AlFathia
-
There's no so-called "shadda" there, it's an invention. My computer system doesn't even print it out because I've omitted it. If I write on here it's not visible.
Like I wrote is which is meaning what I said, which is speaking about a person's existence or being.
Didn't diacritic marks were invented in somewhere mid-800s or early-900s. Sorry if i got it wrong.
-
is pronounced AL - LEH instead of the standard ALEH for reasons that I gave you.
This is totally incorrect even under currently pronounced phonetics of sound. is pronounced as . Please either pronounce yourself or carefully hear someone reciting this word.
-
They don't pronounce it properly. It's pronounced AL - LAH, but it's believed to be pronounced ALLAH with no releasing of the tongue on the pronunciation and this is what the scholars of the past believed when they inserted the diacritical marker.
And if you treat it as AL on another standard word, you do pronounce it for example AL-Ketab. is the same, it's AL-LAH, because the word is saying "the - to who" basically, their being. Compare that to how traditionalists consider the Lam prefix.
First it was Al- LEH, now it is Al- LAH. Everyone pronounces it wrong. It is also written wrong. How to verify what you claim as your understanding? Whereas, I am presenting evidence of linguistic rules after rules. Where there is a lack of rules, presenting rationale and logical interpretation based arguments upon existing linguistic rules.
LAH, what is it's root? What is it's meaning?
-
First it was Al- LEH, now it is Al- LAH. Everyone pronounces it wrong. It is also written wrong. How to verify what you claim as your understanding? Whereas, I am presenting evidence of linguistic rules after rules. Where there is a lack of rules, presenting rationale and logical interpretation based arguments upon existing linguistic rules.
What rules are you referring to?
-
What rules are you referring to?
Have, you been reading this discussion from page 1? Weren't you able to spot any linguistic rules between my discussion with Mazhar and now Manny?
Let me recap numerically rules related to Allah.
-
Claim is that Allah is not one word rather a sentence written as one word. The rule for this kind of Arabic writing is called Al-Naat. In Al-Naat it is even allowed to eliminate alphabets but users have to know what it is referring. Allah is important concept hence they used markers for future readers to be able to recover whole sentence.
-
First part is "Al". But this Al is not a definite particle here. This is a contraction of relative noun "Allathi". Allathi can be legitimately written as "Al". References have been provide from Lexicon and Grammar book. Furthermore, most occurrences of "Al" with word "Quam" in Quran are translated in the sense of "Allathi" and not "The" of definite particle by other traditional translators providing another evidence. Also, since next word is a negative particle "La" in this sentence. This is another evidence that it cannot be "AL" for "The". The definite particle "Al" can't be used before this type of negative particle.
-
There is a shadda over the middle alphabet with an alif over shadda. This implies 4 alphabets written together. These are going to 2 Alifs and 2 Lams, due to phonetics as 2 lam are are pronounced at the beginning after first Alif of "Al".
-
The phonetic of pronunciation to date is "Al La Ha".
-
Finally, traditionalist have no explanation for its spelling or the way word Allah is written as such based upon linguistic rules. Furthermore, the explanations they give can't account for all markers used in the spelling as written in Quran.
Regards,
-
-
Have, you been reading this discussion from page 1? Weren't you able to spot any linguistic rules between my discussion with Mazhar and now Manny?
I have but my sometimes bad memory & poor knowledge on the linguistic rules is to blame.
-
I have but my sometimes bad memory & poor knowledge on the linguistic rules is to blame.
No problem, we are in the same boat. I have been researching and reading these rules for almost 14 years. Still forget, make mistakes and keep having to search and learn rules whenever a new situation arises. This is how knowledge progresses.
-
No problem, we are in the same boat. I have been researching and reading these rules for almost 14 years. Still forget, make mistakes and keep having to search and learn rules whenever a new situation arises. This is how knowledge progresses.
Be careful though. Sometimes you can lose it and when you try to reclaim it, it may not be the same one. (I honestly don't know if i said that correctly.)
-
Be careful though. Sometimes you can lose it and when you try to reclaim it, it may not be the same one. (I honestly don't know if i said that correctly.)
Yes just remembering that one doesn't know everything help. Also evaluation of any argument and evidence presented based upon reason and logic helps.
Let me share the following facts. This understanding of Allah is not entirely mine. Initially, some know person forwarded me an email asking that I should be able to demonstrate, from current translation of Quran that "Al" is translated in the sense of "allathe". Argument had weight, but it is like finding a needle in a haystack. I did reasonably extensive search of nouns with "Al", until I found that almost at all places the "al" of "AlQuam" is translated with meanings of "those" or "Allathe". However, you must have seen people are still not willing to accept it during this discussion when presented earlier.
