# وَابْعَثْهُ مَقَامًا مَحْمُودًا الَّذِي وَعَدْتَهُ



## Qureshpor

In the following دُعاء what's the explanation please for الَّذِیْ following an indefinite phrase مقاماً محموداً? 

اَللّٰھُمَّ رَبَّ ھٰذِہِ الدَّعْوَۃِ التَّامَّۃِ وَالصَّلٰوۃِ الْقَائِمَۃِ اٰتِ سَیِّدَنَا مُحَمَّدَنِ الْوَسِیْلَۃَ وَالْفَضِیْلَۃَ وَالدَّرَجَۃَ الرَّفِیْعَۃَ وَابْعَثْہُ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُوْدَنِ الَّذِیْ وَعَدْتَّہٗ وَاجْعَلْنَا فِیْ شَفَاعَتِہٖ یَوْمَ الْقِیٰمَۃِ اِنَّکَ لَا تُخْلِفُ الْمِیْعَادَ

Thanking you in advance.


----------



## normordm

That's actually a very good question. I had to look this up found this, and didn't understand most of it. It says there are several possibilities, each of them differ slightly in meaning. I wouldn't worry too much about it, you will only find this construction in the Quran or in أدعية like this.


----------



## I.K.S.

All in all الَّذِیْ is a relative pronoun here, that refers to ''المقام'' the rank.
The famous version of this duaa is:... وابعثه المقام المحمود الذي
''.. And raise him to the auspicious rank You have promised him''


----------



## cherine

The way I understand this is that مقامًا محمودًا is considered as definite because it's a quote from the Qur'an, so using it in its indefinite form -as it is in the Qur'an- is a way to referring to _that_ مقام, hence the inferred definitness and the use of الذي after it.


----------



## shafaq

In spite of all persistent ignorence and rejections; using mawsool   after indefinite words is something wide spread between natives while some instances has occured in the Classical Arabic texts  -but- either has ignored or tried to be explained by various different comments.

As a quick  example, I am going to mention  ayah number 23 - 24 of Soorat al-Hadeed of Holy Qur'an :
ان الله لا يحب كل مختال فخور ٢٣  الذين يبخلون و يامرون الناس بالبخل  و من يتول فان الله هو الغنى الحميد ٢٤​


----------



## cherine

You do realize that كلَّ مختالٍ is definite, don't you?


----------



## shafaq

cherine said:


> You do realize that كلَّ مختالٍ is definite, don't you?


After once(perhaps in this forum?); I have alleged  it and told that "definitness of a mudhaf" is not the fact; and many hours helplessly spent in the sake of searching that; I decided to disregard this knowledge till to reach a credible source for its existance...
With my thanks in advence; if you know any; I will be glad to re-learn it; if you please drop a link here.

Edit: Here  at post #2 Matat says that a nakra doesn't be treated as ma'rifah for just being mudhaf.


----------



## Qureshpor

shafaq said:


> With my thanks in advence; if you know any; I will be glad to re-learn it; if you please drop a link here.
> 
> Edit: Here  at post #2 Matat says that a nakra doesn't be treated as ma'rifah for just being mudhaf.


Salam Shafaq, you are not the only one who has had conflicting piece of information regarding the مُضاف.

My (updated) understanding is that the مُضاف is considered to be definite, even when the مضاف الیہ is indefinite. This seems to contradict the fact that when an adjective is added to this مُضاف, it is indefinite!

For example: bait-u malik-in kabiir-un

https://special.worldofislam.info/Arabic/pdf/Thackston_Arabic.pdf (See page 14)

Thank you @normordm , @ *إتحادية قبائل الشاوية* for your replies. 
Thank you @cherine for your response. I believe it makes sense to take it as a quote.


----------



## Semiticist

Qureshpor said:


> My (updated) understanding is that the مُضاف is considered to be definite, even when the مضاف الیہ is indefinite. This seems to contradict the fact that when an adjective is added to this مُضاف, it is indefinite!
> 
> For example: bait-u malik-in kabiir-un
> 
> https://special.worldofislam.info/Arabic/pdf/Thackston_Arabic.pdf (See page 14)



It says "When the second member of the construct is indefinite, the entire construct has an indefinite sense."


