La ilaaha illallaah
-
I can counter your arguments concerning and quite easily using Lane's Lexicon. There is simply no support for claiming has any relationship to from any source.
Did you find your answer or not? Don't these references support my position? Please answer in Yes or No, only.
No. Your position is not supported by lexicons.
If you know basic Arabic grammar though, you would know all out that is composed of the AL article and third person singular. That is about grammar and not about lexical meanings such as in the case of 'la'.
Do you have any reference, beside your self claimed authority of the Arabic, to counter these references? If you do, please share on this forum.
I earlier told you that the authorization is in what I said. I hope you know Arabic grammar and can clearly see that is part of very basic grammar using the AL article in third person. It is a usage of pronouns in Arabic. People who have delved into interpretation acrobatics have fumbled around it to create what it means not. Like I said, literally means "who is" or "(is) being" or simply someone's being of something. It could given the right context also mean 'The Who', but it does not mean like Hicham says something about "the one".
Like I told before in the forum, is a third person version of what God inspired to Moses "I am (that) that am I". The person who is according to God with "I am who am I" (I AM) is a person 'Who Is Like'. The explanation of Allah is not harder than that. People are so fooled regarding the nature of this word. The nature you can find by looking into Lane's and AL.
But you play around with lexical meanings and there is no support for 'no' based on the word . Much less than there is for my argument about actually which I can understand people have difficulties believing in and I try to do my best in declaring why it is so.
I am trying to go to the bottom with the phenomenon of and but there appears to have arose some kind of confusion behind these words at some point in history. In truth, always means no while can on occasion based on the sentence structure mean "except" much like "but" in English can make an exception.
The phrase 'la elah ila allah' means "To be Who Is is to be Who Is (a)Like'. The whole phrase refers to that man is supposed to be imitating the Rabb in their way of Being.
Be safe
Amenuel -
I can counter your arguments concerning and quite easily using Lane's Lexicon. There is simply no support for claiming has any relationship to from any source.
Be safe
AmenuelPeace Bro, no need to have long write ups. Please counter the write up "Linguistic riddle solved for those who want to learn", present your counter arguments step by step for each step in that write up with references (or at least provide references if needed).
Regards,
-
I think tht this way of speaking saying Allah is not a god or whatever is rather confusing and does not help in the sense tht it all rests on the meaning we give to the word "God".
Substituting a Allah for God if one's concept of God is that it is the real existing, while all the rest are manifestationsof the ONLY ONE EXISTING or being, doesnot change thing and we are again laying with words.
On the other hand there has been this dichotomy of a personal God and of an impersonal God.
The Qur'an, as I see it upholds both things. God is perona but also allthat is not personal. And it makes sense. eople have feelings, assions, personalities... ?How could God be alien to that? Whence come feeligs, personalities, passions, if God is not its source?
Salam
-
Salam
Someone please translate the following
Possibly "is foreign and Arabic" or "is a foreigner and Arab". It is notable that there is dual Alef on , which could make it more likely to be the latter of the two examples to be true.
We can always contemplate on the origin of the word Arab and what it might refer to and if it originally was an ethnicity. I find it conspicuous that the word has the letters Ra-Be in it with an Ayn introducing the word. Most leave it at that, but I would say it might be wise to go to the bottom of why things are called the way they are from the beginning. So like I wrote, it might be good to know what is the lexical (morphological) meaning of the word.
I can admit it is a remarkable phrase, but it could have its explanation depending on what the context is talking about. You might give me the Quranic section and I can perhaps tell more.
Be well
Amenuel -
Peace Furqan.
People ask why is Qoran in Arabic? GOD s answer
"Aajamioun"-Qoran- and "Arabii"-Messenger-?The two do not go together. Revelation to an Arab messenger will come in Arabic( the messenger s language),not in a foreign language.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Salam
Someone please translate the following
If you look at the map below, you will find Bilad 3jami & Bilad 3rabi .
https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Khaleej_ajam.jpg/220px-Khaleej_ajam.jpg
3jami does not means FOREIGN BUT those people during the Persian Empire who spoke a language that contains Huzwaresh, meaning contain a Nabatean influence vernacular. This was during the Persian Empire when they adopted the so called "Aramaic" language which is in fact Nabatean influence vernacular. See link below
Quran 1636?..SO TRAVEL IN THE EARTH AND SEE HOW WAS THE END OF THE DENIERS.
