MTR'sons' is NOT in the ayah, thats your interpretation
Oh ? How would you translate 'abnaakum' then ? 'your buildings' ??
MTR Besides we are discussing 33.37 NOT 33.4
Oh sorry, I thought the Quran explains itself by repeating verses. I guess not....hadith, anyone?
In 33/4, to translate 'ad'iyaakum' as 'instituting legal proceeedings' would not make sense at all. It would read 'Allah did not make take legal proceedings your sons'.
Peace to everyone,
MTR, instead of this imaginary Arabic grammar rules you keep on yakking about but can never have the intellectual credentials to actually quote (because you fear being refuted, no doubt), why not focus on the actual content of 4/1? Why do you think the word is 'ba'atha' is there instead of walada (to give birth)? Ba'atha is the same word used in 2/164 so go figure.
Don't hide behind these so called grammar rules like the sunnis, man. The Quran never supports these imaginations. Focus on the Quran and you'll see or yourself.
MTRUtilizing Hebrew Lexicons and Biblical resources will not give one the clear understanding of what Allah is conveying in the language of Allah.
The language of ALLAH? Darn, we better all learn Arabic pretty damn quick in case Allah doesn't understand us when we speak to Him? I wonder if moroccans's dialect works?
MTR
Tawrat in Arabic means distinctly 'Law'. Linguistically, 'Tawrat' has the Arabic phonetic sound 'ta' and is spelled
Actually, even Taj al-Urus thinks that the root is 'waryun' therefore doesn't mean 'law'.
Again, Im not qualified to address your 'personal' sentiment regarding myself or others.
By the way, Tajweed and Grammatical Morphology are TWO distinct linguistic processes.
Ohhhhh, thanks for informing me of that. Is that part of the quiz?
The focus here is Grammatical Morphology as it relates to Sura 412 - 3, from the language of Quranan Arrabiyyan.
Possessive Case, In Arabic, the possessor is called the mudaf ilayh (Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem), and the possessed is called the mudaf (Kitabun). The mudaf is definite (without alif-lam), and the mudaf ilayh is majruwr / genitive.
'Kitabun' is mudaf / possessed by the 'possesor / mudaf ilayhi mentioned in Sura 412 Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem, which both are DEFINITE, thus 'Kitabun', mentioned in Sura 413, the mudaf / possessed is DEFINITE.
Sura 412 Begins with the masdar / verbal noun 'Tanzeelun', thus its a verbal sentence, Sura 413 Also, begins with the masdar / verbal noun 'Kitabun', thus a continuation of the verbal sentence construct, confirmed by the Genitive Case in Sura 41.2.
Thanks for repeating that. However you pegged your analysis to the huffaz's reading by saying 'Excuse me, in addition the 'numerical' references of the ayahs of the Quran are NOT designations relevant to the actual revelation.When you hear a recitation, do you hear the hafiz recite the sura and ayah number for each ayah they recite? So if the huffaz stop at 41/2, then your argument has no basis.
Now, again can you suggest any grammatical rule that will refute or negate my understanding of the Genitive Case as it relates to Sura 412 - 3?
I can't because grammatical rules stem FROM the quran. If you read 'Arabic Through the Quran' by Alan Jones, you will see that it was the Quran which first solidified the rules of Arabic grammar. Therefore, if the word is 'kitaab', it means 'kitaab'. It will only mean 'al-kitaab' through a non-quranic way of distorting the Quran. THAT is the real reason you refuse to name a source. It's sad that you would rely on such intellectually-bankrupt methods just to push your 'al-kitaab is in arabic' bunkum.
I await your response to THIS request.
Yes, because your the guy to respond to, never the guy to expect a response from. Have a read of 4/135 and understand what 'qawwamuna bil qist shuhada lillah WA LAW ALAA ANFUSIKUM'. Btw, its much more fun discussing with you here than in Paltalk. It's a lot easier to see here when you fail to deliver proof.
thanks.
Again I dont engage in 'personal issues', nor do I participate in 'quiz shows'. Unfortunately, Im not qualified to address psycho-social issues.
Nor qualified to address anything about any 'serious study of Quranic Arabic' it seems, lol. It's funny how you can level questions at other people but unable to take them yourself. I'm also quite stunned that you cannot name the source where you got your 'kasra across borders' rule. I just checked today from school and it turns out that your rule is just your personal made-up thing. No evidence in the study of nahw at all.
I gave you the grammatical rule and context. If you dont wish to realize that 'Kitabun' in Sura 41.3 is definite as a result of the genitive possession determined by Ar-Raheem-i (with kesra ending), thats your choice.