Also, initially I thought that that Allah was actually or Al La illah meaning "one who is not a deity for worship". However, an unknown lady Arabic teacher from India through another person objected that if it is "illah", there can't be Idgham of Hamza til Wasal with an alif, as claimed in my analysis. This made me re-look. Not only her claim was correct but I also realized that there is no "Alif" in the text prior to "Ha". Therefore, the last word in sentence can't be " " rather the word is " ". So the break down became from to . This change in Arabic resulted in following change in meanings. From "one who is not a deity for worship" to "one who doesn't engage in worship".
My utmost gratitude to these two unknown individuals for their help in improving the understanding as well getting closer to the truth.
-
Let me share the following facts. This understanding of Allah is not entirely mine. Initially, some know person forwarded me an email asking that I should be able to demonstrate, from current translation of Quran that "Al" is translated in the sense of "allathe". Argument had weight, but it is like finding a needle in a haystack. I did reasonably extensive search of nouns with "Al", until I found that almost at all places the "al" of "AlQuam" is translated with meanings of "those" or "Allathe". However, you must have seen people are still not willing to accept it during this discussion when presented earlier.
I think it's because they are not sure if it's correct, heck i am not sure it's correct. Manny_E did present counter arguments, i wonder what will be his response to this.
-
I think it's because they are not sure if it's correct, heck i am not sure it's correct. Manny_E did present counter arguments, i wonder what will be his response to this.
I understand it is such a drastic shift from traditions. This one word demolishes all the religions of the world. I just want people to evaluate the argument based upon merits of linguistic evidence and reason/logic used in this process, without prejudices and with open mind. If they have linguistic rules based objections. They should cite those rules. I am open to re-evaluate and re-consider.
-
I understand it is such a drastic shift from traditions. This one word demolishes all the religions of the world. I just want people to evaluate the argument based upon merits of linguistic evidence and reason/logic used in this process, without prejudices and with open mind. If they have linguistic rules based objections. They should cite those rules. I am open to re-evaluate and re-consider.
You say that this one word demolishes all religions of the world is problematic because you assume that all religions are theistic. That is not true because there are non-theistic religions like Jainism.
-
You say that this one word demolishes all religions of the world is problematic because you assume that all religions are theistic. That is not true because there are non-theistic religions like Jainism.
First of all Jainism god is not a creator, survivor or destroyer of universe. Their god is a perfect being, so they do have concept of a god but it different. More importantly Jains do engage in worship. Whereas, Allah means "one who doesn't engage in worship". No worship lead to freedom from subjugation of religion. No worship, hence no subjugation, therefore freedom of mankind from all kinds of slavery even slavery of gods.
http//www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/worship/worship_1.shtml
https//sites.fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/jainedu/jaingod.htm -
First of all Jainism god is not a creator, survivor or destroyer of universe. Their god is a perfect being. More importantly Jains do engage in worship. Whereas, Allah means "one who doesn't engage in worship". No worship lead to freedom from subjugation of religion. No worship, hence no subjugation, therefore freedom of mankind from all kinds of slavery even slavery of gods.
Where in their scripture say that? Edit I didn't see the link when i replied. Edit 2 When i checked the links, they didn't show verses in the Jainist scripture. (Unless i missed it.)
-
No worship lead to freedom from subjugation of religion. No worship, hence no subjugation, therefore freedom of mankind from all kinds of slavery even slavery of gods.
Wait i am lost here, how is worship causes subjugation? Isn't that like a anti theist claim or something? There was also atheist groups who did some bad thing like League of Militant Atheists in Soviet Union. Look up their grave misdeeds.
-
Let us keep this discussion to understanding of Quran and especially word Allah based upon linguistic rules. Thanks.
Okay. Still i am not sure if Allah really means One who does not engage worship. What do you say about this brother Manny_E?
-
Wait i am lost here, how is worship causes subjugation? Isn't that like a anti theist claim or something? There was also atheist groups who did some bad thing like League of Militant Atheists in Soviet Union. Look up their grave misdeeds.
Worship and concept of god for worship leads to hierarchy of religious institutions. It only serves the purpose of these institutions and people running these institutions. The common people are salves of god via these institutions . However, if there is a creator? One doesn't need any hierarchy or structured ritualistic religion to bring humans to him. Their description of creator is as wrong as yours or mine. It is all imaginative with false accounts created and attributed to imaginative authorities.
So far what I understand of Quran. While it denies worship and hence obliterates need for the god or gods for worship. Yet it doesn't provide a description of a creator.
-
Worship and concept of god for worship leads to hierarchy of religious institutions. It only serves the purpose of these institutions and people running these institutions. The common people are salves of god via these institutions . However, if there is a creator? One doesn't need any hierarchy or structured ritualistic religion to bring humans to him. Their description of creator is as wrong as yours or mine. It is all imaginative with false accounts created and attributed to imaginative authorities.
Since when did i say about rituals and hierarchy?
-
So far what I understand of Quran. While it denies worship and hence obliterates need for the god or gods for worship. Yet it doesn't provide a description of a creator.
I don't think you are correct about that. Check Surah 112.
