Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not a linguistic expert of English, I need some assistance on a matter of linguistic.
There is this issue I have with 51:56 of the Quran which states;
Wama khalaqtu aljinna waal-insa illa liyaAAbudooni
And not I have created the jinn and the mankind except that they worship Me.
I understand the 'not' and 'except' above are merely for the purpose of emphasis.
If we take out this emphasis, we remove the 'not' and replace 'except' with 'only'
to get to the main basic meaning of the above statement which I believe is;
And [] I have created the jinn and the mankind [only] that they worship Me.
The question is linguistically, am I right to state' 1. "And not I have created the jinn and the mankind except that they worship Me."
other than the emphasis is the same with; 2. "And [] I have created the jinn and the mankind [only] that they worship Me."
If I am right, what is the linguistic rule that is applied to equate 1 and 2.
At a glance I thought I am applying the rule of the double negatives,
'not' is a negative and 'except' is a type of negative, thus a negative.
In the case of a double negative, one can remove the two negatives and the meaning still remain the same.
But it appear that the above statement do not has an obvious double negative.
If it is not a double negative, so what is the grammar rule that enable one to remove 'not' and replace 'except' with 'only'.
I have done extensive research on the above matter but unable to find a straightforward and some of the linguistics jargon are too advanced for me to grasp.
My Question;
What is the grammar rule that enable one to remove 'not' and replace 'except' with 'only' to reconcile 1 wth 2 above.
Khalif's views which I disagreed, posted the following;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif
51:56 states:
"I did not create the jinn and humans except [that] they worship ME".
This is exactly the same as:
"I did not create the jinn and humans to worship except ME".
I do not agree with the above.
It does not follow any grammatical rule other than deliberate removal of words 'that' and 'they' and shifting "except" forward.
Any one agree with the above.
If so, what is the grammatical, syntax or morphological rule?
Khalif's views which I disagreed, posted the following;
I do not agree with the above.
It does not follow any grammatical rule other than deliberate removal of words 'that' and 'they' and shifting "except" forward.
Any one agree with the above.
If so, what is the grammatical, syntax or morphological rule?
No the interpretation of that phrase as written by Khalif is wrong, as to the English translation at least (Khalif may know what the Arabic says and so understands it differently, it could just be a poor translation into English). It means he (or He ) created humans for no other reason than to worship Him. ( The phrase does not state they should also worship no other, though it might be implied in context of the rest of the book - who knows). In other words "I only created mankind so that they would worship me"). But obviously other behaviors are not excluded by that phrase - like eating, drinking, thinking, and even worshipping others in addition.
Your interpretation does not matter.
You need to forget any interpretations and understand the word of allah ONLY the way it was given and ONLY the way it was said to be used - in the original language.
otherwise, it is more than preposterous to make any conclusions of any nature.
Besides, this has been discussed in Islam section and you know that.
Besides, it's a pattern in Abrahamic religions. 4“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
If you want a philosophical explanation to this, it's quite easy actually.
Egregore. Egregore is everywhere where you have collective thinking attuned to a specific idea. Basically, where there is two thinking of same, there is egregore of that idea.
Thus, two worshipping same create an egregore of that worship. As egregores feed off thinking, off mental energy in it, they grow more and more powerful, as more and more worshipers "join the club", power of such egregore grows. Egregores are like a two way central though. They are influenced by thinking but they also influence back. This is why humans, connected to an egregore, "think alike" even though they might be spaces apart as thought is non spacial.
Egregores are, ultimately, controlled by those who know how egregores operate and have technologies of how to inject specific ideas, trends, etc, into them.
There are all kinds of egregores. Corporate meme, eg. Religious egregores, aka gods. Political egregores, aka "party spirit". You name it.
Of course, such egregore is "interested" like any highly complicated organism, in its "survival" and "wants" more and more worship. It is akin to an ameba, constantly seeking more and more food.
Very basic indeed. Very simple to understand.
No the interpretation of that phrase as written by Khalif is wrong, as to the English translation at least (Khalif may know what the Arabic says and so understands it differently, it could just be a poor translation into English).
What is in Arabic is very clear from the Quran, i.e.
Quote:
Arabic: وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ Transliteration: Wama khalaqtu aljinna waal-insa illa liyaAAbudooni Word for word: And not I have created the jinn and the mankind except that they worship Me.
The word for word above is exactly the same as the Arabic syntax which is this case is the same as the English [albeit old English] syntax.
There are omissions Khalif's interpretation into English.
Besides "that they worship Me" is represented by a complete phrase in Arabic i.e. لِيَعْبُدُونِ, thus it is wrong to break it up for this purpose.
Quote:
It means he (or He ) created humans for no other reason than to worship Him. ( The phrase does not state they should also worship no other, though it might be implied in context of the rest of the book - who knows).
In other words "I only created mankind so that they would worship me").
But obviously other behaviors are not excluded by that phrase - like eating, drinking, thinking, and even worshipping others in addition.
In this case, the implications [possibly many] are not to the point.
So your
"I only created mankind so that they would worship me")
looks like agrees with mine and also 23 other English translations of the Quran that I have referred to.
The other 26 English translations of the Quran are similar to the original without removing 'not' and 'except' i.e.
