Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => Questions/Comments on the Quran => Topic started by: ade_cool on July 18, 2021, 04:28:12 AM

Title: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: ade_cool on July 18, 2021, 04:28:12 AM
Salam all,

I come across verse 6:74 and I see various translations do not translate "Azar" and simply leave the word as proper name. For examples:

[6:74] And Abraham said to his father, Azar: “Will you take statues as gods? I see you and your people are clearly misguided.”

[6:74] And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham said to his father Azar, "Do you take idols as deities? Indeed, I see you and your people to be in manifest error."

[6:74] AND, LO, [thus] spoke Abraham unto his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? Verily, I see that thou and thy people have obviously gone astray!"


I check in PRL for the root of word Azar which is ا ز ر, and it gives the following:
to strengthen/aid/assist/help/sympathise, Azar (name of an idol) derived from the Chaldean name of the planet Mars.

Since the word has meaning, what about translating verse 6:74 as below (instead of leaving the word Azar as proper name -- which can be anything for that matter):

[6:74] And when Abraham said to his father, sympathetically: “Will you take statues as gods? I see you and your people are clearly misguided.”


What do you guys think?


Wassalam
Title: Re: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: Anoushirvan on July 19, 2021, 01:33:47 PM
Salam,

I have another suggestion.

In one of the oldest Qur'an manuscript, the Codex Wetzstein II 1913 https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/6/vers/74?handschrift=163 (https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/6/vers/74?handschrift=163), the name was not Azar but Arza, see the rectangle in the attached image:

(https://i.postimg.cc/6QQHRjpV/arza2.png)

Without diacritical spots, it is not possible to distinguish in Arabic between Azar, Arza, Arar, Azaz.

Here the diacritical red spot is clearly on the second ر.
Note: there is also another red spot close to the alif, suggesting the word "azz", but it sounds like it is the ink from the reverse side that crossed the page.

Now, the meaning of arza (أرز) in Arabic is something like "unwavering". It means also cedar or pine-tree, and it means, maybe through some derivative "chief of clan".

In the context, I find this meaning fits perfectly:
6:74 And Abraham said to his father unwavering (or maybe stubborn/hardened): “Will you take statues as gods? I see you and your people are clearly misguided.”

It's likely that the original word was arza and not azar, then someone, long ago, made a mistake, and the mistake spread around.
Title: Re: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: Noon waalqalami on July 20, 2021, 02:55:41 AM
Salam,

I have another suggestion.

In one of the oldest Qur'an manuscript, the Codex Wetzstein II 1913 https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/6/vers/74?handschrift=163 (https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/6/vers/74?handschrift=163), the name was not Azar but Arza, see the rectangle in the attached image:

(https://i.postimg.cc/6QQHRjpV/arza2.png)

Without diacritical spots, it is not possible to distinguish in Arabic between Azar, Arza, Arar, Azaz.

Here the diacritical red spot is clearly on the second ر.

It's likely that the original word was arza and not azar, then someone, long ago, made a mistake, and the mistake spread around.

Peace
It’s with alif zay ra see older manuscript Qaf 47  — many were traced years later dots and alifs added eg fatha red dot over ra hence AZRa

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/6/vers/74?handschrift=73

(https://i.postimg.cc/xd2114Qg/2324-B55-B-04-B0-41-F7-9294-8234287-B77-AD.png)
Title: Re: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: Anoushirvan on July 20, 2021, 04:55:01 AM
Peace
It’s with alif zay ra see older manuscript Qaf 47  — many were traced years later dots and alifs added eg fatha red dot over ra hence AZRa


I notice you systematically misread what I write in this thread as well as the others.
What I wrote is really clear though.

I mentioned Codex Wetzstein II 1913.

This one is clear from this manuscript unless you don't have eyes in front of the holes: it is alif-ra-zay here.

Of course you will find manuscripts with alif-zay-ra also, since it is the standard reading nowadays. Go to your nearest library, you will find some, even printed very recently in the 21st CE.

