AlFathia
-
Why do you wait to hear from anyone. Just google search and find out if pronouns are definite or indefinite and why?
Because i have not much knowlegde of grammar. I don't know what to search. Besides the reason i want to wait it's because i want to hear Manny's response.
-
Arabic works that way, you can place on to say "the he", so your example which is grammatically incorrect in English is correct in Arabic. You can't just generalize that because you speak English and an unspecified amount of languages the same way it means Arabic is spoken the same way.
If you say "it is he who" you can use in Arabic because it causes "he" to be complemented with sufficient semantics. If you instead speak of unknown or unspecified person you would say which means "it is the person who", it can be used without any word tagged because the word itself is like a subject.
The difference if you do not use is that it can be anyone person within a context who fulfill some criteria in a sentence. alone is NEVER written as an Arabic word must contain at least two letters.
Try placing "the" before every Arabic word which starts with AL and it would sound ridiculous in English.
Please do a count and tell how many total alphabets are in in the order from left to right.
-
Although I'm beginning to grasp the formula of how it's spelled and why according to the grammar for . I accept I've not been utterly right. Point is, is pretty anomalous in Arabic but I'd say it is + to be honest.
So you are counting only four alphabets? Correct?
-
The letters are there, four aren't they? I've written the word so many times I've lost the count and you ask an irrelevant question which is already answered in itself.
Anyone who looks can see they are four.
Great, so please tell us do see a shadda in .? What do you know a shadda implies in a given text?
-
Great, so please tell us do see a shadda in .? What do you know a shadda implies in a given text?
Isn't shadda a vocalization mark? The vocal marks didn't exist until Abbasid era i think.
-
Isn't shadda a vocalization mark? The vocal marks didn't exist until Abbasid era i think.
Shadda represent duplication of the alphabet it is applied upon. In other words there are two same alphabets written as one with Shadda mark applied indicating this fact. Please confirm this fact. One doesn't need to be a linguistic expert to do it. Just Google search it. So if this is how Allah is written in Arabic. It would imply that there are not just 4 alphabets in Allah i.e., it is not just but rather it is . Furthermore, there is an Alif above this shadda. In grammatical terms it is called Dagger Alif. Since it is above Shadda, implying it has to be double, as well. Now if one were to write these alphabets in a sequence. These would written as . Since Arabic is a cursive script, meaning alphabets are combined to one another in writing. These can be combined as and further combined as . The technical/grammatical term for such combining of words in writing is called Al-Naat.
-
There is one thing i noticed in the Arabic word in Allah. See this crown above the word? That crown mark is not there in Birmingham Manuscript , look at this picture brother Noon Waalqalami
http//oi64.tinypic.com/2v9sq3t.jpg -
There is one thing i noticed in the Arabic word in Allah. See this crown above the word? That crown mark is not there in Birmingham Manuscript , look at this picture brother Noon Waalqalami
I don't know which crown you are seeing. It is a Siin like mark which is what shadda is, or how it is represented in the text. The text of Quran as we see it today was fixed/improved over 250-300 years or may be even longer after its supposed inception. So one is bound to see differences in written text over that time period until the text was codified finally as we see it today.
-
I don't know which crown you are seeing. It is a Siin like mark which is what shadda is, or how it is represented in the text. The text of Quran as we see it today was fixed/improved over 250-300 years or may be even longer after its supposed inception. So one is bound to see differences in written text over that time period until the text was codified finally as we see it today.
That manuscript is from mid-600s i think, see the forum post by Noon https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607061.0
-
Al-Fathia, literally it means ?the opening or unlocking?. If one pays close attention to concepts in this Sura. It becomes evident that having command over all disciplines of knowledge has and would always lead to opening and unlocking the mysteries of universe. It also makes sense to adopt this mode of conduct over a mode of conduct of worshiping any unseen entity. This mode of conduct appears more capable, as well a practical approach to solving and dealing with issues of life.
Readers are totally free not to agree with this translation. However, they are encouraged to use their reason and logic in evaluating this translation, knowing most can?t have required linguistic know how.
Surah 11
With nobility of One who doesn?t engage in worship comes the extreme and lasting concern for sufferings or misfortune of others.
Surah 12
The acceptance for not engaging in worship helps to achieve the command over all the disciplines of knowledge,
Surah 13
Due to the extreme, lasting concern for sufferings or misfortunes of others,
Surah 14
This has been an eternal mode of conduct for people.
Surah 15
You beware we are excited about it also you beware we are seekers of knowledge.
Surah 16
It guides us from fleeing the path which is original, straight, undeviating and unceasing.
Surah 17
Those fleeing the path, if you were to scrutinize them; it would be nothing but cause of anger for the confounded, perplexed and unable to see right path.
-
I have 2 questions and it's not to be derogatory but you have checked the root words of all of the verses in the chapter? And secondly does the word Fatia occur in the Quran?
-
I have 2 questions and it's not to be derogatory but you have checked the root words of all of the verses in the chapter? And secondly does the word Fatia occur in the Quran?
Yes I have. The root is used at multiple place, however, to best of my recollection not in this shape/form or word format.
-
Yes I have. The root is used at multiple place, however, to best of my recollection not in this shape/form or word format.
But what about Fatiha? Does the word occur in the Quran?
-
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,
-