"I did not create the jinn and the mankind except that they worship Me"
Khalif's interpretation [with additions to change the meaning] is the only one of the kind, i.e. 1 against the 99.99% of those [many] I have read off from the internet.
Btw, if there is a linguistic explanation, that would be better, i.e. this is the answer because such and such a grammar or syntax rule said so.
Last edited by Continuum; 01-10-2017 at 09:14 PM..
Your interpretation does not matter.
You need to forget any interpretations and understand the word of allah ONLY the way it was given and ONLY the way it was said to be used - in the original language.
otherwise, it is more than preposterous to make any conclusions of any nature.
Besides, this has been discussed in Islam section and you know that.
Besides, it's a pattern in Abrahamic religions. 4“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
When we reach such a stage of the nuances, the linguistic precision is critical.
I believe Verse 51:56 has the following standard model and format;
not [sentence1, phrase1 or clause1] except [sentence2, phrase2 or clause2]
The verses you provided do not have the same format, though the content may be similar.
I have researched and there are more than 200++ sentences in the Quran that have the same format, i.e
not [sentence, phrase, clause] except [sentence, phrase, clause]
There are more than 10 verses with similar verb 'created' i.e.
not [created .... ...] except [sentence, phrase, clause]
From the above, we can infer and abstract the following formula, i.e.
If such a linguistic format exists,
not [sentence1, phrase1, clause1] except [sentence2, phrase2, clause2]
then we can remove the 'not' and replace 'except' with 'only' on a universal basis to arrive at its basic meaning;
My problem is what are the linguistic grammar and syntax rules that allow the above procedures.
Quote:
If you want a philosophical explanation to this, it's quite easy actually.
Egregore. Egregore is everywhere where you have collective thinking attuned to a specific idea. Basically, where there is two thinking of same, there is egregore of that idea.
Thus, two worshipping same create an egregore of that worship. As egregores feed off thinking, off mental energy in it, they grow more and more powerful, as more and more worshipers "join the club", power of such egregore grows. Egregores are like a two way central though. They are influenced by thinking but they also influence back. This is why humans, connected to an egregore, "think alike" even though they might be spaces apart as thought is non spacial.
Egregores are, ultimately, controlled by those who know how egregores operate and have technologies of how to inject specific ideas, trends, etc, into them.
There are all kinds of egregores. Corporate meme, eg. Religious egregores, aka gods. Political egregores, aka "party spirit". You name it.
Of course, such egregore is "interested" like any highly complicated organism, in its "survival" and "wants" more and more worship. It is akin to an ameba, constantly seeking more and more food.
Very basic indeed. Very simple to understand.
But my ?? is still what are the linguistic grammar and syntax rules that allow the above procedures.
It is the rules of the double negative or other rules?
Last edited by Continuum; 01-10-2017 at 09:17 PM..
1. Bakthi - for those very inclined the devotional approaches
2. Jnana - those inclined to the intellectual approach
3. Hatha, Karma - those inclined to actions
4. Raja
5. Other combinational yoga.
All the above must eventually end up with Bakthi
I happened to be [not my choice but born with] very inclined to Jnana path, thus the OP.
There is very little to none Googling available for egregore in the meaning I refer to. My knowledge on the subject is based on two sources:
1. Thinking and Destiny by HW Percival, where it is referred to as "collective thinking" and when "god" is explained, as in a "human god, product of human thinking".
2. very substantial Russian research on the matter, done by Concept of the Social Safety folks. They mention that Knight Templars were in the know on how to operate egregores and Baphomet was egregore they belonged to.
I know they have English dubbed somewhere on YT version of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt3F...3BF25&index=15
But those videos are popular watered down version. To go through the entire science, and I mean - science - of egregores, you will need to go to their websites and read through, in the original language.
As of the linguistic aspect of your Q. This is a typical error of any person in the 21st century trying to interpret ancient texts in foreign language. Even if you were born an Arab and spoke Pharcy from the crib, you will not understand the language of Q'uran, as it is a dead language. Language, it's meaning, is live while it is - live. As times change, meaning, understandings of a word, change. Then, the original meaning of a word, stemmed from that time particular environment, culture, beliefs, inclinations, is gone.
then, one simply is trying to transpose his MODERN idea of a word onto something that is centuries old and dead.
Radjeesh said - When you say, you follow in footprints of Jesus - that is exactly what you do. You follow the footprints, impressions in the sand of time, but not the Jesus itself. His light was gone when he left the world. You are not following THAT light anymore. Only footprints. It needs to be mentioned, regarding Q'uran, that there is no need to understand or somehow interpret it. Allah is any language known and unknown. It is in any prayer, no matter what language it is in. As it it is in the thoughts of the one who prays. In his intentions. In the praying person. Allah KNOWS. So why bother with what you bother with?
As it is your ego speaking. Trying to make you equal to god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) created humans for no other reason than to worship Him. ( The phrase does not state they should also worship no other, though it might be implied in context of the rest of the book - who knows). In other words "I only created mankind so that they would worship me"). But obviously other behaviors are not excluded by that phrase - like eating, drinking, thinking, and even worshipping others in addition.
