Can it be proved that "Qiblatain" is an Arabic word?
-
Peace,
With all due respect, Hebrew is not Arabic. We are dealing with Classical Arabic not Hebrew. Also the Arabic qablu means in front of (before of time and place). Qiblatun is not qablu. I staunchly disagree with using Hebrew and Aramaic grammar to approach Arabic grammar. They are related languages but they are not the same. You would also have to include Ge'ez, Amharic, Aramaic & Himyarite in your conclusions. Would I use Italian to explain Spanish, or vice versa? Mirar in Spanish is to look and in Portuguese is to aim. Should I try to impose the portuguese meaning on the Spanish or vice versa? No. They are all separate language just as Arabic and its relatives, just because they have similar origin, words and sounds does not make them the same language.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar
This is not about classical Arabic this is about the Arabic of the Quraan. But if you insist the Quraan was revealed in classical Arabic then you can explain the Quraan using the words such as 'qiblatul-mutasawwiqeena' ( focal point or convening point of/for shoppers)that you pick up from Arabic magazines .
Are you in possession of a pre Quranic dictionary comprising solely of ?classical Arabic WORDS?? Will it surprise you to know that there are foreign words in the Quran. Words have a history and that history pre dates the Quran. Most of these words are used in the Quraan in a manner to bring out its proper meaning.
Why did you say Hebrew ?grammar?? Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic belong to western Semitic languages. It?s not necessary for me to elaborate on the relationship of these languages and the Semitic roots since you can do a simple search for Semitic languages and find out for yourself. An important factor is Hebrew is the language of Moses and the language of Hebrew Bible and Aramaic being the language of Jesus. Quraan was not revealed in a vacuum but was revealed in the midst of the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible and it is addressed to the people of the Book as much as to the others. It was not necessary for you to get agitated since I have shown the Arabic meaning of the root QBL from Quran Arabic before listing the Hebrew meaning as additional information. These words are used in the Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles before the advent of the Quran and without a conspiracy in mind to change the meaning of Arabic words.
I do not understand the reason for you to bring a list of unrelated languages and try to make a redundant point and not address the verse 1087 or try to translate it.
In 1087 it can be ?Kubalathan? and according to Lanes this means ,
The direction, point, place in front of a thing, the opposite direction
This is in line with the Quranic meaning when we check the use of this root in other verses and also the etymological meaning and the Hebrew meaning. You are welcome to check Aramaic and Syriac as well.
Qibla to mean 'a place of convening' or 'focal point' are natural off shoots of the corrupted meaning of ?direction? unless your magazine pre dates the Quran. This meaning has no basis in history, in other Semitic languages or in the Quraan.
Also mira/mirar in both Spanish and Portuguese can mean look, watch, observe and sight. In Portuguese aim is pontaria and in Spanish it is punter?a. May be you got confused between Portuguese in Portugal and the use in Brazil for instance.
Italian and Spanish are Romance languages and both descend from Latin. The two languages have many similiarities and the lexical similarity of spanish with Italian is estimated at 82%.
-
Peace,
Warner, I can see where you are coming from a mile away and I already am sure of the outcome of this exchange, however I will do my best to explain these things to you with an objective point of view.
This is not about classical Arabic this is about the Arabic of the Quraan. But if you insist the Quraan was revealed in classical Arabic then you can explain the Quraan using the words such as 'qiblatul-mutasawwiqeena' ( focal point or convening point of/for shoppers)that you pick up from Arabic magazines .
But Classical Arabic is the Arabic of the Quran. Why don't you understand that? Why in the world would you be trying to say they are different and off of what basis? The usage of that word for qiblat which I gave you is a Classical Arabic usage that can even be found in Classical Arabic dictionaries (despite the fact that my example was from a modern magazine). Why don't you quote what I posted straight from Al-Muheet instead of trying to undermine my understanding by trying to relate it to a modern magazine (thereby claiming my example to be exclusively modern) that I used to give an example of its use today in High level Modern Standard Arabic (which in many cases overlaps with old school fushaa in an identical way).
