Reza NejadTabrizi; MohammadReza Sotoudehnia; Reza Shokrani
Volume 18, Issue 2 , March 2021, , Pages 243-260
Abstract
The question of this article is whether or not the term "Hū" implies the copulative being in the Arabic language of the Quran's revelation period. For this purpose, the works of Avicenna ...
Read More
The question of this article is whether or not the term "Hū" implies the copulative being in the Arabic language of the Quran's revelation period. For this purpose, the works of Avicenna have been formulated as the most prominent defender of the meaning of the word. This formulation shows that his argument is a combination of logical and linguistic parts. The authors first distinguish between these two approaches and critique the logical part of his argument. Then the linguistic part of his argument is compared to Farabi's historical account of the translation movement's dispute over the translation of the concept of "being" into Arabic, and it has also been rejected. Indeed, Farabi's report explains why and how the term was translated by the translators of the translation movement from natural Arabic before the translation movement into the scientific-philosophical language at the same time as the movement and after it. The sum of the critiques and Farabi's report is the key phrase of the article: The term "Hū" in Arabic at the time of the Quran's revelation did not indicate the copulative being; Rather, for the first time, translators of the translation movement considered such a meaning for the term. This result has also helped to discover the historical map for the implication of the term on the copulative being in the Arabic language as a whole; perhaps it can be a companion for parallel research in the field of discovering the original meanings of the Qur'an.