Title: Re: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: Noon waalqalami on July 20, 2021, 08:49:51 PM
I notice you systematically misread what I write in this thread as well as the others.
What I wrote is really clear though.

I mentioned Codex Wetzstein II 1913.

This one is clear from this manuscript unless you don't have eyes in front of the holes: it is alif-ra-zay here.

no, again red dots Codex Wetzstein II 1913 were added years later

use magnifier if cannot see the verse prior even it is NOT alif-ra-zay

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/6/vers/74?handschrift=163

6:73 الصور l-ṣūri (with red dot kasra below ر "i" sound)/the trumpet

6:73 الخبىر l-khabīru (with red dot dama above ر "u" sound)/the aware

6:74 ازر āzara (with red dot fatha above ر "a" sound)/Azra

(https://i.postimg.cc/YSPGYbRJ/ch6v71-80.jpg)
Title: Re: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: Anoushirvan on July 20, 2021, 10:29:52 PM
no, again red dots Codex Wetzstein II 1913 were added years later

use magnifier if cannot see the verse prior even it is NOT alif-ra-zay

You keep not understanding my point: I don't give a damn that the dots were added later or before, it's not the question.

It is just the dots are there and they indicate the way those who added them were reading the text.


The important point is how the people who put the dots were reading the text at that time.
That the dots were added later or before the rasm plays no role in the question here.

So the guys who owned that manuscript Codex Wetzstein II 1913 in the 7th CE or 8th CE were reading "Arza", not "Azar".
That's a fact told by the dotting, and please stop challenging facts.

The next point is that "Arza" fits better in the textual device of surah 6 than "Azar", so it might actually have been the original word of the text instead of "Azar".

Then, probably not so late after, a "mutation" in reading took place, like many others, spread around, and became the dominant variant, progressively eliminating the original one.

That's why you see most manuscripts with dotting "Azar" (the reading become dominant) but one (or maybe some others too) with dotting Arza (original reading still kept for some time).

Title: Re: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: Noon waalqalami on July 21, 2021, 02:38:28 PM
You keep not understanding my point: I don't give a damn that the dots were added later or before, it's not the question.

It is just the dots are there and they indicate the way those who added them were reading the text.


The important point is how the people who put the dots were reading the text at that time.
That the dots were added later or before the rasm plays no role in the question here.

So the guys who owned that manuscript Codex Wetzstein II 1913 in the 7th CE or 8th CE were reading "Arza", not "Azar".
That's a fact told by the dotting, and please stop challenging facts.

The next point is that "Arza" fits better in the textual device of surah 6 than "Azar", so it might actually have been the original word of the text instead of "Azar".

Then, probably not so late after, a "mutation" in reading took place, like many others, spread around, and became the dominant variant, progressively eliminating the original one.

That's why you see most manuscripts with dotting "Azar" (the reading become dominant) but one (or maybe some others too) with dotting Arza (original reading still kept for some time).

again NO manuscripts that word — red dots are diacritical marks
fatha kasra damma
https://youtu.be/nVWq30mxxss

another example same page
6:77 l-qamara/the moon

(https://i.postimg.cc/BQXh890X/7-C125772-2-A61-4148-A451-CF5-E5-D55889-D.png])
Title: Re: Azar, a proper name or something else?
Post by: Anoushirvan on July 22, 2021, 04:12:49 AM
again NO manuscripts that word — red dots are diacritical marks
fatha kasra damma


Ok, I see your point now.

But one advice: you should seriously consider improving the clarity of your explanations because it was not all clear from the beginning, it would have avoided a lot of heated statements.

Back to the topic, I agree with your point, the red spots are not diacritical points distinguishing e.g. ra from zay, but diacritical marks, fatha, kasra, etc.
So Codex Wetzstein II 1913 doesn't prove anything.

But I would maintain my theory that the original word was "arza", not "azar" due to the fact arza perfectly fits the context and metathesis (inversion of root letters) is frequent in Semitic languages.
Except that no known manuscript can prove it.