Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => Questions/Comments on the Quran => Topic started by: progod on July 13, 2006, 04:50:57 PM

Title: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 13, 2006, 04:50:57 PM
God bless all,

This is a ground breaking finding that the Arabic speakers here who went to Quranic school will benefit from the most. I'm going to take us all back to Quranic school for a second and re-introduce something called Tajweez. Tajweez is the pronunciation of the Quran in recitation, having its origins in the way that the Old Arabs pronounced the words when they spoke them. An example of tajweez is the noon running into the the raa so that min-rabbihim sounds like mirrabihim or mirabbihim. It is the 'ba' running into the noon or the meem to make 'an-biyaa' pronounced as 'ambiyaa,' anbaa' as amba', sababun batilun being pronounced as sababum-baatilun, or qunbilah as qumbilah(this is bomb in Arabic.)

Speaking of qumbilah this is going to blow your minds. Tajweez was an intricate part of the the Old Arabic language and used all the time. The old Arabs understood mirabbihim as min-rabbihim and vice versa. All languages have these kind of dual functions for pronunciations. In English we say 'piddy' and 'pity' and we understand them both. "Most" of us say the second to clarify the first. And we have tons of other words that we do this to. Spanish is the same and all languages are the same with this.  Spelling it 'pity' is just a standard way of spelling this word, and if you go to old scripts that are not standardized or when people write in colloquial speech you find things written the way they sound instead of standardized ways to spell them.

The Arabic script was not standardized until recently, that is in the 1900's. And that is why you can find alot of different spellings from different Quranic scripts as well as non-Quranic scripts, but they still all follow the rules of the way the Old Arabs pronounced things. Do you guys remember the basit debate on Submission.org (they couldn't figure out why it was spelled with a sawd instead of a seen). Tajweez indicates that it be pronounced like sawd because of the taw acting on it, so it being written like this was only the written manifestation of this tajweez.

Look at the word izdilaaf and izdihaar they are really iz-tilaaf and iz-tihaar, but the dal has an effect on the 't' according to tajweez and therefore you get the first pronunciations. This is the same with the sun letters. You say ashamsu instead of al-shamsi, but if you say both its understood. That is all part of the the grander concept of tajweez.

Quranic texts, that is the scripts and the way that things are spelled, are NOT standardized. 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. Why all these differences? Arabic is a phonetic alphabet so you don't need standardized ways of spelling. It is supposed to represent the way that it is said. Which is why when it comes to tajweez you will see different texts differ when it comes to interchangeable things. Arabic text in its early stages was a very poor and deficient text. 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. Shaddahs served the function of two things. If this is complicated remember that the Quranic texts were only for the educated and those were few, 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.

Some people believe that the Quran was preserved through writing. But the Arabic text was such a crappy text in its early days that the Quran couldn't have fully been preserved by writing. 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, 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. 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. 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. Even the Quran admits that people tried to distort the Quran. 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. 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. 

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. 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. 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. 

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' sound when the word is an adverb? 'Anaa ji'tu maashiyan' and 'anaa ji'tu maashiya' are the same thing. For those who don't know, all this means is 'I came walking/by foot.' This is the difference between 'al-shams' and 'ashamsi' min rabbihi and mirabbihi. 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. 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.

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

So where is the groundbreaking Quranic finding? Look at 2:126 in the Arabic under the word 'rabbi'(my lord) and look at 2:40 and 41 at the words farhabooni (fear me) and fattaqooni(be cautious of me). 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.

With all this knowledge lets go to:

3:96, 2:185 and 48:24

The phrases under scrutiny are:

shahru-ramadaana
bibatni makkata
lalladhee bibakkata

Understanding that Arabic is based on how something is said, understanding the rules of tajweez and understanding that the kasrah and the ya for 'first person 'me' ' can be teh same, can help us look at these phrases differently without breaking Classical Arabic rules or having to claim that the grammarians are wrong.

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)

According to tajweez and the the phenomeon of idghaam (assimilation), Shahru-ramadaana can equal shahrun + ramadaanan 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. The traditional understanding is also still valid, although it may not be more logical, and is certainly not more universal.

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.

lalladhee bibakkata through the rule shown through 2:126, and 2:40-41 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  . . .'

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.

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


 
 







Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 13, 2006, 06:58:51 PM
God bless,

I'm sorry but I can only refer you to grammar books. Sibaweiyeh talks about idghaam. Otherwise you can look at the way the Quran is written itself and also check out tajweez books to get a better grip of what i am saying. The examples that I gave are obvious if you know Cl. Arabic and alittle about its orthography, as well as Quranic recitation. The book that I always point to being "A Grammar of the Arabic language" has its first chapter dedicated to Orthogrophy which explains alot as to why the Quran is written with all that strange diacriticals you see in it. As well it goes into the pronunciation of the adverb tense, an or a. Do you not know about any of the rules of Quranic recitation or Cl. Arabic pronunication. I am surrounded by knowledgeable Arabic teachers everyday and already know that this is correct, from my own experience and form theirs. Some of them would be less likely to want to agree because this goes against tradition, even though this makes perfect sense. As far as I know I am the only one who has espoused this idea, so referencing you to people who support me would be kind of dificult. For me this was putting the pieces together. Tajweez is pretty wrapped up in traditional Islam so most here probably would ignore it or want to reject it, like they try to reject case endings, dictionaries and Classical Arabic grammar as a whole.

Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 14, 2006, 04:24:50 AM
LOL Anwar

Don't know why you say shame on me?

possibly because I dismissed discussing Quran matters with you?

well, this is my freewill bro like the one you have, and because you were rude with me, I just thought that I don't need that, I'm happy with my non sense and I left you happy with your sense, so why you want to invlove me in your crap?

far out man

thanks anyway

Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: warner on July 14, 2006, 06:38:55 AM
Peace Ahmed

Forgiving is part of submission.  Brother, please be kind and respond to Anwars
article because people like me without knowledge in Arabic can not understand
his viewseasily. If his artilce has something to offer or flawed we like to know
since we are dying for knowledge.




Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 14, 2006, 06:46:54 AM
Peace Ahmed

Forgiving is part of submission.  Brother, please be kind and respond to Anwars
article because people like me without knowledge in Arabic can not understand
his viewseasily. If his artilce has something to offer or flawed we like to know
since we are dying for knowledge.



Peace bro

forgiving those who started the pepetration is really optional, it is not a must, it has nothing to do with submission to Allah but it does have all the things to do with submitting to the pepetrators, this guy alonge with Ayman and  others targeted me when I joined and I really don't forgive easy, I carry no hard feelings to them though, one I decided to avoid totally like Anwar the other is more decent to have a discussion with, while the fact of the matter I see Anwar more knowledgable in Arabic than Ayman, "my opinion", but my decision regarding him was final, however when he mentiones my name I guess I have every right to respond so i was not really rude to him, I just needed to know why he said "shame on me"

for his article, while it caught my eyes and felt reasonable as I started to read it then all the non sense started to come, however I'm happy to tell you on a PM why I see his groundbreaking discovery a blunder

I will leave it to brother Layth and brother Ayman if they wish to respond to him, I believe they shared the shame with me

cheers bro
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 14, 2006, 05:24:14 PM

A&foo wa awsfahoo yaa Ahmed,

I would like to see why this is a blunder as well. Please do respond. I never set out to attack you. I'm not going to lie, I found you very aggressive and as is often here disagreed with your soundness of some of your opinions. But believe me I never targeted you. If my comments were harsh, honestly I was responding to what I interpreted as a very aggressive attitude. Despite that, do forgive. I would really like to know why you think what I've said is a blunder. If you choose not to speak with me then please tell the person that you write to to forward me your comments so that I can consider them. Thanks.

Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 14, 2006, 05:36:24 PM
Quote from: progod

A&foo wa awsfahoo yaa Ahmed,

Thanks and I accept your appology

now we can have a decent discussion

Quote from: progod
I would like to see why this is a blunder as well. Please do respond.

I may have been prematuraly judged the whole thing as a blunder "i read it very quick though" however I will read it later thoroughly and see if I have things to say inshaalllah

Quote from: progod
I never set out to attack you. I'm not going to lie,

well, I felt you are trying to defame my arabic experience regarding the mistake I did about the possible letter numbers regarding roots

Quote from: progod
I found you very aggressive

I agree that I'm, however my aggression only in duscussions when I feel I have a string point, I welcome the others to do the same with me but only when we dicuss the Quran not for no reason they become aggressors towards me

Quote from: progod
and as is often here disagreed with your soundness of some of your opinions.

well, in fact I agree with many things you say so the issue of diagreement is not the reason for my attituse towards you, it was the cheap move to defame my arabic because a silly mistake that In hahve done and I was the one who admitted it because I'm here not to fool others nor to show off my self pride

Quote from: progod
But believe me I never targeted you. If my comments were harsh, honestly I was responding to what I interpreted as a very aggressive attitude.

cool, but why being harsh if I already admitted my mistake in the root numbers? that is where I saw the conflict

Quote from: progod
Despite that, do forgive.

Cool, no worries and you also forgive me if I have been rude to you

Quote from: progod
I would really like to know why you think what I've said is a blunder.

I will respond but I retreat my statement to classify the whole thing as a blunder for now, give some time to read it throughly

Quote from: progod
If you choose not to speak with me then please tell the person that you write to to forward me your comments so that I can consider them. Thanks.
Godbless,
Anwar

I will reply inshaallah

Cheers
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: warner on July 14, 2006, 05:51:46 PM
Peace be upon you Ahmed

I will realy appreciate if you could pm me with any info on this or any other
subject any time.

Thank you, for being helpful always.

Also before this reply I was glad to see Anwars apology and I am glad you accepted it.

God bless you both.
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 14, 2006, 10:37:33 PM
Quote from: progod
God bless all,

Peace Anwar

Quote from: progod
This is a ground breaking finding that the Arabic speakers here who went to Quranic school will benefit from the most.

Cool, but I have to say that I didn?t go ever to a Quranic school, I only went to an Arabic school, in Arabic schools all over the Arab world they teach the same thing called Lugha Arabia Fusha, i.e. All Arab nations understand the Lugha Arabia Fusha and they can dialogue together using it, if the common Arabic used ?sort of the public/street one?, then you will see many Arabs can?t understand the common Arabic of another Arabic country, for example I hardly understand the common Iraqi Arabic, and I struggle a bit with the Moroccan Arabic as well some common Lebanese words sound foreign to me, however the easiest of the common Arabic styles is the Egyptian Arabic, i.e. you will see most Arabs understand the common Egyptian Arabic, I just wanted to clear this point out of the way. 

Quote from: progod
I'm going to take us all back to Quranic school for a second and re-introduce something called Tajweez.

I guess you mean Tajweed?

Quote from: progod
Tajweez is the pronunciation of the Quran in recitation,

The statement above is not entirely accurate, it should be as follow:

Tajweed is the PROPER pronunciation of the Quran in recitation

Quote from: progod
having its origins in the way that the Old Arabs pronounced the words when they spoke them.

Not really the above applies to the old Arabs alone, rather All Arabs, now and them, in fact Tajweed is the proper pronunciation to anything that can be read, it was just used a lot with the Quran. The word itself does not exist in the Quran, in fact Allah hardly stressed the requirement to read it properly RATHER to hear it properly, and properly means to understand the message given not to dispute its grammar, letters and points, this act of disputing should not be done by any believer from the first place.

