GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!

[unknownuser]

You find 'al-aikah' in the Quran spelled with a 'hamza' on a 'ya' in the Quran, which is forbidden according to modern standardized texts.

Actually it is not ever forbidden, can you please show me a compelling evidence of your claim and I mean compelling please, but what I can say that the hamza is one of the most confusing letters in Arabic, even many write the word Quran differently because of that hamza, so the later Arabic professionals were trying to avoid that confusion in writing, this however can?t cause any confusion in pronunciation of the words with a hamza as a letter, therefore there is nothing forbidding how to put the hamza in words as long as the word sounds the same

Now if Allah put the hamza on a Ya, why you think the modern Arabic is more right than Allah?

Why all these differences?

Well, you only said a couple, so I may ask how you say ?ALL THESE DIFFERENCES??, as well the pronunciation should stay the same, the example of min-rabbihim you brought up is utter non sense because if we pronounce it as mirabihhim then we are saying totally foreign word that does not exist, the only letter ommition in Arabic is the Lam in ?Al? and yet is optional however in writing, the Lam can?t be omitted otherwise it will be a fatal mistake, for example

The word ASHMAS means to have a sun bath and when written, it will be ?Alif Sheen Mim Seen?

The word ?Al Shams? can be optionally pronounced as ?Ashams? by omitting the lam because the ?Sheen? is a heavy letter in pronunciation but if we write it as pronounced, the word will be the same letters as the word above ?Alif Sheen Mim Seen? hence a total confusion will arise

Arabic is a phonetic alphabet so you don't need standardized ways of spelling.

UTTER BS

It is supposed to represent the way that it is said.

THAT IS WHAT EVERY LANGUAGE FOR, what is new exactly?

Which is why when it comes to tajweez you will see different texts differ when it comes to interchangeable things.

Tajweed is only for proper pronunciation and has nothing to do with writing the words

Arabic text in its early stages was a very poor and deficient text.

Well, you may first tell us when was that early stages

Is it 1000 years ago

Is it 2000 years ago

Is it 3000 years ago

Is it 4000 years ago

Is it 5000 years ago

?
?
?
etc.. down to the first day of creation

Now I have to say, your statement was flawed from the first place, because when you say this Arabic text in its early stages was a very poor and deficient text. , I say, what is new exactly?

Damn bro, this is what you bloody expect with any language in its early stages, now you need to tell us when was the early stages of the Arabic language, I would like to also know when was the early stages of the Chinese language then after you do that I hope that you explain to me how poor they were, possibly you will find answers in your fantasy world of ?World Languages?

As it developed new things were added, and sometimes spellings and diacritical marks were put there to help the reader understand the origin of the word. This was good so that non-Arabs and even Arabs could guide their recitals of the Quran.

Would that be before Uthman time or after Uthman time?

Shaddahs served the function of two things.

LOL, that was a flawed definition to the Shaddah bro

The Shaddahs serve the function of stressing the same letter under them

If this is complicated

Not really, it was sort of Tom and Jerry argument

remember that the Quranic texts were only for the educated and those were few

really a few, wow how many you reckon?

, even up until recently. The shaddas indicated where a word could be equally pronunced with tajweez or not. Sometimes you find this shaddah and sometimes you don't.

Shaddah is not part of the Tajweed really, the Shaddah belongs to something called Tashkil, and to be a good Arabic reader you need to be fully aware of the Tashkil even if it does not exist, i.e. someone with high Tajweed skills will be able to read the Quran or anything in Arabic without Tashkil at all and will pronounce the words properly.

Some people believe that the Quran was preserved through writing.

Some, or many?

But the Arabic text was such a crappy text in its early days that the Quran couldn't have fully been preserved by writing.

Good, now you need to tell us when was the early days of the crappy Arabic

Is it 1000 years ago

Is it 2000 years ago

Is it 3000 years ago

Is it 4000 years ago

Is it 5000 years ago

?
?
?
etc.. down to the first day of creation

In very early texts you can't even distinguish the ra from the z or the taw from the dhaw or the seen from the sheen. The dots slowly came later,

Now let me ask you, did they come before Uthman or after Uthman? Then you need to provide compelling evidences

which is why you will find them in some early texts, scattered about. And even these texts don't use them efficiently to represent all the differences between pronunciation.

now we need you to show us many of these texts for us to believe you, cheers

It was only later on that all the vowel markings and dots were put in place so that someone who hadn't already memorized the Quran could read from these texts.