----------



## shafaq

To me; if Malik within the "بيت مالك كبير" is proper/person name; then "بيت  " also naturally gets to be ma'rife...
Isn't it?

Edit: 
Oooops ! I have read it as  مالك while in fact it was  *ملك* .


----------



## Qureshpor

shafaq said:


> To me; if Malik within the "بيت مالك كبير" is proper/person name; then "بيت  " also naturally gets to be ma'rife...
> Isn't it?


No, بیتُ ملک کبیر .


----------



## Semiticist

بیتُ ملک + کبیر = مبتدأ + خبر
بیتُ ملک + الکبیر = منعوت + نعت


----------



## analeeh

shafaq said:


> To me; if Malik within the "بيت مالك كبير" is proper/person name; then "بيت  " also naturally gets to be ma'rife...
> Isn't it?



Yeah, if it means Malik's big house and not a king's big house or whatever the intention would be otherwise.


----------



## Qureshpor

Semiticist said:


> It says "When the second member of the construct is indefinite, the entire construct has an indefinite sense."


Yes, this is what it says. It also says that "When the second member of the construct is definite, the entire construct has a definite sense.

I understand both these comments. But the ambiguity is in the fact that on the one hand the مضاف is deemed to be definite, even when the مضاف الیہ is indefinite. That's fine, but the adjective that is linked to the مضاف is *indefinite!*, as in "baitu malik-in kabiir-un" which is translated as "a great king-house" or "a great royal residence".


----------



## Abbe

I have never seen any Arabic text on grammar claiming that the idafa to an indefinite word will render the construct definite. Have you? The Arabic grammarians generally talk about تخصيص when there is an idafa to an indefinite word.

The word رجل can be applied to any human male and is therefore indefinite. If we use it in an idafa construction with an indefinite word for example
رجل أعمال we have narrowed the number of human males that it can be applied to but it is still indefinite.


Qureshpor said:


> In the following دُعاء what's the explanation please for الَّذِیْ following an indefinite phrase مقاماً محموداً?
> 
> اَللّٰھُمَّ رَبَّ ھٰذِہِ الدَّعْوَۃِ التَّامَّۃِ وَالصَّلٰوۃِ الْقَائِمَۃِ اٰتِ سَیِّدَنَا مُحَمَّدَنِ الْوَسِیْلَۃَ وَالْفَضِیْلَۃَ وَالدَّرَجَۃَ الرَّفِیْعَۃَ وَابْعَثْہُ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُوْدَنِ الَّذِیْ وَعَدْتَّہٗ وَاجْعَلْنَا فِیْ شَفَاعَتِہٖ یَوْمَ الْقِیٰمَۃِ اِنَّکَ لَا تُخْلِفُ الْمِیْعَادَ



الذي could be badal, or khabr for an omitted mubtada هو الذي وعدته


----------



## Qureshpor

Abbe said:


> I have never seen any Arabic text on grammar claiming that the idafa to an indefinite word will render the construct definite. Have you?


See 7.1 page 14 https://special.worldofislam.info/Arabic/pdf/Thackston_Arabic.pdf


----------



## Abbe

I read that earlier and to me it's not clear what he means. What does "grammatically definite by definition" mean and how is it to be understood with "the entire construct has an indefinite sense"?


But more important I realize that my question wasn't clear. I would like a reference to an Arabic grammarian who has said that an idafa to a indefinite word will render the construct definite.


----------



## Qureshpor

Your question is still not clear in meaning. Perhaps you could provide a written example.

See page 44, part 2 Arabic Through The Qur'an by Alan Jones


----------



## Abbe

Sorry about that. I would like a reference from an Arabic Grammarian that says that the following (or a similiar construct with two indefinite words) is definite: قلم أستاذ


----------



## Qureshpor

I am afraid I don't know enough Arabic to follow Sibawayh or similar authors. If I was reading these kinds of grammars, I would n't really be asking questions on this forum! I use grammars in English and Urdu because that is the limit of my understanding. I suspect English speaking individuals who have authored grammars to explain the Qur'an must have sufficient knowledge of the grammar to write text books.


----------



## Abbe

Generally I agree with you but in this particular case it doesn't make any sense. I haven't seen anything like it in traditional Arabic grammar books (and of course I dont claim that I have read everything or that my memory is perfect) and when I serch the net now I can't find anything that supports what is written in the books you quote. 

