Can someone please explain to me that on verse 16:68,69. The worker bee is refered to a female bee, can someone please explain to me how? someone has told me that kulli and fasluki is a femanine gender, can someone please explain to me how? is there any book on this type of grammer.
I don't think that I am re-interpreting religious texts. I am just showing the grammar that goes behind all the translations I found. Every single one of them said their bellies, translating a feminine singular pronoun as a plural pronoun. And none of them translated the previous verbs with female bee. And none of the tafaseer I found (Ma'arif ul-Quran, Tafseer ul-Muneer, Tafseer al-Uthmani) even mentioned the female bee issue, or the shift in grammatical tense, indicating that they thought there had been no shift (as in, the tense remained plural throughout the verbs, pronouns, everything).
If anyone where fit to 'translate' or interpret Quranic text it would have been the prophet Mohammed himself. have you see tafseer Mohammed SAW? There is a reason the Quran is described as such 'la tanqati3 3ajaeboh'
Its wonders will never cease.
and that is why some scholars like sheikh isha3rawi when attempting to interpret the Quran called his book 'khawtir al'quran' not tafseer al'quran. a person can only yajtahid, and when one learns something new, one shares their findings. many things not known then are known now which renders the book subject to a another discerning look-- You are certainly welcome to think of it as just another book but not render your own exegesis to it which I'd personally take with a grain of salt, unless you are a Muslim scholar and are in concensus.. are you?!
Butoon is masculine plural.
Ha is singular feminine, not plural feminine. Plural feminine is Hunna.
So which of these do you think is plural feminine?
bootinha is jam3 mo'aneth to non 3aqil so yes it is plural feminine bootenhunnaa is jam3 mo'anath salim to a thinking being. were you hoping I'd not know that?
Like I said, I'm not interpreting. But I believe some other people may have been when they came up with this 'miracle'
.
And like I said, you are free to believe that it is a non-miracle!
Last edited by جوري; 08-08-2008 at 07:47 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Two points.
1, You previously said that no plural male objects, animate or inanimate, could be treated as feminine singular. I gave an example with books, definitely inanimate, and you said it was bad grammar, and corrected it changing the pronouns and verbs to plural male form. Are you changing your opinion?
2, Most non-intelligent beings are inanimate. Animals are just a small percentage of them.
Edit. Animals are just a small percentage of non-intelligent beings.
Last edited by Faye; 08-08-2008 at 08:19 PM.
Reason: Clarity
Two points.
1, You previously said that no plural male objects, animate or inanimate, could be treated as feminine singular. I gave an example with books, definitely inanimate, and you said it was bad grammar, and corrected it changing the pronouns and verbs to plural male form. Are you changing your opinion?
2, Most non-intelligent beings are inanimate. Animals are just a small percentage of them.
I love how you underline words as if to hammer it in.
inanimate= appearing dead; not breathing or having no perceptible pulse
certainly doesn't apply to bees or ants etc but can apply to books, rocks mountains etc. I have no time to descend to word play or as your previous post change a clear jama3 mo'anath, or jama3 mo'anath salim to suit your needs as you see fit to interpret a verse.
I have no quarrels with you and don't want to sit here and debate you all day as a focal point, as stated you are free to think whichever way of the verse. be it literal or abstract, it really doesn't bother me unless you impose your own renditions on others who clearely see otherwise!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
فأما الأول: [رجل]، فمذكر حقيقي، لأن له مؤنثاً من جنسه. وأمّا الثاني: [كتاب]، فمذكر غير حقيقي، إذ ليس له مؤنث من جنسه، وإنما اصطلح أبناء اللغة على اعتباره مذكراً.
ومثال المؤنث: [امرأة] و[دار].
فأمّا الأول: [امرأة] فمؤنث حقيقي، لأن له مذكراً من جنسه. وأمّا الثاني: [دار] فمؤنث غير حقيقي، إذ ليس له مذكر من جنسه، وإنما اصطلح أبناء اللغة على اعتباره مؤنثاً.
