# I have prayed at home



## Hamba

Hello/Salam Friends

I would like to say the following in fusha please. " I have prayed at home just before leaving, do you still need to pray?".

The context is Fajr Salaah I have prayed the 2 Rak'aah Sunnah before leaving to join the Ja'maah in the Masjid.

My attempt is "Salatu fi bayt kubalah un ugrujuh. Hal tah tajuh/ta jibuh un ta salyah?"

Thanks so much


----------



## cherine

Hamba said:


> My attempt is "Salatu fi bayt kubalah un ugrujuh. Hal tah tajuh/ta jibuh un ta salyah?"


You got it mostly right, but here are a few remarks:
The verb is Sallaytu
Home being definite you should say al-bayt (with fi, it would be pronounced fil-bayt(i))
before is qabla
leaving: an akhruj(a)

The last part is: Hal laa-zilta ta7taaju an tuSalli?


----------



## Hamba

Cherine thank you do much


----------



## cherine

You're welcome.


----------



## Hamba

Cherine if you don't mind please,could you write you response as above in Arabic too?

Thanks so much


----------



## rayloom

صلّيتُ في البيتِ قبلَ أن أخرجَ، هل لا زلتَ تحتاجُ أن تصلّيَ؟
When you stop on a word, the final short vowel is dropped.


----------



## Hamba

Rayloom thanks so much


----------



## rayloom

You're welcome.


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> هل لا زلتَ تحتاجُ أن تصلّيَ؟


A negation particle can't be used immediately after هل. An alternative would be to use همزة الاستفهام. Also, you can't say لا زلت (this is a common mistake) since لا can't enter upon past tense verbs with the exception of certain circumstances. The present tense لا تزال (laa tazaalu) would work.


Hamba said:


> could you write you response in Arabic too?


صَلَّيْتُ فِي الْبَيْتِ قَبْلَ أَنْ أَخْرُجَ. أَلَا تَزَالُ تَحْتَاجُ أَنْ تُصَلِّيَ؟


----------



## rayloom

Hello Matat
The literature provides several examples of لا زال used in the same way as ما زال:
لازال كعب يستهل دموعه
(من شعر حسان بن ثابت)

*** وحقّكِ لا زال ظهر الجواد
مقيلي وسيفي
(من شعر عنترة)

لا زال مسك وريحان له أرج ... يجري عليك بصافي اللون سلسال
(من شعر أوس بن حجر)

والحديث الموقوف لا زلت أحب بني تميم في سنن البيهقي.

والعرب تقول لا ذهب أي لم يذهب حتى دون التكرار.

Same thing regarding هل followed by لا which can also be found in Classical literature.
231 - حدثنا محمد بن خزيمة  ، قال : ثنا حجاج  ، قال : ثنا حماد  ، قال : عن حجاج  ، عن زهير بن حبيب  ، عن المغيرة بن حذف  ، عن علي ، وعن سلمة بن كهيل  ، عن حجية بن عدي  ، وعبد الله بن تمام  ، ومالك بن حويرث فيما يحسب سلمة بن كهيل  ، أن رجلا اشترى بقرة أضحية فنتجها ، فسأل عليا  رضي الله عنه : هل لا أبدل مكانها أخرى ؟ فقال : لا ، ولكن اذبحها وولدها يوم النحر عن سبعة .

حتى كلمة التحضيض هلّا مركبة من هل ولا ومعناها قريب من ألا.


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> The literature provides several examples of لا زال used in the same way as ما زال:


This has been discussed in other forums. The more prominent opinion is that لا can't be used for the past tense verbs unless it's used in a calling prayer (دعاء) or used in repetition. 