Later when exactly? and by whom?

The Quran was preserved mainly through the use of memorizers and schools for memorizers of this book, the texts were a very loose outline so that these readers wouln't go ahead and insert crazy things into the their recitations and then say that that is what they were taught

I agree with that however, that was up to Uthman time, from then the Quran is preserved by writing, but I accept minor differences in very few words because that never changed the meaning nor the context

Even the Quran admits that people tried to distort the Quran.

But did it say they succeeded?

What is your point by that?

However, even up until this day in the same Quran you will find different conventions for writting. Sometimes the shaddah is there to indicate tajweez and sometimes it is not as well as the other convetions for pronouncing all the sounds.

As I said someone with good Tajweed skills doesn?t need the Tashkil at all, why you are mixing the Tashkil with the Tajweed?

Its ridiculous for people to say that the Quran didn't have vowels or that Arabic doesn't have vowels because even if they write just bsmllh they always say bIsmIllAhI and all the vowels are there when you say this Arabic phrase and any other Arabic word. They also have high functional load becaue there is a big diffierence between saying bismillahi and busmalliha. Literacy in Arabic has just traditionally been based off the reader already knowing the language and being a proficient guesser.

I don't know what you are talking about when you try to simulate the Arabic words with English letters, but I agree with you said here Literacy in Arabic has just traditionally been based off the reader already knowing the language and being a proficient guesser, however the role of the writer s is far more important than the reader as far as I'm concerned, so if the writer did a bad job the reader will do a bad job.

Uthman's text and the official texts from where we get our Quran today was the finalization and fixation of an outline that included all recitals up until that time, obviously from well-known Quranic memorizers who had formed in that day a special class of people like the griots of West Africa, but more organized as in the early days of Islam schools were formed and these people were higly trained and constantly compared their recitals to each others and to their teachers. This is not rumor, like the hadeeth. The early Quranic reciters had their schools their teachers and general texts (though not completely accurate because they lacked dots and vowels) to ensure that their recitations were correct.

Bro while I agree with the above, I?m still puzzled how you can verify the above?, I think you only believe that it was the case as you explained it

Now the early quranic reciters recited it as they heared it from Mohammad, and Mohammad recited it as he heard it from Jebril, and Jebril deliverd it as he recieved it from Allah, now are you suggesting that Allah lacked the dots and vowels?

Mate you argument does not make sense to me

We now have about 7 readings of the Quran now all written with vowels and dots as it was only later on that these vowels and dots came into wide-usage.

Well, I chose to follow the one which is Uthman, but I?m sure the others will be almost the same meaning and contexts, unless they talk about totally something else

There were probably more than just Uthman's text around, despite those Hadeeths that say that he burned all of the other texts of the Quran. Why? Because there are differences between these Qurans in terms of alifs, waws and fas that don't need vowel markings to be distinguished.

The fas and waws don?t need vowel markings to be distinguished, now that is new

Are you saying, we can?t say Fa, Fi, Fu, F and Wa, Wi, Wu, W?

Is that an old days rule or new days rule?, please in either case state when was that became a rule anf by whom

[unknownuser]

With all that said lets get back to tajweez. Have you ever noticed that when the Quran is recited the Quran reciters will often say 'mubaaraka' for 'mubaarakan' and that the 'a' is equal to the 'an'

Man, I thought you are building up for the showtime, now it is obvious that it is a lowtime

Well, Mubaraka or Mubarakan are both the same in writing, so what is your point exactly?

There is no such thing that a = an as you are implying, the Tashkil never existed during the Quran revelation, the double fatiha will make the ?a? pronounced as ?an? therefore it must been recited as ?a? during the prophet because the double fatiha nor the single fatiha existed at that time

sound when the word is an adverb?

not realy, what you are saying that we can only use the double tashkil on adverbs?

