story has so much to do with what she bore and she was the Christ-bearer, and that she used the term Ar-Rahman! Yet nothing is shown of her "authority over Jesus" or anything like that.
This may be because in the Arabic mindset, though Mothers were greatly considered probably and listened to often, the "Father" figure was the authority figure, and was also considered the "authority holder" and the child was considered his to do with as he pleased, the Mother generally had no rights or authority over what the Father decided (it is different today in Western society).
So that is why, in the mind of an Arabic person, the root rhm referred to bonding, compassion, suffering together, symbiosis, kinship, womb, having mercy out of pity, doing favors out of feeling sorry for the plight of people, and things like that. It did not have the meaning of "authority" in their minds or their language because the mother "suffered with" the womb, and even though she was the "master" in a sense, and "had power over" the womb, these ideas were not associated with the rhm root word and did not seem to show in the associations they made with women, wombs, women's authority with children, words of kinship without a sense of mastery but only a sense of kinship and mutual suffering (what happens to you happens to me, like a mother and her womb, like two people from the same clan, if one person in the clan suffers, all the clan-mates suffer) and stuff like that.
Remember that my focus is largely on trying to capture the understanding that was likely available to Semitic audiences who spoke and understood the Semitic languages generally and these root words had powerful associations.
In Ar-Rahman, it depicts great deeds, but keeps referring back to the favors, making it appear that it is saying "Look how compassionate God has been to you, how God takes into consideration everything for you, who is so full of consideration and has favored you so much yet you are ungrateful and deny all these gracious gifts" when Raheem has the "dispensing" quality to the word.
The term "Abba" or "Father" in the ancient languages also did not have the same meanings as "loving daddy" like it does today. It meant Originator, Master, Final Authority, and stuff like that for both the Greeks and the Semitic Language family speakers and pretty much everyone in the world, and the meaning of the English word "Father" has hugely deteriorated and lost all those extra and originally more prominent shades (largely do to Western society and Christian emphasis on misunderstanding the Greek word Agape, which is actually similar to the meaning of Rahman more than "Love" in the modern sense of the word, though "Love" in its etymology can be closer)
The Father or the male figure in their understanding was considered the "Originator" of the family, and the "mother" was generally not credited, as can be seen in the Biblical "lists" that place Adam as the "Son of God" meaning the Direct Creation of God, and the children were considered the Direct Creation of the Father generally who had authority to do with it what he pleased (even kill it, as was not too uncommon in the past around the world).
So I am not disagreeing with you, I am just giving everyone a little history on the matter to make them think in the way a Semitic language family speaker might have thought to potentially grasp some more implications which may have been available to the contemporary audiences and throughout the centuries until only recently.
-
So that is why, in the mind of an Arabic person, the root rhm referred to bonding, compassion, suffering together, symbiosis, kinship, womb, having mercy out of pity, doing favors out of feeling sorry for the plight of people, and things like that. It did not have the meaning of "authority" in their minds or their language because the mother "suffered with" the womb, and even though she was the "master" in a sense, and "had power over" the womb, these ideas were not associated with the rhm root word and did not seem to show in the associations they made with women, wombs, women's authority with children, words of kinship without a sense of mastery but only a sense of kinship and mutual suffering (what happens to you happens to me, like a mother and her womb, like two people from the same clan, if one person in the clan suffers, all the clan-mates suffer) and stuff like that.
Salam.
The Author of the Qur'an changed the spelling and created a new word to be used as the "personal name" of Allah. The new word does not necessarily have to follow the meanings already existing. The new word meaning must be derived based on usage in Qur'an.
Do you read the link I am providing again and again? Here, I am quoting selected parts for your convenience
Therefore, we shall examine the Qur?an directly and see which meaning in fact is most suitable for the name Al-Rahman, according to how this name is used in His own message to us. Surat Maryam (19) is the Sura in which the name Al-Rahman is mentioned most frequently (16 times). In aya 18 of this Sura, Maryam asks for protection from Al-Rahman against one whom she perceives as a man entering her private chambers, but who in fact is the Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel). She is asking for protection from the Most Powerful, the Almighty, not mercy from "the Beneficent"! She declares this asking for protection from Al-Rahman to the ?intruder? in order also to frighten the ?intruder?, for which situation the appellation ?the Merciful? or ?The Most Gracious? would hardly instill fear, and hence be unsuitable. Obviously, Maryam knew the meaning of the name Al-Rahman and we are shown here by Al-Rahman himself (who, according to Surat Al-Rahman 552, teaches us the Qur?an) that she used His name appropriately.