Quote from: progod
An example of tajweez is the noon running into the the raa so that min-rabbihim sounds like mirrabihim or mirabbihim.

Sorry Anwar, I have never heard of such regarding ?min-rabbihim? in fact it can?t be said as ?mirrabihim or mirabbihim?, never heard of it and it makes no sense, the ?NUN? must br pronounced for a proper pronouciation (Tajweed) IT CAN?T BE  OMMITTED IN PRONOUNCIATION

Quote from: progod
It is the 'ba' running into the noon or the meem to make 'an-biyaa' pronounced as 'ambiyaa,'

Bro, this is total non sense, Anbia can?t be pronounced Ambia, this is ridiculous mate because again if heard in such way it makes no sense because the word does not exist in Arabic

Quote from: progod

anbaa' as amba',

As above

Quote from: progod
sababun batilun being pronounced as sababum-baatilun,

LOL mate, thanks for the laugh, if I hear someone saying this ?sababum-baatilun?, I will tell him/her ?WTF?, if they insist then I will tell them to ?speak Arabic or bugger off idiots?

Quote from: progod
or qunbilah as qumbilah(this is bomb in Arabic.)

Again the word Qumbilah, does not exist in Arabic, but if I hear in such way I would respond do you mean ?Qunbilah??

Well possibly you hear Qumbliha from the kids who just started to talk or the farmers who don?t know how to read or write their own Arabic language (there are plenty BTW), or someone with half his/her body paralysed, but I agree with that one that you can hear Qunbilah as Qumbilah, but if it happens then it means one thig only ?Qunbilah? and the one who said just having a problem

Quote from: progod
Speaking of qumbilah this is going to blow your minds.

Damn did you just started the Qunbilah Timer?

Quote from: progod
Tajweez was an intricate part of the the Old Arabic language and used all the time.

Sorry?, where you got the above from?

Tajweed is noting but properly pronouncing the words of any thing you read in Arabic, it was used mostely with the Quran as a matter of respect to Allah words that it should be read with care not like reading the newspaper, however to work as a news reader in Arabic TV YOU MUST HAVE EXCLEENT TAJWEED SKILLS, so Tajweed in not explicit to the Quran.

Quote from: progod
The old Arabs understood mirabbihim as min-rabbihim and vice versa.

That was total BS bro, sorry

Firstly the old Arabs were far better in the Lugha Arabi Fusha than we are now, in fact this is how they spoke in their daily life ?USING THE LUGHA ARABIA FUSHA? therefore if mirabbihim won?t make any sense to Arabs who are living now then there is no question that it wouldn?t make any sense for the more solid in the Lugha the old Arabs

In fact to use Tajweed with ?min-rabbihim? IT HAS TO BE PRONOUNCED ?min-rabbihim?, if it is pronounced mirabbihim then sorry this is not Tajweed rather utter BS

Quote from: progod
All languages have these kind of dual functions for pronunciations.

Sorry, do you mean can pronounce words in English different by using totally different letters to what it suppose to be?


Quote from: progod
In English we say 'piddy' and 'pity' and we understand them both.

Not sure what are you doing bro, are you comparing street/public/common language with what it suppose to be?

Fine it is just the flawed humans who pronounce words differently, some even do it deliberately trying to be different, but the fact of the matter stays, if you write piddy in a sentence I guess many will struggle to know what the hell was that

Quote from: progod
"Most" of us say the second to clarify the first.

Well, I?m not in those ?most? then, it seems according to you that I?m with the minority, however it still feels good to be with those minority who pronounce words with excellent Tajweed

Quote from: progod
And we have tons of other words that we do this to. Spanish is the same and all languages are the same with this.  Spelling it 'pity' is just a standard way of spelling this word, and if you go to old scripts that are not standardized or when people write in colloquial speech you find things written the way they sound instead of standardized ways to spell them.

Bro, let?s not care about English, French Spanish or any other language but Arabic because it is the language of the Quran which you are disputing, therefore using other words from other language to prove you point is the weakest link because languages are not the same really, not even close to each other

Quote from: progod
The Arabic script was not standardized until recently, that is in the 1900's.

Which Arabic script exactly?

Quote from: progod
And that is why you can find alot of different spellings from different Quranic scripts

Total non sense and lauaghable comment because the Quran we have in hand is the Quran that existed 1400 years ago when Uthman compiled it not a Quran that was compiled in 1900?s, that was total rubbish bro.

Quote from: progod
as well as non-Quranic scripts,

I really careless about the non Quranic scripts, we are discussing the Quranic script bro

Quote from: progod
but they still all follow the rules of the way the Old Arabs pronounced things.

now you made it rules, that was funny bro, and you made the old Arabs the makers of those rules in your fantasy world of ?the world languages?

again the old Arabs can?t pronounce ?min-rabbihim? as ?mirabbihim?, they will sound idiots indeed, however how can you prove this to us that an old Arab who lived some 1400 years ago used to say mirabbihim instead of min-rabbihim, that is one hell of a task to prove bro

Quote from: progod
Do you guys remember the basit debate on Submission.org (they couldn't figure out why it was spelled with a sawd instead of a seen).

Oh come on, the ?sad? and ?seen? sound the same but ?min-rabbihim? as ?mirabbihim, so I may accept that the sad and seen dilemma was a typo when the Quran was put down, all in all the word with a sad or a seen will sound the exact same2

Quote from: progod
Tajweez indicates that it be pronounced like sawd because of the taw acting on it, so it being written like this was only the written manifestation of this tajweez.