I think double tashkil can also be used on adjectives and possibly other type of words, I have to find examples for other types but I?m sure about the Adjectives

'Anaa ji'tu maashiyan' and 'anaa ji'tu maashiya' are the same thing.

True

For those who don't know, all this means is 'I came walking/by foot.'

True

This is the difference between 'al-shams' and 'ashamsi' min rabbihi and mirabbihi.

Utter BS because mirabbihi does not make any sense if I hear that way, sounds hebro to me, and you are mixing an imaginary rule with the rule of the Lam Shansiah/Qamariah that only affect pronounciation and is optional but it does not affect writings at all

Have you also noticed that in the Quran they make 'stop' marks, also called 'wasful-waqf' These stop marks are from the oral recitations (The real means by which the Quran has been preserved) and they represent how each school understands a certain passage. It's like a period mark in English. When you talk there are no period marks and you have to pause for a second for someone to understand that your idea has ended and you have begun another one. This is especially need in Arabic which encourages run-on sentences. So they certain schools standardized these stops to dictacte the readers or listeners understanding.

ok

Also in Classical Arabic when the word is not feminine an alif is put there to indicate 'an' or 'a.' In most texts they put the the tanween there but sometimes, in the same text they don't.

Elaboration please

These stops mentioned above depend on the understanding of Islamic schools that dictate to us how to understand the passages of the Quran. Not only are the verse numbers in the Quran an addition to the Quran (for referencing only, not for understanding as is mistakenly thought) the stops are also an addition and these traditional schools have no authority when it comes to how we can logically understand the Quran with our own minds.

Man, you are an activist for sure but I really don?t understand what you campaigning for exactly

Unless we can logically agree with them on our own also.

Well, agreement is always hard to achieve but we can try

If we choose not to stop where they stop that is our right and if that passage makes sense without the stop then we can disagree with this opinion on where the idea begins and ends. These schools even differ with each other on where to stop.

Yeh sure you are an activist, just kiddin bro

So where is the groundbreaking Quranic finding?

Yeh please, I beg you bro , that is what I was asking for 10 pages and two hours earlier so far, now I?m excited, let?s get into it bro and waste no more time

Look at 2126 in the Arabic under the word 'rabbi'(my lord) and look at 240 and 41 at the words farhabooni (fear me) and fattaqooni(be cautious of me).

(126)

(40)
(41)

In both these passages what, in Arabic and even in other places in the Quran, is written as 'ya' here is written as a kasrah. Telling us that the sound 'i' is equivalent to the long sound 'ya' in Classical Arabic and can be written either way.

Total ignorance, Utter BS and clear cut case of Tom and Jerry cartoon

Both verbs in 240-41 ?Irhabun? and ?Itaqun? should be with a Ya at the end, this Ya is acalled ?Harf Al Illh? and because the verbs are in order fomat then they have to be always Mabni, and if there is ?Harf Al Illh? at the end of the order verb then it has to be ?Mabni Ala Hazf Harf Al Illh?, I,e, ?the Ya must be omitted?

Now if you cared to search for all the concurrences of the word ?Itaqun? you will see that the Ya was never there, the word appeard 5 times in the following verses

241, 2197, 162, 2352 and 3916

same with the word ?Irhabun?, appeared only twice in the Quran as such

240 and 1651

Bro your ignorance is overwhelming, in fact all order verbs must be mabniah on ommiting the Ya for example the order to worship Allah ?Ibudon? was also ordered 3 times and in all three times the Ya is omitted

2125, 2192 and 2956

The above was for Order verbs but even present verbs, it may be mabniah on omitting Harf Al Illh, have a look at these verses

(56)
(57)

Can you see the last word on each verse, it is clearly a present verb and yet the Ya at the end that should be referring to Allah is omitted because this is how it should be

With all this knowledge lets go to

Well, I have to say, the knowledge you provided is shaky, doubtful, unfounded, many are false and has no merit whatsoever, it only serve the purpose of confusing your Muslims brother and sisters and now I can say honestly, peacfully and comfortablly that your discovery is nothing but a blunder

396, 2185 and 4824

The phrases under scrutiny are

shahru-ramadaana
bibatni makkata
lalladhee bibakkata

Not again bro and I don't think you will add any founded conclusion based on the above unfounded claims by you.