> · تدخل (ما) النافية على الفعلين الماضي والمضارع، نحو: ما خرجت، ما كلّمته، ما أريد، ما أدري. وعلى هذا يقال على الصواب: ما زال، ما يزال، فيُدَلُّ بهما على الإثبات وعلى الاستمرار، نحو: ما زال الهواء بارداً. ما يزال الهواء بارداً.
> 
> · تدخل (لا) النافية على المضارع، نحو: لا أريد، لا أدري، لا يزال. ولا تدخل على الماضي لإفادة النفي. فلا يقال: (لا جاء فلان) بل: (ما جاء فلان). ولا يقال: (لا زال الهواء بارداً) وهذا خطأ شائع جداً، والصواب: لا يزال الهواء بارداً، أو ما زال الهواء بارداً.
> 
> · ولكن تستعمل (لا) مع الماضي لتكرار النفي، نحو: ?فلا صدَّق ولا صلَّى?.
> 
> · تدخل (لا) على الفعل الماضي لتفيد الدعاء، لا النفي. فيقال: لا سمح الله؛ لا قدَّر الله؛ لا أراك الله مكروهاً؛ لا عدِمتُك؛ لا زال بيتُك عامراً.



It's a controversial issue at best, so it's best not to use it to begin with since there are pretty easy alternatives. The same can be said for هل لا...




> ولا تدخل على منفيّ، فلا يقال: [هل لم يذهب خالدٌ]


----------



## rayloom

Yes I'm quite aware of the aforementioned opinion. And since it's a debatable issue I wouldn't consider it a mistake, nor do I see a problem in using it.


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> And since it's a debatable issue


This makes it seem more controversial than it actually is. Those in favor of لا+past tense outside of the case of a دعاء and repetition are an extremely small minority as far as I can tell, and in my opinion, their arguments are weak. However, as I look around across the web, I don't think there is any controversy over the fact that one shouldn't say هل+لا and I think the argument against هل+لا is even stronger and easier to make than the one against لا زال, so I'll stick with that one. If I need to go on and talk about the problems with the arguments in support of لا+past tense, I'll do that later.


rayloom said:


> 231 - حدثنا محمد بن خزيمة ، قال : ثنا حجاج ، قال : ثنا حماد ، قال : عن حجاج ، عن زهير بن حبيب ، عن المغيرة بن حذف ، عن علي ، وعن سلمة بن كهيل ، عن حجية بن عدي ، وعبد الله بن تمام ، ومالك بن حويرث فيما يحسب سلمة بن كهيل ، أن رجلا اشترى بقرة أضحية فنتجها ، فسأل عليا رضي الله عنه : هل لا أبدل مكانها أخرى ؟ فقال : لا ، ولكن اذبحها وولدها يوم النحر عن سبعة .


I have found another transcription of this same hadith here, but it writes it without the هل لا. In this one, it just says "هل أبدل مكانها أخرى؟". In fact, as I can see, not using هل+لا actually makes more sense with the rest of the hadith since if the question was "هل لا أبدل", the proper answer would be فقال: بلى, not فقال: لا. I also didn't find too many places online which mention this hadith and it's not clear which book it comes from. Since there is no clear understanding which of the two transmissions is correct as well as the fact that the transmission without هل+لا fits better with the meaning, this can't be used as a basis to justify the use of هل+لا.



> حدثنا محمد بن خزيمة ، قال: ثنا الحجاج قال: ثنا حماد ، قال: أنا سلمة بن كهيل ، عن حجية بن عدي ، وعبد الله بن تمام ، ومالك بن الحويرث - فيما يحسب سلمة -: "أن رجلا اشترى بقرة أضحية فنتجها فسأل عليا -رضي الله عنه-: *هل أبدل مكانها أخرى؟* فقال: لا ولكن اذبحها وولدها يوم النحر عن سبعة".





rayloom said:


> حتى كلمة التحضيض هلّا مركبة من هل ولا ومعناها قريب من ألا.


هلّا for التحضيض and التنديم is used for just that; التحضيض and التنديم only. Its origins may (or may not) stem come from هل+لا, but it is not used for any general interrogation and negation, but purely for blame or exhortation, which wouldn't make sense with the meaning we are using when saying هل لا/هلّا زلت/تزال تحتاج أن تصلي؟.

This should be enough to stand against هل لا زلت.


----------



## rayloom

هل لا
Occurs in Classical Arabic poetry in both the Jahili and Early Islamic periods:
هل لا يُهيّج شوقك الطَّللُ
(من شعر ابن قميئة)

هل لا نهينك أن قتلن مرقشاً
من شعر جرير


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> هل لا يُهيّج شوقك الطَّللُ
> (من شعر ابن قميئة)
> 
> هل لا نهينك أن قتلن مرقشاً
> من شعر جرير


Even though the transcription you provided writes these as "هل لا", they appear to be هلّا (they may have been spelled based upon older rules, or perhaps the transcribers didn't spell them properly). Here is a link which actually spells the first line you wrote هلا. The point remains as is.


