AlFathia
-
I think you missed following part of write up.
Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.
677
Yousuf Ali When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said "This is my Lord." But when the moon set, He said "unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray."
799
Yousuf Ali Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!
Other examples are at 62 different places, 526, 25, 567. Any place word is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of "allathi".
-
The definite article is not contraction of Relative Pronoun.
Mazhar, you asked for an evidence, I provided you with one that others have translated as relative noun "those" even in current translation. Furthermore, both Lexicon and Grammar book have this linguistic rule. I don't what else can be presented as evidence.
The situation with traditional believers is so bleak that even if prophet some how came back to tell them the truth. They would kill him, instead of considering the possibility that they have gone astray.
-
How about "outright deceived" for Al-qum al-khaserun?
Qum is a word which means upright or right or straight and Khasarun means to be deceived or ruined. Two attributes (adjectival) marked by AL is very common in Arabic.
The other one surely means to be disoriented, astray and the sentence probably says thus "outright astray/disoriented?.
It could also be slightly sarcastic for ?properly lost".
Issue is not what the meaning of the phrase should be, it is which word is translated as "those" or where from translators brought this meanings. They have not translated "al" as the definite article and rather as relative noun "those" which in Arabic is "allathi". Which is another evidence to prove that "al" can be a contraction of "allathi", beside being mentioned in both Lexicon and Grammar books.
-
You're correct. There's no "them" in the original Arabic sentence.
And I find it wrong Qum is used to give mention of people plus including elsewhere in Quran. This was probably done by ancient clergymen to validate their linguistic invention.
Please elaborate/explain further your statement in red?
-
Mazhar, you asked for an evidence, I provided you with one that others have translated as relative noun "those" even in current translation. Furthermore, both Lexicon and Grammar book have this linguistic rule. I don't what else can be presented as evidence.
The situation with traditional believers is so bleak that even if prophet some how came back to tell them the truth. They would kill him, instead of considering the possibility that they have gone astray.
Your mind is totally blocked. "Those" does not match Allaze.
And again look at words of the sentence, those is not reference for Al.
-
Peace Manny_E.
Have you tried to study/look at what Qoran is saying?
It will be interesting to give us your side of how you find the book if you looked at it in detail?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Clergymen invented their own interpretation of a language and words which have only one general meaning took many different meanings. For example, Qum's meaning is very straightforward, yet it appears to mean different things depending on context.
Personally, I don't think they knew much about the language and it's the understanding we've lived with for hundreds of years.
What kind of book is Quran anyways in how it looks? Some kind of primitive deity which has problems with attention-seeking and emotions? Either it's a false book or something is wrong. If one looks at it objectively and by logic, it seems very retarded.
Quran as we know today is a totally wrong understanding of the written text above. This Quranic understanding is based upon hearsay written by Tabari. All later attempts have been to rationalize this retarded translation. This is based upon my meager own research spread over 13-14 years for learning of the language. The concepts that I understand so far are grand and have potential for profound influence. These negate all religions and concepts related to religions.
For instance Allah is not a name of a god or deity. It in fact is not even a single word. It is a sentence meaning "One who doesn't engage in worship". If no one engages in worship there can be no god in religious sense as all gods exist due to worshiping worshipers.
However, I don't know yet that whole Quran is recoverable? Translation of whole text is fraught with extreme linguistic challenges as should be evident from discussion so far above. It needs a concerted, open minded and research oriented team efforts. I am chip-in with my pennies and meager efforts to create at least an awareness in this regards.
-
For instance Allah is not a name of a god or deity. It in fact is not even a single word. It is a sentence meaning "One who doesn't engage in worship". If no one engages in worship there can be no god in religious sense as all gods exist due to worshiping worshipers.
Salam/Peace Bkanwar2. I have a question Does God really means something to be worshipped? Because some have conflicting studies about the root word of God. In fact i am not sure if God is really a name but a descriptor noun or a title. I even have doubts that God is an object of worship. In fact why has no one check on the word God in a non-religious sense?
-
I agree the scripture is totally off in terms of its interpretation, but I also disagree with your attempt at reinterpretation, even if it is well-intentioned by you. For example, the word allah is as you said not a word for a deity, but it doesn't mean what you wrote.
Allah is a one-word construct which is based on the same word which the famous AL prefix is derived from but it's the full trilateral form, and it ends with third-person singular and there's a plural form too which is Allahem. Because it's using the same root as AL means it gives attribute of being something. Because the word focuses on itself the simple answer is it speaks of one's existence, person or object since the Heh pronoun can be an animate or inanimate object. Allah has much in resemblance to the common Elah word (Alef Lam Heh) which speaks about the being like of a person or object, which is the standard AL prefix and pronoun.
I accept anyone's words though and giving my own understanding while declaring I disagree with yours and it doesn't imply any hostile intention or derogatory remark.
/Manny
Salam Manny_E forgive me but what does full trilateral form mean? My skill in linguistic is poor.
-
Most Arabic words follow a special three letter sequence which we call roots. In the case of AL it is Alef-Lam-Lam, which Allah uses as "full root" for the construct.