Well I accept that the Sad is pronounced a bit heavily than the Seen so if I hear it from someone with excellent Tajweed I?m sure any fluent Arab speaker will recognise that it must be a Sad

Quote from: progod
Look at the word izdilaaf and izdihaar they are really iz-tilaaf and iz-tihaar, but the dal has an effect on the 't' according to tajweez and therefore you get the first pronunciations.

Are these words from the Quran or what bro? if yes the please repost them for me in Arabic an a refrence to the verses, if not quran words then at elast put them in Arabic so I can make sense of it, honestly I could not figure out what are these Arabic words you wrote in English letters

Quote from: progod
This is the same with the sun letters. You say ashamsu instead of al-shamsi, but if you say both its understood. That is all part of the the grander concept of tajweez.

Now I got you cornered Mate, there is nothing in Arabic called  ?sun letters?, this is utter BS, what is there is called ?Al Lam Al Shamsia? ?The Sum Lam?, and ?Al Lam Al Qamariah? ?The Moon Lam?, and as you can see both relate to one letter ?Lam?, not ?letters? as you are conjecturing that is for a starter, now what you also failed to mention is the ?Al Lam Qamariah? ?The Moon Lam?, let me explain botn to you and also tell you why this rule exist:

1) Arabic words with ?Al?, ?Al The Murafah?, i.e. ?The?, can be hard to pronounce so a rule has been created based on pronunciation ease, they divided the words into two categories when ?Al? is added to them:

2) The first category will follow the pronunciation of the Arabic word ?Al Qamar?, i.e. ?The Moon?, the Lam in the ?Al? is called ?Lam Qamariah?, i.e. the Lam MUST BE PRNOUNCED and can?t be omitted when saying these words with Lam Qamariah   

3) The second category will follow the pronunciation of the Arabic word ?Al Shams?, i.e. ?The Sun?, the Lam in the ?Al? is called ?Lam Shamsiah?, i.e. the Lam MAY NOT BE PRNOUNCED and can be omitted when saying these words with Lam Shamsiah, this is an option though that is solely based on pronunciation and not grammar for example if I hear the two words ?A Shams? or ?Al Shams?, I will recognise both as ?The sun?, however the one who will say it as ?Al Shams? will be the who lacks Tajweed

This Lam Shamsia and Qamaraia thingy is only made to make pronunciation of words with ?Al? easier, i.e. if the first letter in the word is a bit heavy like the ?Sheen? for example than it is more proper to omit the Lam in pronunciation to make it easier HOWEVER if the words are written down then the both LAM Shamsiah/Qamariah  must be written down and can?t be omitted or it will be  fatal mistake in the writings

Now the above has noting to do with the imaginary example you told us about earlier ?min-rabihhim? and ?mirabbihim?
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 14, 2006, 10:38:24 PM
Quote from: progod

 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?

Quote from: progod
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

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

UTTER BS

Quote from: progod
It is supposed to represent the way that it is said.

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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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?

Quote from: progod
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?


Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
If this is complicated

Not really, it was sort of Tom and Jerry argument

Quote from: progod
remember that the Quranic texts were only for the educated and those were few

really a few, wow how many you reckon?

Quote from: progod
, 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.

Quote from: progod
Some people believe that the Quran was preserved through writing.

Some, or many?

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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?

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
Even the Quran admits that people tried to distort the Quran.

But did it say they succeeded?

What is your point by that?

Quote from: progod
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?

Quote from: progod

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.

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 14, 2006, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
'Anaa ji'tu maashiyan' and 'anaa ji'tu maashiya' are the same thing.

True

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

True

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

 
Quote from: progod
Unless we can logically agree with them on our own also.

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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
Look at 2:126 in the Arabic under the word 'rabbi'(my lord) and look at 2:40 and 41 at the words farhabooni (fear me) and fattaqooni(be cautious of me).


 وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ اجْعَلْ هََذَا بَلَدًا آمِنًا وَارْزُقْ أَهْلَهُ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ مَنْ آمَنَ مِنْهُم بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ قَالَ وَمَن كَفَرَ فَأُمَتِّعُهُ قَلِيلاً ثُمَّ أَضْطَرُّهُ إِلَى عَذَابِ النَّارِ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ (126)

[The Quran ; 2:126]


 يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتِيَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأَوْفُواْ بِعَهْدِي أُوفِ بِعَهْدِكُمْ وَإِيَّايَ فَارْهَبُونِ (40)
 وَآمِنُواْ بِمَا أَنزَلْتُ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ وَلاَ تَكُونُواْ أَوَّلَ كَافِرٍ بِهِ وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِآيَاتِي ثَمَناً قَلِيلاً وَإِيَّايَ فَاتَّقُونِ (41)

[The Quran ; 2:40-41]

Quote from: progod
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 2:40-41 ?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:

2:41, 2:197, 16:2, 23:52 and 39:16

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

2:40 and 16:51

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:

21:25, 21:92 and 29:56

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:


 وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ (56)
 مَا أُرِيدُ مِنْهُم مِّن رِّزْقٍ وَمَا أُرِيدُ أَن يُطْعِمُونِ (57)

[The Quran ; 51:56-57]

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

Quote from: progod
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


Quote from: progod
3:96, 2:185 and 48:24

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.

Quote from: progod
Understanding that Arabic is based on how something is said,

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

Quote from: progod
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

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

Utter BS

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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
 
Quote from: progod
lalladhee bibakkata through the rule shown through 2:126, and 2:40-41 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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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)
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on July 15, 2006, 03:01:14 PM
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  حركات إعراب (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  ممنوع من الصرف: takes only two of the three vocalizations علامات التشكيل, 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 لا تنوين). 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. 

Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 15, 2006, 07:51:12 PM
God bless,

Quote
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 2:150 (here is a command not in mabniyah) and it is the same as 5:44, 2:186(does mabniyah also count for past tense), 5:117 (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? 2:31 'anba'oonee' is with a ya there not a kasrah, 2:152 (Adhkuroonee), 2:260 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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 15, 2006, 08:08:21 PM
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
 
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 15, 2006, 11:42:43 PM
Quote from: progod
God bless,

Quote
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.


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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
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?

Quote from: progod
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?

Quote from: progod
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

Quote from: progod
PLEASE DON'T waste your time.

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

Quote from: progod
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on July 16, 2006, 01:58:47 AM
Peace Anwar

Quote
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?
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 16, 2006, 03:00:37 AM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on July 16, 2006, 03:31:31 AM
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!
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 16, 2006, 06:26:48 AM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 16, 2006, 06:52:20 AM
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,
[The Quran ; 76:7]
يُوفُونَ بِالنَّذْرِ وَيَخَافُونَ يَوْمًا كَانَ شَرُّهُ مُسْتَطِيرًا  (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

Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 16, 2006, 02:35:44 PM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 16, 2006, 02:52:59 PM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 17, 2006, 09:24:04 AM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 17, 2006, 01:26:26 PM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 17, 2006, 05:58:57 PM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 17, 2006, 06:38:50 PM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 18, 2006, 05:05:35 PM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 18, 2006, 06:45:32 PM
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
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 18, 2006, 06:53:04 PM
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

Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on July 18, 2006, 07:31:34 PM
Salaam all

Quote
so all order verbs must be Mabniah ala hazf Ya Al Mukhatabah


I would like to clarify something here.

The grammar "i3raab" affects the verb, but not the prefixes. The verb is, e.g, ya3buduun, the command form, which is "mabnii 3ala aljazm by ommitting nuun of the group" will be: a3buduu أعبدوا. To this verb is added the suffixed pronoun (the object, or maf3uul bihi) which is the ya, which in turn is mabniyya 3alaa alsukuun. Now we have two consucutive sukuuns: the yaa and the alif at the end of "a3buduu", so an extra nuun is inserted between them to prevent the coexistance of two jauxtapositioned sukuuns. This nuun is called (the nuun of protection) نون الوقاية.

The elimination of the yaa almukhataba is not grammar, but style, common in Arabic.

As for verb to be, the grammar changes according to its presence or absence, as well as the meaning. It is usually there when it is in the past or indicating future:
كان الجو جميلا
غدا يكون  الجو جميلا
الجوُ جميلٌ

Notice how the case ending of جميل changes with the presence or absence of verb (to be). I suppose that is what I see as a problem with شهرٌ رمضانِ
Since "ramadan" has a final fat7a, and if we are avoiding making this mudaaf and mudaaf elayhi, then there must be كان. The question is: can we drop كان ? Is it permissible in Arabic? I do not think so.
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 18, 2006, 08:04:41 PM
Brother Anwar

There is no need to go back and forth, I think Samia responded well that Shahr Ramadan with a missing "Yakun" does not make sense because verb to be can't be dropped otherwise we have a totally different structure of the sentence, she provided a good example with "Al Jaw Jamil" which in Irab is Mubtadaa and Khabar and both Marfuh Bi Al Dummah, if Kana or Yakun is there, then the first two examples  we will have new structure, Kana needs an Ism and a Khabar, therefore Al Jaw will be Ism Kana and will stay Marfuh Bi Al Dummah while Jamil can't be Marfuh Bi Al Dummah any more as in the case of "No verb to be", with with verb to be the Khabar must be Mansub Bi Alfatiha and as you can see in the 3 examples, the first 2 "Jamil" have an Alif at the end "Alif Al Madd" because it is Mansub Bi Al Fatiha", the last "Jamil" is Marfuh Bi Al Dammah

Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on July 20, 2006, 03:46:39 PM
Ahmed,

If you think I'm being stubborn or responding to Samia for the heck of it without true intentions, then thanks for the suggestion. But I'm not so you don't have to worry about that. It would be an injustice to not help Samia understand what I am saying, so I am going to respond to her to help her understand exactly where I am coming from, which it seems like she hasn't seen exactly. It honestly sounds like you are just trying to shut me up and I really don't appreciate that. But I will assume that you have the best intentions. Peace.

Dear Samia,

The conclusion and grammar of what I am saying is in the followoing sentence:

Isti'daadan huwa jayyidun

or

Huwa isti'daadan jayyidun

or

huwa jayyidun isti'daadan.

The nasb is nasbul-haalati. Which is what I stated to you before. All nasbul-haalati are adverbs in English terms and in the above case it is modifying the verb to be in present tense, which in Arabic is ommitted, and not thought of as a verb in present tense (not future: using ghadan with yakoon makes it a present tense verb that projects into the future). I don't want to get into an argument about how verbs aren't ommited in Arabic like Ahmed trying to insist. 99.999 percent of the verbs are not in ommitted in Arabic and the verb to be (when it is in present tense) is part of the .00001 percent.

(future and present tense actually over lap in Classical Arabic and in all languages to varying degrees)

When you say 'ghadan yakoonul-jawwu jameelan' that shows that you are talking about the future, and not the present. You probably don't think of the concept of 'to be' in the present tense which is why you are having trouble with this. It is the same as 'the weather IS pretty today' but in Arabic you would say 'the weather (is) pretty today' and the verb to be 'is' is ommitted from an English perspective, but from a purely Cl. Arabic perspective there never was a verb to be there, and the verb 'to be' only comes into play in the future, past, subjunctive or conditional tenses.