There is also the issue that I don't understand what Jones mean when he writes that a noun followed by a genitive is definite in meaning and that another construction must be used if an indefinite meanings is required. And I have the same problem trying to understand what Thackstone means. 

Do you have any references in Urdu that claims the same thing? I don't speak Urdu but it would be interesting to know because, as far as I know, grammar books in Urdu generally express the same opinions as the Arabic grammarians.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abbe, you will find there are many threads in this forum on this very topic where it appears that the subject matter is far from clearly understood by learners such as me since different books seem to be saying differing things. One such thread is Definite/Indefinite iDafa/iDaafa الإضافة

Please take a look at this sentence from G.M. Wicken's Arabic Grammar - a first workbook, page 105.

نظرت وجہ رجل میت She looked at the face of a dead man.

Surely, we can not translate this sentence as:

She saw a face of a dead man.... can we?

From, "Arabic simplified: a practical grammar of written Arabic by Arthur T Upson, page 50, he provides the following translation for اسم رجل

اسم رجل the name of a man/ a man's name

By the way, not all English grammar books indicate that the مضاف is definite whether the مضاف الیہ is indefinite or definite. Tritton in his Teach Yourself Arabic on page 34 translates the sentence بیت رجل as "a house of a man".

If I find anything in an Urdu grammar book, I shall get back to you.



shafaq said:


> In spite of all persistent ignorence and rejections; using mawsool   after indefinite words is something wide spread between natives while some instances has occured in the Classical Arabic texts  -but- either has ignored or tried to be explained by various different comments.
> 
> As a quick  example, I am going to mention  ayah number 23 - 24 of Soorat al-Hadeed of Holy Qur'an :
> ان الله لا يحب كل مختال فخور ٢٣  الذين يبخلون و يامرون الناس بالبخل  و من يتول فان الله هو الغنى الحميد ٢٤​


Here I would say is a new sentence and الذين is not linked to كل مختال فخور.



cherine said:


> You do realize that كلَّ مختالٍ is definite, don't you?


Could you please explain how كلَّ مختالٍ is definite.


----------



## cherine

Qureshpor said:


> Could you please explain how كلَّ مختالٍ is definite.


I may need to double-check in more classical grammar books, but this is something we learned at school since young and it comes naturally to me. Or I could be totally mistaken and I'm mixing this with the rule that says
المضاف إلى معرفة: هو اسم نكرة اكتسب التعريف من إضافته إلى إحدى المعارف


I'll try to check and hopefully come back with something more accurate.


----------



## shafaq

Qureshpor said:


> Here I would say is a new sentence and الذين is not linked to كل مختال فخور.


 If so then the remnant would be read as something like
" They are who already stingy and enjoining the people to do stinginess."
which would have no sentence and/or meaning as a standalone phrase where the successor sentence is complete in itself and hasn't a compulsory semantic completeness with  the antecedent. 
Please note that verse stop signs in the Holy Qur'an don't mean all the times that the ayah is completed there and the successor one is different and independent from antecedent.


----------



## Abbe

Qureshpor said:


> Please take a look at this sentence from G.M. Wicken's Arabic Grammar - a first workbook, page 105.
> 
> نظرت وجہ رجل میت She looked at the face of a dead man.
> 
> Surely, we can not translate this sentence as:
> 
> She saw a face of a dead man.... can we?
> 
> From, "Arabic simplified: a practical grammar of written Arabic by Arthur T Upson, page 50, he provides the following translation for اسم رجل
> 
> اسم رجل the name of a man/ a man's name
> 
> By the way, not all English grammar books indicate that the مضاف is definite whether the مضاف الیہ is indefinite or definite. Tritton in his Teach Yourself Arabic on page 34 translates the sentence بیت رجل as "a house of a man".
> 
> If I find anything in an Urdu grammar book, I shall get back to you.