Are you in possession of a pre Quranic dictionary comprising solely of ?classical Arabic WORDS?? Will it surprise you to know that there are foreign words in the Quran. Words have a history and that history pre dates the Quran. Most of these words are used in the Quraan in a manner to bring out its proper meaning.
Every Classical Arabic dictionary has solely Classical Arabic words. There are no foreign words in the Quran. To be more correct there are Arabicized words of foreign origin in the Quran. However those words were Arabicized before the Quran and became no longer foreign words in Arabic. Just like the word comfort is an English word, despite the fact that it is orginally a latin word and was anglicized. So will we try to go back to latin and try to say that the original meaning of 'with strength' is really what this word means and we should use it this way? So I should be saying I comfort, for I am strong? No. The word is an Anglicized latin word and has a distinct meaning in English than it has in latin and we cannot go back and change that. The same thing goes for Arabicized words in Arabic from Latin, Ethiopic, Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic origin.
Most of these words are used in the Quraan in a manner to bring out its proper meaning
You mean, there non-Arabic meanings, not their proper meanings, and you have no proof that this is true, nor do you have any proof that Arabic words that resemble Aramaic or Hebrew words, not counting proper names, are even derived from Aramaic or Hebrew. It could be the other way around, or they could have a common origin with a mother language. Remember that amongst linguists Classical Arabic (which obviously includes the Arabic used in the Quran) is considered the most archaic, i.e. the oldest and most original of this branch of AFRO-ASIATIC languages which you call Semitic (really Eastern Afro-Asiatic).
Why did you say Hebrew ?grammar?? Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic belong to western Semitic languages. It?s not necessary for me to elaborate on the relationship of these languages and the Semitic roots since you can do a simple search for Semitic languages and find out for yourself. An important factor is Hebrew is the language of Moses and the language of Hebrew Bible and Aramaic being the language of Jesus.
Yes. I am quite aware of this. Actually the Hebrew Bible is a retranslation from the Greek and the Aramaic targums. The original was actually lost. The Hebrew Bible we have today (the Messoretic text) is actually a work of the 10th century, a retranslation of the Aramaic targums and the Greek Old Testament.
Quraan was not revealed in a vacuum but was revealed in the midst of the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible and it is addressed to the people of the Book as much as to the others.
Okay, the Quran was not revealed in a vacuum. There was more than just the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible in this area firstly. Secondly what do you mean by "in the midst of the Hebrew and Aramic Bible." It was revealed while these books did exist, yes. But that has nothing to with it being also in the languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. These languages are related but are distinctly different than Arabic. Yes they have similar roots, but as I said this is the same with Amharic and other languages that also use the root system and have many similar roots to Arabic. Again Portuguese, Spanish and Italian are very similar but just because they use the same Latin roots doesn't mean that they mean the same things and that I can read a book in Italian using Spanish words which are similar to the Italian words.
It was not necessary for you to get agitated since I have shown the Arabic meaning of the root QBL from Quran Arabic before listing the Hebrew meaning as additional information. These words are used in the Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles before the advent of the Quran and without a conspiracy in mind to change the meaning of Arabic words.