> هلا يهيج شوقك الطلل ... أم لا يفرط شيخك الغزل



Moreover, every place I've found is in agreement that هل can't enter upon a negation. Even if we assumed there was one Classical poem that did this (assuming one exists), it would be an outlier and not something we can/should base a rule on.

The point is plain and simple. It is unanimous that هل should not be followed by a negation.


----------



## rayloom

You do realize that in the two examples I've given, it's neither used for تحضيض nor تنديم, they're used for استفهام.
Second, the "rule" first appeared in the 15th century in الجنى الداني and has been echoed ever since.
Third, its use in Classical language is enough proof if we were to follow the early grammarians methodology of descriptive grammar of Classical Arabic.


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> You do realize that in the two examples I've given, it's neither used for تحضيض nor تنديم, they're used for استفهام.


Actually, I don't. You didn't really provide much context to either of them nor shown that this is not تحضيض or تنديم. You simply listed one line.


rayloom said:


> Second, the "rule" first appeared in the 15th century in الجنى الداني and has been echoed ever since.


Source? And, if true, why would this matter? All grammar rules were written after the poems.


rayloom said:


> Third, its use in Classical language is enough proof if we were to follow the early grammarians methodology of descriptive grammar of Classical Arabic.


You have not actually done this. Once again, you didn't provide concrete evidence showing that this is actually an استفهام. Moreover, you are trying to prove something which grammarians tell you not to do. Even if you want to maintain that it's correct and disagree with general opinion, then you definitely should not, at the very least, be suggesting this usage or teaching it to Arabic students.


----------



## rayloom

هل لا يهيج شوقك الطلل ... أم لا يفرط شيخك الغزل

Both questions

هل لا نهينك أن قتلت مرقشا... أم ما صنعن بعروة بن حزام

Both questions

The source is listed. الجنى الداني.
If you find an earlier source I'm open to accepting it. I couldn't find such a rule in any if the earlier classical grammatical works, which are based on occurences in Classical literature.

I would say you are the one trying desperately by clinging to every opinion you come accross, like the hamza on a nabira thread, just because you have read about it somewhere.
I've come across an opinion that stated that عيون shouldn't be used as the plural of عين because in the Quran عيون only means springs. I wouldn't hold to it as if it were a rule engraved in stone, especially concerning usage if it's used differently in Classical language.
I believe Classical Arabic grammar is descriptive of Classical Arabic, therefore,
I would refrain from calling something an error if it occurs in Classical literature.
That is all!


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> هل لا يهيج شوقك الطلل ... أم لا يفرط شيخك الغزل
> 
> Both questions
> 
> هل لا نهينك أن قتلت مرقشا... أم ما صنعن بعروة بن حزام
> 
> Both questions


Once again, you are simply stating this, not proving it. What makes you definitively state that these are a part of an استفهام (I would avoid using the word "questions" here since التحضيض is itself a form of questioning)? These lines alone, with no explanation as to their meaning, tell me nothing at all as to whether they are an استفهام or تحضيض or تنديم.


rayloom said:


> The source is listed. الجنى الداني.
> If you find an earlier source I'm open to accepting it. I couldn't find such a rule in any if the earlier classical grammatical works, which are based on occurences in Classical literature.


This is not how you prove something. You don't tell the other person go find something earlier or, otherwise, you are going to claim that the earliest source is the one you were able to find. Second, how much earlier would it have it to be for you to accept it and more importantly, why does this even matter? If I  found a grammarian who said this in the 11th century, would you accept it? If so, why? If not, why not? What exactly is your basis for accepting or rejecting something based on the time you find the earliest grammarian who states that rule?


rayloom said:


> I would say you are the one trying desperately by clinging to every opinion you come accross, like the hamza on a nabira thread, just because you have read about it somewhere.


