u/burakdm

Malumunuz yerleştirme sonuçları açıklandı. Marmara Üniversitesi yerleşme sonucum. Normalde e-kayıtların 24’ünde başlayacağını biliyordum fakat benim yerleştirme sonucumda 27-28 Ağustos yazıyor. Bu, e-kayıt yaptıramayacağım anlamına mı geliyor? Sebebi nedir? Aklıma açık öğretim lisesi mezunu olmaktan veya bölümün %100 yabancı dil olmasından başka bir şey gelmiyor.

ورقة وجلشة/جلشاه هي ملحمة فارسية تعود إلى القرن الحادي عشر وتتكون من 2250 بيتا. كتبها الشاعر الفارسي العيوقي مستندا إلى قصة حب عربية. وقد وجدت هذه الصور لدى أحد العمال في المخطوطات باحدى المكتبات هنا في تركيا ولا أظنها موجودة على النت حاليا فأحببت أن أنشرها

sisteme karşı çıktım

https://archive.org/details/son-pdf

There have been claims that the liturgical term āmīn (Amen) derives etymologically from Amon, the chief solar deity of ancient Egypt. I found this hypothesis surprising, as Arabic differs from many languages in that native lexical items are generally analyzed within established morphological and etymological frameworks (ishtiqāq and al-wazn al-ṣarfī). Accordingly, I consulted classical Arabic linguistic sources that discuss the etymology and derivation of the word āmīn in order to examine this claim from the perspective of the Arabic grammatical tradition.

The renowned linguist Ibn Fāris states in Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lughah (1:133):

أمن: الهمزة والميم والنون أصلان متقاربان: أحدهما الأمانة التى هى ضدّ الخيانة، ومعناها سكون القلب، والآخر التصديق. والمعنيان كما قلنا متدانيان (...) ومن الباب الثانى – والله أعلم – قولنا فى الدعاء: آمين، قالوا: تفسيره اللهم افعل.

"The letters hamzah, mīm, and nūn (Aʾ-M-N) constitute two closely related semantic roots: one denotes trustworthiness (amānah), the opposite of betrayal, conveying the sense of tranquility of the heart; the other denotes affirmation or belief. These two meanings are closely connected. (...) From the second root—and God knows best—comes the expression āmīn used in supplication. The scholars explained it to mean: 'O God, grant [this prayer]' or 'O God, answer [it].'"

This passage indicates that āmīn is derived within the Arabic root system from the triliteral root ʾ-M-N, the same root underlying words such as amānah ("trustworthiness") and īmān ("faith, belief"). Accordingly, classical Arabic philology explains the term through the language's native morphological and semantic framework rather than as a borrowing from the name of the Egyptian deity Amon.

A similar explanation is provided by the eminent lexicographer Fīrūzābādī in al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ (p. 1176):

الأمن والآمن، كصاحب: ضد الخوف، أمِنَ، كفرح. (...) وآمن به إيماناً: صدقه. (...) وآمين، بالمد والقصر، وقد يشدد الممدود ويمال أيضاً، عن الواحدي في "البسيط": اسم من أسماء الله تعالى، ومعناه: اللهم استجب، أو كذلك فليكن، أو كذلك فافعل.

"Safety (al-amn) and the secure one (al-āmin) are the opposites of fear. The verb amina follows the pattern of fariḥa. (...) The expression āmana bihi ('he believed in him/it') means 'he affirmed or deemed him truthful.' (...) As for āmīn, it may be pronounced with either a long or short initial vowel, and the long form may also occur with a geminated m. Al-Wāḥidī, in al-Basīṭ, relates that it is one of the names of God, and that its meaning is: 'O Allah, answer [this prayer],' 'So let it be,' or 'Thus do.'"

Like Ibn Fāris, Fīrūzābādī derives āmīn from the Arabic root Aʾ-M-N, associating it with the semantic field of security, trust, and belief. His explanation likewise situates the term within the native Arabic lexical and morphological tradition, rather than treating it as a borrowing from the Egyptian deity Amon.

There have been claims that the liturgical term āmīn (Amen) derives etymologically from Amon, the chief solar deity of ancient Egypt. I found this hypothesis surprising, as Arabic differs from many languages in that native lexical items are generally analyzed within established morphological and etymological frameworks (ishtiqāq and al-wazn al-ṣarfī). Accordingly, I consulted classical Arabic linguistic sources that discuss the etymology and derivation of the word āmīn in order to examine this claim from the perspective of the Arabic grammatical tradition.

The renowned linguist Ibn Fāris states in Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lughah (1:133):

أمن: الهمزة والميم والنون أصلان متقاربان: أحدهما الأمانة التى هى ضدّ الخيانة، ومعناها سكون القلب، والآخر التصديق. والمعنيان كما قلنا متدانيان (...) ومن الباب الثانى – والله أعلم – قولنا فى الدعاء: آمين، قالوا: تفسيره اللهم افعل.