In order to avoid confusion we shouldn't translate Arabic idafas to English in order to figure out whether they are definite or not in Arabic. Consider the example you have given. Even if we agree that "the face of the dead man" is the best translation of وجه رجل ميت this doesn't mean that the construction is considered definite in Arabic. If we look at one word of the time we can conclude that the word وجه in and by itself means "a face" and that it can refere to billions of faces (human faces animal faces etc) so it's clear that this word in and by itself is indefinite. When we add the word رجل we narrow the scope by excluding the faces of animals, women and children but the scope is still very vide since "a face of a man" can be applied to billions of living and dead men. When we add the word ميت we exclude all living men but it can still be applied to billions of dead men. As you can see there is no way that this construction (وجه رجل ميت) can be considered definite but when you translate it to English it might be better to use "the face of the dead man" in some contexts, because English and Arabic are two different languages. But this doesn't change the fact that the construction is considered indefinite in Arabic. As I mentioned earlier I very much doubt that you can find an Arabic grammarian that has said this construction will render the first word definite.

On a side note "The face of a dead man" seems to be formally definite (considering the definite article "the") but the meaning is still indefinite isn't it? I'm not a native English speaker so I might me be mistaken

As for
مقاما محمودا الذي وعدته
It has already been mentioned that الذي can be a badal or a khabr to an omitted mubtada there is nothing wrong or strange with the sentence.


----------



## Qureshpor

Thank you Abbe for your detailed and thought provoking insight.


----------



## Matat

Interesting. I was thinking that الذي in وابعثه مقاماً محموداً الذي وعدته was in apposition to the pronoun. Meaning: "Send him - the one whom you promised - to a/the _maqaam mahmood". _Pronouns are always definite, so there wouldn't a _badal_ controversy if that was the case.

I found one narration here by عمرو بن منصور where المقام المحمود is narrated, as @إتحادية قبائل الشاوية mentioned (note even with المقام المحمود, my initial understanding above could still be valid). However, all other narrators of this supplication I found narrated it as مقاماً محموداً. 

If we are to reject my understanding above and were to take الذي as in apposition to مقاماً محموداً, I'd have to agree with @cherine that مقاماً محموداً should be considered a proper noun here, thus making it definite even though its marking is indefinite as is the case with other proper nouns. However, I don't know that we must take it as such in the first place.

As others have mentioned, different i3raabs by grammarians have been made for this, but I feel like they are a bit forced.



shafaq said:


> ان الله لا يحب كل مختال فخور ٢٣ الذين يبخلون و يامرون الناس بالبخل و من يتول فان الله هو الغنى الحميد ٢٤​


True, but many rules have exceptions. In a nominal sentence (جملة اسمية), for example, the subject (المبتدأ) must be definite. However, there are a handful of exceptions where it is not. كلٌّ and كلُّ+مضاف إليه is one of those exceptions. Even though it's technically indefinite, it's definite-like. In the case of using it as a _badal_, I'd speculate this falls in the same category.


> قُلْ *كلٌّ* يعمل على شاكلته (الإسراء 17/84)
> *[**كلٌّ]:** مبتدأ مرفوع، وهو نكرة.* ولقد نوّهنا آنفاً بأنّ *الأصل أن يكون المبتدأ معرفة*. غير أنه *لما كان بعد [كلّ]، مضافٌ إليه مقدّرٌ* محذوف، إذ المعنى: [قل كلُّ أحدٍ يعمل...]، *جاز أن يجيء المبتدأ نكرة*.





shafaq said:


> Edit: Here at post #2 Matat says that a nakra doesn't be treated as ma'rifah for just being mudhaf.


Yes, that's correct.


Qureshpor said:


> My (updated) understanding is that the مُضاف is considered to be definite, even when the مضاف الیہ is indefinite.


No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Abbe

Matat said:


> Interesting. I was thinking that الذي in وابعثه مقاماً محموداً الذي وعدته was in apposition to the pronoun. Meaning: "Send him - the one whom you promised - to a/the _maqaam mahmood". _Pronouns are always definite, so there wouldn't a _badal_ controversy if that was the case.



What is the irab of مقاما according to your interpretation?


----------



## Matat

Abbe said:


> What is the irab of مقاما according to your interpretation?


 The i3raab of مقاما would be the same in either interpretation. My personal i3raab would be:
التقدير (إلى مقام) و(مقاما) منصوب على نزع الخافض والجار والمجرور متعلقان بـ(ابعث)


----------



## Mahaodeh

cherine said:


> The way I understand this is that مقامًا محمودًا is considered as definite because it's a quote from the Qur'an, so using it in its indefinite form -as it is in the Qur'an- is a way to referring to _that_ مقام, hence the inferred definitness and the use of الذي after it.