So travel the earth and carry out research, investigation and find out what is the truth and what is false.
Now, base on Q4144, according to Arrazi, 3jam means Persian. He was right to a certain extent. Actually 3jam means the presence of writing elements known as the ?huzvresh?. The ?huzvresh? were words that were so called "Nabatean Aramaic" in origin and were written in the Middle Persian, Soghdian, Khawarizmian. In another words, these languages were the so called "Nabatean Aramaic" written in different scripts and all with 22 alphabets ? Aleph, Beth, Gamal, Dalath - Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta?so on and so forth ? Abgd and written from right to left].
The Persian Empire was forced to employ the contemporaneous languages of the ancient Near East for the record of the empire. For effective diplomatic communication among the provinces of the empire, the so called Nabatean ?Aramaic?, as a Lingua Franca, was chosen. It was a natural choice and a practical one Nabatean ?Aramaic? was already widely spoken in the Levant, Turkey , Egypt, and Western Iran. Anyone, irrespective of whether they were in the Levant, Turkey , Egypt or Persia would be able to comprehend Nabatean ?Aramaic?. So when the Quran talk about 3jam, it means those aforesaid languages, that was widely spoken in the Sasanian Empire in the 3rd Century CE.
As for Arabic, the Quran is actually referring to the Ancient South Arabian that was widely spoken in South Arabia. The difference between the Quranic Arabic and ASA, is that the Quranic Arabic sounds more ?Nabatean Aramaic?. In fact, Quran Arabic is a combination of both so called Nabatean Aramaic and South Arabian Musnad, plausible created in the late 4th / early 5th Century CE. It adopted the same number of alphabet like ASA, 28 alphabets.
If the Quran was sent down in the 7th Century CE, then it is of no use that the Quran mentioned the word 3jam. This is because, the whole of Arabia ? right up to southern Turkey, Persia , Northern Africa, Spain, already adopted Arabic as the spoken and written language since the late 4th / early 5th Century CE. All those other languages with Huzwaresh and the so called Aramaic had already died out and no more in existence. So what is the point of mentioning them in the Quran? The reason is, because, those languages were still a spoken and written language during the Ministry of the Last Prophet in the 3rd Century CE!
-
If that is true about AyJiMiy then it could explain something "is Ayjemi and Arab". Might only reinforce that Arab is not an ethnicity. I thank Hizbullah for his support even if we are not very much on the same track.
You are factually wrong on Aramaic though, there are still a minority of people who speak the language today and there was prevalence of Aramaic until the 12th century A.D. It is a legitimate language. I think your conspiracy thinking blinds you a little and you deny silly things.
-
If that is true about AyJiMiy then it could explain something "is Ayjemi and Arab". Might only reinforce that Arab is not an ethnicity. I thank Hizbullah for his support even if we are not very much on the same track.
You are factually wrong on Aramaic though, there are still a minority of people who speak the language today and there was prevalence of Aramaic until the 12th century A.D. It is a legitimate language. I think your conspiracy thinking blinds you a little and you deny silly things.
Thank you MoF, deep inside you, i know you are good person, however i was quite pissed off when you intervened in my discussion with Noon. My apologies again my brother MoF handshake
Ajnabi means foreign.
Actually the so called Aramaic was the Nabatean, which was spoken widely in the middle / late 4th Century and the steles found, mostly from Northern Arabia to Southern Turkey. Examples are the AnNamarah, Raqqush and many more steles were found in the Levant and confirmed written between 1st and 4th Century CE. Why written in Nabatean and not the so called Aramaic? If you could answer me with evidence!
The so called Syriac which is the modern form of Aramaic, was created on a later stage, in the early 20th Century and the script derived from Manichean. My proves is that Manichean and its script were founded in the early 20th Century. The first several original Manichean texts, known to the world was discovered in 1902-1914 in Turkestan and are still not fully published. This was the era where Syriac script came into existence.
Yes there were people who spoke the "so called Aramaic" even when the Lingua Franca of the Levant were Arabized since the 5th Century. "So called Aramiac" became a street language and not Official. In the 19th Century, with the inauguration of Hebrew and thereafter in the early 20th Century they officially created Syriac with the Manichean Script.