"The letters hamzah, mīm, and nūn (Aʾ-M-N) constitute two closely related semantic roots: one denotes trustworthiness (amānah), the opposite of betrayal, conveying the sense of tranquility of the heart; the other denotes affirmation or belief. These two meanings are closely connected. (...) From the second root—and God knows best—comes the expression āmīn used in supplication. The scholars explained it to mean: 'O God, grant [this prayer]' or 'O God, answer [it].'"

This passage indicates that āmīn is derived within the Arabic root system from the triliteral root ʾ-M-N, the same root underlying words such as amānah ("trustworthiness") and īmān ("faith, belief"). Accordingly, classical Arabic philology explains the term through the language's native morphological and semantic framework rather than as a borrowing from the name of the Egyptian deity Amon.

A similar explanation is provided by the eminent lexicographer Fīrūzābādī in al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ (p. 1176):

الأمن والآمن، كصاحب: ضد الخوف، أمِنَ، كفرح. (...) وآمن به إيماناً: صدقه. (...) وآمين، بالمد والقصر، وقد يشدد الممدود ويمال أيضاً، عن الواحدي في "البسيط": اسم من أسماء الله تعالى، ومعناه: اللهم استجب، أو كذلك فليكن، أو كذلك فافعل.

"Safety (al-amn) and the secure one (al-āmin) are the opposites of fear. The verb amina follows the pattern of fariḥa. (...) The expression āmana bihi ('he believed in him/it') means 'he affirmed or deemed him truthful.' (...) As for āmīn, it may be pronounced with either a long or short initial vowel, and the long form may also occur with a geminated m. Al-Wāḥidī, in al-Basīṭ, relates that it is one of the names of God, and that its meaning is: 'O Allah, answer [this prayer],' 'So let it be,' or 'Thus do.'"

Like Ibn Fāris, Fīrūzābādī derives āmīn from the Arabic root Aʾ-M-N, associating it with the semantic field of security, trust, and belief. His explanation likewise situates the term within the native Arabic lexical and morphological tradition, rather than treating it as a borrowing from the Egyptian deity Amon.

قبل سنوات خطر ببالي سؤال حينما كنت أقرأ ورد حفظ القرآن على شيخي وهو: لماذا تتعدد ألفاظ حكاية قول واحد أو واقعة واحدة في القرآن؟ وكيف يحكي القرآن عن القرون الأولى بالعربية مع أن لغتهم لم تكن عربية؟ ولم أبحث عن أجوبة هذا السؤال بالتفصيل حتى مررت بنقل أثناء قراءتي لشرح علل الترمذي ورأيت فائدة مناسبة لنشره.

قال الإمام ابن رجب في شرح علل الترمذي في الكلام عن مسألة رواية الحديث بالمعنى (1/149): "وروي عن الحسن أنه استدل لذلك (أي: لجواز الرواية بالمعنى) بأن الله يقص قصص القرون السالفة بغير لغاتها" ا.هـ. هذا أقدم مصدر وجدته ينبه إلى هذه المسألة مع أني فتشت عن مصادر تُسند هذا القول إلى الحسن البصري بإسناد لكن لم أقف عليه. ويفهم من كلامه هذا أن حكاية القرآن عن قصص أو كلام القرون الأولى لم تكن بالنظر إلى دقائق الألفاظ وإنما كانت بالنظر إلى المعنى الجوهري للوقائع.

ومثله حُكي عن حماد بن سلمة غير مسند. قال الإمام السخاوي في فتح المغيث بشرح ألفية الحديث (3/144): "واحتج حماد بن سلمة بأن الله تعالى أخبر عن موسى عليه السلام وعدوه فرعون بألفاظ مختلفة في معنى واحد؛ كقوله: {بشهاب قبس} (النمل: 7)، و {بقبس} (طه: 10) أو {جذوة من النار} (القصص: 29)، وكذلك قصص سائر الأنبياء عليهم السلام في القرآن، وقولهم لقومهم بألسنتهم المختلفة، وإنما نقل إلينا ذلك بالمعنى" ا.هـ.

وبهذا قرر كثير من المتأخرين في كتب علوم القرآن وأصول التفسير قواعد كلية في تحقيق منهج حكاية القرآن عن القرون الأولى. قال محمد بن أبي بكر الرازي الحنفي -صاحب كتاب مختار الصحاح المعجم المشهور- في كتابه أنموذج جليل في أسئلة وأجوبة عن غرائب آي التنزيل (صـ144): "فإن قيل: كيف قال الله تعالى هنا حكاية عن السحرة الذين آمنوا وعن فرعون: (قَالُوا آمَنَّا بِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ) إلى قوله تعالى: (وَتَوَفَّنَا مُسْلِمِينَ)، ثم حكى عنهم هذا المعنى في سورة طه وسورة الشعراء بزيادة ونقصان في الألفاظ المنسوبة إليهم، وهذه الواقعة ما وقعت إلا مرة واحدة، فكيف اختلفت عبارتهم فيها؟ قلنا: الجواب عنه أنهم إنما تكلموا بذلك بلغتهم لا باللغة العربية، وحكى الله تعالى ذلك عنهم باللغة العربية مراراً، لحكمة اقتضت التكرار والإعادة، نبينهما في سورة الشعراء إن شاء الله تعالى، فمرة حكاه مطابقاً للفظهم في الترجمة رعاية للفظ، وبعد ذلك حكاه بالمعنى جرياً على عادة العرب في التفنن في الكلام والمخالفة بين أساليبه لئلا يمل إذا تمحض تكراره" ا.هـ.