Understanding that Arabic is based on how something is said,

Damn, Arabic is not unique here, all languages are the same, bloody hell

understanding the rules of tajweez

It is called Tajweed and it all depends on the Tashkil, many fluent Arab speakers don't need the Tashkil to pronounce the words properly

and understanding that the kasrah and the ya for 'first person 'me' ' can be teh same,

Utter BS

can help us look at these phrases differently without breaking Classical Arabic rules or having to claim that the grammarians are wrong.

Haha you gonna get yourself cornered again, let?s see

So with the following I detract the opinon that I have held for over a year here that the grammarians forgot an important aspect of grammar. It was never the grammarians that kept us from being able to discover it, it was the common, traditional understanding of these verses, the standardization of Arabic spelling and its affect on the way we view texts that were before this standardization. (For those of us who have scrutinized the Arabic)

LOL, man that was laughable after exposing your ignorance regarding the verbs and omitting Harf Al Illh when they are order verbs and sometimes for present verbs

According to tajweez and the the phenomeon of idghaam (assimilation), Shahru-ramadaana can equal shahrun + ramadaanan

ABSOLUTE BS because if this is the case then the two words MUST BE AT THE VERY END OF THE SENTENCE for Ramadaanun to be adjective to Sharun

bro, I?m sorry, have a look at where the two words appeared and you will see that they are at the start of the sentence NOT at the very end

I?m really wasting my time with you Anwar however I?m doing it now for brother warner really, but you have my respect after we settled down our differences in communication

This validates the understanding of 'a month during a time of constant or intense heat' And a shaddah could be inserted over the the ra to show this understanding.

What a laugh that was, the double Tashkil has nothing to do with the shadda, you are very confused bro

Double Dummah pronounced ?un? and must be at the end of the word over the last letter

Double Kasrah pronounced ?in? and must be at the end of the word under the last letter

Double Fatiha pronounced ?an? and must be at the end of the word over the last letter

The Shaddah means ?stressing the letter under it? can be put on any letter

Mate this is ridiculous indeed

The traditional understanding is also still valid, although it may not be more logical, and is certainly not more universal.

BS because the traditional understanding is the only logical one to fit so far

bi-batni makkata following the same rule shown above can equal bi + batnin + makkatan This validates the claim of makkah being used here mainly to indicate destruction, being more liek 'Being in deep or being surrounded(in the middle), by desctruction' The traditional understanding however is also still valid, and its logic depends on whether one would like to accept the histories to be found in the hadeeth or not. However, I wouldn't encourage conspiracy theories.

Bro I will leave you with your fantasy world of manipulating the Arabic words the way you want it without any sound knowledge of what the language should be, it seems that you only speak it bro and that does not mean you know it really

lalladhee bibakkata through the rule shown through 2126, and 240-41 can be 'lalladhee + bee + bakkatan' being "The one that is for Me, being cut above the rest!" The previous passage can start its quote at 'sadaqa allahu fa'. . . that is 'God told truth in saying . . .'

Well I have nothing to say any more, you are building an argument on a pile of clear cut ignorance not a soild and well founded logic, there is no logic in what you said whatsoever despite your very long introduction that surely will serve its purpose with many na?ve ones

With all that said, I officially retract my statement or implication of forgotten grammar. Understanding grammar, tawjeez, that spelling wasn't standardized in Arabic texts until the past 100 years, and that the Quran doesn't fall into the category of books that use conventional standardized spelling, which can be seen from one Quranic text to another, gives support to the ideas that Mecca was never made a place of importance in the Quran, and where the word is mentioned it has other meaning. It also give support to the idea that bakkah is not the other name for Mecca and has meaning in Arabic that grammatically fits towards understanding it as 'a cut above the rest' or 'in distinction' and that Ramadan has alternative Arabic meaning and can grammatically mean 'season of constant or intense heat'. All these understandings can all be justified using valid grammatical principles and are therefore sound understandings.

Ok

As for Layth, Ahmed Baghat and Ayman I hate to sound to critical but I have to say 'Shame on you.' You guys, if you went to religious schools, were more exposed to this and you chose to reject Cl. Arabic grammar altogether, putting yourself on shaky ground knowledge-wise, rather than challenge what they taught you with better scholarship. And showing them that they have not been fully following the scholarship that they claim to be lords over.

