The 30th word of verse (2:221) is an imperfect verb (فعل مضارع). The verb is third person masculine singular and is in the indicative mood (مرفوع). The verb's triliteral root is dāl ʿayn wāw (د ع و).
The analysis above refers to the 221st
verse of chapter 2 (sūrat
Sahih International: And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men [to your women] until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.
10th May, 2011
I was just wondering about the yadu'w verb (where allaah is the faail). You have it as singular. I am wondering what is the alif at the end (after the dhamiyr waaw)? and if it is plural (ta'dhimiy) then why did the nuwn drop? jazakumulllaah
This is a very good question - would some one of the message board care to reply to this?
Any suggestions for this?
My suggestion would be (and others please do add here) that the verb is singular, the waw is not dhameer and there is no nun dropped off.
This verb is what is labelled in Arabic as an irregular verb (having alif [note: not hamza], waw or yaa as one of it's original root letters) and so their forms are never predictable and can mimic other forms such as the plural. Having those three letters (referred to as weak letters) means that as the verb changes from tense to tense or from aspect to aspect the three letters can be changed to any other weak letter.
This verb's original (past tense) form was: دعى and became يدعو in its imperfective/present tense form. It is supposed to end with a dhamma but it would be too heavy to pronounce it that way and so we usually put a sukoon on the letter, but account for the correct marking when doing the description for i'raab.
The addition of the ا seems to me to be unique to the Qur'an (not sure if others can add here on this point) and it is what allows for the madd (elongated sound) to take place. It does not however change the meaning. There are many other verbs that behave this way when becoming imperfect:
قال = يقول
باع = يبيع
مشى = يمشي
Apart from the initial yaa at the front of the verbs, there is no pattern to determine what they'll be. We could go on and on, but I hope this has shed some light on the query and maybe others can add to it.
Mazhar A. Nurani
The entry in the Source book clarifies
[فعل مضارع مرفوع بالضمة المقدرة على الواو للثقل] and [الفاعل:ضمير مستتر جوازاً تقديره:هُوَ]
Originally perhaps يَدْعَوُ
Alif seems, in the Qur'aan, as فارقة not to confuse and consider Waw as part of the verb. Madda is for reason of following delicate word Hamza with vowel.
Thank you both kindly for this excellent high quality response!
11th May, 2011
just wanted to make a few corrections to the above as its not entirely correct.
-the base letters are daal ayn and waaw (its a naaqis waawy verb from baab nasara)
-there is no such verb in the arabic language that has an alif as a base letter, actualy there are verbs which have a hamzah as a base letter (hence the name mahmuwz)
-(if were talking about singular masc 3rd person) the rule of why it became yad'uw is a bit more than that ; when the laam position of mudhaari' (including the nasb and jazm tables) is a waaw or yaa with its appropriate harakah before it (dhammah for waaw and kasrah for yaa) then the waaw or yaa will become saakinah. If it is a fathah then it changes to an alif.
- it was originaly yad'uwu (on the same pattern as yansuru.
- if it was plural then it was yad'uwuwna, if laam position is waaw or yaa before it an appropriate short vowel and after it an appropriate long vowel, then the weak letter( waaw or yaa) becomes saakin, then you have yad'uwwwna (then ijtimaa'us-saakinayn (gathering of too saakinah) the waaw or yaa drops, becoming yad'uwna). Then if/when it becomes nasb or jazm ( a nasb or jazm giving particle is governing it)the nuwn drops and is left as yad'uwna(with an alif of jama' after the waaw pronoun. which is exactly what the form is in question.
Allaah ta 'Aalaa does use singular and plural for himself but im quite set on finding out the rule for either situation (be it singular or plural)
as regards the madd, it is actualy because of the hamzah after it (in the harf ilaa) as this is madd-ul-munfasil.
just so you know there is always rules that will tell us the changes and what they will be. This is what the scholars of sarf did, codify the rules based on the qur'aan.
Anyone who has studied sarf (more specificaly ta'liylaat ) would be able to tell you why and what happened.
the alif that is after it is definitly there for a reason and its very possible that it could be plural, as this would make more sense, and if that is the case then my question still remains ; why did the nuwn i'iraabiyyah drop? and if it is singular then im hoping someone can find an actual rule or something solid as to why it is there, it accurs a few other places in the qur'aan.
ive consulted a few ulamaa' as well and they were not sure.
so im sincerely hoping someone can find the answer for me and i will make much duaa for them.
