A Problem of Translation of Quranic Aya for Quranists
-
I would like to remind everyone that in English, the word "until" signifies "optionally" where there is no distinct line, unless additional boundary conditions are imposed.
Of course, we could be sane and say "to the point of the elbow", but come on, I'd rather look back to the 7th century and find out how to eat watermelon.
-
Whole Quran is equally Allah's order.Whether is one Aya or whole Quran ,its principles are the same.
If you can make the order of one aya "may/may not 'pattern then it does not make difference whether you apply to whole quran or not .ARE YOU OK -- WHERE DID I SAY MAY/MAY NOT? Define "the elbow" exactly?
Mode operandi as usual -- care to answer these as well and define "the dawn" and "the sunset" exactly...
When exactly is dawn and sunset in Mecca?
http//www.gaisma.com/en/location/mecca.htmlWhat about in Antarctica?
http//www.gaisma.com/en/location/syowa--permanent-station-of-japan.htmlOf course, we could be sane and say "to the point of the elbow", but come on, I'd rather look back to the 7th century and find out how to eat watermelon.
Yeah OPF the best ?scholars? Ibn Hambal couldn?t figure out sunna of eating watermelon? ;D
http//www.answering-islam.de/Main/Books/Wollaston/Accounts/chapt6.htm
"So scrupulous was this theologian in his veneration for the Prophet of Arabia, that he would not eat watermelons because, although aware that the Master whom he adored, indulged in them, it was uncertain whether the founder of Islam peeled off the rind, or whether he broke, bit, or cut them!"
-
Damn. I guess I will not touch watermelon.
After all, the holy prophet's sunna is lost on this.
-
Peace Nun,
"So scrupulous was this theologian in his veneration for the Prophet of Arabia, that he would not eat watermelons because, although aware that the Master whom he adored, indulged in them, it was uncertain whether the founder of Islam peeled off the rind, or whether he broke, bit, or cut them!"
Comical, yet sad. It is, imo, recompense from God when folks are so engulfed in following meaningless details that they lose the ability to think clearly. Thanks for this example.
peace
-
Peace Nun,
Comical, yet sad. It is, imo, recompense from God when folks are so engulfed in following meaningless details that they lose the ability to think clearly. Thanks for this example.
peace
When the leader has only this much knowledge and thinks that
"m3toof /m3toof ali " can have different "i3raab" what to think of followers. -
OK then. I'll keep this reply in mind when you ask someone else for clarification.
Peace,
TayBrother ! Please do not get angry.I am sorry I might not have understood your question.
Which clarification you were asking?
About which item ? Let me know my younger brother welcome
As far as replies to me are concerned ,I reserve my comments. -
Peace Leo,
No problem, and no anger.
Here's what you stated
Could you please clarify?Thanks,
TayPeace
The Aya under discussion wasThe word used here is "arjulakum" not "arjulikum"
1If it is "arjulakum " then it is object of the verb "Ghasala"(washing)
2If it is "arjulikum" then it is object of the verb "Masaha"(rubbing)
The reason for the second is ,"Masah" is not being used alone ,rather it has a preposition in fromt of it i.e "bi" (Bi raoosikum).
In arabic when prepositions are used before any noun then its case is changed and last alphabet is given "kasara" and in Arabic grammar terminology it become "majroor"
-RaooSIkum has "kasara " under "seen" .So head is object of "masaha"
-Next is "waw" which is a connecting word and in arabic known as "harf-e-ataf"
-Next is our disputed word "Arjulakum"
If we consider that it is connected to "Bi-raoosikum" then it should be "arjulikum" which is not so .
Then it is definitely connected to "wajoohakum + Aidiyakum" and it is object of the verb "ghasala"
Now confusing point here ,can a noun be placed so far ahead of a verb while other words intervening , and be connected to such remote verb.
The answer is yes.
Actually Arabic is not like English in which sentence pattern is
SVO (subject + verb+ object)
In arabic ,it may take any sequece ,though some sequences are very common.
E.gYou will read
1haraba alwaldu alkalba
2alwaldu dharaba alkalba
3alkalaba dharabahu alwaladuNow "u" at the end of "waladu" is showing it is subject and "a" at the end of "alkalba" is whowing that it is object.No matter what is their location ,these will translated as
"The boy beat the dog"
I gave you this example to emphasise that the location does not matter much in arabic rather these are detected by their "i3raab"
Very /Very /very fundamental rule of the Arabic is ,if two nouns are connected by connectors (haroof-e-aatifa) ,then they must be have same "I3raab"
Now if we translate this aya as
"Rub your feet " then it means you are assuming that the "Raas and Rijl" are connected syntactically .If so then they should have same "i3raab" which is not there.
It means that in spite of the fact these are physically connected but syntactically not.
I hope I have tried to explain myself.
I do not know whether it was your question or some thing els.
Both of these senteces -
Peace Leo,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. You've answered part of my query. The rest would be
Who is this leader that, "has only this much knowledge and thinks that "m3toof /m3toof ali " can have different "i3raab"?
And who are his followers?
Thanks,
Tay -
Peace Leo,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. You've answered part of my query. The rest would be
Who is this leader that, "has only this much knowledge and thinks that "m3toof /m3toof ali " can have different "i3raab"?