I'm guessing that you're talking about this thread. Actually, this is along the same lines, even though النحو and الإملاء are different subjects since الإملاء is defined by the schools of thoughts while in النحو, they are rules based on analysis of the Classical texts. I'm actually glad you bring this thread up, nevertheless, because it brings us to the same point. What exactly is the basis for you claiming something is correct or not? Are you aware that the hamzah was neither a recognized letter in the Islamic period nor a written letter until later? The hamzah was not written until it was first introduced in the 8th century. So, since they didn't used to do write it earlier, shouldn't your argument be that you shouldn't even write the hamzah at all? If based on what came first, one should be advocating for neither شيئا nor شيـٔا, but for شيـا. Why follow something from the 8th century that was not done in the 7th century? This takes us to the question, what is the basis for the rules you assert?


----------



## rayloom

It simply means later grammarians had a prescriptive tendency while earlier grammarians had a descriptive one.
In the two verses stated above, you can see for example هل لا used as a question not for التحضيض or التنديم for which هلا is used. Stating such usage is enough proof I believe. It was so in the debates of earlier grammarians.
So الجنى الداني is the earliest source I could find, I would think such an important rule would've at least been stated in earlier sources. I would certainly accept something stated later like هل لم don't combine since there are no instances of them in Classical literature.

I'm aware of how the hamza was not pronounced or more correctly elided in Old Hijazi Arabic for which Quranic orthography is based, but it was pronounced in the recitation of the Quran for which the need to mark it in script arose. And it's initial rules concerned the elision of the hamza because the Hijazi script was that way.
Although the hamza thread was a different matter, I saw the new rule of writing شيئا and similar words on a nabira was just a modern innovation, all the while there was an established system for spelling, so I was resistant to it, especially while considering other variations to the new rule incorrect.

لا زلت and هل لا for example occur in Classical literature and thus can't be considered errors or outliers since our grammatical tradition going back to Al-Farahidi amd Sibawayhi has always been descriptive and not prescriptive.

The point I was making is that you'll always come across proposed "rules" like the example I gave about عيون, what determines whether you accept every rule you come across?
Or would you just accept them wholeheartedly? Even when Classical usage might show variation.


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> In the two verses stated above, you can see for example هل لا used as a question not for التحضيض or التنديم for which هلا is used. Stating such usage is enough proof I believe. It was so in the debates of earlier grammarians


No, simply stating it is not enough. Why can't they be التحضيض or التنديم? What makes you exclude that possibility? As I read both, I don't see why it could not be.


rayloom said:


> So الجنى الداني is the earliest source I could find, I would think such an important rule would've at least been states in earlier sources.


Maybe it is and you just haven't found it? But once again, you haven't answered why this would even matter?


rayloom said:


> Although the hamza thread was a different matter, I saw the new rule of writing شيئا and similar words on a nabira was just a modern innovation, all the while there was an established system for writing, so I was resistant to it, especially considering other variations incorrect to the new rule.


Writing the hamzah was considered a modern innovation in the 8th century to people who lived in the 7th century. But you're right, الإملاء is different. I was just responding because you were the one who originally brought it up.


rayloom said:


> The point I was making is that you'll always come across proposed "rules" like the example I gave about عيون, what determines whether you accept every rule you come across?


Your عيون argument isn't really the same subject. The عيون argument has to do purely with what words mean and what they don't. This is a different in that this is just one opinion. I would accept the usage based on how the different authentic dictionaries define it, not just on how one person explains it. The هل لا argument, on the other hand, has not only to do with meaning, but with syntax, and the basis of that would be the grammar books. Not all dictionaries (if any, at all) claim that عيون means only what you are talking about. However, grammar textbooks all around definitely disagree with هل لا.


rayloom said:


> Or would you just accept them wholeheartedly? Even when Classical usage might show variation.


This depends. In general, I trust that the majority opinion of grammarians is based on Classical usage and their understanding of how things were used. However, if I can see something in Classical usage which rejects what I originally though, I would thoroughly analyze it to make sure that it doesn't actually contradict the rules.


----------



## rayloom

How then would you translate these two verses?
Or how would you understand them?


----------



## Matat

How would you translate them and is that the only possible meaning? I did not spend the time reading the entire poem and analyzing it to translate these in context.


