# only



## Rama Takleh

Hi,

In Classical Arabic you never use فقط for "only". Instead, you use one of the following three ways:

1. you put the word you want to emphasize at the beginning of the sentence, for example إياك نعبد
2. you put إنما at the beginning of the sentence, for example إنما نعبد إياك
3. you put a negation at the beginning and إلا in the middle, for example ما نعبد إلا إياك

Are one of these three ways still used in Modern Arabic? And are there any other ways in Classical or Modern Arabic?


----------



## WadiH

If by Classical Arabic you mean the Qur'aan and perhaps some very early literature and poetry, then you're right that you don't encounter words like فقط or أيضاً (something I noticed even as a child).  But no one really uses the term 'Classical Arabic' so narrowly, and the word فقط is not just used in modern literature but actually appears frequently in medieval and early modern writings that we would consider to be in 'Classical Arabic'.

As for the three Qur'anic usages you mentioned, they can still be used in modern written Arabic, though they do sound a bit archaic.  You're more likely to encounter them in religious literature or discussions among scholars than in newspapers or TV.


----------



## Ali Smith

I think no. 2 and no. 3 do indeed impart the meaning of "only", but I'm not too sure that moving something to the beginning of the sentence does it. For example, Abu Lahab asked the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم):

تبا لك ألهذا جمعتنا

I don't think you could translate the part in red as "Did you gather us together only for this?".

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِىُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَازِمٍ حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رضى الله عنهما قَالَ صَعِدَ النَّبِىُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم الصَّفَا ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ فَقَالَ يَا صَبَاحَاهْ فَاجْتَمَعَتْ إِلَيْهِ قُرَيْشٌ قَالُوا مَا لَكَ قَالَ أَرَأَيْتُمْ لَوْ أَخْبَرْتُكُمْ أَنَّ الْعَدُوَّ يُصَبِّحُكُمْ أَوْ يُمَسِّيكُمْ أَمَا كُنْتُمْ تُصَدِّقُونِى قَالُوا بَلَى قَالَ فَإِنِّى نَذِيرٌ لَكُمْ بَيْنَ يَدَىْ عَذَابٍ شَدِيدٍ فَقَالَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ تَبًّا لَكَ أَلِهَذَا جَمَعْتَنَا فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِى لَهَبٍ

Source: Ali bin Abdillah, from Muhammad bin Khazim, from al-'Amash, from Amr bin Murrah, from Sa'eed bin Jubayr, from Abdullah bin Abbas (رضي الله عنهما) in Sahih al-Bukhari


----------



## Nisar Ahmad

"Did you gather us together only for this?" is perfectly correct.


----------



## Hemza

Is لا غير still frequently used? I don't think I encountered it a lot that said, my exposure isn't representative at all.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Nisar Ahmad said:


> "Did you gather us together only for this?" is perfectly correct.


I would say it means “did you gather us _for_ _this_”. I don’t see this as meaning only, even if this was indeed the only reason and he knew it, that’s not the point of what he was saying.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Wadi Hanifa said:


> As for the three Qur'anic usages you mentioned, they can still be used in modern written Arabic, though they do sound a bit archaic. You're more likely to encounter them in religious literature or discussions among scholars than in newspapers or TV.


I would say the third one, اسلوب الحصر is something that you do hear in MSA, not to mention dialects. I wouldn’t say that it sounds archaic.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Rama Takleh said:


> In Classical Arabic you never use فقط for "only". Instead, you use one of the following three ways:


You also have فحسب as a way to express exclusivity, although I must admit that I don’t recall reading that in the Quran.

However, both قط and حسب are from Classical Arabic, and found in the Quran, so the words themselves are from CA and their meanings are not new. What is new though is the style used to express what you want to say. I believe that this is to be expected, you can’t really expect people to keep the same style for 1500 years ,can you?


----------



## Ali Smith

ولله الأسماء الحسنى فادعوه بها
Don’t you think this means “And to Allah alone belong the most beautiful names, so call Him by them.”?


----------



## Mahaodeh

No, it just means that God has the finest names. It does not exclude others from having fine names, just that God’s are finer.

I know you read several grammar books that list all possible methods of حصر and you just assume that all of them mean “only”, but the truth is that this is just not the case. For example, إنما would be the first word to be used in grammar books, but according to a relative of mine (PhD in Arabic, university professor), most grammarians and a large number of religious scholars say that إنما does not exclude others, it only confirms the action on the one mentioned. You see, this is actually not an uncontested matter (the only one that all agree on is النفي مع الاستثناء).

Now the words إياك نعبد can be considered قصر معنوي because that is what is meant by it, but you can not create a rule out of this and assume that every single time a مفعول comes before a فعل that would be قصر that excludes the action from all else, sometimes it’s a simple توكيد while others it’s a grammatical requirement and has nothing to do with حصر or قصر or even توكيد. For example, you can’t say that فأما اليتيم فلا تقهر is حصر just because the object came before the verb when this is a grammatical requirement, you can’t use أما here without bringing the object to the beginning. The meaning confirms it because if it was to mean “only the orphan do not subjugate” it would implicitly mean that it’s OK to subjugate anyone else. There is no exclusion here either.

The fact that you can use a certain method to convey a particular meaning doesn’t mean that it will convey such meaning every single time. Sometimes it does, others it doesn’t.