It was necessary for me to get agitated, because I have encountered this before and have even seen this used by Judeo-Christian Western Orientalists and it is a ridiculous approach. Here we have the lexicons with the meanings of all the Quranic words, in addition we have the grammatical patterns which also confirm and allow for extra meanings of these Quranic words yet people with this Judeo-Christian bias want to distort the Quranic words using Aramaic and Hebrew words that are similar to the Arabic words. Why don't they use Amharic or Ge'ez words, as these languages share many of the same roots and similar words with Arabic too? Atleast you will find attributions to the Ethiopic languages in the tafseers of some Scholars (which I also disagree with). But these Judeo-Christian orientalists want to impose their belief of the superiority and originality of Aramaic and Hebrew (and more specifically Christianity and Judaism) over Classical Arabic and impose it into the Quran (though which they are trying to inject these ideas into the basis of Islam), all because unfortunately, more than a few Muslim scholars don't know how to do their research and disclose all of the CLASSICAL ARABIC meanings of the words in the Quran, instead of protecting their sick and limited interpretations. I am not for and will never be for the use of one separate language to interpret another, no matter how similar they are. They are still separate languages. Despite that it was the Jews who used Aramaic and Classical Arabic forms (Through comparison) to reconstruct and relearn Hebrew which was a lost language. Classical Arabic has never been lost and all of its meanings can easily be found, so what the heck is this idea that we can impose the defintions of similar Aramaic and Hebrew words and roots onto Classical Arabic words that have their meanings clearly defined withing the bounds of Classical Arabic?!
I do not understand the reason for you to bring a list of unrelated languages and try to make a redundant point and not address the verse 1087 or try to translate it.
Please, with all due respect you perfectly understood my point. And if you didn't I repeated it in what you just read above. It is not redundant as you are doing exactly what I am saying you are doing, and it is mistaken.
In 1087 it can be ?Kubalathan? and according to Lanes this means ,
In 1087 Qiblatan CANNOT be Kubalatan, as it is clearly Qiblatan. What you are doing is called tahreef warner and you are doing what the Quran says that some Jews did to the book during the last prohet's time; I'm sure in the same way you are trying to do now, by trying to take similar Aramaic or Hebrew words with different meanings and slip them into this book of God which is in clear ARABIC.
446 Mina allatheena hadoo yuharrifoona alkalima AAan mawadiAAihi wayaqooloona samiAAna waAAasayna waismaAA ghayra musmaAAin waraAAina layyan bialsinatihim wataAAnan fee alddeeni walaw annahum qaloo samiAAna waataAAna waismaAA waonthurna lakana khayran lahum waaqwama walakin laAAanahumu Allahu bikufrihim fala yuminoona illa qaleelan
Among those of the Jewish faith there are some who distort the meaning of the words, taking them out of their context and saying, "We have heard, but we disobey," and, "Hear without hearkening,? and, ?Hearken thou unto us, (O Muhammad)? - thus making a play with their tongues, . . .
I'm sure raa&inaa has some completely different twist in Aramaic, which is why they chose this word.
122 Inna anzalnahu quranan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona
We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.
Arabiyy is different than ibriy(Hebrew) and aramiy(Aramaic).
The direction, point, place in front of a thing, the opposite direction
This is in line with the Quranic meaning when we check the use of this root in other verses and also the etymological meaning and the Hebrew meaning. You are welcome to check Aramaic and Syriac as well.
Again. There is a difference between qablu, qibalu and qiblatun in Classical Arabic. Aramaic and Syriac have nothing to do with this. So please leave them out and stick to Classcial Arabic.
Qibla to mean 'a place of convening' or 'focal point' are natural off shoots of the corrupted meaning of ?direction? unless your magazine pre dates the Quran. This meaning has no basis in history, in other Semitic languages or in the Quraan.
Listen, your comparing Arabic to Aramaic, Syriac, Aramaic and old Ethipian languages (which you have left out of the picture and which any true orientalist would also use in their comparisons) is only useful in trying to reconstruct the origins of all these langauges. That language is called Proto-Semitic in the linguist circle, and in the end it is still just a theory though a more logical idea then trying to lump all of these Eastern Branch Afro-Asiatic languages into the same language group and trying to use them to explain each other. This is only neccessary if the language is lost and even then the reconstruct is an approximation ot the lost language as the orignal senses of a langauge that are lost will never be known 100%, unless God wills. All you can do is get as close as logically possible and accept the conclusions. However Classical Arabic was never lost and all words in the Quran are accounted for. There is no need to refer to other, similar languages to reconstruct the meanings of these words.
