# من كان على دين الإسلام



## Ander

I found this definition of muslim: مَنْ كانَ على دِينِ الإِسْلام   
Why is the verb to be in the perfect tense which is for the past?


----------



## Tajabone

There is no, strictly speaking, a copula like "to be" (or être) in Arabic. Moreover, Kaana is very rarely used with a present tense: personal and relative pronouns are by far used in such contexts (mainly to specify an item or your object).
A definition is also a (succint) "genre" and it obeys to some internal rules. For instance, you shouldn't use a relative pronoun like Al-ladhi (or Al-llati) for it forces you to predefine and isolate your object while you're trying to do so in a general way (hence the use of "man").
If you had a sentence like "man yakun 3ala diin al-islaam", you would need a subordinate clause for the sentence as it is now, is incomplete semantically.

I'm not sure I've been of a great help at this unchristian hour but will try to do my best as soon as I can (I'm so busy lately...)

A la prochaine !


----------



## clevermizo

Wait, I'm confused:

Why is من يكون على دين الإسلام semantically deficient?

Thanks .


----------



## Tajabone

clevermizo said:


> Wait, I'm confused:
> 
> Why is من يكون على دين الإسلام semantically deficient?
> 
> Thanks .


 
 Certainly not, querido Cleverzimo The stylistic form of this definition is among the most standarised ones. Actually, it's a typicall construction using an impersonal (and general) aspect.


----------



## Ander

Tajabone said:


> Certainly not, querido Cleverzimo The stylistic form of this definition is among the most standarised ones. Actually, it's a typicall construction using an impersonal (and general) aspect.



Are you talking about my sentence with kaana or Clevermizo's with yakuunu?

Anyway is the definition of the dictionary correct grammatically speaking?

I need to know the answer to use the definition in a discussion.

I also find the use of 3alaa before diin a bit surprising.


----------



## licinio

Also we could add that sentences introduced by من behave as far as verbal tenses are concerned like hypothetical clauses, for they contain a sort of condition that, if met, makes the rest of the sentence true.
In other words:
Whoever follows Islam (=_if anyone follows Islam_, and I underline by a past tense that the condition has to be met to go on to the second part: _then this person_) is called a Muslim.
There are also other particles that entail this use of tenses, among which كلما that we have recently discussed about.


----------



## Ander

licinio said:


> Also we could add that sentences introduced by من behave as far as verbal tenses are concerned like hypothetical clauses, for they contain a sort of condition that, if met, makes the rest of the sentence true.
> In other words:
> Whoever follows Islam (=_if anyone follows Islam_, and I underline by a past tense that the condition has to be met to go on to the second part: _then this person_) is called a Muslim.



Where is your past tense, I don't see any in your examples?
I think you should have written: 
"Whoever has followed Islam then he is a Muslim until now" or something like that.


----------



## clevermizo

Tajabone said:


> Certainly not, querido Cleverzimo The stylistic form of this definition is among the most standarised ones. Actually, it's a typicall construction using an impersonal (and general) aspect.



But you said here: 


> If you had a sentence like "man yakun 3ala diin al-islaam", you would need a subordinate clause for the sentence as it is now, is incomplete semantically.


Unless you were referring to من كان...? I'm perfectly willing to except that generalized expressions with من will prefer the perfect/past tense but I just want to know if there is some real stylistic difference in use between من كان... and من يكون... or what you mean by the latter being semantically incomplete.

Thanks .

I think I'm beginning to get it though, in any case. The idea is that in a generalized definition/expression with "be" the form كان is a stylistic choice and its tense is irrelevant or otherwise "present" in its translation to English. Is that right?


----------



## Tajabone

Ander is expecting a present tense because he is used to reading definitions in French and English using such a tense.

As for me, Ander's sentence in Arabic seems very "natural" to me (once you're used to it, of course). A little study of the definition as a genre in Arabic corpora would have been perfect to go beyond my (mere) linguistic consciousness.
But the fact is you rarely come across *كان* used in a present tense (I can also mention Pierre Larcher who has a paper on the auxiliary category in Arabic).

When I said that the sentence was semantically incomplete, I was referring to the one I've proposed which uses *من* as a tool implying an imperfect jussive.
The point here with *من* is that it can be used as *ادات شرط جازمة* or as a *اسم موصول* .

