Allat was referred to as al-Kubra (The Greatest one)

maxq

From what I understand, there is a big jump in al-Najm between verses 18 and 19

18 Certainly saw from signs of his Lord, the greatest one!
19 Have you seen Allaat ... ?

Why all of a sudden Allat and the rest of the divine female trio... were they somehow considered the signs of God? Was one of them referred to as Kubraa that there would be such a shift from the mention of revelation to a challenge to the pagans? The detour is too great and the context is a bit detached.. of course, the idea is to mention to the pagans that their understanding is twisted, but still the verses seem a bit detached, os what if there is more than meets the eye?

Now let us consider a few manuscripts from the 7th and 8th centuries CE

Patriach Patriarch Germanus (715-730)
With respect to the Saracens, since they also seem to be among those who urge these charges against us, it will be quite enough for their shame and confusion to allege against them their invocation which even to this day they make in the wilderness to a lifeless stone, namely that which is called Chobar (KBR), and the rest of their vain conversation received by tradition from their fathers as, for instance, the ludicrous mysteries of their solemn festivals.

John of Damascus (730s)
These, then, were idolators and worshippers of hte morning star and Aphrodite whom in fact they called Chabar (KBR) in their own language, which means "great." So until the times of Heraclius they were plain idolators. From that time till now a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Muhammad (Mamed), who, having happened upon the Old and the New Testament and apparently having conversed, in like manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy. And after ingratiating himself with the people by a pretence of piety, he spread rumours of a scripture (graphe) brought down to him from heaven. So, having drafted some ludicrous doctrines in his book, he handed over to them this form of worship (to sebas).

and
They misrepresent us as idolaters because we prostrate ourselves before the cross, which they loathe. And we say to them "How then do you rub yourselves on a stone at your Ka'ba (Chabatha) and hail the stone with fond kisses?" . . . This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar (KBR).

We see that the pagans are referring to Aphrodite as Kobar, which is the same root as Kuabraa and even diacritical pronounciation is too similar to discard...

This again signifies that Allat and the rest of the sub-Gods were considered as signs of Allah, and hence, the concept of Allah for the pagans was not as the "Head God" but a combined all-encompassing God, similar to the concept of Jahovah (the father, the son and the holy-spirit)...

This again, is my personal understanding so if I have made a mistake, please correct me.

unknownuser

You take it completely out of context. The pagan deities are mostly feminine and the next verses regard the assignment of the genders, with respect to this.

I think I misunderstood what you're getting at though.

maxq

You take it completely out of context. The pagan deities are mostly feminine and the next verses regard the assignment of the genders, with respect to this.

I think I misunderstood what you're getting at though.

I agree, but that is the point... I am getting at the detached context from verse 18 to 19... why the sudden jump? What's the link? That is my point...

I agree that it is to differenciate between the understanding of pagans v/s the understanding of the prophet, and the gender bias.

unknownuser

I don't know. Continue in your research

The surah is written towards the pagans, hence the first part challenges their initial beliefs about the messenger, the second part addresses that. Aren't these shifts very common in the Quran?

maxq

They appear to be, but as I have demonstrated, there must be a link...

Another example is that of the surah Israa, verses 1 and 2 ... what do al masjid al haraam and al masjid al aqsaa in verse 1 have to do with Moses in verse 2 (by traditional standards) ... are we misunderstanding verse 1? As shown by some people on this forum, indeed people have misunderstood the verse#1 which is talking about Moses and not Muhammad.

And what is the result of this state of mind called al Masjid il Aqsaa?

maxq

I don't know. Continue in your research

The surah is written towards the pagans, hence the first part challenges their initial beliefs about the messenger, the second part addresses that. Aren't these shifts very common in the Quran?

precisely! so what I am trying to get at is that if a pagan Arab in the 7th century would read upto verse 18, what would come to his mind when he reads the word "al-Kubraa" ... the rest follows in verse 19

Jack

I am getting at the detached context from verse 18 to 19... why the sudden jump?

It's a common theme in al-quran isn't it?

maxq

I do not thing it is a common theme in terms of jumping around... unless you are talking about stories, but those as I understand, are allegorical and the message is consistant enough to carry the meaning across. So, it depends on the perception...

maxq

I would like to state here for sake of argument that the diacritical pronouncintion of is al-kub(e)raa and not al-kubraa... even though there is a JAZM on the Baa, the fact that it has a vowalic reberbic end (called QALQALAH) it can in fact be transliterated as Chobaraa. I am still not sure why the ending is left out, or maybe I am totally wrong about this.

unknownuser

I think the last quote alone is remarkable. Nothing more to be said )

maxq

I think the last quote alone is remarkable. Nothing more to be said )

ok ok ) maybe I'm wrong, but what about the attached image with the lexican meaning. Akbar as is Allah-u Akbar, is the male form, Kub(e)raa is the female form while Kub(e)r(an) is the non-gender/epithet form...

We know they called the black stone "Stone" (Hajr) ... and they referred to Allat as "chobar" ... so gramatically it can only be referring to Kub(e)raa and not Kub(e)r(an)

ayman

Peace Maxq,

Why all of a sudden Allat and the rest of the divine female trio... were they somehow considered the signs of God? Was one of them referred to as Kubraa that there would be such a shift from the mention of revelation to a challenge to the pagans? The detour is too great and the context is a bit detached.. of course, the idea is to mention to the pagans that their understanding is twisted, but still the verses seem a bit detached, os what if there is more than meets the eye?

The signs from the god that the prophet saw (he saw) is what is talked about in 18 as being "kobra" (great). Signs by definition provide guidance. This is put in contrast to the idols his people have seen (have you seen). Idols don't guide anyone. His people are following their fantasies. The lessons in chapter 53 are independent of what 8th century sources say. The god in 5318 uses "kobra" as a common noun. On the other hand, Kabar or Kobar as used by Arabs in the 8th century is the proper name of an idol-head represented by a black stone.

Peace,

Ayman

maxq

Peace bro Ayman
Yes this makes sense to me...
This part of my question/statement is refuted. So yes she would not be called al-kubraa, but kubar or kabar.

But I must point out that according to John of Damascus, the black stone was called "Stone" (I am assuming he meant Hajr) ... he then mentions that the stone is the head of Aphrodite, whom they call "Chabar/Chobar" in their language. So Allat is being called Chabar, not the stone...

My second question was, for us to undertsand why is there a jump between verse 18 and 19, we have to read on to verse 25 to get the context. If I were an Arab pagan, even if I called Allat as Chobar and not Kubraa, the moment I reach the end of verse 18, something in my mind would sort of click as to what might follow. But yes I understand that is futile question as I am not an Arab pagan an this is not the 7th or 8th centure CE. I hope D