Also mira/mirar in both Spanish and Portuguese can mean look, watch, observe and sight. In Portuguese aim is pontaria and in Spanish it is punter?a. May be you got confused between Portuguese in Portugal and the use in Brazil for instance.
Yeah, I was talking about Brazilian portuguese which makes that a bad example. However, you know there plenty of other examples, and all I have to do is pick up a portuguese book to jog my memory. I remember when i was taking Portugese (the Brazilian versian) and was shocked by how many words were the same words in Spanish but with slight or sometimes completely different meanings.
Italian and Spanish are Romance languages and both descend from Latin. The two languages have many similiarities and the lexical similarity of spanish with Italian is estimated at 82%.
Yes 82 percent similarity (not identicailty). I speak spanish fluenty and so does my wife. We would still have to study the meanings of the italian words to understand Italian. Despite the similarity between the languages you cannnot use Spanish as a dictionary for Italian, nor italian as a dictionary for Spanish. Nor can you use Latin as a dictionary for Italian or vice versa, these langauges though similar are all distinctly different languages.
Please cut this judeo prejudiced psuedo-linguistics out, there is no need for it we have all of the meanings of the Quran's words in Lexicons and in the Arabic grammar books that explain Classical Arabic grammatic forms. There is no need to go to Hebrew or Aramaic like the Old Jews once did to regain Hebrew.
Qiblatun is qiblatun, not qubalatun or qabalatun or any other vocal you want to substitute in there. Second of all although the original Quranic texts might not have had much in the way of written vocals the Quran was preserved through memorization and no Arabic text had much in the way of voweling even though the voweling was still always pronounced. This does not give room or license to just start replacing vocal sounds as you want. Remember, there was also no distinction between jeem, khaa and haa, ra and za , dal and dhal, dhaw and taw, so why do it half-ast? Go ahead and change all that up to what you think it should say, using Hebrew or Aramaic or even Old Ethiopian languages. Feel free, but in the end you are just a muharrifun of the Quran.
Godbless,
Anwar -
My regards to both of you. Please continue with the excellent discussion. The matter is not resolved yet. And I think passing judgements may be premature. Let me take benefit/advantage. Can we borrow a word from any other language into our mother language and assign it meanings/perception quiet different from the meanings/perception it conveys in its original language?
Can I find the word " " in pre Quran era/world? How can it be taken synonym of " " in English/Urdu? -
Peace,
Were those words borrowed from Aramaic or Hebrew? Hebrew was a language that only the scholars were familiar with and much of it they did not understand at all. Aramaic has displaced Hebrew completely. Latin is a dead language yet English borrowed from it and still does.
However, the point here is that the Quran did not borrow from Hebrew or Aramaic. Those words in the Quran that can be traced back to Hebrew (first through Aramaic) had already entered the Classical Arabic language before the Quran (through the Jewish and Christian Arab communites that were all throughout the Peninsula before the advent of the Quran.)
Godbless,
Anwar -
My question has nothing to do with Hebrew and Aramic. Arabic Mubeen does not borrow words from other languages. I was talking of a word of Quran Mubeen, English perhaps does not have the capacity of borrowing and adopting Arabic words, Urdu has. In Urdu the word was brought from Arabic and assigned the perception/meanings which English language adopted by the word "Exegeses". But for this perception the word in Arabic Mubeen is "". In Arabic language this is also " changing the place and position of a thing/object. My standpoint is that for understanding Quran, you will have to seek guidance and know the meanings and different ways of usage of word from the Quran and not from any other source. Other sources are for your assistance not for the assistance of Quran. Quran has in built dictionary of its words and terms and concepts. Quran also introduced new terms/words which were perhaps not used in any language of the word at that point of time. In that case which Hebrew and lexicons will come to our help?
-
Mazhar,
My comments above were not directed to you at all. They were only directed to Aaron. I should have addressed it to him. My bad.