12th May, 2011
You raise an interesting point. Quranic spelling (the Uthmani rasm) is prior to the modern spelling system where we spell the word without the alif. Elsewhere in the Quran, alif is omitted when there should be spelled with one, and not necessarily to allow variant readings like the word "maalik" or "malik" in Sura Fatiha.
Refer to 12:108:4 or 72:20:3. Is there any suggestion that these verbs could be other than singular?
well the suggestion would be i guess the alif itself as this form would be identical to the plural form in the nasb and jazm tables (after the nuwn has dropped in yad'uwna) otherwise i cant think of any benefit to just have an alif that doesnt do or change anything (pronounciation wise), as the madd would be the same without the alif. When Allaah ta Aalaa omits or adds something some are of the opinion that its sometimes to keep the wazn or could be for other rhetorical benefit. I am no expert in balaaghah so there could be an explanation which is an ABC for the scholar or student of the knowledge.
Like i said the only answer which makes sense but still doesnt really answer it fully is that its just jama' Ta'dhiymy, but then the nuwn question comes back.
Of course Allaah knows much better and inshaa Allaah the nawys and sarfys of jannah will probably find out from Allaah himself.
13th May, 2011
Salaam, it seems this discussion is keeping us very interested. Having re-read through the above comments, and reading up on the issue I have to re-state that this verb was never meant to be plural (not in form or meaning). I agree with brothers Abdul Rahman and Mazhar when they point out that the alif is purely for script purposes in the Qur'an (and only in the Qur'an an Uthmanic addition) and perhaps also to serve as a marker that the final Waw is not from the root letters of the verb originally.
Br. Dawuwd I think we are all saying the same thing as far as the verb and its conjugation is concerned (except I have to disagree and say a verb can actually have alif, not just hamza, as its root lette r(e.g. قال). But to say that it was supposed to be plural and then the nuun dropped and alif was added (as a plural marker) I think is slightly contrary to the style and rhetoric of the Qur'an. The Qur'anic text is not supposed to be enigmatic, it is clear and straight-forward and it's not supposed to leave us not knowing important information etc... (to say it was supposed to be plural then became singular and .... is confusing why would it be that way?)
I will post the next message below
continuing...You say that 'the only answer that makes sense but still doesn't really answer it fully is that its jama' ta'dhiymy' How do you know that? When Allah uses WE or as we call it in Rhetoric the 'majestic we' (show of power) it is mostly (as far as I know) in the past tense أردنا or أوحينا or أنزلنا or نزلنا (this present tense use has an important semantic function) and there is also the use of the overt pronoun نحن.
When hadhf (deletion of letters for style) takes place it usually the yaa (personal pronoun) فاتقون the final yaa (fa-tta-quu-nee) is deleted so it reads as fa-tta-quun instead. There is no evidence of the 'majestic we' (jama' Ta'dhiymy) used in the way you say or in the form of this verb or other. Based on what I know it seems unclear to me that this verb is plural? I hope others can kindly add to the discussion.
"Based on what I know it seems unclear to me that this verb is plural? I hope others can kindly add to the discussion. "
Same word with same structure is also used in (1)2:221(2)10:25(3)39:08=3
In 39:08 the hidden pronoun refers back not to Allah but Insaan.
Wa alaykum salaam br. Mazhar,
Yes the examples alhamdulilah show the verb in both its past and present uses and there are no contradictions (no plural form to refer to Allah etc). The final example of 39:08:5 (دعا) does refer to insaan (human being) though it might mean many humans it is a collective noun (which is treated as singular like قوم) and throughout the Qur'an it is addressed in its singular sense/form (see for example: 10:12:3, 17:11:7, 19:66:2, 19:67:3).
Just a correction on my suggestion above I said نزلنا was a present tense in fact I meant to say past my apologies. Jazakumullahu khairan
Salam Br. Daawuwd.
This alif is simply alif ziyada,a peculiarity of the Uthmanic script. If there exists another explanation, it would most likely have been raised and answered, since now it is more than 1400 years after the revelation, by our illustrious scholars. If there were any hint of ambiguity as you suggest there would be volumes already written over the centuries discussing this subject. As it is, there is none whatsoever.
Again, rest assured that the extra alif is there as a spelling convention. You find this throughout the Qur'an -- letters being added (and not pronounced) and letters omitted but pronounced. Students of ilm al-rasm (the science of Quranic spelling) will tell you that this is one of the ways by which Allah preserves the integrity of the Quranic text. Wallahu a'alam.