And who are his followers?
Thanks,
TayYour "exposition " experts who translate this aya as
"Rub your feet" -------------> they think this "arjulakum" is ma3toof on "raoosikum" in spite of the fact both have different i3raab.
Look around you may catch this height of ignorance of arabic primary class principle. -
Peace Leoxyz,
In arabic when prepositions are used before any noun then its case is changed and last alphabet is given "kasara" and in Arabic grammar terminology it become "majroor"
-RaooSIkum has "kasara " under "seen" .So head is object of "masaha"
-Next is "waw" which is a connecting word and in arabic known as "harf-e-ataf"
-Next is our disputed word "Arjulakum"
If we consider that it is connected to "Bi-raoosikum" then it should be "arjulikum" which is not so .
Then it is definitely connected to "wajoohakum + Aidiyakum" and it is object of the verb "ghasala"This is what students are taught in elementary and middle school in Arab countries. However, if you want more advanced knowledge in Arabic then you have to look in the great reading. In there, you can see complete disregard for the above rules that you stated. For example in 569 we hear "sabi'un" which according to your rules should be "sabi'in". So here we see complete disregard of the "harf-e-ataf" rule that you refer to. Keep in mind that the original text of the great reading had no vocalization marks. Those were added much later around the 10th century CE. So if the consonant text of the great reading shows disregard for those rules then you can be sure that what were at the time non-existent vocalization marks were even more disregarded.
In fact, everyone who reads the great reading knows that case endings are routinely disregarded. For example, everyone reads the word that is supposedly "alrahimi" in the first passage of the great reading as "alrahim" and nobody reads it as Majroor. This is true in most of the passages of the great reading where case endings are routinely ignored because they make the great reading sound awkward and pretentious so it was obviously meant to be recited without them.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Leo,
Just to be clear, I do not have any "experts", nor is there any leadership, nor following. Most here use multiple translations among other study tools. By no means is there any one translation or scholar that is even preferred.
My own defending of QXP was nothing more than pointing out to you that your attempt to deconstruct it as a translation was in vein since it is not a translation - something you've yet to acknowledge.
As far as ignorance, there is no shame in it. The shame lies with those who point to it as a weakness without offering any sort of enlightenment. It seems you are willing to share your own knowledge - that's commendable. We're all students, afterall.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Leo,
As far as ignorance, there is no shame in it. The shame lies with those who point to it as a weakness without offering any sort of enlightenment. It seems you are willing to share your own knowledge - that's commendable. We're all students, afterall.
Peace,
TayThat is true.In ignorance there must not be shame.But there is a difference
1The question what sort of ignorance .If you multiply 2x2=6 .then do you think it is expectable from you.Yes it is acceptable from 6yr old child not from you
2The questionare pointed out the mistake ,but that gentlman instead of rectifying it and admitting ,he insisted with wrong argument.What does it show? Is this attitude of a scholar?.
I know many scholars who comitted some mistake but when pointed out ,they not only admitted but rectified also.
Honestly speaking it was just one example.I pointed out exactly same type of mistake in his book "criminals of islam" and with reference.Instead of defending his position with some valid argument or admitting it ,he got annoyed .He e-mailed me three times saying '" I know arabic ,I know arabic "
That was the only argument he had. -
That is true.In ignorance there must not be shame.But there is a difference
1The question what sort of ignorance .If you multiply 2x2=6 .then do you think it is expectable from you.Yes it is acceptable from 6yr old child not from you
2The questionare pointed out the mistake ,but that gentlman instead of rectifying it and admitting ,he insisted with wrong argument.What does it show? Is this attitude of a scholar?.
I know many scholars who comitted some mistake but when pointed out ,they not only admitted but rectified also.
Honestly speaking it was just one example.Good thing you are not a scholar because you are also guilty of tahreef bil mahna.
-
Good thing you are not a scholar because you are also guilty of tahreef bil mahna.
Dear Brother
It is true I am not a scholar.you may think I might have comitted tahreef bil mana but what Quran ? or that of your Guru ?But I am sure I do not know and it must be because of lack of knowledge for which I am ashamed to Almighty Allah -
By pure intention. I will follow Occam's razor and attribute it to ignorance on your part, however. May I suggest memory enhancing pills, they are currently very cheap at pharmacies. Pupils take them to boost their exam results.
Here is your beloved reference
Dear Brother
This is another Quranic verdict(464) (And tell them that) We never sent a Messenger but that he should be obeyed by the leave of Allah.
There are three roles of the Prohphet
1Reciting the verses
2Teaching the book and the philosophy of the Deen
3urifying the souls.Please underline the word "prophet"/nabi in the aya.
Also, please provide reference where "prophet"(PBUH) is described as "holy". Also please provide reference where it is used in the singular/definitive only instead of generic/indefinite.
More to follow.
-
Peace Leo,
Honestly, I'm not sure how or why you continually associate QXP or Dr. Shabbir Ahmed with this website. He's not here to defend himself nor is anyone here his ambassador. If you have a criticism of myself or anyone else here, then please share it and I'm sure the concerns will be adddressed.
Peace,
Tay