To take your words and help you to understand what I am saying I am going to add 'al-yawmu and (note that this is not al-yawma):

Al-Yawmu jameelun jawwan
 
or

al-yawmu jawwan jameelun

Notice that jaww is not an adjective but it is a strictly a noun. So differing from jameelan, which is an adjective in the nasb case, nouns in the nasb case set the stage for the condition of the sentence or statement. Even though the verb 'to be' in Arabic doesnt exist in the present tense, from an English persepctive, jawwan, just like the use of Isti'daadan before are both modifying the ommitted present tense verb 'to be'.

This, and especially the second is the case of 'sharun ramdaanan lalladhee . . .'

Godbless,
Anwar

Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on July 20, 2006, 04:32:46 PM
Ahmed,

If you think I'm being stubborn or responding to Samia for the heck of it without true intentions, then thanks for the suggestion. But I'm not so you don't have to worry about that. It would be an injustice to not help Samia understand what I am saying, so I am going to respond to her to help her understand exactly where I am coming from, which it seems like she hasn't seen exactly. It honestly sounds like you are just trying to shut me up and I really don't appreciate that. But I will assume that you have the best intentions. Peace.



Peace mate

well bro, what you said above never ever came to my mind, i was just providing extra info, that's all

i will read the rest later bro, got a lot to do

Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 02, 2006, 05:03:11 PM
I'm guessing that either you guys agree with me, are thinking about it or just don't want to deal with the issue. It could be any of the three but I would appreciate an honest answer like "I'm not ready to deal with that" or "I just can't agree" or "it make sense" . . .


Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 02, 2006, 05:14:32 PM
Hey Anwar

I have been very busy bro, but will invistigate later, just a quick question bro, is there any 5 letters roots in Arabic and if there is can you give us a couple of examples?

cheers
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 02, 2006, 05:45:22 PM
You know they are really rare. They only go up to 4 letters mostly and then if they have an alif in front of them they are only derivatives of the four letter roots examples:

taw, meem, hamza, noon (tawm-ah-na)
alif, taw, meem, hamza, noon (it-ma-ah-nna)

Iqsha&arra.

But franqa&a is a root that is 5 letters.

fa, ra, noon, qaf, &ain.  It means 'to go a way, to get out'. (Ifranqa&a)

This is the only one that I can remember. My teacher told me this one.

Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 02, 2006, 06:28:03 PM
Thanks bro

How about "Izdahar", "Ikhtasha"?

cheers
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 04, 2006, 01:21:49 PM
Your welcome,

No these do not have 5 letters in their roots. Izdahara comes from zahara and is the form ifti&aal. The taa changes to a 'da' because of the zaa. Same with ikhtashaa, it is from khashaya an is the form ifti&aal as well.

So you do you have no opinion or any other questions on the ground-breaking topic?

Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 04, 2006, 01:44:51 PM
Your welcome,

No these do not have 5 letters in their roots. Izdahara comes from zahara and is the form ifti&aal. The taa changes to a 'da' because of the zaa. Same with ikhtashaa, it is from khashaya an is the form ifti&aal as well.

So you do you have no opinion or any other questions on the ground-breaking topic?

Godbless,
Anwar

Peace Anwar

Mate Izdahar has nothiinthing to do with flowering, it actually means "Blossomed", for example we can say the business Izdahar, i.e. the gusiness blossomed, WE CAN SAY THE BUSINESS AZHAR, it makes no sense

see why there 5 letters root, to diffrentiat between words that almost have the same letters

bro I have my arabic grammar book and I gor this example from it, I'm no manipulator bro

I will photo copy the lage and post it on monday Inshallah

for Ikhtasha, again the Ta is vital to make this 5 letters root with a titally different meaning to Ikhsha

another example is Igtamaa, the two is required to give the meaninfg that someone had a meeting with others, if you say Igmaa with that Ta then it means somthing else wich is to collect

see how the root differntiate the words meaning so confusing does not arise

for your thread I will try to have another look bro, sorry I nget bored quick and I have zillio0ns of things to do but you can aske me any further questiion on a PM I guess I still have one PM to reply to you, sorry

Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on August 05, 2006, 01:21:38 AM
Salaam all

I'm guessing that either you guys agree with me, are thinking about it or just don't want to deal with the issue. It could be any of the three but I would appreciate an honest answer like "I'm not ready to deal with that" or "I just can't agree" or "it make sense" . . .


Godbless,
Anwar


My apologies. my honest answer is that there are two issues in your post: grammatical and sementical. I have no problem with the the latter (if you mean a hot shahr). It is the formal I am trying to deal with.

Quote
Isti'daadan huwa jayyidun

or

Huwa isti'daadan jayyidun

or

huwa jayyidun isti'daadan.
Al-Yawmu jameelun jawwan
 
or

al-yawmu jawwan jameelun


In all these examples (they are actually two main ones) the adjective i (jayyid; jameel) is in the nominative (marfouu3), whereas we have in your control sentence (rammadana) in the accusative "manSuub). If you think that I still do not get it, can you please give me your translation (one literal and one meaaningful) for "shahrun ramadana"?

Salaam Ahmed
Quote
Mate Izdahar has nothiinthing to do with flowering, it actually means "Blossomed",
Do you really mean that or there is a typo?

Quote
for Ikhtasha,...........another example is Igtamaa
Do you notice a pattern in these three verbs (the third being izdahara)? I think you mix between pattern and root. Verbs (and words ingeneral) derived from the same root have different patterns and do not mean exactly the same meaning, but their meaning is related to the meaning of the root. E.g:

jama3a: to collect; ijtama3a : to meet; tajamma3a: to gather, jamme3: all; tajammu3: gathering; jam3iyya: group-organization; mujtama3: society; jum3a: gathering. Root for all the above words (and maybe more): ja ma 3a, giving the meaning of plural, or more than one.

Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 05, 2006, 05:08:59 AM
Salaam Ahmed
Quote
Mate Izdahar has nothiinthing to do with flowering, it actually means "Blossomed",
Do you really mean that or there is a typo?

Salam Samia

There was a typo for sure however yes I mean Izdahara means blosom, Azhar means to flower, we can say the economy izdaharit but we can't say the economy  azharit

That is why we have 5 letters root "Masddar" that will be the origin of some words

i.e. the masddar for the noun "Izdihaar" is the past tense 5 letters root "Izdahara"

same with Igtamaa

Quote
for Ikhtasha,...........another example is Igtamaa

Quote
Do you notice a pattern in these three verbs (the third being izdahara)?

yeh sure, it is called wazn and all 5 letters root musddars are on the same wazn

Quote
I think you mix between pattern and root.

no i'm not, it can't be while I was taught arabic since I was a baby, any arabic word even root has pattern "wazn"

Quote
Verbs (and words ingeneral) derived from the same root have different patterns and do not mean exactly the same meaning, but their meaning is related to the meaning of the root. E.g:

never heard of that really, but I know this is just an easy entry to the non arabic speakers  who want to learn Arabic, the Arabic language is far deeper than this flawed root method that you guys make every word as a three letters root and from that you drive the meaning, total non sense if you ask me

Quote
jama3a: to collect; ijtama3a : to meet; tajamma3a: to gather, jamme3: all; tajammu3: gathering; jam3iyya: group-organization; mujtama3: society; jum3a: gathering. Root for all the above words (and maybe more): ja ma 3a, giving the meaning of plural, or more than one.

So?, the above does not change the fact that the noun Igtimaa "Meeting" is driven from the the 5 root past tense masddar "Igtamaa"


Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 07, 2006, 01:27:45 PM
Ahmed,

Your argument about the difference between flower and blossom is pointless. Sometimes you can't translate things literally and litterally izdahara means 'it flowered' but it makes better sense to say 'it blossomed' in English.

You are confusing form and root. wazn is form and jadhr is root. izdahara is of the root zahara and is of the form ifta&ala. You may have learned Classical Arabic since a baby but you are mistaken about this Classical Arabic concept and it seems you have confused root and form. The forms are related by not the same. Samia, started explaining that to you and it is best if I let her explanations suffice here. She has also been speaking Arabic since she was a baby.

Samia,

Take the sentences that I gave you as examples to help it fit grammatically, and take in mind that modern langauge sometimes finds archaic langauge difficult, as well as phrases that have never been heard before by the listener or reader.

take the sentences

huwa jayyid isti&daadan

now go to

huwa fee &aamin isti&daadan fa nahnu sa-najma&u kulla &itaadinaa lidifaa&i

Think of it as poetic language. Even though the Quran says it is not poetry understand that poetry in the old sense has nothing to do with rhyme or rythm but whether or not it was for entertainment.

Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 07, 2006, 01:58:10 PM
Bro Anwar

sorry bro, I have no time to watse on this subject anymore, as I stated I will photocopy the page about the Masddars from the grammar book I have and post it in here and you will see in there that there are 6 letters Masddars as well

Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 08, 2006, 03:05:43 PM
God bless,

I'm done too. I've told you what it really is and you don't want to listen to me. So, go ask some well-known Arabic profressor if you don't want to believe me.

God bless again,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 08, 2006, 08:08:51 PM
Cheers bro

let's discuss something else man, I will still post the imgages form the book, I just need to scan it first

I will also post who are the authors and their background

cheers
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on August 09, 2006, 12:38:59 AM
Salaam all

Bro Anwar

 you will see in there that there are 6 letters Masddars as well

Salam

Of course there are, and even 7 letters ones!
You were mixing between verb pattern and root, now you are mixing between maSdar (verbal noun) and root. These are 3 distinctive things.

Progod:

I asked you, not for more examples, but to please apply your examples to the verse, i.e. write the verse as you understand it (by substitution) and then expalin it, so that I unserstand fully what you mean and my response can be based on that, with my thanks.

Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 09, 2006, 01:30:41 AM
Salaam all

Bro Anwar

 you will see in there that there are 6 letters Masddars as well

Salam

Of course there are, and even 7 letters ones!
You were mixing between verb pattern and root, now you are mixing between maSdar (verbal noun) and root. These are 3 distinctive things.




Salam Samia

please Samia, your english definition have no meaning to me, I only taught the Masaddar, all the other tings you named in english never heard of it unless you provide the equivelent name in arabic

also there was never 7 letters massdar in that book

Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on August 09, 2006, 02:00:29 AM
Quote
Salam Samia

please Samia, your english definition have no meaning to me, I only taught the Masaddar, all the other tings you named in english never heard of it unless you provide the equivelent name in arabic

also there was never 7 letters massdar in that book

Salam

Salaam Ahmed

I think we already know root (jidhr) and pattern (wazn) as mentioned in one of Progod's posts. Now I put the English equivalent of maSdar (verbal noun) between brackets, not for you, but for those who are not native speakers and are learning Arabic in English. You may ignore the English translation of the technical terms.

The second part of your question: What about: istiqlaal استقلال  (independence) and all maSdars of this wazn (pattern)? If your book says there are no 7 letters maSdars, I would not trust it if I were you.
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 09, 2006, 03:07:37 AM

Quote
Salam Samia

please Samia, your english definition have no meaning to me, I only taught the Masaddar, all the other tings you named in english never heard of it unless you provide the equivelent name in arabic

also there was never 7 letters massdar in that book

Salam

Quote from: Samia
Salaam Ahmed

Salam Samia

Quote from: Samia
I think we already know root (jidhr) and pattern (wazn) as mentioned in one of Progod's posts.