Yes, I've read this too; I've also read that الذي is عطف بيان and not صفة لمقاما. This was a question I asked years ago, since I heard the phrase for the first time (before that I was familiar with the less common ابعثه المقام المحمود الذي وعدته).



Qureshpor said:


> For example: bait-u malik-in kabiir-un


I don't know if you realised it, but you just contradicted yourself. بيت is مبتدأ and it could not possibly be so if it were indefinite; and كبيرٌ is the خبر, it is not صفة لبيت.


cherine said:


> I may need to double-check in more classical grammar books, but this is something we learned at school since young and it comes naturally to me. Or I could be totally mistaken and I'm mixing this with the rule that says
> المضاف إلى معرفة: هو اسم نكرة اكتسب التعريف من إضافته إلى إحدى المعارف



Yes we did, didn't we? However, this only makes المضاف definite, not the whole إضافة, assuming of course that we have إضافة معنوية not إضافة لفطية. Of what I remember from school, إذا كان المضاف إليه معرفة فإن الإضافة تفيد التعريف وإذا كان نكرة فإن الإضافة تفيد التخصيص. This means that if the second part is definite then the whole iDafa becomes definite but if it is not then the iDafa does not become definite, only less indefinite by adding تخصيص.

If we look at Qureshpor's example, بيت الملك means it is THE king's house, but بيت ملك means it's A king's house - that is, it's not any house, it belongs to a king but since the king is not defined then it's still indefinite, it can be any king's house.


----------



## Qureshpor

Hi Mahaodeh. Yes, I could have worded my post# 6 more clearly. Let me try to explain once again what I meant to say.

One set of Arabic grammar books regard the مضاف as definite in a phrase of the type.

بیت ملک bait-u malik-in "The house of a king".

Another set regards the مضاف as indefinite bearing the meaning " a house of king".

I am saying that first set can not be right because if one adds an adjective to the مضاف in this construct, one has to add an indefinite adjective.

بیت ملک کبیر bait-u malik-in kabir-un "a large house of a king".

Therefore the first set of authors are wrong. This is what I meant by "My (updated) understanding". If I am wrong, then please let me know.

PS: The first set of authors, when they say the مضاف is definite could mean that it is مخصص.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Qureshpor said:


> PS: The first set of authors, when they say the مضاف is definite could mean that it is مخصص.



Possibly, but most probably they mean definite in the sense that it can not take tanween, which is what I meant when I wrote


Mahaodeh said:


> this only makes المضاف definite, not the whole إضافة


----------



## Abu Talha

Qureshpor said:


> One set of Arabic grammar books regard the مضاف as definite in a phrase of the type.
> 
> بیت ملک bait-u malik-in "The house of a king".
> ...
> PS: The first set of authors, when they say the مضاف is definite could mean that it is مخصص.


Are there really books that say the مضاف is definite? I can see them translating بيت ملك as "the house of a king" in English but that does not mean that they say that بيت is معرفة in the Arabic.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Abu Talha said:


> Are there really books that say the مضاف is definite?



I would imagine that some might do so. You see, the name is confusing: التعريف بالإضافة would be the subject, which implies  that it makes ALL مضاف definite. Of course, specialists know what they are talking about but today anyone with a word processor can write a book and anyone with a few hundred quid can publish it in print!


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> Are there really books that say the مضاف is definite? I can see them translating بيت ملك as "the house of a king" in English but that does not mean that they say that بيت is معرفة in the Arabic.


Well, this is how I perceive it in the two references that I have provided. Please take a look and let me know if I am mistaken.



Mahaodeh said:


> Possibly, but most probably they mean definite in the sense that it can not take tanween, which is what I meant when I wrote


So do you agree that baitu-rajulin is "a house of a man"? If not, please see this thread, when you have a few moments to spare.
Definite/Indefinite iDafa/iDaafa الإضافة



Mahaodeh said:


> I would imagine that some might do so. You see, the name is confusing: التعريف بالإضافة would be the subject, which implies  that it makes ALL مضاف definite. Of course, specialists know what they are talking about but today anyone with a word processor can write a book and anyone with a few hundred quid can publish it in print!