A sentence like the following *من يكن على دين الإسلام* is indeed incomplete for it needs another clause answering and completing its meaning.

The fact is that in English and French, we expect the sentence to use a present tense while in Arabic, mainly in older literary productions (religious, etc.), it is frequent to see such a use (to which extent lexicometrically, I can't tell).

Note that using a past tense has also a "rhetoric" aspect: you deal with the fact as done and achieved. It's the nuance between defining (which involves an ontological status made certain with the past tense) and describing (which focuses on a present and _hypothetical_ action).
Allow me to give you a clue with sentences starting with : *من قال لا إله إلا اللّه*.


----------



## clevermizo

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Tajabone

You're welcome, Clever. It's me who's got to thank you actually.
Ander, I just want to tell you that the definition is very correct and I understand that it could sound a bit "peculiar" due to its  turn of phrase.
As for 3ala, just think of the construction *مَنْ كانَ على دِينِ الإِسْلام*  as if it were a "path". 
Other expressions may be of help like if you consider a path (i.e. symbolically) as being "wrong" or "good": *من كان على: السّنة/الحقّ/الهدى*.


----------



## cherine

Concerning على دين it's a sort of a set expression:إنه على دين الإسلام، إنه على دين المسيح، على دين موسى ....

As for the use of the verb "to be" in the past كان instead of the present يكون I can't explain it very much -sorry- but as Tajabone said, it's a very normal and common usage. Think of it as a way of description of a state. I mean, if it were a description of an action, the past tense could've been less natural.
Here's another example were the past tense is used:
المسلم مَن سَلِم المسلمون من لسانه ويده
A muslim is the person who doesn't harm/hurt others by words nor actions.


----------



## Ander

Thanks to all for your explanations.

Just one last question: 

Is it possible to say "man 3alaa diini l-islaam" ?


----------



## Qcumber

From what Tajabone explained, it appear that in Arabic the perfective/completed aspect as used in definitions has a gnomic value.

In English, French, and many other language, the gnomic value is expressed by the present tense, which of course, has no "present" value as what it says is not anchored in the speech time sequence of the author.


----------



## Qcumber

Is my (unsatisfactory) definition of “secretary” grammatically correct?
Kaatib كاتب: Manمن  xadama خدمfii فيmaktabمكتب.
= Secretary : whoever works in an office.
[Sorry, I wrote the Arabic letters in the proper order, but MS-Word reversed it.  So I used this trick.]


----------



## cherine

Ander said:


> Just one last question:
> Is it possible to say "man 3alaa diini l-islaam" ?


I don't think so, because it's an incomplete sentence. Remember that an Arabic sentence is either nominal اسمية or verbal فعلية. For the nominal to be complete it must have at least its two essential elements: المبتدأ والخبر and for the verbal: الفعل والفاعل .
A sentence like مَن على دين الإسلام is clearly not a verbal sentence; as it doesn't start with a verb. So it's a nominal one. It has its mubtada2 (man) but it lacks a khabar.
To make it a complete sentence we can say: المسلم هو من على دين الإسلام.
But I think كان sounds better 


Qcumber said:


> Is my (unsatisfactory) definition of “secretary” grammatically correct?
> Kaatib كاتب: Manمن xadama خدمfii فيmaktabمكتب.
> = Secretary : whoever works in an office.
> [Sorry, I wrote the Arabic letters in the proper order, but MS-Word reversed it.  So I used this trick.]


Do you mean الكاتب مَن خدم في مكتب ?
Yes, it's grammatically correct. Though in a sentence like this I'd use the present الكاتب من يعمل* في مكتب , maybe influenced by the modern usage. (sorry I don't mean to confuse you more, but I don't seem to be able to give a good explanation)

*The verb ya3mal (work) is better than yakhdim (serve).


P.S. To write the Arabic sentence in its proper order, put the sentence between these two tages [rtl ].. [/ rtl] (without spaces) and click on the (right-to-left) button in the formatting tool bar. (see the sticky for clearer explanation).


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> Do you mean الكاتب مَن خدم في مكتب ?
> Yes, it's grammatically correct. Though in a sentence like this I'd use the present الكاتب من يعمل* في مكتب , maybe influenced by the modern usage.