ملاحظات عظيمة القيمة:
1- يغلب على الاسم المؤنث أن تلحق آخره: ألفٌ مقصورة مثل: [سلمى]، أو ألفٌ ممدودة مثل [حسناء]، أو تاء مربوطة مثل: [خديجة].
2- في اللغة أسماءٌ، سُمِع عن العرب تذكيرها وتأنيثها، منها: [السبيل- الحيّة - العنق - الطريق...]، ولذلك تقول: هذا أو هذه سبيل، وهذا أو هذه حيّة، وهذا أو هذه عنق، وهذا أو هذه طريق،...
3- للإناث حالات مقصورة عليهنّ، لا يشاركهن فيها الذكور، كالحَيْض والإتْآم(1) والطلاق... وأوصافُهنّ في هذه الحالات لا تلحقها التاء، فلا يقال مثلاً: هذه امرأة حائضة أو مُتْئِمة أو طالقة... بل يقال: امرأة حائِض أو مُتْئِم أو طالق(2)...
4- في العربية صفات استعملتها العرب للمذكر والمؤنث بلفظ واحد، مثل: صبور، حنون، جريح، قتيل... فقالوا: رجل صبور وامرأة صبور- ورجل جريح وامرأة جريح...
وقد بحث النحاة واللغويون في هذا قديماً، وذكروا أوزانه، ومواضع استعماله، وما شذ منه وما استثني... حتى إذا كان العصر الحديث، وقف مجمع اللغة العربية بالقاهرة عند هذه المسألة وبحث فيها، ثم خلص من ذلك إلى أن أجاز لحاقَ تاء التأنيث، كلَّ مؤنّث من الصفات. وبناء على ذلك يجوز أن يقال اليوم: رجل صبور وامرأة صبورة، ورجل جريح وامرأة جريحة، ورجل معطار وامرأة معطارة، ورجل معطير وامرأة معطيرة(3) ...
فمَن شاء أن يسلك اليوم هذا السبيل السهل فلا لوم عليه، ولا يعاب قوله. ومن شاء أن يأخذ بالطريقة القديمة، وهي الفصيحة
If anyone where fit to 'translate' or interpret Quranic text it would have been the prophet Mohammed himself. have you see tafseer Mohammed SAW? There is a reason the Quran is described as such 'la tanqati3 3ajaeboh'
Its wonders will never cease.
and that is why some scholars like sheikh isha3rawi when attempting to interpret the Quran called his book 'khawtir al'quran' not tafseer al'quran.
Semantics.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
a person can only yajtahid, and when one learns something new, one shares their findings. many things not known then are known now which renders the book subject to a another discerning look-- You are certainly welcome to think of it as just another book but not render your own exegesis to it unless you are a Muslim scholar and are in concensus!
Oh, but my position, as I was saying, is according to the consensus. At least all the consensus I could find.
Just how recent is the discovery of this miracle? Because Tafseer ul-Muneer is a pretty recent publication.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
bootinha is jam3 mo'aneth to non 3aqil so yes it is plural feminine bootenhunnaa is jam3 mo'anath salim to a thinking being. were you hoping I'd not know that?
Let me translate this statement. Ha is plural feminine for a non-intelligent, so yes it is plural feminine. Hunna is plural feminine to a thinking being.
Are you referring to the very rule you have been rejecting? Feminine single form pronoun used for a plural non-intelligent female noun? Though you have excused male plurals. But what proof do you have of that? After all, we have Surah Takweer, containing male plural non-intelligent nouns, conjugated as singular feminine. Your position weakens...
Incidentally, jam3 mo2annath salim is a term used for nouns not pronouns, and only those plural nouns which end with an alif and ta2 maftoohah at the end, like muslimaat. For the pronoun hunna, you would say, jam3 mo2annath lil 3oqala2.
Oh, but my position, as I was saying, is according to the consensus. At least all the consensus I could find.
That is simply cognitive conservatism.. you've narrowed your search and found what you are looking for!
Just how recent is the discovery of this miracle? Because Tafseer ul-Muneer is a pretty recent publication.
First I read of it, was from Dr. Gary Miller, who studied the Quran for 25 years before converting!