----------



## rayloom

هل لا يهيج شوقك الطلل...أم لا يفرط شيخك الغزل
Is a classical style beginning in Jahili poetry where the poet reminisces about the أطلال which are the remains or ruins of one's previous settlement.
So the poet here is wondering: 
Don't these remains awaken your yearning?
The second part introduces another question with أم. 

هل لا نهينك أن قتلن مرقشا... أم ما صنعن بعروة بن حزام
The verse refers to two romantic figures, المرقش الأكبر who was in love with أسماء and عروة who was in love with عفراء.
Didn't they (women) deter you as they (women but referring to أسماء) killed مرقش, or what they did (referring to عفراء) with عروة.

The two verses are followed by a second question/possibility introduced with أم, which means they're used as questions and not for تحضيض or تنديم. And in the latter verse, the verb is in the perfect aspect following لا.


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> Don't these remains awaken your yearning?


Why couldn't this also be a تحضيض? "Why is it that these remains don't awaken your yearning?"
I would avoid using the word "question". Let's stick with the Arabic terms تحضيض, تنديم, and استفهام, because the English word "question" could be applied to all of these.


rayloom said:


> Didn't they (women) deter you as they (women but referring to أسماء) killed مرقش, or what they did (referring to عفراء) with عروة.


Same argument as the first one. Why can't this be a تنديم? "Why did it not deter you as they killed مرقش?"


rayloom said:


> The two verses are followed by a second question/possibility introduced with أم, which means they're used as questions and not for تحضيض or تنديم. And in the latter verse, the verb is in the perfect aspect following لا.


 If this is correct, this would be based on where they are معطوف. This would only apply (if this is in fact a rule) if the sentence after أم is معطوف على "لا..."ـ in both cases, but this is not necessarily the case. I don't quite decipher what the second line is trying to say in the first poem to say anything about it.

As for the second poem, it could be معطوف على "أن قتلن مرقشا"ـ, so it could be
هل لا نهينك أن قتلن مرقشا... أم (هل لا نهينك) ما صنعن بعروة بن حزام
and the meaning could be a تنديم:
"Why did it not deter you as they killed مرقش or (why did it not deter you) what they did with عروة?"
Since this isn't معطوف على "هل لا..."ـ, it's not clear whether this is an استهام or a تنديم and could very well be a تنديم.

This is not concrete solid evidence and it's not evident whether this contradicts what the grammar books say.


----------



## rayloom

Where would you say the عطف is in:
هل لا يهيج شوقك الطلل...أم لا يفرط شيخك الغزل
And wouldn't you consider the second part an استفهام?
Also an استفهام would be understood from the context. Here in both verses the poets are inquiring in both situations.
This would be different than saying:
هلا فعلت كذا
هلا تفعل كذا
Also how would you explain the تحضيض in يهيج شوقك الطلل, is he encouraging الطلل to act?


----------



## Matat

rayloom said:


> And wouldn't you consider the second part an استفهام?


As I said, I can't decipher what is even meant in the second line in the first poem, let alone call it an استفهام, تنديم, or تحضيض. How would you translate it? "Or the loving words don't break apart your elder"??. Or does it mean something else? The لا could be a لا الزائدة for all I know, used for emphatic purposes, in which case "لا يفرط..." could be معطوف على "يهيج.."ـ which would give the meaning "أم (هل لا) لا يفرط ", where the second لا is زائدة. Or, this may in fact be an استفهام, as you say, but it is only used for poetic necessity (الضرورة الشعرية). This goes back to what I'm talking about. There are many variables at play here and I don't think either of us has the credentials to definitively say what's going on here. If you say something that grammarians don't agree with, you need to have definitive proof. Quoting one line and taking it at surface value is not enough.


rayloom said:


> Also an استفهام would be understood from the context. Here in both verses the poets are inquiring in both situations.


Perhaps. Or perhaps they are saying what I said above. There is nothing in the context I see which would definitively say that these must be an استفهام and not a تحضيض or تنديم, or vice versa.


rayloom said:


> Also how would you explain the تحضيض in يهيج شوقك الطلل, is he encouraging الطلل to act?


Yes, the exhortation would be on الطلل. So, yes, that's what it could be, especially considering this is a poem.


----------