Godbless again,
Anwar

I guess it is now proper for me to tell you ?Shame on you Anwar?

Take care mate

Edited Fixed a few typos (well many typos I should say, sorry, i don't use the spell check at all, it wastes my time)

[Samia]

Peace Anwar and all

As I can agree with you that - in theory- you can re-write the first phrase according to idghaam (assimilation), I find that this will be at the expense of basic grammar

shahru ramadana the two letters in red are actually inflections (damma and fat7a) and do not show in the Arabic script as letters. The damma is the "default" vocalization for nouns (and adjectives). These two words are in a possessive construction (mudaaf and mudaaf elayhi) where the second word (here ramadan) ends with i (kasra). The pattern of "ramadan" is one of what we call (diptode takes only two of the three vocalizations , namely the damma and the fat7a. The fat7a serves for the kasra as well). Hence Shahru ramadana instead of shahru ramadani.

The problem is not re-introducing idgham or not, the problem is does the grammar permit?

Now, re-grouping the two words in order to make them noun and adjective (instead of idafa construction)will change the grammar and they have to be "shahrun ramadanu). Again, instead of "ramadanun" (because this is another characteristics of diptodes no nunnation &#1606. But that is not what we have in the Qur'aan. So, the idghaam can't work unless you have a reason to change the vocalization of "ramadana" and make it "ramadanu".

Again, for grammatical rules, "makkatan" should be "makkatin", because it is the second noun in an idaafa construction; and "bakkatan" should be "bakkatin" because it is preceeded by a preposition. In addition, idgham in them does not work, as explained by Ahmed Bahgat.

[progod]

God bless,

I?m really wasting my time with you Anwar however I?m doing it now for brother warner really, but you have my respect after we settled down our differences in communication

Ahmed this shows that despite you saying that you forgave me you still harbor hate in your heart. As many times as you used the phrase utter BS and said that what I was saying was based on pure arrogance you either don't know how to have a decent conversation or you are the same aggressive person that I saw that you were from the beginning. So I will address the issues that you put forth in what I have said to Samia, but please do email warner about what you think about what I have said, and have him relate it to me. I honestly can't bare to read your insulting language and not get enraged and want to respond back to you with pure insults. So, don't waste your time please. PLEASE DON'T waste your time. I accept what you have said but i will never accept your nasty-ass attitude.

Dear Samia,

As for your comment, what I am proposing is that those aren't idaafah constructions at all. Rather they can be validly read as idghaam. batni makkata read just by staying a little longer on the 'meem', a practice which is done in Quranic recitation widely with letters that don't even take shaddas, as it is, can render a different understanding.

Meaning that instead of reading 'batnimakkata' you would read batnim-makkata' which equals 'batnin makkatan/makkata'. The makkata here is an adverb and not part of an idaafah construction. Not doubling the meem was a certain interpretation of the Quran and not writing it was a manifesation of that understanding. I understand what an idaafah construction is and I appreciate your explanation. As for the use of fathah and fathatain, they are interchangeable in adverbs. The word could have equally been makkatan, just as makkata, this helps us understand that this word is not necessarily a proper noun. In the development of Arabic script they developed a way to distinguish male adverbs when reading with the alif, but they never developed a way to distinguish the female adverb when reading. If you see 'heya jaa'at maashiyatan, or maashiyata' you will see no indicater that this is to be an adverb if there are no vowels, where as if it is huwa jaa'a maashiyan or maashiya' you will see a blatant alif. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Additionally shaddas put over sun letters and meddas put over alifs are not always signs to lengthen but signs that you need to employ the use of idghaam for good pronunication. You don't really double these letters. ibnul-ni'mati has a maddah over the al, in al-ni'mati but you don't lengthen this sound like you usually do when you see a meddah over an alif. This is also with Allah in bismillaah. So putting the shaddah there in cases where they don't indicate different words from the same letters without shaddah are only used to give clues for id-ghaam. Furthermoer look at 'bismi' with the alif. Here you have a clear cut case of assimilation affecting writing and you can equally right it bi-ismi with the alif. This is what I am saying that these cases are just like bism, that there are other obvious and more accepted examples of this in the Quran, and that the cases that I presented above can be included in this, and are the preferable meanings in my opinion.