Yes, I meant this. Thanks for the rewriting and the correction.
So the gnomic use of the perfective/completed aspect in dictionary definitions that we observed with kaana, does not apply to 3amala, and probably all the other verbs.


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> P.S. To write the Arabic sentence in its proper order, put the sentence between these two tages [rtl ].. [/ rtl] (without spaces) and click on the (right-to-left) button in the formatting tool bar. (see the sticky for clearer explanation).


It works! Thanks a lot, Cherine.
الكاتب٬من يعمل في مكتب


----------



## Tajabone

As Cherine put it, there's an external influence in the making of definitions in MSA.
I also have to acknowledge that I fail to produce a systemised answer which could explain in a plain and clear way my native-speaker intuition on this matter (mainly after the good remark made by Qcumber on the compatibilty of verbs with kaana and/or the correct tense with other verbs).


----------



## Qcumber

Tajabone said:


> As Cherine put it, there's an external influence in the making of definitions in MSA.


This happens in many languages. Many lexicographers use English or Spanish or French dictionaries as models, and tend to reflect their style.


----------



## Abu Rashid

cherine,



> A muslim is the person who doesn't harm/hurt others by words nor actions



Actually that should be something more like "The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe".

I really can't see how you'd translate المسلمون generally to mean "others", as it quite clearly is the plural of Muslim.


----------



## El Siciliano

Ander said:


> I found this definition of muslim: مَنْ كانَ على دِينِ الإِسْلام
> Why is the verb to be in the perfect tense which is for the past?



Hi Ander, 

The fact that the verb is in ماضٍ or الماضي does not mean that the Arabs when listening to the verb feel its past sense or meaning. So, here we can say it is in the form of ماض but with a general present meaning. I can give you another definition of a Muslim in Arabic, a definition articulated by the Prophet (P.B.U.H) where we can see the same phenomenon: 
الْمُسْلِمُ مَنْ سَلِمَ المسلمون من يده ولسانه

"A Muslim is he whose hand and tongue the Muslims escape from unscathed."

Of course, this is a literal translation but here I think I have illustrated a great deal more how الماضي  works in Arabic.  This also happens in other "tenses" if that is what we can call them where for instance المضارع can be translated as past.
I hope this was of help,
John​


----------



## Ander

El Siciliano

I should not have asked in my first post why kaana is in the past tense, but rather if that dictionary definition of a Muslim is correct Arabic.

I know that in the Semitic languages the tenses do not work like in our European languages (except Slavic languages which have some verbal peculiarities too).
Verbs are mainly distributed according to their aspect (perfective  and imperfective).

One could say that the present tense in English does actually nearly not exist, because present is the very short moment between past and future, the second before future becomes past.

If one could calculate the length of time a Muslim is a Muslim, one would notice that being a Muslim is 99% in the past and 1% in the present.
So it can be very logical to use a past kaana to describe a state which is mainly in the past.


----------



## El Siciliano

Ander said:


> El Siciliano
> 
> I should not have asked in my first post why kaana is in the past tense, but rather if that dictionary definition of a Muslim is correct Arabic.



It is definitely correct Arabic ...



Ander said:


> I know that in the Semitic languages the tenses do not work like in our European languages (except Slavic languages which have some verbal peculiarities too).
> Verbs are mainly distributed according to their aspect (perfective  and imperfective).



God bless you and increase your knowledge ...



Ander said:


> One could say that the present tense in English does actually nearly not exist, because present is the very short moment between past and future, the second before future becomes past.



But I guess that´s why the English grammarians divide it into continuous or progressive and simple (or general???). I really wouldn´t know. I spent many years teaching English to foreigners so I could pay my stays in foreign countries but I never profoundly studied its grammar. I just limited myself to English grammar in Use. 



Ander said:


> If one could calculate the length of time a Muslim is a Muslim, one would notice that being a Muslim is 99% in the past and 1% in the present.
> So it can be very logical to use a past kaana to describe a state which is mainly in the past.



Your way of conceptualizing time is interesting. That would be an interesting study to carry out on speakers of the same language in order to arrive to any interesting conclusions both diachronically and synchronically ...

El Siciliano


----------



## Qcumber

Ander said:


> If one could calculate the length of time a Muslim is a Muslim, one would notice that being a Muslim is 99% in the past and 1% in the present.
> So it can be very logical to use a past kaana to describe a state which is mainly in the past.


This is a very weak argument.  What you say is true for all phenomena, yet languages use different tenses / aspects to express this.


----------



## Qcumber

cherine said:


> المسلم مَن سَلِم المسلمون من لسانه ويده


Barring the religious context, this is an excellent example for linguists because it is a gnomic statement, and its verbal form is in the perfective/complete aspect of a state verb.


----------



## Qcumber

El Siciliano said:


> The fact that the verb is in ماضٍ or الماضي


How long has it been called al-maaDii "the past"? Did the old Arab grammarians call it this way?


----------



## El Siciliano

Qcumber said:


> How long has it been called al-maaDii "the past"? Did the old Arab grammarians call it this way?


I didn´t know that old Arab grammarians called الماضي "the past." At any rate, ابن هشام as he is commonly called (1309 AD - 1370 and about whom ابن خلدون says:
ما زلنا ونحن بالمغرب نسمع أنه ظهر بمصر عالم بالعربية يقال له ابن هشام أنحى من سيبويهِ
when describing الماضي refrains from speaking about a tense. He only identifies it:

ماضٍ، ويُعْرَفُ بتاء التأنيث الساكنة وبناؤُه على الفتح كضرب إلاّ مع واوِ الجماعةِ فيضمُّ كضربُوا أو الضميرِ المرفوع المتحرّكِ فيُسكّن كضربْتُ ومنه: نِعْمَ وبِئْسَ وعسى وليْس في الأصح

Of course, I would have to see what سيبويهِ has to say but I don´t have his الكتاب . If you do, please see if he speaks about الماضي ...

El Siciliano​


----------



## WadiH

El Siciliano said:


> Of course, I would have to see what سيبويهِ has to say but I don´t have his الكتاب . If you do, please see if he speaks about الماضي ...
> ​
> ​


 
Here it is:
http://www.alwaraq.net/index2.htm?i=33&page=1


----------



## El Siciliano

Thanks Wadi,
But I am afraid I will have to look for ماضٍ tomorrow. It´s almost 2 am and I need some shut eye. But thanks for telling me where I can find it. I love Al-Warraq and often consult لسان العرب on it as I am collaborating with an old professor of mine in Arabic semantics. But I do promise you that I wil try to find out tomorrow whether سيبويه mentions الماضي or not. 
El Siciliano


----------



## Tawfeeq

Just bear in mind that there are many ways, even in English, which you will in the beginning stages of assimilating the language be forced to reference the Arabic to, of expressing an idea.  For example:

Muslim:  n. He who is of the religion of Islam.
Muslim:  n. He who has embraced Islam.
Muslim:  n. Whomever has taken unto Islam.

There are a lot of questions for which, even if we had a well-articulated, linguistic answer, wouldn't be satisfied.  Don't worry; the more exposure that you have to authentic Arabic the more you will, as I said before, "assimilate" the syntax to a point that things will "sound right" or "wrong" to the newly-burgeoned Arabic mind you're harboring.


----------



## El Siciliano

Tawfeeq said:


> Just bear in mind that there are many ways, even in English, which you will in the beginning stages of assimilating the language be forced to reference the Arabic to, of expressing an idea.  For example:
> 
> Muslim:  n. He who is of the religion of Islam.
> Muslim:  n. He who has embraced Islam.
> Muslim:  n. Whomever has taken unto Islam.
> 
> There are a lot of questions for which, even if we had a well-articulated, linguistic answer, wouldn't be satisfied.  Don't worry; the more exposure that you have to authentic Arabic the more you will, as I said before, "assimilate" the syntax to a point that things will "sound right" or "wrong" to the newly-burgeoned Arabic mind you're harboring.



Hi Tawfeeq, 
I am not an expert in English grammar but the third definition of Muslim that you have written is grammatically incorrect. The -m of _Whom _is present when it comes after a preposition. 
And your advice is excellent. The best way to acquiring a feeling of the language is exposure. 
El Siciliano


----------