You are most welcome to call me silly or crazy or whatever because as the Quran says
Similarly, there came not to those before them any messenger except that they said, "A magician or a madman."
peace
-
Not saying crazy or anything derogatory. I said a little silly which was gentle and your conviction that everything is a conspiracy plot might blind you. It might blind me too and people like us must be careful before arguing things. You know I am arguing the whole Quran's traditional interpretation is a fraud and it took me a long time to reach a firm conclusion and make the argument official.
I am with you on Quran not being written in the 7th century and it might be some hundred years older than that. I am however certain that the script in which it is written is from the original manuscript. I consider Quran to be the pioneer in that script, kind of designed for it and obviously with "God" highly involved in the compilation. I doubt there are any earlier (Quranic script) Arabic writings and all writings that came after are written in the false, fraudulent version of Arabic that emerged with the advent of Quran.
I find it likely that the whole of Middle-East basically spoke the same language and could understand each other. There were probably dialects, but not worse than that you could make yourself understood.
In the 7th century something happened though. Heavy corruption of texts and so on. The "factory" in Sanaa is very suspect.
I have a different perception of the Bible and I see the error is in the interpretation more than it being something other than the Torah, or at least a considerable part of the Bible is authentic, but the way it is portrayed today is dishonest to its real conveyance.
Your work might help my own research despite that you have a different track you are on.
Be well
Amenuel -
Not saying crazy or anything derogatory. I said a little silly which was gentle and your conviction that everything is a conspiracy plot might blind you. It might blind me too and people like us must be careful before arguing things. You know I am arguing the whole Quran's traditional interpretation is a fraud and it took me a long time to reach a firm conclusion and make the argument official.
I am with you on Quran not being written in the 7th century and it might be some hundred years older than that. I am however certain that the script in which it is written is from the original manuscript. I consider Quran to be the pioneer in that script, kind of designed for it and obviously with "God" highly involved in the compilation. I doubt there are any earlier (Quranic script) Arabic writings and all writings that came after are written in the false, fraudulent version of Arabic that emerged with the advent of Quran.
I find it likely that the whole of Middle-East basically spoke the same language and could understand each other. There were probably dialects, but not worse than that you could make yourself understood.
In the 7th century something happened though. Heavy corruption of texts and so on. The "factory" in Sanaa is very suspect.
I have a different perception of the Bible and I see the error is in the interpretation more than it being something other than the Torah, or at least a considerable part of the Bible is authentic, but the way it is portrayed today is dishonest to its real conveyance.
Your work might help my own research despite that you have a different track you are on.
Be well
AmenuelSalaam Man of Faith,
I am assuming you are referring to the Sana'a manuscripts. Could you please explain to me your above quote clearly and your thoughts on the corruption of the holy books. Thank you.
Regards,
Janet. -
Hi Janet,
My suspicion is that the Sana'a manuscripts are part of a plot to make firmer the grip of the sect Islam and secure chances of no one seeing the inconsistencies. Why would anyone otherwise erase writings and then write something similar but changed on top of it? Is that not immensely conspicuous?
I have compared some of the changes and I noticed they changed it to diminish the importance of Moses, probably among other things.
But the original writing is also corrupted in interpretation so they could not interpret it in the first place. Perhaps they changed it because it was easier to shape according to themselves then.
Be well
Amenuel -
Hi Janet,
My suspicion is that the Sana'a manuscripts are part of a plot to make firmer the grip of the sect Islam and secure chances of no one seeing the inconsistencies. Why would anyone otherwise erase writings and then write something similar but changed on top of it? Is that not immensely conspicuous?
I have compared some of the changes and I noticed they changed it to diminish the importance of Moses, probably among other things.
But the original writing is also corrupted in interpretation so they could not interpret it in the first place. Perhaps they changed it because it was easier to shape according to themselves then.
Be well
AmenuelI believe the changed is to diminish the importance of the Last Prophet and the Messenger assigned to this Arabic version Quran.
Let me show a very interesting example....Quran 2844 to 48
Quran 28 -
44A - And you, , were not on the western side when We revealed to Musa the command, and you were not among the witnesses .
44B - And that you, , were on the western side when We revealed to Muhammad, the command, and you were among the witnesses .