Let me translate this statement. Ha is plural feminine for a non-intelligent, so yes it is plural feminine. Hunna is plural feminine to a thinking being.
Are you referring to the very rule you have been rejecting? Feminine single form pronoun used for a plural non-intelligent female noun? Though you have excused male plurals. But what proof do you have of that? After all, we have Surah Takweer, containing male plural non-intelligent nouns, conjugated as singular feminine. Your position weakens...
Incidentally, jam3 mo2annath salim is a term used for nouns not pronouns, and only those plural nouns which end with an alif and ta2 maftoohah at the end, like muslimaat. For the pronoun hunna, you would say, jam3 mo2annath lil 3oqala2.
I have included an entire link above to Arabic grammar, and as stated prior I don't wish to descend to word play of what you think you've mustered in the classroom last night!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
فأما الأول: [رجل]، فمذكر حقيقي، لأن له مؤنثاً من جنسه. وأمّا الثاني: [كتاب]، فمذكر غير حقيقي، إذ ليس له مؤنث من جنسه، وإنما اصطلح أبناء اللغة على اعتباره مذكراً.
ومثال المؤنث: [امرأة] و[دار].
فأمّا الأول: [امرأة] فمؤنث حقيقي، لأن له مذكراً من جنسه. وأمّا الثاني: [دار] فمؤنث غير حقيقي، إذ ليس له مذكر من جنسه، وإنما اصطلح أبناء اللغة على اعتباره مؤنثاً.
ملاحظات عظيمة القيمة:
1- يغلب على الاسم المؤنث أن تلحق آخره: ألفٌ مقصورة مثل: [سلمى]، أو ألفٌ ممدودة مثل [حسناء]، أو تاء مربوطة مثل: [خديجة].
2- في اللغة أسماءٌ، سُمِع عن العرب تذكيرها وتأنيثها، منها: [السبيل- الحيّة - العنق - الطريق...]، ولذلك تقول: هذا أو هذه سبيل، وهذا أو هذه حيّة، وهذا أو هذه عنق، وهذا أو هذه طريق،...
3- للإناث حالات مقصورة عليهنّ، لا يشاركهن فيها الذكور، كالحَيْض والإتْآم(1) والطلاق... وأوصافُهنّ في هذه الحالات لا تلحقها التاء، فلا يقال مثلاً: هذه امرأة حائضة أو مُتْئِمة أو طالقة... بل يقال: امرأة حائِض أو مُتْئِم أو طالق(2)...
4- في العربية صفات استعملتها العرب للمذكر والمؤنث بلفظ واحد، مثل: صبور، حنون، جريح، قتيل... فقالوا: رجل صبور وامرأة صبور- ورجل جريح وامرأة جريح...
وقد بحث النحاة واللغويون في هذا قديماً، وذكروا أوزانه، ومواضع استعماله، وما شذ منه وما استثني... حتى إذا كان العصر الحديث، وقف مجمع اللغة العربية بالقاهرة عند هذه المسألة وبحث فيها، ثم خلص من ذلك إلى أن أجاز لحاقَ تاء التأنيث، كلَّ مؤنّث من الصفات. وبناء على ذلك يجوز أن يقال اليوم: رجل صبور وامرأة صبورة، ورجل جريح وامرأة جريحة، ورجل معطار وامرأة معطارة، ورجل معطير وامرأة معطيرة(3) ...
فمَن شاء أن يسلك اليوم هذا السبيل السهل فلا لوم عليه، ولا يعاب قوله. ومن شاء أن يأخذ بالطريقة القديمة، وهي الفصيحة
I have included an entire link above to Arabic grammar, and as stated prior I don't wish to descend to word play of what you think you've mustered in the classroom last night!
A thread debating grammar is all about 'word play'. What else can we talk about here?
I have seen no grammar links from your person, as is to why I posted here well you yourself stated in your subsequent post, this thread is about words (which I contend is the purpose of it) however, I have linked it to those interested in learning Arabic grammar and not necessarily for your person, as you can see, I didn't quote you in the process, denoting that it isn't directed at you!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
A thread debating grammar is all about 'word play'. What else can we talk about here?