You say
Quran has in built dictionary of its words and terms and concepts
.This as I mentioned in the earlier exchanges that we had is unprovable and unfounded from the Quran. The Quran uses Old Classical Arabic and the Old Arabs didn't use the Quran itself to understand the vocabulary of the Quran, they used their own knowledge of their own language (which the Quran borrowed to communicate God's message). The Quran does not define its words, it is not its own dictionary (except where it says x is b, c and a.) This is the form in which the Quran gives bias (it really doesn't even define in this case) to the words that it uses only in its own context. If you disagree with what the dictionaries say and the context of a word in the Quran you will have to look at the following things, in order
- Remember Arabic words can have different distinct meanings and only one or some them can fit into how the Quran uses that word.
- Your dictionary may have Islamic post-Quranic meanings but that does not discount it's validity. These dictionaries also include early Islamic Old Classical Arabic usages in addition to pre-Islamic Old Classical Arabic meanings. Just use the source of the definition to rule it out. (for instance if it sources a post-Quranic Islamic scholar for the origin of the defintion of the word, you can count that meaning as invalid as it concerns understanding the Quran).
- Maybe your dictionary only has a few selected meanings, check different dictionaries.
- You probably don't know the grammatical implications of Classical Arabic noun and Verbal forms. Get a grammar book and look up the difference in connotations between fa&lun and fi&latun for instance. For example, 'qatlun and qitlatun' actually have completely different connotations.
- Lastly, check yourself. Maybe you want the Quran to say some thing YOU want it to say, in which case you will be tempted to disregard dictionaries and guess at context, and this guessing of course will be governed by your personal bias of what you think the word should be. This is nothing but fabrication.
Godbless,
Anwar -
"5. Lastly, check yourself. Maybe you want the Quran to say some thing YOU want it to say, in which case you will be tempted to disregard dictionaries and guess at context, and this guessing of course will be governed by your personal bias of what you think the word should be. This is nothing but fabrication" {Brother Anwar}
No, I say that Quran should be read in a manner that nothing, including one's own perceptions, knowledge, bias, desires, falls between the Book and the brain/heart. I want to listen to the Book alone. And I know this Book does not misguide; only those get misguided who themselves are Fasiq; and Allah let them astray notwithstanding even if they keep reading and reciting the Quran or make count of each and every word of it.
Quran used a word " " which was perhaps not used before it. Lexicons and translators said, it means jugular vein. You are a language expert. Can you translate as a vessel. Vein is a vessel that carries liquid and rope is never capable of carrying and conveying liquid. A rope/cord is something twisted and is used to reach/climb some point or tie some sold thing. I translated it "cord that makes the thought reach". What Quran described 1400 years back with the word cord, scientists in 20th century also named that thing as cord i.e. rope and it is "vocal cord". Could any Lexicon or Classic Arabic dictionary come to my help? It is the Quran only which defines its own words. It could not be left at the mercy of linguists since then it would have been difficult to resolve in case of difference/dispute amongst people.
-
I agree with Mazhar on this issue. Few times, that i dug up some word for correct koranic meanings, and i had , up to 20 possible meanings from different dictionaries (and at least 3, 4 of them to be the most suitable candidates) It was always, "The Quran" which guided me, regarding my choice, and systematically threw out the UN intended possibilities.
peace
siki
-
Peace,
I agree with Mazhar on this issue. Few times, that i dug up some word for correct koranic meanings, and i had , up to 20 possible meanings from different dictionaries (and at least 3, 4 of them to be the most suitable candidates) It was always, "The Quran" which guided me, regarding my choice, and systematically threw out the UN intended possibilities.
No, brother it was your intelligence which God gave you, your honesty and God that guided you to the right understanding. You could have very well picked an illogical meaning or thrown out the dictionary and made up your own meaning if you did not think. This is called atafakkuru and atadabburu, and the Quran commands us to do both of these as well as to consider all and pick the best.
Let's look at hablun now. We find hablun in other places in the Quran as a bond or treaty as well.