I guess I'm just not on your level where I can correct God's choice in calling it 'kitaab'. You must be on par with the Sunni imams who interpret 'obey the messenger' so as to suggest God was deficient in his explanation. Congratulations.
Perhaps with all of your illustrious background and vast resources, would you please share with the audience why you do NOT accept that 'Kitabun' is definite and NOT part of the Genitive Case.
From A grammatical position? Grammar positions don't drop from the sky, MTR. They are formulated by human beings. So like I have my source of grammar , you have yours. I will name mine
My source is Prof Mohamed Mohar Ali from Medina Islamic University who authored the word for word Quran study and today, the lecturer of Quran and Hadith Studies in the University of London had to be given 5 minutes to digest your opinion after which he stared in disbelief at me and said 'in that case, the word would have been 'al-kitaab'.
So now I have quoted my grammatical position. Kindly name yours. Your personal opinion has an equal value to me as mine has to yours. So hopefully we can see where you get these wonderful grammar rules of yours. Name of book and author will be good, thanks )
Well Im 'afraid' that you have NOT reflected upon any serious study of Quranic Arabic. Just do a cursory reflection upon those ayahs that end with a Definite Noun with Kesra, which denotes Genitive / Possesive Case.
Wow brother, that's so right. Why didn't I think of that before. After all, I've only read Muhammad Mohar Ali's ayah by ayah grammatical study and being a former professor of Medina's Islamic University, I guess he could have easily conned everyone and got away with it.
Can you, for the second time asking, provide me with the source of your grammatical knowledge please? This 'serious study of Quranic Arabic' which you must have. I have access to the biggest Islamic studies department in the UK and so can check the veracity of this 'serious study of Quranic Arabic'. I await your reference.
Excuse me, in addition the 'numerical' references of the ayahs of the Quran are NOT designations relevant to the actual revelation.
When you hear a recitation, do you hear the hafiz recite the sura and ayah number for each ayah they recite?
Thus your statement "across sentences' has no relevance.
Ah I see. So the orality of the Quran is now our criteria? Brilliant sir, brilliant.
But may I ask you, what if the haafiz STOPS at '41/2'? We have a few huffaz here and none of them proceed to 41/3, stopping at 'raheem'. As far as the rules of tajweed go, no sane qaari would say 'ar-rahmaan ar-raheeMEE' if he stops at 41/2. He would stop at 'raheem'. Should we then ignore the kasrah thus nullifying your 'kasrah without borders' rule (I say 'your rule' because you have not yet thus far provided a reference) ?
I have given you the grammatical rule, and obviously you dont accept it. Thus the burden of proof and/or 'acceptance' is upon you
Sir , if I may presume to share with you, the 'burden of proof' is for one who has made an assertion. Your assertion that 'kitaab' actually means 'al-kitaab' puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders.
You have given me an ASSERTION of how to understand the word 'kitaab' in 41/3. You have NOT
I await for your answers to these questions. Many many thanks for your help here.
Possessive Case, In Arabic, the possessor is called the mudaf ilayh (Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem), and the possessed is called the mudaf (Kitabun). The mudaf is definite (without alif-lam), and the mudaf ilayh is majruwr / genitive.
'Kitabun' is mudaf / possessed by the 'possesor / mudaf ilayhi mentioned in Sura 412 Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem, which both are DEFINITE, thus 'Kitabun', mentioned in Sura 413, the mudaf / possessed is DEFINITE and as such is
Al Kitab
Since when does the mudaf rule work across SENTENCES? Can you provide a reference to a book which claims it does so because my Arabic teacher says it doesn't. I've even checked Mohamed Mohar Ali's JIMAS Quranic Study which also doesn't claim as such. But even if this was the case, then the word would be 'al-kitaab' not by understanding but by actual wording.
So again, can you please provide a reference that this rule works across sentences. If it does, why have sentences to begin with?
many thanks for your time.
Peace to you Muslimtruthrevealed,
You wrote
So far we have the verbal noun (tanzeel) in a Verbal Sentence in Ha Mim Sajdah 41.2 and the 'doer' of the verb (tanzeel) is Al-Rahman, Ar-Raheem continuing to influence or 'reveal' something......what is this 'something?
Ha Mim Sajdah 41.3 begins with a (singular) verbal noun also "Kitabun", but its preceded by the DEFINITE Noun Ar-Raheem, 'Kitabun' now becomes definite!
Sir, I'm afraid I don't understand how this 'becomes definite'? If it is by the grammar rules of Arabic, would you mind please pointing me to the reference which you use to make such a deduction?
I'm of the view that if the Quran meant it was 'al-kitaab', it would be stated as such. After all, the author is God and he's not limited by any use of the language. Please correct me if i'm wrong sir.