The Solution to the words defintion in Quran
-
Selam,
I am currently looking trough these videos. I think this is the solution to the different words definitions in the Quran. If someone could go systematically like this and find the correct translation. I am hoping to get to that point but still learning this stuff.
It is a bit hard to watch this synthetic voice but I think it's worth it.https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHVaIZ-E79g
Peace.
-
Hello mmmm,
I work in a systematic manner when deciphering Quran in my project, checking ALL sources within ancient lexicons while analyzing the context and I ignore how words are used today or have been used the past 1000 years, because I find that something is fishy in how the language is perceived.
I find that definitions from a lexicon called 'Taj Al-Aroos' contains the usually correct definitions. It simply has a higher probability whenever I am working, giving a higher accuracy on the language itself, and so far I have not found an instance where it let me down. There are also lexicons that I see that the sectarian crowd probably has used which are awfully different.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Hello Man of Faith,
I found this https//archive.org/stream/alhelawy09/taga01#page/n12/mode/2up
Could you, please point me to the Taj-Al-Aroos you are using (if one is vailable online) - I am not arabic speaking I cannot read this.Thanks.
Hello mmmm,
Yes, that is (taj al-arus). Navigating the lexicon if you do not know Arabic is difficult, but you can use the work by Edward Lane in the 19th century who referred to definitions in Taj Al-Arus and which is in English. Then, when you master Arabic better, you can begin to read the Taj Al-Arus independently.
Quranic Arabic is a very perfectly used language and you can even learn to speak English better by observing the sentence structures.
When you come further and bump into the corruption of the Arabic language you will notice a vast difference between ancient Arabic (classical Arabic) examples and the one you find by people who explain in Arabic today. I read classical Arabic (Quranic Arabic) better since this is the way I learned Arabic. Soon you shall figure out that Quran's Arabic together with resource/reference material and the scholarly Arabic do not add up.
Due to this, you cannot even trust Edward Lane's lexicon from the 19th century to 100% but you always have to be cautious of whatever you study.
Most notable is that there is grave misconception with the words (ma) and (la) even in lexical sources. At best, in a grammatical structure, la can be "rather than" or "except", but then the structure has to support the formula. It is like the usage of "but" in English. You can say "All but Emanuel" and you would exclude Emanuel with the phrase, modifying the "but" word slightly for the formulation. It is only with you find a word that always means "no/not", even with structure like Anema, it would mean "it/that is not".
That can eventually make you understand that real amateurs were involved in the interpretation of Quran and their sole intention was to fit their bogus religious doctrine into Quran, blurring the noble language of Arabic for a very long time. Obviously these sectarian clerics could not live with a phrase like 'la elah ila allah' saying "To be 'Who Is' is to be 'Such as Who Is'". I do not know this is the reason for the corruption, but they were anyway ignorant and they had a doctrine entirely opposite of Quran's, i.e. you cannot associate yourself with God versus God's Quran that says "associate yourself with me, be in my image, do not let yourself be deluded by the Body you have been attached to" (summarized, the phrases do not go identically to this).
Well, there is a probability that the "always-know-better-people" will come up with arguments against this, mmmm, but trust your Spirit.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Hello Amenuel,
"When you come further and bump into the corruption of the Arabic language you will notice a vast difference between ancient Arabic (classical Arabic) examples and the one you find by people who explain in Arabic today. I read classical Arabic (Quranic Arabic) better since this is the way I learned Arabic. Soon you shall figure out that Quran's Arabic together with resource/reference material and the scholarly Arabic do not add up.
Due to this, you cannot even trust Edward Lane's lexicon from the 19th century to 100% but you always have to be cautious of whatever you study."
I agree.
"That can eventually make you understand that real amateurs were involved in the interpretation of Quran and their sole intention was to fit their bogus religious doctrine into Quran, blurring the noble language of Arabic for a very long time. Obviously these sectarian clerics could not live with a phrase like 'la elah ila allah' saying "To be 'Who Is' is to be 'Such as Who Is'". I do not know this is the reason for the corruption, but they were anyway ignorant and they had a doctrine entirely opposite of Quran's, i.e. you cannot associate yourself with God versus God's Quran that says "associate yourself with me, be in my image, do not let yourself be deluded by the Body you have been attached to" (summarized, the phrases do not go identically to this)."
I am still digesting this. Right now I can understand Abdu Nur's definition http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/7/27/ but even with that I have troubles with some ayats, so...maybe I'll have some more questions later. Thank you for your time - I really appreciate it.
Selam.
-
I am still digesting this. Right now I can understand Abdu Nur's definition http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/7/27/ but even with that I have troubles with some ayats, so...maybe I'll have some more questions later. Thank you for your time - I really appreciate it.
You have to understand the magnitude of the inability for the ancient interpreters to properly decipher Quran. I surely tell you that if my reasoning is contradicting their interpretation, that does not per automation invalidate my argument but usually there are errors in what words say in other instances.
The problem for people when my project is coming to a publication will be that they have little to refer to and they have to trust that this is right, although they can study themselves how I managed to reach the linguistic conclusions that I arrived at either by reading my thorough documentation or referring to other elder material such as ancient lexicons which will say the same, basically. My work is however strongly contradicting the mainstream scholarly works and I do not care about them but I do this an independent way.
I was able to make out the information about and by massive examination of the discourse and very seldom has a negative meaning unless placed in the middle of a clause. It is much like you would use "but" in English, i.e. it would not negate something unless placed within a context. And it would say "unless/except/but" when you render a translation and yet dependent on surrounding context.
The ancient interpreters have only negated the word, no matter where it occurs in a sentence, showing lack of skill in use of the language. They have also made into what it is not, i.e. an ambiguous word, but the word does always mean "no", so let us make no a no.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Thank you Wakas,
I am refering to all the key words (such as mushrik, kafir, jeumu-din, jeumu-qiyame, salat, zekat, fahisha, mulk, kibla, mesdzid, sejda, rukyu....I am sorry about bad transliteration) not being what we used to believe. I still do not know what they do mean, unfortunately (having some ideas). That's why I think this needs to be approached systematicaly to reveal the true meaning of the Book.
As for "MA" I don't understand in all those ayats such as 232, 33, 63, 66, 68..etc. MA means NO? I know that in the mainstream traslantions MA can mean both "no" and "what" and I found that very odd. But I would assume it is more "what" all the time then "NO"? But if your work differs to the current translations in such extremes it could be that it works. Right now it doesn't make sense.Wassalam.