In Muheet I have al-ribaatu (ribbon, band, ligament, ligature, bond, fetter, shackle), al-rasanu (halter) (kal-muhabbal) kamu&adh-dham (exalted, glorious, bony or ossified), ar-ramlu al-mustateelu (long stretched sand), al-&ahdu(pact or contract), al-dhimatu (custody, care, covenant of protection) al-amaanu (responsibility), athiqalu (heaviness, sluggishness,dullness), adaahiyatu (smart fellow, calamity, disaster), , al-wisaalu (uniting, connecting, sexual intercourse), atawaasulu (continuance, continuity), al-&aatiq (shoulder) aw atareeqatu allatee baina al&unuqu wa ra'sil-katifi (the path that is leads from the neck to the head of teh shoulder), aw a&sabatun baina al-&unuq wal-mankib (union tie bind btween the nick and the shoulder/side/flank) wa &irqun feedhiraa&i wa fee aldhahri (root, stem, vein in the arm and in the back).
I haven't check lane but I'm sure you will find much under hablun. So clarifying hablu-l-wareed . It would also seem that hablul-wareedu is specifally a phrase for the jugular vein. It can have different meanings but this seems to be the most logical. I would say that the difficulty that Mazhar had is categorized under number 3
- Maybe your dictionary only has a few selected meanings, check different dictionaries.
Godbless
Anwar -
Dear Anwar,
The problem is not that I have consulted only a small dictionary. I have consulted almost all the dictionaries you ordinarily refer in your discussions. But I dont remain floating on the surface. The very meaning of the word ROOT is the basic perception/thought which flows out of it and that will always remain dominant whatever the construction of the word might be. Now take the word Habal and see its different uses in Quran. The basic meanings of the root will remain conspicous and visible. Habl is rope, cord, all those uses a rope is put in will be reflected in its perception when it is used in a sentence. What is Bond/Promise, a bondage. Habl can never give a perception/thought of coveyance of ligquid. Habalal wareed is a word that never existed before Quran. The verse where it has been used is talking about the thought and its utterence through tongue. What thought and Qaul has to do with Jugular vein?
Take example of another word. Do you think it has occurred in any lexicon of any language of the world before it was used by Quran. Moheet etc are not pre Quran. Literally winds carrying the semen/ejaculation of horse. And now fecundating winds. Lexicons are for elementary assistance. Quran is the final guide to determine the meanings of its terms/specific words.
-
Peace Mazhar,
I personally think that you are overthinking the issue and see some sort of contradiction between accepting the definitions of dictionaries and accepting the Quran. habl (not habal) does not mean liquid, and a vein is not liquid. A vein is a passage way and you can obviously see that issue of connection and passageway in the dictionaries for the word habl. Conisder even lawaaqih. The word now is even used for injections (laqihat). You take it to literally only mean 'full of semen' but please look at all those meanings in the dictionary again. And consider the word fertility being used for soil (a word which really has to do with the ability to produce a child). Don't overthink this. The Quran may have been the only source to use these expressions, but the style is the work of a great author (God). So of course it is great language, but it is no reason to claim that the book is its own dictionary. That is making too many jumps.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam Mazhar,
Allah uses the word "aalihatan" meaning "gods" (numerous aayaat), and also uses the word "ilaahayni" meaning "two gods" (1651). In reality there is only one God, so according to your faulty logic concerning this issue, "aalihatan" and "ilaahayni" cannot be Arabic words because they mean something that is impossible.
-
A synopsis of discussion on the credentials of the word
The question for discussion/search of truth was
Whether is a genuine Arabic word or is false/fabricated one?
If genuine, what is its plural?
If it is a genuine word, where it or its plural was used in any verse, Classic Arabic, Lexicons, Poetry, literature?Brother Anwar?s judgement ?The word qiblah exists and the dual or plural for them can always exist?.
Mazhar?s opinion ?A word must have a fact/physical existence of a thing/perception on its back otherwise it will be nothing but fabrication/false?.