Salam i have check both root words of Alif-Lam-Lam & Alif-Lam-ha
Alif-Lam-ha ( ه = to serve, worship or adore; to protect, grant refuge, preserve save, rescue, liberate; object of worship ie God; (Alif-Lam-Lam-ha) God, the one true God applied as a proper name denoting the true god, comprising all the excellent divine names; a unity comprising all the essences of existing things.
allahumma "O God!" 326, 5114, 832, 1010, 3946
allah
"there is no god but God" 2255, 32, 318, 362, 487, 208, 2014, 2098, 2726, 2870, 3735, 3865, 4719, 5922, 5923, 6413
"He is God, that is God" 63, 695, 3513, 396
"Belonging to God" 2115, 2142, 2284, 328, 3109, 3129, 3180, 4126, 4131, 4131, 4132, 4170, 612, 6136, 6136, 81, 841, 1055, 1066, 142, 2385, 2387, 2389, 2464, 3126, 484, 487, 5325, 5331, 5710, 597, 637
"By God" 1273, 1285, 1291, 1295, 1656, 1663, 2157, 2697, 3756
"With or from God; in God's sight" ('ind Allah) 279, 294, 2110, 2217, 2282, 314, 337, 378, 378, 3163, 3198, 3198, 478, 478, 494, 6124, 7131, 7187, 822, 828, 855, 919, 920, 922, 936, 999, 1446, 1695, 1696, 2413, 2415, 2461, 2747, 2860, 3039, 3353, 3363, 3369, 4035, 4152, 4236, 4610, 485, 613, 6211, 6415, 7320
"God is with" 940, 4735
"Apart from God" (dun Allah) 223, 364, 5116, 916, 931, 1018, 1037, 1843, 1981, 2724, 2881, 2925, 3674, 3786, 4074, 4628, 5358, 7125
"Other than God" (ghayr Allah) 2173, 482, 53, 614, 619, 640, 646, 6114, 6145, 6164, 7140, 1596, 1652, 16115, 1722, 1739, 2122, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764, 2871, 2872, 353, 3964, 5026, 5151, 5243ilah n.m. (pl. alihah) 2133, 2133, 2133, 2163, 2163, 4171, 573, 619, 931, 1452, 1622, 1622, 1651, 18110, 18110, 2098, 21108, 21108, 2234, 2234, 2838, 2946, 2946, 374, 385, 4037, 416, 416, 4384, 4384, 1143
other (false) gods - 2163, 2255, 32, 36, 318, 318, 362, 487, 573, 5116, 619, 646, 674, 6102, 6106, 759, 765, 773, 785, 7127, 7138, 7138, 7140, 7158, 931, 9129, 1090, 1114, 1150, 1153, 1154, 1161, 1184, 11101, 1330, 1596, 162, 1651, 1722, 1739, 1742, 1814, 1815, 1946, 1981, 208, 2014, 2088, 2088, 2097, 2098, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2125, 2129, 2136, 2143, 2159, 2162, 2168, 2187, 2199, 2323, 2332, 2391, 2391, 23116, 23117, 253, 2542, 2543, 2568, 2629, 26213, 2726, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764, 2838, 2870, 2871, 2872, 2888, 2888, 353, 3623, 3674, 3735, 3736, 3786, 3791, 385, 386, 3791, 385, 386, 3865, 396, 403, 4062, 4065, 4345, 4358, 448, 4523, 4622, 4628, 4719, 5026, 5151, 5243, 5922, 5923, 6413, 7123, 739
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 1, pages 119, 120 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=alh
Alif-Lam-Lam ( ل = Pact, covenant; blood relationship, consanguinity; Anything which has a quality requiring it to be regarded as sacred, or inviolable; which has some right pertaining to it, nearness with respect to kindred, good origin, promise or an assurance of safety or security, neighbour, bond.
illan n.m. 98, 910
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 1, pages 111, 112 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=all
-
I accept anyone's words though and giving my own understanding while declaring I disagree with yours and it doesn't imply any hostile intention or derogatory remark.
/Manny
Manny every word in any language has spellings. Let us first decipher spellings of Allah. This is objective data and everyone should be able to come to same conclusion eventually.
-
Manny every word in any language has spellings. Let us first decipher spellings of Allah. This is objective data and everyone should be able to come to same conclusion eventually.
Maybe but will it be the conclusion you hoping to be? Not sure. No offense by the way.
-
Maybe but will it be the conclusion you hoping to be? Not sure. No offense by the way.
Why worry about conclusion at this time? Let us follow the first step in understanding. Once we can have correct spelling/linguistic understanding conclusion will follow and is going to be true and correct. It is called deductive logic. True premises can only lead to true conclusion.
-
Why worry about conclusion at this time? Let us follow the first step in understanding. Once we can have correct spelling/linguistic understanding conclusion will follow and is going to be true and correct. It is called deductive logic. True premises can only lead to true conclusion.
Well i never said that you should worry about the conclusion.
-
Besides you should be careful how you use the linguistics, one or two or few mistakes could really crack apart your research. Again no offense.
-
Besides you should be careful how you use the linguistics, one or two or few mistakes could really crack apart your research. Again no offense.
My friend, all researchers are bound to mistakes and they do. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes as long one accepts these and correct when presented with evidence. This is only how truth can be found.
-
My friend, all researchers are bound to mistakes and they do. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes as long one accepts these and correct when presented with evidence. This is only how truth can be found.
Of course that is true but there are people who defend their mistakes and tend to get bias. (don't know if i said that right and not saying that you are bias)
-
Of course that is true but there are people who defend their mistakes and tend to get bias. (don't know if i said that right and not saying that you are bias)
Any good research should be free from all biases. Despite good honest intentions biases can still creep in. The best way to validate the results of any research is replication of the results by many. Hence, I request to let us analyze spellings of in order to determine replication while using established linguistic rules.
-
Any good research should be free from all biases. Despite good honest intentions biases can still creep in. The best way to validate the results of any research is replication of the results by many. Hence, I request to let us analyze spellings of in order to determine replication while using established linguistic rules.
Well i am not sure the spelling you use is correct though.