Also in Surat Maryam (19)45 , Prophet Ibraheem says to his father, a disbeliever and idol-worshipper, "I fear you could be struck with the wrath of Al-Rahman, and Satan would be your guide." Is this the act of The Merciful, or The Beneficent, or The Most Gracious, to wrathfully leave Satan as the guide of someone? Does this act express His mercy and beneficence? Or is this the act of The Almighty, the Ultimate Authority, the All-Powerful Avenger? Does it express His authority and power, His setting of limits, His meting out of justice by condemnation and destruction of evil? It is within the bounds of His authority and power (and justice), but it is not within the definition of "mercy? or ?beneficence? or ?graciousness? to exert ?wrath? or cause ?torture? (for the Arabic word aazab literally means ?torture? as well). Even though it could be argued that in the greater scheme of things, torture to the unbelievers is a ?mercy? to the whole of creation, we are discussing which of two complementary or opposite attributes is expressed here. (Should we, for the sake of such circuitous arguments, also say that mercy to the believers ?tortures? or at least ?punishes? the disbelievers? Yes - and He is both Al-Rahman, Al-Raheem from any vantage point!) Allah mentions many of His attributes in the Qur?an with distinct names for a reason, and there being relative elements of two sides in an attribute in no way argues against the distinct meaning that is inherent in a name.
In Surat Maryam (19) 85-96, one of the most powerful and clarifying illuminations of the meaning of the name Al-Rahman, used here repeatedly, forcefully condemns the idol-worship of Aissa (Jesus) by Christians and any allegation that the Almighty (all glory to Him in the highest) shares power with any other, or procreates. No, He is the Creator, alone, and there is none like Him, and all others and all else are creatures, categorically different, and all are utterly and completely subjected to His authority and are His worshippers recognize it or not! These ayat mention that the mountains, the heavens and the earth all prostrate in awe and worship of Al-Rahman. They vividly describe how this blasphemy invokes His wrath. Is this the description of "The Beneficent" or "Most Gracious"? Do these ayat describe a benevolent benefactor (as in "beneficent" or a generous host (as in "gracious", ?graciously? accommodating His ?guests? or the recipients of His largesse, or a kind-hearted ruler forgiving His subjects, or do they describe NONE but THE ALMIGHTY??? For a word of such magnitude, such immense significance, an inept substitute for the true meaning cannot be simply brushed off as a minor "mistake".
Hopefully in your next post you will enlighten us with your thoughts about the usage of the term "Ar-Rahman" in the above instances and show how the meaning "Compassionate" fits in.
For almost all my life I understood Ar-Rahman as The Compassionate. Only after carefully scrutinizing the arguments in the above article, very recently I have changed my mind and accepted that my earlier idea was less than accurate. I see why it may be difficult for you to accept a change from your dearly held beliefs ? but the humility to take new information and accept superior logic is a very essential quality if you really intend to get something productive out of this thread. Otherwise you may be better of publishing your own ?translation? of Qur?an, which we will independently evaluate using our best understanding.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
That's a good explanation Arman,
So He having both compassionate/mercifull (rahim) and also the power and authority to punish(rahman).
Yes, but I'd like to put it as.. He being both compassionate/mercifull (rahim) and also having the absolute power and authority over us that gives Him total freedom to choose how He would excercise the Mercy - by being compassionate or by excercising reprimand when He deems appropriate (rahman)
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Salam.
The Author of the Qur'an changed the spelling and created a new word to be used as the "personal name" of Allah. The new word does not necessarily have to follow the meanings already existing. The new word meaning must be derived based on usage in Qur'an.
Do you read the link I am providing again and again? Here, I am quoting selected parts for your convenience
Hopefully in your next post you will enlighten us with your thoughts about the usage of the term "Ar-Rahman" in the above instances and show how the meaning "Compassionate" fits in.