Brother Anwar?s judgment ?If you put dhoo in front of qiblataan you get dhool-qiblatain?.The word qiblatain is no more made up than the phrase 'two directions of prayer.'
Mazhar?s opinion ?A man can be Dhulqirnain but not dhulqiblatain; and if a man at one point of time was facing North and at another point of time facing towards Sourth, would he/it be called Dhulqiblatain??
Brother Anwar?s judgment ?Every Muslim who would go in that mosque now would only pray to one direction. So dhul-qiblatain is a nickname?
Mazhar?s opinion ?Brother now you have called it a nickname; I call it invented, fabricated/false. Is there any material difference between both??
Brother Anwar?s ruling ?Yes. In the fact that from what I understand you are trying to say that the word qiblatain can't even exist in valid language. Whereas many nicknames are false names given to people using real, valid language?
The part of the question that remains unanswered is ?If it is a genuine word, where it or its plural was used in any verse, Classic Arabic, Lexicons, Poetry, literature?? Could someone/etymology expert try to find it written/available in Classic Arabic or Modern Arabic?
-
Peace,
Okay, I about finished this topic. Mazhar you are being unreasonably stubborn, but that is your choice. The basis of your refusal to correctly understand this issue is that you refuse to understand Classical Arabic and then understand the Quran. You rather choose to try to understand the Quran and then force meanings onto Classical Arabic words, because of the context in which they are used in the Quran, onto all Classical Arabic words. For instance dhoo can be used for human being or a non-human being, but because you only see it being used for a human being in the Quran so you would say it is incorrect to use it for a non-human being, and this is nothing but your mistake and refusal to recognize the rules of Classical Arabic.
We don't need a precedent use for the plural or dual of qibatun to justify the validity of the use of qiblatain. What you are insisting in is non-sensical (I"m sorry I have to even use this word) for anyone who knows Classical Arabic grammar. Any word in Arabic can take dual if you try to communicate that there are two of them. That is just a fact. And every singular word (that communicates a singular idea or thing) in Arabic has a plural, based on its form.
I can make up a story about two earths (ardaani or dunyayaani) and can talk about what happens in those two earths (fee dunyayaini or ardaini) and you may have never heard of two earths in the Quran or in any other literature but that does not make the word two earths (ardaini or dunyayaini) invalid. My story is made up, not the words.
In the end if you can't see this from all that has been said then you choose not to accept it. You are also limiting your understanding of Classical Arabic and your ability to correctly interpret the Quran by trying to impose Quranic contexts and make them apart of the meanings of Classical Arabic words. If someone wants to say that there are two qibat (in that person's opinion) then he can say qiblatain or qiblataan, these are not made up words. As well, if he wants to say that there are more than two he can say qiblaatun or qibalun (like hijjatun and hijajun). That is all I have to say on this issue. God bless Mazhar and I hope you can see the truth of this issue.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Mazhar,
By the way, did you investigate kidh-dhaab. You stayed quiet on the issue after i corrected you. You didn't even acknowledge that this word is different than kadh-dhaab, when I corrected. Was this for any reason that you chose not to tell me?
Godbless,
Anwar -
My dear brother,
You are looking a thing from an angle. I am looking at it from an angle different from yours. How both of us could perceive/see the same thing? We cannot understand and fully know a thing if we see it repeatedly from the same angle. Quran says look at the things by rotating it so that you can perceive it from all sides/angles. This is perhaps called . I am not disagreeing with you the way you say words are made. But what I maintain is that reality/concept/thought and words are compulsorily complimentary to each other. If there is a reality/concept only then a word will come into existence. And when there is a word it will point out that reality/concept/thought. Absence of reality/concept/thought will make any word, made to represent a non existing reality, redundant, superfluous, fake, fabricated, invented.
As for how one can be the possessor of two 180 degree opposite directions?
Don't you think whosoever invented writing Arabic with English letters did a great mischief? Isn't it ridiculous?
You write one thing and I understand/perceive something else. We are advised to utter only . That made me read the word wrongly. My apologies.