Study the verse 44 A & B study carefully and follow thru the rest...
45A - But We produced generations , and prolonged was their duration. And you were not a resident among the people of Madyan, reciting to them Our verses, but We were senders .
45B - But We produced generations , and prolonged was their duration. And you were a resident among the people of Madyan, reciting to them Our verses, but We were senders .
46A - And you were not at the side of the mount when We called but as a mercy from your Lord to warn A PEOPLE to whom no warner had come before you that they might be reminded.
46B - And you were at the side of the mount when We called but as a mercy from your Lord to warn A PEOPLE what gave them a harbinger from before you, that they might be reminded.
-
And if not in case a calamity should seize them for what their hands have sent forth, they would have said "Our Lord! Why did You not send us a Messenger We would then have followed Your Ayat and would have been among the believers.''
-
But when the truth has come to them from Us, they say "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Musa. Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Musa of old'' They say "Two kinds of magic, each helping the other!'' And they say "Verily, in both we are disbelievers.''
Now my point is in verse 44B, it could not be Musa but Muhammad who was there to received the Umm al Kitab cross reference with 3223 and at the same time a Madyan messenger was the witness to this event!
In verse 45B, it was the Madyan Messenger who also recited the Nabatean Version Quran to the people of Madyan
In verse 46B, 47, how could the Madyans did not received the warner but knew about the Book of Musa - ?
In verse 48, the Madyans talked about the Book of Musa. That means the Book of Musa did reached the Madyans and they were well aware of it!
Your comment, please....
-
-
I believe the changed is to diminish the importance of the Last Prophet and the Messenger assigned to this Arabic version Quran.
Let me be more precise, I believe the changed is to diminish the TRUE Last Prophet, the Messengers assigned to their respective people and the Quran written in their respective languages. This was a programme, during the Arabization of ME which occurred in the late 4th / early 5th Century. The 4th / 5th Century CE was the era when the San'a Codex was first written in the Hijazi / Jazm script.
peace
-
Let me be more precise, I believe the changed is to diminish the TRUE Last Prophet, the Messengers assigned to their respective people and the Quran written in their respective languages. This was a programme, during the Arabization of ME which occurred in the late 4th / early 5th Century. The 4th / 5th Century CE was the era when the San'a Codex was first written in the Hijazi / Jazm script.
peace
I will take a look at it later after work. However I am very skeptical to that he was the last prophet after linguistic analysis. I suppose you draw the conclusion from the use of khatam, but I think you should investigate more.
What they wished to overall diminish was the importance of spiritual teachers as they were obsessed with no association with God. It caused in many cases silly renditions. One is that the root of Melaka means to govern/control, but angels have no own ability according to the secterian interpreters. The presentation of the language in Quran is overall flawed and many words have been deliberately altered.
Be well
Amenuel -
I will take a look at it later after work. However I am very skeptical to that he was the last prophet after linguistic analysis. I suppose you draw the conclusion from the use of khatam, but I think you should investigate more.
Khatam, it is plausible a different word in the original Arabic, that is, Ancient South Arabia. But the rendering in CA is seal. Base from 0333; 2927; 5727 - prophethood came from the selected families, the family of Abraham thru Isaac and Israel thru Amran. Since Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, than, it is confirmed there will be no more Prophets. However, that is not all. Base from Quran 0381 & 82, there will be Messengers, assign to their people. And if they come, whoever rejects them, there will be a consequence!
What they wished to overall diminish was the importance of spiritual teachers as they were obsessed with no association with God. It caused in many cases silly renditions. One is that the root of Melaka means to govern/control, but angels have no own ability according to the secterian interpreters. The presentation of the language in Quran is overall flawed and many words have been deliberately altered.
Be well
AmenuelWhat we have now is that this Quran was written in so called Classical Arabic, copied from the original ASA - , in the 4th / 5th Century CE. Thats where there are so many flaws. The Quran 1590 - 91
Just as We had revealed to the ones who swear / conspire
Who have made the Qur'an abstruse.
the word is only found once in the Quran. This word, i believe is original ASA. I am still searching.
Also the Quran 2530
The Messenger said, "My Lord, indeed, my people took this the Quran a forsaken thing ."
My apology to the originator of this thread because its offtopic