Godbless,
Anwar

As for the case of Mabniah, this seems logical but it does not answer the case of yaa rabbi written with just a kasrah. In 2150 (here is a command not in mabniyah) and it is the same as 544, 2186(does mabniyah also count for past tense), 5117 (which is mentioned in other places in the Quran) would stipulate mabniyaa as well as it says 'A'bidoo allahA rabbee wa rabbAkum' But the 'yaa' is present here. Why? 231 'anba'oonee' is with a ya there not a kasrah, 2152 (Adhkuroonee), 2260 Areenee are with the ya also showing that this is not mabniyyah here this is just a choice of how to write the same thing. Mirrabbihi is a form of tajweez and even though most modern Arabs may not use it Old-Arabs did. Classical Arabic has hardly survived as widely known language, let alone these rules of pronunciation which only prevail when it comes to Quranic recitation. Remember ambiyaa' and qumbilah, this is the same thing.

Godbless,
Anwar

[progod]

Samia,

What I am saying also counts for shahru ramadaana, It can be validly read as shahrur-ramadaana and understood as shahrur-ramadaanan(Ramadan here is an adverb).

Godbless,
Anwar

[unknownuser]

God bless,

Im really wasting my time with you Anwar however Im doing it now for brother warner really, but you have my respect after we settled down our differences in communication

Ahmed this shows that despite you saying that you forgave me you still harbor hate in your heart.

Peace bro

this is utter BS, LOL, come on man we are not in kidergarten here, don't be that senstive, I actually do that with thise I try to get closer to

As many times as you used the phrase utter BS

Please bro, use it with me when you think I'm saying utter BS, it will be sweat with me

and said that what I was saying was based on pure arrogance you either don't know how to have a decent conversation or you are the same aggressive person that I saw that you were from the beginning.

Fine Anwar, if this is what you want to conclude, I can't change you though, I donlt know you nor you know me

So I will address the issues that you put forth in what I have said to Samia, but please do email warner about what you think about what I have said, and have him relate it to me.

oh come on, we are not goping to use messnegers between us, how about pegions?

I honestly can't bare to read your insulting language and not get enraged and want to respond back to you with pure insults.

so if I say what you say is utter BS, you consider this a pure insult?

so if I tell someone for you example you son of whatever? what that would be more than a pure insult?

So, don't waste your time please.

Well, if that offended you, then I'm sorry, bexause truely bro I soent about 4 hours responding to you comment and had a liot to do and I told you my opinion honestely and peacfully, donlt be that senstive regaring the word utter BS but if it intimidate you, I'm happy not to use it with you again, I will update Profiler 2006 and that is enough to make you aware not to say it to you again

PLEASE DON'T waste your time.

no bro, please respond to my reply and take your time

I accept what you have said but i will never accept your nasty-ass attitude.

well, you have been nasty with me and I accepted your apology, now if you think I was nasty to you, then I'm sorry, would you accept my apology?

Salam

[Samia]

Peace Anwar

The makkata here is an adverb

Now I understand your theory about idghaam after you explained them as adverbs, and I see that they can be qualified for idghaam. Sorry as I did not think of them as adverbs because you did not explain it that way in your original message (or maybe I did not pay attention). But what are the verbs that each of these adverbs qualify?

[progod]

Dear Samia,

The best word that I could pick for this was adverb. If you look at it in English and use adverb these adverbs would be modifying the verb 'to be', which as you know in Arabic is most times understood. So you should look at it more like nasbul-haalati which I don't exactly know how to translate into English. It is modifying the condition of the month (shahru-ramadaana), the house (bakkata) and the condition of those in deep, or in a surrounding situation (bi batnim-makkata).