Fs, just wanted to point out that قال was originaly Qawala,(base letters Qaaf Waaw and Laam) and there is a sarf rule that changed it, ( waaw or yaa mutaharrik preceded by a maftuwHah (letter with fathah) then it changes to alif. same as باع was originaly baya'a yabyi'u, qaala yaquwlu is from baab nasara and is a waawy, baa'a yabiy'u is from dharaba yadhribu and is a yaa'iy and khaafa yakhaafu was originaly khawafa yakhwafu from baab sami'a yasma'u which from baab sami'a can have both waawy and yaa'iy. (nasara is only waawy and dharaba is only yaa'iy)
this rule known as the simple change to alif rule to some or the qaala rule, is famous for this type of verb ( ajwaf - waaw or yaa in the 'ayn position ) but also applies to other irregular verbs,
Im sorry but i really dont think theirs any ikhtilaaf about alif (not hamzah) being a base letter and if im wrong please let me know.
as for the rest, im not saying it is plural or singular, i was originally asking a question and putting in my observations, that this form matches as i mentioned above(plural from nasb and jazm tables), and if it is ziyaadah then was is the difference between this verb and another verb which doesnt have the alif ziyaadah, it would be like saying (na'uwdhu billaah) that it was just added for no reason. You are correct there are other places where this same occurrence happens, but like i said, i am wondering what would be the difference with or without it. Like in surah al Ahzaab verse 66 , the word comes الرسولا . theres either a rule that makes something consistent or an exception that was caused by a reason.
The message of the Quraan is clear, but some of the things within it are enigmatic or we just wont know. like Alif laam meem and the others similar to it. There are things which we cannot understand, we shouldn't talk about, but is compulsory to believe in as well which is mentioned within.
The reason why the alif is there is not that important for everyone. I doubt Allaah Ta 'Aalaa will question us about it. (but im still curious to find a strong answer with a daliyl)
I dont meen to argue the point this far as i am not on the internet for that purpose. I was just hoping someone would know something about it with some proof or explanation of a scholar or knowledgeable person.
* i forgot to mention qaala,baa'a and khaafa i used because those are the only three possible patterns from thulaathiy mujarrad and which the scholars use as models sometimes.
"(plural from nasb and jazm tables)". For nasb and jazm we need an عامل, a governing agent. Here and in your example الرسولا the last letter is actually written
like this اْ , alif with circular sign above it. This is not the part of the word and appears at the end. When alif is the part of word, it does not have circle above it. It also facilitates Pause [وقف]. Another example is يَتَسَنَّه in 2:259 where last consonant ه is added for وقف. I hope it clarifies the issue under discussion.
actually what i meant and said was that it has the same form (identical to them and not to the singular), i didnt say there was an aamil.
The example of الرسولا is only relevant in a general way, i was basically asking why is it there, there must be a reason, not saying that it has anything to do with the form in question nor was i saying it is plural.
im not sure if you made a mistake in your statement , maybe you have it backwards, as the alif - اْ with sukuwn is in words(and part of the word) when the alif is not pronounced, like the dhameer anaa (pronounced ana) and you said if it is part of the word then it doesn't have the sukuwn, but i think the form in question doesnt have the sukuwn on it as far as i can see from the scripts that ive looked at..
If you have it backwards that thats still not entirely true because words do have alifs in them as part of the word.
Either way, the alif that shows up in the plural form is not even part of the word nor the pronoun, but its not in the singular form, and it is in the plural forms (al-maadhiy and mudhaari' jazm and nasb tables) this is why i am wondering why would it be there if its a singular.
Im sorry but that is not correct at all, in يَتَسَنَّه the base letters are س ن ه and its certainly not there for waqf, its saakinah because of the lam (jazm giving harf right before it) its from baab tafa''ul, the taa (after the yaa) in it and the doubled letter ('ayn position) are its extra letters, as it is from thulaathiy maziyd fiyh verbs. its wazn is : tafa'ala yatafa'alu - tasannaha yatasannahu.
17th May, 2011
I found out that the alif is relevant to one or some of the different qiraa'ah. I wasnt able to get any details regarding it yet though, still kind of curious but my heart is a bit more at peace. If anyone does find the details please do share.
You can sign in to add a message if this information could be improved or requires discussion.
Copyright © Kais
Dukes, 2009-2017. E-mail: email@example.com. This is an open source project.