For almost all my life I understood Ar-Rahman as The Compassionate. Only after carefully scrutinizing the arguments in the above article, very recently I have changed my mind and accepted that my earlier idea was less than accurate. I see why it may be difficult for you to accept a change from your dearly held beliefs ? but the humility to take new information and accept superior logic is a very essential quality if you really intend to get something productive out of this thread. Otherwise you may be better of publishing your own ?translation? of Qur?an, which we will independently evaluate using our best understanding.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanArman, like I said, I am not at all disagreeing with you on this matter, I am just offering the opinion that those listening at the time may not have understood that new word to mean that and may have still been having the sense of the root I mentioned invoked. There is no hostility coming from my end towards your ideas, so please don't think I am disagreeing with you. Your contributions to this thread are absolutely wonderful and I appreciate them deeply. I have no deeply held beliefs regarding these things, I was just trying to propose that the audience at the time (and thereafter) did not understand it that way most likely, but instead probably understood it for what the root invoked in their imaginations (which is how the Semitic Languages work, the roots invoke a certain related theme, so the JNN root for example invokes the theme of "hidden", that is why the word Jannah would not have invoked in their minds just a garden like bostan or whatever other word for gardens they had available, but a "hidden garden" or a "closed, concealed, secured" idea, either hidden in the future, or hidden from their imagination or their sight, or hidden and secured and things like that, that is why the word Janin or something has the same root and means a fetus because it is "hidden in the womb" as well as "securely hidden" and Jinn means "hidden" also, or "hiding". So these are the things that would be invoked in their imagination probably because of the root meaning and then it colors the words due to the root being in the words, just like SLM is the root within Islam, so it colors the word with "peace, satisfaction, relief, healing" but the word itself means "surrender" so it can mean "experiencing peace through the surrender" and things like that).
I am absolutely not in an argument with you, nor am I trying to say you are foolish or wrong, you are not wrong, you are presenting interesting information, and I am presenting information too, for the benefit of ourselves, each other, and all the people who might see it. I wasn't arguing about the "name" thing, and I am not arguing about the "Almighty" thing either really, I am only presenting the opinion that the Semitic Language speakers may not have understood the new meaning being presented to them, but instead would have had the root color the word most likely, and in the case of the original coloring of the rhm root, it is not arham or the idea of a literal womb that colors the whole word, as you can see from its other associations like the words related to "kinship", what colors the word is the idea of "bonding" and "symbiosis" and particularly "suffering together" which was generally associated with the womb in that context. This is just an interesting thing about the Semitic Languages, and what I am saying is actually legitimate linguistic information which linguists would approve of, which I am just presenting for the public audience, I am not arguing with what you are saying at all, and you are making great contributions and I hope you can continue.
Since it is a new word according to what you are saying, and that doesn't have a meaning that the people would have necessarily understood except for looking at the surrounding verses, then such words might best be left untranslated so that people do not know what it means and have no choice but to look at the surrounding verses to give it its meaning. I am not arguing with that, I don't have any strong opinion or dearly held beliefs on the matter, and I am only grateful for all your writing here, so please don't get frustrated with me or my responses. My responses are just an opportunity to make extensive commentary, not to oppose you or try to confound you or stomp on what you have written and showed, what you have written and showed is good.
So lets move on to the next word, or to the next verse if you've had enough of this one and have presented all that you would like to on this, if you have more to present, this is a great place to do so, so please do so!
Thank you again for all your responses, and please forgive me for appearing to deny what you are saying or opposing you, I am not focused on opposing you, only on taking the opportunity to present some interesting information to urge people to consider what it might be like to be an original audience member more familiar with the Semitic Language coloring scheme.
-
22 The praises (and thanks) are for Allah, the Master of the universe;
(My personal translation for discussion.)
- Raab (ّ translated as ?Master? (as in Master-Slave relationship). I do not prefer the other commonly found translation of this term, ?the Lord? - which sounds too "feudal" to my ears )
Regards,
Arman -
The idea may be one of a King that holds or is full of all Boons or Benefactions and Benediction, and can take offense at wrongdoing and so out of the treasury of goodness, withhold it and strike people with wrath for being ungrateful. The language of "grateful" "ungrateful" "benefaction" "granting of favors" and other royal terminology seems to be present throughout the Qur'an, and may be related to the term Rahman as Benefactor (or particularly with the implication of being full or holding all the "stores" of the treasury) and then follows it with Rahim, which I showed has some component of it that refers to "dispensing". So Holder of the Stores of Mercy/Grace/Benefaction/Gifts/Boons (thus like a Mighty King or Treasurer), and Dispenser of Benefaction/Boons etc.