2,743
edits
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring - Part One: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Muddy Spring - Part One (view source)
Revision as of 20:08, 14 March 2016
, 14 March 2016→Could it mean he reached [a place at] the setting and rising time of the sun?
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
As well as the problems above, there are problems specific to Dr. Naik’s claim that the relevant words mean “until when he reached at the time of sunset, he found it…”. The verb balagha is always transitive when it means to reach, and always has an explicit object elsewhere in the Qur’an, but in Dr. Naik’s interpretation, balagha is used as an intransitive verb, which even if it was technically allowed, would make no sense here. It is allowed in Arabic for the object (maf’ul bihi) of a transitive verb to be omitted (mahdhuf), but only if the object has already been mentioned, since otherwise the sentence would make no sense.<ref>See post #8 [http://www.lqtoronto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241 here] - lqtoronto.com</ref> That is not the case here, so we wouldn’t know what Dhu’l Qarnayn reached and the sentence would make no sense. | As well as the problems above, there are problems specific to Dr. Naik’s claim that the relevant words mean “until when he reached at the time of sunset, he found it…”. The verb balagha is always transitive when it means to reach, and always has an explicit object elsewhere in the Qur’an, but in Dr. Naik’s interpretation, balagha is used as an intransitive verb, which even if it was technically allowed, would make no sense here. It is allowed in Arabic for the object (maf’ul bihi) of a transitive verb to be omitted (mahdhuf), but only if the object has already been mentioned, since otherwise the sentence would make no sense.<ref>See post #8 [http://www.lqtoronto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241 here] - lqtoronto.com</ref> That is not the case here, so we wouldn’t know what Dhu’l Qarnayn reached and the sentence would make no sense. | ||
As noted at the beginning of this article, maghriba and matliAAa have the accusative case ending, which you'd expect if they are the objects of the verb balagha. If maghriba alshshamsi and matliAAa a'''l'''shshamsi are not the things reached, but instead are redundantly stating the time of day (redundant because it mentions the sun setting/rising immediately afterwards), they would interrupt the flow of the sentence before it continues with the wajadaha phrase (“he found it…”). It would be a ludicrously awkward, and misleading way to phrase such a meaning. Hassan Radwan, who taught Qur’anic Arabic for many years, describes Dr. Naik’s claim as “nonsense”.<ref>See reply #2 [http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9871.0 here] - councilofexmuslims.com</ref> | As noted at the beginning of this article, maghriba and matliAAa have the accusative case ending, which you'd expect if they are the objects of the verb balagha. If maghriba alshshamsi and matliAAa a'''l'''shshamsi are not the things reached, but instead are redundantly stating the time of day (redundant because it mentions the sun setting/rising immediately afterwards), they would interrupt the flow of the sentence before it continues with the wajadaha phrase (“he found it…”). It would be a ludicrously awkward, and misleading way to phrase such a meaning. Hassan Radwan, who taught Qur’anic Arabic for many years before leaving Islam, describes Dr. Naik’s claim as “nonsense”.<ref>See reply #2 [http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9871.0 here] - councilofexmuslims.com</ref> | ||
===Balagha cannot mean that a person reached the time of an external event=== | ===Balagha cannot mean that a person reached the time of an external event=== | ||