As for the bi in bibakkata if you checked out the quotes that I referred to addressing the case of mabniyah that Ahmed mentioned you can see that using the kasrah for the alif is not a convention for mabniyah and must be something the grammarians used to explain this convention away, which they really didn't understand, if that is the contention of SOME grammarians. The cases that contradict this show that my conclusion that this is a writting convention is more correct that saying that this is a case for mabniyah, and that I can validly look at this b-kasrah as b-ya (in/for Me)

Ahmed,

You can refer to the post that I addressed to samia for those examples if you haven't already checked them out.

Godbless,
Anwar

It is also honestly my contention that the Arabic script should be reworked, but we can talk about that later.

P.S.

Ahmed, thinking about our recent spout I started thinking. And you know what comes around goes around. . . I'm not saying this to threaten you but I'm saying that this came back around on me.

I remember having a conversation with my Fiancee's cousin and telling him that what he had said was 'porqueria' which in spanish is like saying 'bs', i.e. bull-sh*t or a load of crap. And I remember not meaning it in a disrespectful way, because I thought that him and I were close enough for me to be able to say something like that to him, and for him to know that I wasn't trying to invalidate his points completely, his thoughts or thought process. I was just saying that I disagreed with what he was saying at that moment.

My fiancee thought that it was disrespectful for me to say that and I had to explain what I meant to him, and her. In reality, I had assumed too much about his ability to know how I thought. That's something that takes years. And I've learned to take into consideration that for a person to have that type of insight into my personality takes years of a developing friendship and even then sometimes its misunderstood. So unless I'm just kidding around and the person I'm talking to knows that I'm not being serious, that is the only time that I will talk like that, but with people that I haven't met a day in my life and on a forum where we are trying to resolve serious issues, inconsistencies and trying to bring to light things that others may not have realized before, I try to refrain from those type of half-play, half-harsh jokes or comments.

We all mess up but as I said I try to refrain from that. I only get nasty like that when I think a person is either being hard-headed on purpose and hard-headed and nasty at that. I actually usually have patience and forgiveness for the slow (its not their fault) but I don't have patience for the slow & indignant, and even less for the slow, indignant AND assumptious.

Godbless,
Anwar

[Samia]

Peace Anwar

I am trying to understand, but sometimes I am lost. If the missing verb is (to be), it has to be (was) so that the "khabar" will be "mansuub". Is this example correct
shahrun (was) ramadana?

That would be quite interesting!

[unknownuser]

Peace Anwar

I am trying to understand, but sometimes I am lost. If the missing verb is (to be), it has to be (was) so that the "khabar" will be "mansuub". Is this example correct
shahrun (was) ramadana?

That would be quite interesting!

Hi

Yes the example is correct and the verb to be can also be in present form, i,e, Sharun is Ramdana, however the verb to be "past or present" can not be ommitted, i think there is a verse that runs on the same way as your example but I have to find it inshaallah you will see in it that the verb to be can't be ommitted, and if your exmaple was stated n the Quran the sentene "sharun kana ramdana" must come at the end of the sentence otherwise it will be flawed and won't make any sense, try it in the verse using your example and you will recognise what I mean

Salam

[unknownuser]

I actually went to bed then the verse hit me so i turned on my laptop to post it, it is similar to Samia example and we will see that the verb to be "Kana" can't be ommitted,

they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide-spreading,

(7)

See how it came at the end of the verse and the "Kana" can't be ommitted, this should demolish "Sharun Ramdanun" silly claim that it means the scorchng full moon

Good night all

[progod]

Dear Samia,

Take it like this

Fa&alan anaa amaamuka

which means

biseeghatin fa&leeyin anaa amaamuka

Fa&l is a noun here and not an adjective and it is describing the way that I am in front of you (in a real way).

This is the same way that Ramadaana works. Sharun ramadaanan equals 'A month, in/as it concerns constant/intense heat'

Anaa hunaa li-sayyaratin uswatan bihi I am here for a car, just as he is.

In both of the above cases Kaana is not needed. The verb to be is understood, but uswatan and fa&lan describe the context in which someone 'is' in any particular situation, and they are both using knowns. In the same way you could say 'Isti&daadan huwa fee nasfil-mustawaa.' Here isti'daadan is modifying the understood verb to be. So in shah-run, ramadaanAN lalladhee . . . ' RamaadanAN is explaining in what context this month fell in but it is not explaining the month itself, which would make it an adjective and therefore it would have to be 'ramadaanun'.

I hope you see where I'm coming from?

Godbless,
Anwar

[unknownuser]

Peace Anwar

Please be aware that verbs CAN'T be ommitted in the Arabic langugaes, only names or their Damirs refering to these names

Cheers

[progod]

Peace Ahmed,

I know you understand that the verb to be is a very special case. I'm not talking about all verbs. I'm talking about the verb to be. It can be ommitted where in English it is never admitted, except in certain English dialects. And like in Arabic it is only omitted in the present tense, in very clear cut connections like 'that dog (is) smart.'

Godbless,
Anwar

[unknownuser]

Peace brother Anwar

Mate as far as I know words and verbs can't be ommitted, only damirs can

if you ommitt a verb then the grammar will be broken

I understand what you mean when we say The dog (is) smart, in arabic we will say Kalbun Zakyun, where it will contitute a "Muptdaa and Khabar" or a noun and an adjective, if you add the verb to be then we will have a totally different structure "Al Kalb Yakoon Zakia", it makes no sense bro gramaticlly

Take care

[progod]

Exactly, Ahmed.

That is exactly what I am saying. The verb 'to be' can ommitted. It is the only verb that can be omitted in the present tense.

Godbless,
Anwar

[unknownuser]

Peace Anwar

but when we deal with senstences for Irab we have to state the ommited words, in the case of "Kalbun Zakiu" in Irab though we will not mention the vern to be as ommitted at all, you may consider it virtually ommitted in the case of present to be because it makes no sense as past tense, but we don't mention this in Irab

Cheers

[progod]

So if we both agree that the verb 'to be' can be ommitted, then why are you disagreeing with me? Or are you? It seems like you want to emphasize that verbs can't be omitted in Arabic, and I agree with that. But there is one special case which is the verb 'to be.' The verb 'to be' can be omitted despite the fact that there is an adverb to modify it like in the sentences I gave to Samia. So are we in agreement or what? And why does it seem like you are disagreeing with me if we both agree on the verb 'to be;' and that this verb (and only this verb from what I know) can be ommitted?

Godbless,
Anwar

[unknownuser]

So if we both agree that the verb 'to be' can be ommitted, then why are you disagreeing with me? Or are you? It seems like you want to emphasize that verbs can't be omitted in Arabic, and I agree with that. But there is one special case which is the verb 'to be.' The verb 'to be' can be omitted despite the fact that there is an adverb to modify it like in the sentences I gave to Samia. So are we in agreement or what? And why does it seem like you are disagreeing with me if we both agree on the verb 'to be;' and that this verb (and only this verb from what I know) can be ommitted?

Godbless,
Anwar

Peace bro

the issue is far more complicated than this bro and to be honest I agree that a present to be can be ommitted but this is just virtually known not a common rule in grammar that suggest that

also I discovered a mistake that I have done, in the order verbs you mentioned "Itaqun" and "Irahabun" and the one I brough in "Ibidun", i said that the Ya must be ommitted because Order verb with "Harf Al Illah" must be mabbiah ala hazf harf al illah", however I checked the grammar books I had and I was wrong, because the Ya that suppose to be at the end is "Ya Al Mukhtaba", i.e. "Ya of the speech", so all order verbs must be Mabniah ala hazf Ya Al Mukhatabah

now I hope you don't hold this against me as you did before, and as you can see that I always correct myself if others failed to do as such, i.e. I corner myself

but as I said before I was good in arabic up to about 19 years old then from there all my study was in engnieering and not the languages and that is 22 years mate so my memory my fail me that is why I bought those 3 grammar books, one of them is actually charts only to explain how the grammar workd with the Arabic words, I can photo copy it and send it to you if you wish, it is like a referenece

Salam

[progod]

Peace,

This still does not solve the fact that not all instances of this have the 'ya' taken away. There are instances where the command is a ya and instances where it is just a kasrah. Go back to the posts I posted for Samia to see these instances.

Secondly, please don't complicate the matter by saying that it is more complicate. This is an Arabic rule and the verb to be is only put in when it is in subjunctive form, conditioan form or for emphasis. It is really not that complicated.

Godbless,
anwar