وقال ابن جماعة في كتابه كشف المعاني في المتشابه من المثاني (صـ174): "أما اختلاف الألفاظ فلأن المقصود المعاني؛ لأن الألفاظ الدالة عليها أولاً لم تكن باللسان العربي، بل بألسنة المتخاطبين حالة وقوع ذلك المعنى، فلما أديت تلك المعاني إلى هذه الأمة أديت بألفاظ عربية تدل على معانيها مع اختلاف الألفاظ واتحاد المعنى، فلا فرق بين "أبى أن يكون مع الساجدين" وبين "لم يكن مع الساجدين" في دلالتها على معنى واحد وهو عدم السجود" ا.هـ.

هذه النقول مفيدة إن شاء الله وتغني عن البيان.

Years ago, a question occurred to me while reciting my assigned portion of Quranic memorization to my teacher: Why do the linguistic expressions describing a single utterance or a historical event vary across different passages of the Quran? Furthermore, how does the Quran narrate the history of earlier nations in Arabic when their native tongues were not Arabic? I did not investigate the answers to this question in detail until I encountered a relevant passage while reading Ibn Rajab's Sharh ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhi, where I found a scholarly benefit well-suited for publication.

In Sharh ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhi, during a discussion regarding the transmission of Hadith by meaning (al-riwayah bi-al-ma‘na), Imam Ibn Rajab states (1/149):

"It is reported on the authority of al-Hasan (el-Basri) that he adduced as evidence for this [i.e., the permissibility of transmitting Hadith by meaning] that Allah relates the accounts of past nations in a language other than their own."

This is the earliest source I have identified that draws attention to this issue. Although I searched for sources that trace this statement back to al-Hasan al-Basri with a connected chain of transmission, I was unable to locate one. It can be inferred from his words that the Quranic rendition of the narratives and speeches of earlier nations did not prioritize meticulous textual verbatim, but rather focused on the essential, core meaning of the events.

A similar argument is attributed to Hammad ibn Salama without an explicit chain of transmission. Imam al-Sakhawi states in Fath al-Mughith bi-Sharh Alfiyyat al-Hadith (3/144):

"Hammad ibn Salama argued that Allah, the Exalted, recounted the words of Moses—peace be upon him—and his enemy Pharaoh using varying expressions to convey a single meaning. Examples include His sayings: 'a brand of fire' [bishahabin qabas] (Al-Naml: 7), 'a burning brand' [biqabas] (Taha: 10), and 'a burning brand from the fire' [jadhwatin min al-nar] (Al-Qasas: 29). The same applies to the stories of all other prophets—peace be upon them—in the Quran and what they said to their respective peoples in their diverse languages; these accounts were verily transmitted to us by meaning."

In accordance with this principle, numerous late scholars of Quranic sciences and exegetical methodology established universal maxims regarding the methodology of Quranic historiography concerning ancient nations. Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Razi al-Hanafi—the author of the renowned lexicon Mukhtar al-Sihah—writes in his book Unmudhaj Jalil fi As’ilah wa-Ajwibah ‘an Ghara’ib Ay al-Tanzil (p. 144):

"If it is asked: How is it that Allah the Exalted says here, narrating the words of the sorcerers who believed and those of Pharaoh: 'They said: We believe in the Lord of the Worlds...' up to His saying: '...and take our souls unto Yourself as Muslims', but then relates this same meaning in Surah Taha and Surah al-Shu‘ara’ with additions and omissions in the wording attributed to them, even though this incident occurred only once? How, then, did their expressions differ therein?

We reply: The answer is that they spoke in their own language, not in Arabic. Allah the Exalted subsequently narrated this on their behalf in Arabic multiple times for a wisdom that necessitated repetition and reiteration—which we shall elucidate in Surah al-Shu‘ara’, God willing. In one instance, He narrated it in exact conformity with their verbal phrasing via translation, out of regard for the literal wording. Thereafter, He narrated it by meaning, adhering to the Arab custom of rhetorical variation (al-tafannun fi al-kalam) and stylistic divergence, so that the reader does not grow weary of pure, unvaried repetition."

Similarly, Ibn Jama‘ah states in his work Kashf al-Ma‘ani fi al-Mutashabih min al-Mathani (p. 174):

"As for the variation in wording, it is because the primary objective is the meanings. This is because the words initially denoting them were not in the Arabic tongue, but rather in the languages of the interlocutors at the time the event took place. Thus, when those meanings were conveyed to this Ummah, they were delivered in Arabic expressions that signify their intended meanings, despite the structural differences in wording and the unity of meaning. Consequently, there is no conceptual difference between the phrases 'refused to be among those who prostrated' and 'was not among those who prostrated' regarding their indication of a single reality, which is the omission of prostration."

These recorded transmissions, I hope, are intellectually beneficial and suffice without further elaboration.