Yes, this may be true. But the two authors that I have quoted are a bit more than people owning word processors and some money to print their books. And there are more.


----------



## Abu Talha

Sorry I missed the references. Thackston, as expected of him, says that the مضاف is indefinite.

Let's consider the others:


Qureshpor said:


> Please take a look at this sentence from G.M. Wicken's Arabic Grammar - a first workbook, page 105.
> 
> نظرت وجہ رجل میت She looked at the face of a dead man.
> 
> Surely, we can not translate this sentence as:
> 
> She saw a face of a dead man.... can we?


I think you've answered it very well yourself. There is no question that وجه رجل ميت is نكرة. But the idiomatic English translation is "*the* face of *a* dead man". The Arabic إضافة is such a basic construction that it can be used in such a case with no problems. In other words, if you were to translate the English sentence "she looked at the face of a dead man" into Arabic, نظرت وجه رجل ميت would be the natural translation. Something like نظرت الوجه لرجل ميت in an attempt to main the definteness of each word in the translation is too clumsy.



Qureshpor said:


> From, "Arabic simplified: a practical grammar of written Arabic by Arthur T Upson, page 50, he provides the following translation for اسم رجل
> 
> اسم رجل the name of a man/ a man's name


This again is a translation, not a comment on the definiteness of the word in Arabic. (I haven't checked to see if he would actually (incorrectly) say that اسم is معرفة)


----------



## Mahaodeh

Qureshpor said:


> So do you agree that baitu-rajulin is "a house of a man"?


Oh yes, of course I do! I thought I was clear in that, maybe I should have expressed myself better.

I do however understand why people are always confused by it.



Qureshpor said:


> Yes, this may be true. But the two authors that I have quoted are a bit more than people owning word processors and some money to print their books. And there are more.



I didn't mean that, I was just using مبالغة as a way to express myself - I didn't mean it literally.


----------



## Qureshpor

Just as a conclusion to this thread, would everyone agree that مقاماً محموداً is to be considered as if it were definite because this phrase is a quote from the Qur'an, as @cherine has suggested in # 4 or would anyone disagree with this assertion and has a different explanation?


----------



## Mahaodeh

Qureshpor said:


> or would anyone disagree with this assertion and has a different explanation?



Personally, I would not agree or disagree. While some linguists mentioned that the reason is that it's a set phrase, others gave other grammatical explanations. Personally, as a non-specialist, I would leave it up to them and just accept it as it is.

Having said that, I don't think that there would have been much discussion among grammarians had it been a normal occurrence in language. It is definitely unusual that's why they needed to come up with explanations.


----------



## Qureshpor

Abu Talha said:


> Are there really books that say the مضاف is definite? I can see them translating بيت ملك as "the house of a king" in English but that does not mean that they say that بيت is معرفة in the Arabic.


Here is an example from, "Arabic Grammar: A First Workbook" by G.M. Wickens. Please see p 48, para 87.
Arabic Grammar


----------



## Matat

Qureshpor said:


> Here is an example from, "Arabic Grammar: A First Workbook" by G.M. Wickens. Please see p 48, para 87.


This book is speaking about the English understanding of definiteness. Taking the example in that book, you could indeed translate وجه رجل as "the face of a man". However, for Arabic grammarians, وجه is still conventionally called a نكرة (indefinite), not a معرفة (definite), despite the fact that its translation/meaning in English would be definite. If you were to add an adjective, that adjective would also be a نكرة.
وجهُ رجلٍ جميلٌ = the beautiful face of a man

If the مضاف was a معرفة, then the adjective would be a معرفة:
وجهُ خالدٍ الجميلُ = the beautiful face of Khalid. (Note خالد is definite since it's a proper noun; وجه becomes definite by default).


----------



## Qureshpor

^ Thank you Matat for above. I was n't defending what Wickens has said in his book because I have already been "converted" for some time now in understanding the مضاف to be indefinite when مضاف الیہ is indefinite. I merely wanted to bring to Abu Talha's notice another instance where a grammar book writer (the late Professor G.M. Williams of Toronto University in this case) had unambiguously stated that in this situation, the مضاف is definite.

Wickens' reasoning appears to be that the single اعراب on the مضاف (dhammah, fatHah or kasrah) is indicative of a definite noun.


----------