Excuse me sister, the Gazr and Wazn has nothing to do with the origin of the word, the Gazr is never taught at schiils and have no meaning in Native Arabic speakers countries, we only taught the Wazn and the Masddar

now do you lnow what Masddar means in Arabic?

it mean "the origin" i.e. the origin of the owrd, for example

Igtimaa has a Masddar of of 5 letters that is Igtmaa

and the Masddar "The origin or the word" is the one that is used to figure the meaning and that is what we are taught at Arabic schools

for me this Gazr thingy is a flawed invention that only cause confusion and makes all the words the same bloody meaning if they have the same 2 letters Gaze for example someone like simple thinks the following

ghanam which is sort of the Lamb means Aghnaam which are the things collected in a war after victory

why he thought thatand totally manipuklated the Quran?, because he used the flawed and un merited Gazr "root" thingy and sure he has to get confused because the two words have the same three letters Gazr "Gh N M"

I have zillions of examples

so your insistance and many like you to use this Gazr method to figure the words meanings only show your ignorance with the arabic language

Quote from: Samia
The second part of your question: What about: istiqlaal استقلال  (independence) and all maSdars of this wazn (pattern)? If your book says there are no 7 letters maSdars, I would not trust it if I were you.

Istiqlaal has a 5 letters Masddar with a shadda on the Lam,  virtually 6 letters Masddar and it is "Istqll"


Salam

Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: AhmedBahgat on August 09, 2006, 03:16:27 AM
Sister samia

I checked the book and sorry to tell you that the Masddars are only 3 to 6 letters, wait till I scan that page and post it in here then you can respond to it and show us where the two senior Arabic language professors got it wrong

I'm sorry I don't have a scanner handy as typing it will defeat the authenticity purpose that I'm not faking it, as well I don't have time to type it really

one page will explain every thing to you regarding the Masddars and how they work

the professors put in a tree like shape and you follow it through the branches

now I know where the confusion is coming from

i thought those root advocates mean  that it is the Masddar all alonge up to this moment

I was only talking about the Masddars thinking that this is what you mean by the roots, because the Masddar is the origin of the word in Arabic NOT the root

Salam
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 09, 2006, 03:23:40 PM
Ahmed I understand your misunderstanding of the word masdar, but let me explain it to you.

Masdar can means 'origin' but that is not what it means in Arabic grammar. it means the verbal noun. It is what istiqlaalun(as sister Samia said) is to istaqalla.

Now the Jadh-r, or as you call it the Gazr, is not a thingy. And it might not have been taught in your school but that does not mean that it is not valid, just because you don't know about it.

Gazr or Jadh-r has everything to do with the meanig of the word and you honestly should review some Classical Arabic grammar books before you continue with this discussion.

Secondly the wazn is what you are talking about more. the change from zahar to azhara, to zaa-hara, to tazahh-ara to izdahara is a matter of wazn, not masdar. I just want  you to know that you are really taking away from your credibility the more that you argue things that are known and understood and then call what you don't know irrevelant thingies. I mean your not presenting a different way that you were taught you are just invalidating what you don't know. Truthfully, Ahmed, that is not acceptable.

Godbless,
Anwar

Samia

Here's the verse in transliteration. I'm going to use English punctuation (like what's used now sometimes in Arabic to help you understand the structure of the sentence. My words are in italics.

Shahru ramadana allathee onzila feehi alquranu

Shahrun, ramadaanan, alladhee unzila feehi al-quraanu

hudan lilnnasi wabayyinatin mina alhuda waalfurqani

irshaadan lil-bashari  bimubayyinaatin min hudaallaahi wa bi-fawaariqa

faman shahida minkumu alshshahra falyasumhu

faman yashida minkum shah-ran kal-&alawaa' fa-yanbaghee an yasooma feehi

waman kana mareedan aw AAala safarin faAAiddatun min ayyamin okhara

wa man yakun mareedan aw huwa musaafirun fa nafsil-iddati min al-ayyaam lam yasoom feehaa fee maa ba&d

yureedu Allahu bikumu alyusra wala yureedu bikumu alAAusra

yureedu Allaaha al-suhoolati bi-amoorikum wa laa assu&oobatu bihaa

walitukmiloo alAAiddata

fa, ikmaloo al-&idaata al-madhkoorata


walitukabbiroo Allaha AAala ma hadakum walaAAallakum tashkuroona

Wa kabbiroo allaaha hasba mahmaa yurshidukum bihi wa la&allakum tashkuroona

I hope that helped, finally.

Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: Samia on August 09, 2006, 04:11:31 PM
 
Quote
Shahru ramadana allathee onzila feehi alquranu

Shahrun, ramadaanan, alladhee unzila feehi al-quraanu


I think we are having a problem here. I understand that (correct me if I am wrong) shahrun ramadaanan here is in the indefinite. Why, then, is it followed by the pronoun (alladhee)? You know this is not acceptable in Arabic grammar nor is it used in the qur'aan.

As I previously mentioned, I am not discussing the meaning, but I want to reach a grammatically sound sentence so that it fits the meaning.
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 10, 2006, 12:34:38 PM
God bless,

I know that this is rear in Modern Standard but it is not that rare in Old Classical Arabic. I will give you some examples. Just first understand that shah-run ramadaanan is not saying any month it is specifically a month that has to do with heat. It is if I were to say in English 'a month, having to do with heat, is the one in which the Quran was revealed. . .'

I'll give you some more examples, but you should look for them also to confirm what I am saying.

Godbless,
Anwar
Title: Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
Post by: progod on August 06, 2013, 09:22:22 PM
Peace,

I no longer believe that  shahru ramadana means shahrun ramadanan, nor do i continue to believe that ramadan has to do with heat as it concerns the name of the lunar month, even if at one time it did.