----------



## WadiH

Mahaodeh said:


> I would say the third one, اسلوب الحصر is something that you do hear in MSA, not to mention dialects. I wouldn’t say that it sounds archaic.



أسلوب الحصر is not archaic, but I just meant that using إياك is at least a bit formal or elevated.


----------



## Ali Smith

I take my words back. I think moving something to the beginning of a sentence _does_ impart the meaning of exclusivity, at least under certain circumstances. For instance,

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رضى الله عنهما قَالَ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ وَأَنْذِرْ عَشِيرَتَكَ الأَقْرَبِينَ صَعِدَ النَّبِىُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى الصَّفَا فَجَعَلَ يُنَادِى يَا بَنِى فِهْرٍ يَا بَنِى عَدِىٍّ لِبُطُونِ قُرَيْشٍ حَتَّى اجْتَمَعُوا فَجَعَلَ الرَّجُلُ إِذَا لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ أَنْ يَخْرُجَ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولاً لِيَنْظُرَ مَا هُوَ فَجَاءَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ وَقُرَيْشٌ فَقَالَ أَرَأَيْتَكُمْ لَوْ أَخْبَرْتُكُمْ أَنَّ خَيْلاً بِالْوَادِى تُرِيدُ أَنْ تُغِيرَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَكُنْتُمْ مُصَدِّقِىَّ قَالُوا نَعَمْ مَا جَرَّبْنَا عَلَيْكَ إِلاَّ صِدْقًا قَالَ فَإِنِّى نَذِيرٌ لَكُمْ بَيْنَ يَدَىْ عَذَابٍ شَدِيدٍ فَقَالَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ تَبًّا لَكَ سَائِرَ الْيَوْمِ أَلِهَذَا جَمَعْتَنَا فَنَزَلَتْ تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِى لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ مَا أَغْنَى عَنْهُ مَالُهُ وَمَا كَسَبَ

Source: Umar bin Hafs bin Ghiyath, from his father, Hafs bin Ghiyath, from Sulayman bin Mihran al-Amash, from Amr bin Murrah, from Sa'id bin Jubayr, from Abdullah bin Abbas (رضي الله عنهما) in Sahih al-Bukhari

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ وَأَنْذِرْ عَشِيرَتَكَ الأَقْرَبِينَ وَرَهْطَكَ مِنْهُمُ الْمُخْلَصِينَ خَرَجَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم حَتَّى صَعِدَ الصَّفَا فَهَتَفَ يَا صَبَاحَاهْ فَقَالُوا مَنْ هَذَا الَّذِى يَهْتِفُ قَالُوا مُحَمَّدٌ فَاجْتَمَعُوا إِلَيْهِ فَقَالَ يَا بَنِى فُلاَنٍ يَا بَنِى فُلاَنٍ يَا بَنِى فُلاَنٍ يَا بَنِى عَبْدِ مَنَافٍ يَا بَنِى عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ فَاجْتَمَعُوا إِلَيْهِ فَقَالَ أَرَأَيْتَكُمْ لَوْ أَخْبَرْتُكُمْ أَنَّ خَيْلاً تَخْرُجُ بِسَفْحِ هَذَا الْجَبَلِ أَكُنْتُمْ مُصَدِّقِىَّ قَالُوا مَا جَرَّبْنَا عَلَيْكَ كَذِبًا قَالَ فَإِنِّى نَذِيرٌ لَكُمْ بَيْنَ يَدَىْ عَذَابٍ شَدِيدٍ قَالَ فَقَالَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ تَبًّا لَكَ أَمَا جَمَعْتَنَا إِلاَّ لِهَذَا ثُمَّ قَامَ فَنَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ السُّورَةُ تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِى لَهَبٍ وَقَدْ تَبَّ كَذَا قَرَأَ الأَعْمَشُ إِلَى آخِرِ السُّورَةِ

Source: Muhammad bin al-Ala Abu Kurayb, from Hammad bin Usamah, from Sulayman bin Mihran al-Amash, from Amr bin Murrah, from Sa'id bin Jubayr, from Abdullah bin Abbas (رضي الله عنهما) in Sahih Muslim

It's clear that one of the narrators after al-Amash felt أَلِهَذَا جَمَعْتَنَا and أَمَا جَمَعْتَنَا إِلاَّ لِهَذَا meant the same thing, for he paraphrased one as the other. Thus, we can conclude أَلِهَذَا جَمَعْتَنَا meant 'Did you bring us together only for this?' in classical Arabic.


----------



## Ali Smith

Similarly, the fact that الآن in الْآنَ حَصْحَصَ الْحَقُّ comes at the beginning makes the sentence mean "Only now has the truth become manifest."


----------



## naureens07

What is the source of this, Ali?


----------



## Sarah Bundogji

Why else would Allah move the word الآن to the beginning of the sentence in  الْآنَ حَصْحَصَ الْحَقُّ?


----------



## WadiH

Ali Smith said:


> Similarly, the fact that الآن in الْآنَ حَصْحَصَ الْحَقُّ comes at the beginning makes the sentence mean "Only now has the truth become manifest."



And you find similar constructions in modern spoken Arabic.


----------



## Ali Smith

naureens07 said:


> What is the source of this, Ali?


The rule that says تقديم ما حقّه التأخير يفيد الحصر والاختصاص.


----------