The thread is in fact about your exegetical examination of Quranic text. where you are neither an Islamic scholar nor an Arabic speaker to muster either with adeptness!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Butoon is masculine plural.
Ha is singular feminine, not plural feminine. Plural feminine is Hunna..
format_quote Originally Posted by Faye
Let me translate this statement. Ha is plural feminine for a non-intelligent, so yes it is plural feminine. Hunna is plural feminine to a thinking being.
.
BTW not that I want to be a b**** or anything, but since you are speaking of ones position weakening, which one of your two previous posts is correct? when you hasten to show error you might just fall into it yourself.. and in the process detract from your reliability...
I am not saying you are wrong in some of what you have shared, but I dislike your style.. it hasn't an ounce of humility, nor a willingness to accept opposition, yeild to the possibility to a counter opinion even when examples are given... which makes me really lose interest!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
BTW not that I want to be a b**** or anything, but since you are speaking of ones position weakening, which one of your two previous posts is correct? when you hasten to show error you might just fall into it yourself.. and in the process detract from your reliability...
One post is a translation of the Arabic words you used in your post. The other is my own opinion.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I am not saying you are wrong in some of what you have shared,
Are you saying I am right????
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
but I dislike your style.. it hasn't an ounce of humility, nor a willingness to accept opposition, yeild to the possibility to a counter opinion even when examples are given... which makes me really lose interest!
I am sorry, but the point is that the day I saw this thread, I considered the Naml ayat, implications and so on before posting. As for humility, am I not your equal? You're supposed to show humility to Allah, not each other (I think). As for the counter arguments, I considered each of them seriously, and responded to them. In the beginning I was not aware of the multiple stomachs stuff and when that came to light, I was willing to change my position until it became obvious that they were two stomachs, not plural in the Arabic sense.
As for not being willing to accept opposition, well this is not a vague theoretical matter to me in which no defined answer can be reached. In Pakistani Madrassas they teach Nahw (grammar) like they teach Math in schools, everything clearcut, precise and defined by rules. Would you accept it if somebody claimed 2+2=5, or even make a compromise on it along the lines of, you are entitled to your opinion, or, you might possibly be true? It just is wrong.
I have seen no grammar links from your person, as is to why I posted here well you yourself stated in your subsequent post, this thread is about words (which I contend is the purpose of it) however, I have linked it to those interested in learning Arabic grammar and not necessarily for your person, as you can see, I didn't quote you in the process, denoting that it isn't directed at you!
I am sorry if I have offended you sis. Forgive me to, you are entitled your opinion, but its wrong!
the sister pointed out that naml is plural, and then followed by idkhouli. you are saying that singular femanine verb is used to refer to plural of non thinking objects. then why isn't idhkholee, instead of idhkhoulou, not used?
it is very clear sis, that the bees are female. I was being very objective by starting this thread. I have concluded its is blatently refering to the female bees. Anyway, forgive me for getting angry.
The thread is in fact about your exegetical examination of Quranic text. where you are neither an Islamic scholar nor an Arabic speaker to muster either with adeptness!
I am halfway through the studies needed to become an 'aalimah (Islamic Scholar), though I'm not done yet. But our Arabic syllabus should be done this time next year. I thought you understood that I was in a Madrassa, sister. And I do speak Arabic, though I am not a native speaker.
As my grammar 'wordplay' does not change presently used and respected translations, I don't think this applies.
I am sorry if I have offended you sis. Forgive me to, you are entitled your opinion, but its wrong!
the sister pointed out that naml is plural, and then followed by idkhouli. you are saying that singular femanine is used to refer to plural of non thinking objects. then why isn't idhkholee, instead of idhkhoulou, not used?
it is very clear sis, that the bees are female. I was being very objective by starting this thread. I have concluded its is blatently refering to the female bees. Anyway, forgive me for getting angry.
Of course ukhty.. I hate to be this way with a Muslim (believe me I am never that way with a Muslim).. I may have been displacing anger I had toward other members on you and I am sorry
I like to adhere to this verse
أَشِدَّاء عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاء بَيْنَهُمْ
48:29----------strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.----------
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks