New Salat Article
-
peace Anwar,
Allow me quote the article (red empahsis mine)
One could substitute this term with similar words such as link/bond/connect, remain attached, continue contact, follow closely or commitment, i.e. a word which implies to go/turn towards.
slw = go/turn towards. This is the core meaning of a general concept.
I think everyone here needs some lessons in reading properly.
-
Peace,
I'm not going to get upset with what you said. Tit for tat. It's all good. I titted you tatted. However, I did read well. To clarify, if I was not clear, I specifically disagree with your defining of sallaa as go/turn towards, because you arrive at that conclusion by context guessing. As I stated, context gives words connotations but never definitions. The definitions are what they are before context gives a word a certain connotation (for instance knowing that an English use of 'beating' refers to preparing food when used about eggs). These definitions are set in stone (unless you are using connotations of Arabic grammatical form, as Arabic also defines its word through combinations of root definitions and grammatic form (nounal and verbal)). So again let me state that my issue has nothing to do with whether you include 'to follow closely' in the list of definitions you give for the word. My issue is how you arrive at that, taking context guessing as a valid basis for inventing what you would deem as appropriate definitions of the Arabic words found in the Quran.
Let me also add that trying to find core meanings based on a sort of logical combining of all the meanings you have come accross (some invented and some actually found in dictionaries) instead of using grammatical form and synonymous meanings is in my mind no more than an excercise in trying to find the etymology of the word. And in the case that your etymology is true it goes back to a time when Arabic wasn't Arabic or at the very least was a very archaic form of the langauge, and still previous to when it became what we find in and around the Quran's era. It is the same deal with defining Allahu as 'the god.' That is its origin (a compounding of al-ilaahu) but not its meaning. The word simply means God, and al-ilaahu means 'the god.' It would be the same if you said that the word 'woman' means wife of man. That is its germanic origin 'wief-man.' But through compounding and changes in English pronunciation it became woman, and does not mean wife of man, but simply the female human being.
I hope you see my point now.
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace,
Glad you appreciated the tit for tat comment. ;D
Thanks for clarifying.
I agree with what you said, however I would add a few things to clarify.
I'm not sure if I'd say I came to a conclusion on the meaning, as I gave alternatives, but what I did do was bracket the meaning. Also, I wouldn't say I invented a meaning, as you yourself admitted "follow closely" is perfectly acceptable and this was a meaning I listed. The reason I opted for "go/turn towards" was that it was the obvious opposite of "go/went away", and I said this was the core meaning, not THE meaning.
The question of whether using context is an acceptable method of bracketing/determining meaning of AQ's words is a good one. Personally, I would have to say it is a superb technique. Especially considering the word usage precision of AQ is genuinely astounding.
As a side note, I cant recall an instance where using this method has led me to invent a meaning not found in a Classical Arabic dictionary, but it is a possibility.Just like the possibility that those who compiled the Classical Arabic dictionaries failed to include the possible meanings of all words in AQ.
-
Peace,
This is your choice. However, I feel that you are making the wrong choice. Using context to define words is not sound langauge. It reminds me of the fourth grade English lessons we had. The point of those lessons is to increase fluency in our own languages, enabling us to 'best' guess at a word that we don't know in order to continue with the flow of discourse. However, this technique is not a means of accurately defining words. That is why we have dictionaries in all languages. Whether you want to trust the technique (as you call it superb, and it is far from that) because it has "never let you down" - whatever that means - that is on you. However, again the purpose of the dictionaries (including the Classical Arabic ones) is to define a word from the perspective of the whole language's usage of that word, not to speculate on how one book (or speaker) uses the words that it borrowed from the language. So to me, it is futile to speculate on how the Quran defines its words, that is not the Quran's place. The Quran borrowed its words from the greater (and in this I mean expansive) language and used those words to communicate its unique message. So when it comes to the words the Quran uses, the Quran is not an Arabic authority, the Arabic language and how the Classical speaking Arabs used those words are the authority. The dictionary presents the usages of those authorities and often includes the Quran because of its impeccable (although sometimes over exaggerated) linguistic reputation.
The technique you are following should be something we do when we have no other choice. And we still have to keep in mind that we are still just guessing educatedly.
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace,
Whether you want to trust the technique (as you call it superb, and it is far from that) because it has "never let you down" - whatever that means - that is on you.
Puting aside the fact that is not the only technique used. I'm not even sure if I use it that often but when I do it has never let me down in the sense your reliance on Classical Arabic dictionaries has not let you down...
When none of the meanings make sense then we must conclude that a meaning of a certain word may have been lost or that the Qur'an used the wrong word. The latter would be pretty much impossible to prove because of the Qur'an's esteemed reputation throughout history as a work of Classical Arabic literature, but more importantly its being a Pre-Islamic relical work, like the Pre-Islamic Poems, both being at the root of the Arabic language's codification. Any fault in it would, with the most prudence, have to be put at the culpability of the codifiers of the Classical Arabic language since it is highly trusted that the Pre-Islamic Arabs would have highly scrutinized the Quran, because of their obsession with the purity of their language. And this, from what I know, cannot be proven otherwise. Moreover, if this were to happen we MAY (and I say that with a big MAY) be able to get from the context the GIST of the meaning of the word. In this case we would never be sure what the exact meaning of the word is and could only follow the most logical GIST or partial-meaning that we could. We pray God would not fault us for this. But so far, an occurrence like this hasn't happened.
It will be interesting if we ever come across a word meaning which AQ implies means X and Classical Arabic dictionaries says it means Y.
-
Peace,
I'm not even sure if I use it that often but when I do it has never let me down in the sense your reliance on Classical Arabic dictionaries has not let you down...
You are doing your best to make them equal. The dictionaries and that form of educated guessing are not equal at all. As you can see I have always made room for this technique as a last resort if we come accross a meaning not found in any dictionary (however we still need to take grammatical forms into consideration). Until now that has not happened, so it is better that we leave the context guessing alone unless we come across a situation where it is necessary. None of us have come across such a situation yet, which is why I have consistently been so harshly critical of employing context guessing when it comes to our study of the Quran. So far it has been completely without need and has been mostly used as a way to redefine Arabic words in order to put ideas into the Quran that fit the priorities of individuals. This in my mind is tantamount to nothing more than a attitude of rebellion against the Man, in this case the Islamic Man, or the Establishment, in this case the Islamic Establishment. We see in the Quran that a rebellious spirit is never a good thing. We have to accept and take the good and throw out the bad when it comes to everything and everyone. Not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace,
To clarify, at no point did I try to make them (dictionaries and "educated guessing" equal. I'm not even sure where you got that from.
Differing approaches (within reason) are good. One way of determining the accuracy of a methodology is to check/compare the result
http//www.quranists.com/prayer.html
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm -
Peace,
Wakas, you said
I'm not even sure if I use it that often but when I do it has never let me down in the sense your reliance on Classical Arabic dictionaries has not let you down...
The above is one of the reasons why I think you are trying to make them equal. To me it seems you are making relying on Classical Arabic dictionaries (I don't like the term 'reliance' here (you suggest some sort of blind dependence). It is more like referring to (as is done naturally in scholarship). I also refer to Arabic Grammar books that deal with nounal and verbal patterns and their connotations) equal to the methodology of context guessing that you are employing, and through which you have redefined Sallaa to mean 'go/turn towards.'
Godbless,
Anwarp.s. To sum it up I guess this is like a mathematical problem. I don't have as much an issue with your answer (this is not an issue of diversity of opinion); it's your work that I have problem with (using context guessing creates the mistake in your work and the assumption that this is a reliable form of deduction and not an extreme one to be used only when there is no other choice is why I disagree with you.)
-
Peace Anwar, Wakas, all,
And in the case that your etymology is true it goes back to a time when Arabic wasn't Arabic or at the very least was a very archaic form of the langauge, and still previous to when it became what we find in and around the Quran's era.
The term Arabic and especially Classical Arabic is a somewhat misleading name. There was no language named Arabic in and around the era of the book commonly named Quran no more than there was a language named A3jami. Those are descriptions not meaningless labels. Unfortunately, we are stuck with this name much like we are stuck with other even more grossly misnamed languages like Thamudic (which has nothing to do with the ancient tribe of Thamud).
The language of pre-Quranic inscriptions, the Quran, and early post-Quranic manuscripts and inscriptions is decidedly different from Classical Arabic (the Abbasid era theoretical language of fabricated Hadiths and pre-Islamic poetry). Some readily observable examples of differences include no vocalization case endings, casual disregard for even consonantal case endings and extensive use of the ?waw? device almost as a punctuation mark.
Language evolves and interacts and there are no artificial clear delineations such as this perfectly formalized Classical Arabic as you think. In fact, I would suggest that the Old Arabic (for a lack of better term) of the great reading is much closer to the vernaculars than it is to Classical Arabic. This is why the vernaculars appeared very quickly before even CA was formalized. I would propose that the language of the great reading was in itself a vernacular amongst the people of the prophet. I hope that Anwar will not get angry because of my opinion.
It is the same deal with defining Allahu as 'the god.' That is its origin (a compounding of al-ilaahu) but not its meaning. The word simply means God, and al-ilaahu means 'the god.' It would be the same if you said that the word 'woman' means wife of man. That is its germanic origin 'wief-man.' But through compounding and changes in English pronunciation it became woman, and does not mean wife of man, but simply the female human being.
But the word "allah" is clearly used in 63 when "al-ilah" (the god) is intended
- ...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
- ...and he is the god in the heavens ...
So ?al-ilah? is not just the origin but it also does convey the meaning.
If you are suggesting that ?allah? simply means ?god?/?ilah? then 63 and many other passages don?t make sense
?wa huwa ilah fi al-samawati?? doesn?t convey the meaning properly.
Similarly, ?la ilah illa ilah? doesn?t make much sense while ?la ilah illa al-ilah? does.
The word God (capitalized) is actually a way of talking about ?the god? not a ?god?. So I am OK with using the term God if you like. I prefer to try to stick as close as possible to the meaning most likely intended in the great reading (of course we can never be 100% sure).
To clarify, at no point did I try to make them (dictionaries and "educated guessing" equal.
But the dictionary is based on the ?educated guessing? of the dictionary author. This is reality. A dictionary doesn?t suddenly fall down from the sky. In fact, there are many ancient languages that didn?t have dictionaries and yet people were able to understand them based on context and educated guessing. Thus researchers are able to understand the ancient Egyptian language and its vast epigraphic record based not on dictionaries but on only one inscription, the Rosetta stone. Similarly, people in the past were able to understand dead languages such as Aramaic, etc. without dictionaries but based on context and educated guessing. Dictionaries are a useful tool but they contain many errors, are incomplete and often contain irrelevant information. This is especially true in the case of CA dictionaries which strain to attribute many meanings to religious, nationalistic and nostalgic Arab origin from the desert. Thus one must use them intelligently, which despite what anyone claims, will often involve ?educated guessing? of one form or another.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Hello,
One may also ask how are the dictionaries built. As far as I know, the author of a dictionary finds the word in one or several sources, and then guesses (more or less accurately) the meaning of the word from its usage. The source maybe the Quran, poetry, hadiths, or anything else. So, it may be pre-quranic, quranic, or post-quranic. Thus, using a dictionary may tantamount to using hadith (post-quranic Arabic), if its author relied on hadith to set the meaning of the word.
Disregarding the dictionaries, and using the Quran alone to guess the meaning of the words is thus tantamount to disregarding any source but the Quran for setting the meanings of the words ; so, it maybe more accurate. We may also try to use pre-quranic poetry (as Toshihiko Isutzu does in his books), provided we are sure it is really pre-quranic (and not post-quranic).Peace
-
Peace,
Ayman, once I again I cannot disagree with you more. The only thing I do somehwat agree with you on is in the fact that Classical Arabic was a vernacular, as was every Classical language before it gained status, Classical Greek and Classical latin and any other Classical langauge were all vernaculars at one time in the past. What you and others seem to not understand is that vernaculars also have rules, but it takes someone to sit down and think about them in order to teach others or put that language in a book and teach it to others. Because of the Quran, Arabic gained status and became a Classical Language. It went from a low status vernacular to a high social status vernacular (hence gaining the title Classical). But that has no bearing on rules and grammar. All languages (be they considered classical or colloquials) have rules and grammar. The title classical is more about status then having any bearing on rules and grammar.
Also, that usage of waw is a standard use in Classical Arabic. Maybe not MSA but I have read hadeeths and other literature that use the waw just this way.
And lastly being a long standing disagreement between us is that just because vocalizations are not written (they historical have not been even within words and not just their endings. This tradition of not writing vowels is also something that went for Hebrew, Aramaic and even ancient egyptian because of the exclusiveness of education. Now just as english readers memorize the highly variable pronunciatons of English words and educatedly guess when they read, Arabic readers memorize the most used vocabulary and educatedly guess when they read. To give you an example of what I mean how could you pronounce fa, ayn, lam as fA&AlA or even fA&Al without vowels. Even the wowels between the consonants were not and still are not written, yet you still pronounce those vowels.)
Again there is no reason to go into your post bit by bit. I could go on for days about your ideas about Allaahu and al-ilaah. I'm sure you and everyone who knows me knows what it is that I exactly disagree with, and I am not willing to start a long over-drawn back and forth on points that you know I disagree with and why.
None the less Arabs never cease to amaze me when it comes to how little they know about the language called Arabic. By the way A'jami was a name and a description and araby is only a description of all things that are associated with the Arab tribes. Arabun= Arabs and Araby = of the the Arabs. A'jam and A'jami (of the A'jam) DOES mean persian, foreign, barbarian and unclear Arabic. It obvioiusly comes from the experience of the Arabs with the Persians, seeing them as the most frequent outsiders in their territories, barbarians (because of contrasting cultural issues), and bad speakers because Arabic was their second language when they moved to Arab territories and there were no schools back them to teach them how to master the language). The Persians are the only people in that area that don't speak an Afro-Asiatic language that can be partially understood by the Arabs of that day and I'm sure Arabic was not easily learned by them for that reason. Araby only means of the arab tribes in this case describing their langauge, but also being a descriptive for everyting that belongs or is associated with these tribes.
Today's vernacular Arabic is not Arabic. No more than Modern Greek is the same as Ancient Greek, or Romanic languages the same as Roman/Latin, or Elizabethan or even the more ancient Old English the same as Modern Englishes. It would be idiotic to think that Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are the same languages just because they are called Greek. Or that Modern Roman and Ancient Roman are the same just because they are both called Roman. Or even Old English or Elizabethan English the same as Modern English because they are all called English. And again the few grammatical patterns that we find in the Quran that coincide with modern vernaculars and not MSA are the things that MSA struck from usage or doesn't use but remained in the dialects. Such things are called archaism. We find them in English often, where they are in Elizabetan English and in vernaculars but not in the standard language. For instance the use of reckon, yonder, or irregular verbal patterns axe for ask, kilt, spelt instead of killed, spelled. And there are more. But if you don't know about langauges you will be lost and led to conclude the wrong thing.
Most of you already know my opinion on this. Take it if you will or leave it if you will. It is your loss, either way. Accepting truth brings rejection and rejecting truth brings darkness of the soul and mind.
Godbless,
Anwarp.s. For those of you who have never heard of a spoken language being different than the written langauge. Please consider Jamaican English, Afro-American English, Liberian, Nigerian and Sierra Leonan English or even South African English, all of which are considerably different than their written counterparts. The same goes for Brazilian and African Portuguese dialects and even some Spanish dialects as it concerns the written versions of these languages often written in newspapers. Also, consider Hatian French as opposed to written French. The list can go on and on. The reason why Arabs are having a tough time with this is because they have not gone through a societal upheaval or a separation from the idea of the original Arabs and their language like other places have. Nor are they a very introspective, analytical culture. And this is a cultural statement. There are always individuals who do not fit the mold within any culture. I have met a few of those Arabs, although my assessment is that they are far and few between. Take it if you will, leave it if you will.
-
Peace Anwar,
Fortunately, there are many realities that go against your well known thesis.
Of course vocalizations are pronounced. When we open our mouth to talk we are "vocalizing". Which leads us to the first reality, which is that Classical Arabic vocalization of words is different from the real vocalization of the language of the great reading as empirically verifiable by the majority of its passages.
For example, in the language of the great reading we say "al-rahman allam-al-quran".
On the other hand, in Classical Arabic, we should say "al-rahmanu allam-al-qurana".
The natural pleasantly flowing rhyme of the great reading is the closest thing we have to an ancient voice recorder and what we hear from this recorder is that in the real language of the great reading there were no case endings (this is also vastly unlike later Classical Arabic Jahiliya poetry where the case ending is an integral part of the rhyme). You can argue infinitely about how people pronounced words 1400-1500 years ago but this will never amount to anything more than repeating an Abbasid era theory and will not change this empirically verifiable fact. Whether we like it or not, this empirically verifiable fact makes the Classical Arabic language (including its grammar) not exactly the same language as that of the great reading.
The second reality is that as you correctly said, a low status vernacular is exactly what the language of the great reading was. However, this means that it couldn?t have been a ?prestigious? poetry language that gave those who recited it elite status as Classical Arabic literature would have us think. Classical Arabic literature is not in the language of the great reading but is in a later idealized theoretical language.
The third reality is that a vernacular is fluid and has looser standards than a formal language. So it does have an impact on grammar. In a vernacular language, no one makes a big deal or raises an eyebrow when someone says ?wasssssssaaaaap? instead of ?what is up?? or ?what?s up? no more than an average Arab at the time of the great reading would have been scolded for saying to his family ?al-walad akal-al-khubz? instead of ?al-waladu akal-al-khubza?. I am also certain that his family would have known exactly what he meant had he said ?akal-al-kuhbz al-walad? and without the Classical Arabic case endings they wouldn?t have thought that the bread had eaten the child. This is the main difference between a vernacular and a formal rigid language. On the other hand, according to Classical Arabic the speaker has to very carefully think about and very precisely vocalize the case endings. Since context in Classical Arabic is inconsequential and case ending is everything, then if he isn?t extra careful someone might actually think that the bread ate the child. Unlike casual vernaculars, Classical Arabic is a cumbersome idealized theoretical language that no one ever actually spoke in everyday life.
As for your assessment that ?a3jami? can mean barbarian or unclear Arabic and that Araby means having to do with Arab tribes (begging the question what "arab" means in the first place), this is so clearly Abbasid era nationalistic propaganda and people can easily see how the great reading uses those terms so I am not even going to dwell on it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Of course vocalizations are pronounced. When we open our mouth to talk we are "vocalizing". Which leads us to the first reality, which is that Classical Arabic vocalization of words is different from the real vocalization of the language of the great reading as empirically verifiable by the majority of its passages.
For example, in the language of the great reading we say "al-rahman allam-al-quran".
On the other hand, in Classical Arabic, we should say "al-rahmanu allam-al-qurana".
This is your first incorrect statment. Vocalizations are all non-consonant letters, i.e. vowels, not just speaking in general. Please don't overgeneralize and force your self to say incorrect things. The first pronunciation that you provide fo the Quranic phrase is how Modern Arabs twist the Quran to make it easier for them. There are plenty of other evidences point to this twisting as well. The qalqalah for instance as well their are modern reciters who pronounce na3budu as ni3bidu an obvious dialect derived corruption. I'm sure you recognize it. Like niktib for naktubu.
The natural pleasantly flowing rhyme of the great reading is the closest thing we have to an ancient voice recorder and what we hear from this recorder is that in the real language of the great reading there were no case endings (this is also vastly unlike later Classical Arabic Jahiliya poetry where the case ending is an integral part of the rhyme).
The Quran has had its pronunciation forced to fit into poetry-like rhyme. It was made to always rhyme when it doesn't and made to be sung when it was not meant to be a song. Who said that the Quran has to rhyme? I've seen in the Quranic pronunciation where ahaanee is changed to Ahaanan and akramanee is changed to akraman and much more. Would you ever say huwa ahaanan for huwa ahaanee? You see how that throws your theory out the window? These are corruptions of the pronunciation of the Quran, just accepted ones so that the Quran could be made "more beatiful" to the ears of the people by forcing it to rhyme where it doesn't and making it like song when it was never meant to be sung. Again, who said that the Quran has to rhyme?
The second reality is that as you correctly said, a low status vernacular is exactly what the language of the great reading was. However, this means that it couldn?t have been a ?prestigious? poetry language that gave those who recited it elite status as Classical Arabic literature would have us think.
Again we have a mistake in your thinking. Think of hip hop for instance where Afro-American vernacular, a low status vernacular is used in song and music. Now on the whole scheme of Engilsh it is low status, but not to Afro-americans who appreciate and even praise the rhymes produced in their dialect. So whereas the language might not be prestigious on a worldly scheme it is highly praised on the street level and where this dialect is actually spoken. The same thing goes for Arabic. It was praised by the people who spoke it and used it before the Quran. It then gained international acclaim after the Arabs conquered a whole slew of people and held up the Quran (and their poetries) as the symbol of their language. Hence their Arabic then became prestigious and later Classical.
he third reality is that a vernacular is fluid and has looser standards than a formal language. So it does have an impact on grammar. In a vernacular language, no one makes a big deal or raises an eyebrow when someone says ?wasssssssaaaaap? instead of ?what is up?? or ?what?s up? no more than an average Arab at the time of the great reading would have been scolded for saying to his family ?al-walad akal-al-khubz? instead of ?al-waladu akal-al-khubza?. I am also certain that his family would have known exactly what he meant had he said ?akal-al-kuhbz al-walad? and without the Classical Arabic case endings they wouldn?t have thought that the bread had eaten the child. This is the main difference between a vernacular and a formal rigid language.
Here again you are a product of modern popular thinking, and not true scholarship. Proper English is '"what is up'' or "what's up" but what would seem to someone as unrigid or loose grammar because of differences in pronunciation is actuallly a lack of knowledge. Afro-American dialects work off of the contractions of most English phrases. Take the more archaic e'ry for every ain't for am not, etc. etc. Then because it has distinct subsrates (including Iberian dialects and different African languages) it applies different rules (not loose rules) to pronunciation. Consonant clusters are often simpified, take for instance busin' for busting, what's up became whas up. And it's and I'm take the place of it and I. So you will hear 'iss' for it's and then instead of 'it is' 'iss is' and instead of I am both I'm am and I'm is pronounced Ahm is and Ahm am. This is why I said you have to know languages to really understand this. When I talk to a regular Afro-American on the street they also think that they are just using loose grammar or bad grammar. If in Afro-American vernacular you can say something in proper English or dialect that doesn't mean that the dialect does not have rules or that it has loose rules. This is called diglossia where two languages or dialects are equally understood and used. For instance the use of be in afro-American English has very rigid rules. You can't say 'I be here' for I am here. That is just wrong, and is bad grammar. And there is a difference between 'I a be here' (which can sound just like I be here) and I be here (which is the habitual use). The issue here is that you have been taught that dialect versions of Classical/Proper langauges don't have grammar and that is wrong. Because of their low status they are usually undermined to make you think that they don't have grammar or that they have loose grammar but that is wrong. Every language has rigid grammar, they are just different grammars. It is not a matter of loose or rigid. So you cannot speculate on how the people back then didn't use case endings when it is obvious in all literature that they did. And it's being taken out when reciting the Quran is a corruption of the book to make it rhyme because in many places it obviously does not rhyme and was not meant to.
Unlike casual vernaculars, Classical Arabic is a cumbersome idealized theoretical language that no one ever actually spoke in everyday life.
Again what you are doing here is like comparing Elizabethan English to Modern English. It is cumbersome for you because you speak Modern Arabic just like I speak Modern English and Elizabethan English is cumbersome for me. It is amazing how despite the volumes of books with examples of the way people spoke back then you assume that all that is made up and somehow they all spoke like you do today. That is the most assumptious, presumptious fabrication I have ever come across and speaks to what I said about the Arabic culture today as a whole. You are not the only one I've heard this from. And it only comes out of the mouths of Arabs who are not well educated in Old Arabic literature and linguistics (the study of all langauges and their trends) and have not seen enough to make logical assumptions about the difference between their everyday language that they still call Arabic and the Arabic that Old Arabs used. Despite all of the evidence out there that people did speak with case endings you just take the few writings that don't write ANY vowels (not even the ones between the consonants) and assume that because you see f&l in an inscripton that they said it like you say it, fA&Al and not fA&AlA, when the truth is that NO vowel is written. I have explained over and over again why in the evolution of Arabic after the Quran the case endings were dropped, and conjugations changed. All you need to do is do a comparative study of Hebrew and Aramaic conjugations and realize that the majority of the people outside of the Arabian peninsula in the Middle East were speakers of Hebraic and Aramaic dialects (in Yemen Himyaritic dialects). If you knew anything about the evolution of Latin or Greek a great big bell in your head would ring.
As it concerns who is an Arab. The first Arabs were the original tribes within Arabia Felix that called themselves that. You know, the ancestors of Qahtan and Adnaan, the tribes of Mudar and the like. But because being Arab is a tribal affilation and not a racial one anyone brought into the tribes through intermarriage or acceptance becomes an Arab. that is why there are white Arabs to the north (from Caucasiod Mothers and Arab fathers from the south) and black Arabs (from the Old original Arabs (consider the Mahra and the black Arab tibes mentioned by Al-Jahiz) and from mixtures between Arabs from the peninsula and non-Arab mothers in Black Africa). And most are just a mixture of all the influences that came into the Pensinsula at any give time and were absorbed by these tribes. As well as the mixtures that went on outside of the Peninsula. The problem here is that Arabic patriarchism and the status involved with being Arab in the past totally shadowed out and erased the ethnicity of those non-Arab mothers. The only ones who have found themselves out of the mix are many sudanese Arabs, as European colonialism convinced the lighter Arabs that they are a Caucasian race, and they believed it trying to be as vain and stuck up as their conquerors.
Furthermore it is easy to see how the Quran uses those terms if you know Arabic and how it works and if you understand history. I don't see why this is Abbasid propaganda and I don't see your proof for this statement either. The habash (Black and Mixed Ethiopians) and the A'jam had been entering that peninsula for along time and fighting there. If you consider that the Habash spoke a langauge very similar to Arabic (both are Afro-Asiatic languages in the so called 'semtic' family) and the A'jam spoke a totally separate langauge (indo-european), it is obvious that if a habash learned Arabic it would flow better than an A'jam (like if A spaniard learned romanian or french). And there are more reasons for why the Persians would have been called A'jam. The banoo ghassan for instance had influence reaching down into the hijaz. They were proxies of Rome (Byzantine) and enemies of the banoo lakhm who were proxies of Persia. Thus creating a situation where the ideas of the banoo ghassan would be more prevalent in the Hijaaz (and also the aramaic scripts seeing that the banoo ghassaan were christian at the time).
I think I've explained myself enough. Take it or leave it. Either way you lose.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
This is your first incorrect statment. Vocalizations are all non-consonant letters, i.e. vowels, not just speaking in general. Please don't overgeneralize and force your self to say incorrect things.
This is probably the most bizarre thing I ever heard. Why would anyone claim that consonant letters are not vocalized? The fact is that anyone who speaks knows that consonant letters are certainly vocalized. Not only this but we know for sure that the vocalization for several of the Arabic consonants is uncertain and varies greatly. For example, in Arabic the letter Geem is vocalized either as J or G. The same is true for the letter Qaf which is vocalized as Q or G or even A. The letter Kaf is pronounced as K or Ch. In fact, in pre and early post-Quranic Greek manuscripts we see Arabic words often transliterated with the letter Kaaf as a Ch. So Kabir (great) should actually be vocalized as Chabir. This is reality and you can ignore it if you want but you can?t change it.
The first pronunciation that you provide fo the Quranic phrase is how Modern Arabs twist the Quran to make it easier for them. There are plenty of other evidences point to this twisting as well. The qalqalah for instance as well their are modern reciters who pronounce na3budu as ni3bidu an obvious dialect derived corruption. I'm sure you recognize it. Like niktib for naktubu.
Given the inconsequential functional load of case endings in the passage, the vocalization that I provided would have been easier and far more practical even for ancient Arabs. There is no reason to believe that ancient Arabs were more interested than modern Arabs in inconsequential things and unnecessary complications in their everyday language.
The Quran has had its pronunciation forced to fit into poetry-like rhyme. It was made to always rhyme when it doesn't and made to be sung when it was not meant to be a song. Who said that the Quran has to rhyme? I've seen in the Quranic pronunciation where ahaanee is changed to Ahaanan and akramanee is changed to akraman and much more. Would you ever say huwa ahaanan for huwa ahaanee? You see how that throws your theory out the window? These are corruptions of the pronunciation of the Quran, just accepted ones so that the Quran could be made "more beatiful" to the ears of the people by forcing it to rhyme where it doesn't and making it like song when it was never meant to be sung. Again, who said that the Quran has to rhyme?
Maybe the only type of rhyme you know is the mechanical and monotonous rhyme of Jahiliya poetry and this is why you don?t appreciate the inherent natural rhyme of the great reading. The rhyme that everyone instinctively recognizes in the great reading is different. It is not mechanical and pretentious like that of Jahiliya poetry. It is a natural pleasant rhythmical flow. It has nothing to do with singing. No one on this forum sings the great reading when they read it. Yet we all intuitively appreciate and read along with that flowing rhyme even when we read a passage for the first time. This self-evident inherent property in the great reading completely disappears when you vocalize with Classical Arabic case endings. Unlike the Abbasid era theoretical Classical Arabic, this is an empirically and easily verifiable fact that we can all practically experience. This simple fact alone is enough to 100% confirm for everyone that the language of the great reading is not Classical Arabic. Again, this is reality and you can ignore it if you want and instead live in your theoretical world of Classical Arabic but you can?t change it.
Again we have a mistake in your thinking. Think of hip hop for instance where Afro-American vernacular, a low status vernacular is used in song and music. Now on the whole scheme of Engilsh it is low status, but not to Afro-americans who appreciate and even praise the rhymes produced in their dialect. So whereas the language might not be prestigious on a worldly scheme it is highly praised on the street level and where this dialect is actually spoken. The same thing goes for Arabic. It was praised by the people who spoke it and used it before the Quran. It then gained international acclaim after the Arabs conquered a whole slew of people and held up the Quran (and their poetries) as the symbol of their language. Hence their Arabic then became prestigious and later Classical.
In the case of Jahiliya poetry we are not talking about ?street level? prestige. We are talking about political and religious prestige to the extreme. Allegedly hanging Jahiliya poems on the most revered religious shrine and gaining through it access and favor with Ghassanid royalty and such would be the equivalent in America today of hanging Hip Hop poetry on the Supreme Court and giving Hip Hop artists the Noble prize in literature.
Here again you are a product of modern popular thinking, and not true scholarship. Proper English is '"what is up'' or "what's up" but what would seem to someone as unrigid or loose grammar because of differences in pronunciation is actuallly a lack of knowledge. Afro-American dialects work off of the contractions of most English phrases. Take the more archaic e'ry for every ain't for am not, etc. etc. Then because it has distinct subsrates (including Iberian dialects and different African languages) it applies different rules (not loose rules) to pronunciation. Consonant clusters are often simpified, take for instance busin' for busting, what's up became whas up. ...
Even in your argument you acknowledge that in vernaculars things are simplified and not made more complex and strict. This is especially the case for elements that do not serve much practical function. Those are the first elements to go away in a vernacular. It is an empirically verifiable reality that case endings have an insignificant functional load so it is highly unlikely that they would have been part of what you already admitted to be the real vernacular language of the great reading.
The discussion that we are having about vocalization marks is not new or even exclusive to Arabic. Christians had similar discussions about the vocalization marks of Hebrew texts of the Old Testament. You are taking a dogmatic view similar to that of fundamentalist Christians that the Hebrew Niqqud (vocalization marks) are inspired when in reality we know that they were invented around 500CE while the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was inspired in a different millennium. It is not surprising that like the Arabic Tashkil, the Hebrew Niqqud is completely useless and is never used in practice. It is also not surprising that in both cases as we see here in this discussion and elsewhere dogmatic ideas about the language prevent people from coming to grips with reality.
The rest of your post is equally detached from reality. Like your blind acceptance of supposed Arab (whatever that means) genealogy from Abbasid era nationalistic sources. Or your claim that the Roman proxies Ghassanids used Aramaic scripts because they were Christians when in reality we know from the epigraphic record that the Romans and the Ghassanids used Greek as their political and religious language. Thus, they even wrote Arabic using the Greek script. On the other hand, the Aramaic script was used to write Arabic in the Lakhmid areas which fell outside this Roman Trinitarian influence. Thus, Aramaic was the language of religion and politics of groups such as the Nestorians which the Trinitarians viewed as heretic and which took refuge in the Lakhmid provinces. As I said, the rest of your post is equally detached from reality and my response is already too long so I will not go into further pointing out of what everyone can easily verify for themselves. I will however address one more point despite it being self-evident because you specifically asked me to clarify
Furthermore it is easy to see how the Quran uses those terms if you know Arabic and how it works and if you understand history. I don't see why this is Abbasid propaganda and I don't see your proof for this statement either.
Your prejudiced view that ?a3jami? can mean barbarian or unclear Arabic is completely negated by 16103 which indicates that the language of religious writings is ?a3jami?, i.e. foreign. A language of religious writing can hardly be regarded as ?barbaric? or ?unclear?. In fact, you even contradict what you said about the real language of the great reading being a street language since it is actually street languages that are regarded as not civilized or ?barbaric?. This is also confirmed by the epigraphic record showing that the language of religion in the 6th-7th century CE was Greek in the Ghassanids provinces and Aramaic in the Lakhmids provinces. So this is reality.
As for ?3arab?, it has to do with virgin, wild, untouched, crude, and unrefined. When used to describe a group of people it becomes ?a3rab? just like in the case of sabat and asbat, nabat and anbat (Nabateans), etc. In line with ?3arab?, the term ?a3rab? means people from the wilderness (in contrast to city dwellers) and this is how it is used in the great reading. It has nothing to do with genealogy. Similarly, when describing a language, the term ?3araby? implies a wild language, i.e. a street language (as you admit) and not a formal or an unfamiliar foreign one.
So I would translate 16103 as follows
- And we know that they say that it is a human who teaches him. The language of the one who they falsely attribute to is foreign and this is an obvious wild language (i.e., in modern terminology a ?street language?).
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace be upon you brothers and sisters,
Solaa, just as the title of this section states, means Link. The birds flying in a column is the RESULT of them knowing thier Link(solaa) with the God. The God has developed a SYSTEm(deen) for all creation. Only those who establish thier Link , thier connection/link with the God, follow that system. They follow it closely. "Each knows its solaa", yes, the birds know thier position with the God as servants because they know thier connection with the God. And the instructive example is the birds getting up at dawn EVERY MORNING, not hitting the alarm clock, not doing ritual prayer, but singing song. Now when we think that solomon was taught the speech of birds, we realize that the birds are symbols of spirituality. That is why they are used in example of Abraham and the four birds. The Birds give us the best of examples in this matter!! o))
Solaa is reciting of the REading(Qur'an) at dawn and dusk. We must realize that the restricted house(bayt) is a Psychology. The best psychology. Al day we are bombarded with so many differnt psychologies. The psychology of sex, violence, etc. The God tells us that we should establish the Link with Him at dawn and dusk to keep us from evil deeds. The Mind is where everything starts. Thought forms actions. If you watch violence all the time, it rubs off. If you read the Words of the God everyday, it rubs off o) We are fighting a battle. I can FEEL IT when I don't establish solaa for days or weeks. I can feel myself slip back....but this is not proof so I will get back to the topic.
PEACE Kyle,
I agree with you on the fact that solaa is Reciting the Quran...
How else did a generation of gentile Arabs learn the Quran by heart?
-
Peace,
Ayman there is no point responding to your post. You are intent on making up your own version of history and justifying it however you can. Modern Dialects are not the Old Arabic, I will say that once and for all. And "wild langauge"? These opinions of yours are pure fantasy. I have spoken the truth for all to see. And those who are willing to truly study will see the truth from falsehood. And whoever wants to rebel against the Islamic version of "the Man" then let them. I've never seen any one more Modernly Arab-centrist than you. All history that is not yours is a conspiracy. What kind of thinking is this? Unfortunately this kind of thinking is gaining force amongst the uneducated, including many uneducated Arabs. Anyone who doesn't know that all your are saying is your own invented version and corruption of truth then shame on them, and on you. May God guide you to the truth and heal your mind from its maladies and perversions. I know you'll say the same thing and respond back with like. But whatever, this is the truth take it or leave it. You lose either way.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
If you are going to be studying ancient linguistics seriously then you really ought to be more professional in your responses and leave emotions and antagonism at the door. You are getting better at it but you are not there yet... just a friendly piece of advice.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Nadeem,
Perhaps brothers Ayman and Progod could suggest for us some books that might shed more light on this issue?
I would suggest Taha Hussein's excellent book "Fi Al-Adab Al-Jahily". This book is about how to improve the methods of teaching of classical Arabic literature. As it turns out, this mundane educational book pitted him against the establishment that had earlier embraced him, Al-Azhar, to the point where he was declared by some to be a blasphemous heretic. The book?s main thesis is that teaching of classical literature should not be organized into neatly delineated sequential historical periods, but one should take into account themes and styles as well as the cultural and literary milieu. Unfortunately, most of those who conventionally study Classical Arabic, including Anwar as we see here, fear such obvious idea.
After analyzing the themes and styles of pre-quranic poetry and considering the cultural and literary forces likely affecting their development, Taha Hussein concluded that the vast majority of pre-Quranic poems are in fact later-day fabrications from the post-Quranic Umayyad and Abbasid period.
Taha Hussein was not alone and, around the same time, other researchers made similar observations. David Margoliouth of the University of Oxford published a paper entitled "The Origins Of Arabic Poetry", in which he reached the same conclusion.
Margoliouth?s theory is based on passage 26224-227 of the Quran, which talks about the poets and categorically argues against people at the time claiming that the Quran is poetry. As many researchers did, he noted the obvious fact that the Quran bore no resemblance in structure, style or content to pre-Quranic poetry. So this presented a puzzle Mohammad, who was not familiar with the art of poetry, was aware that his revelations were not poetry; whereas his people, who presumably knew the art of poetry, thought they were. We should have expected the converse. Margoliouth resolved this puzzle by concluding that the poems we know of as pre-Quranic were actually forgeries of a later Islamic period.
Other interesting works include MCA MacDonald "Reflections on the Linguistic Map of Pre-Islamic Arabia", which I had sited in one of my articles.
As you saw in Anwar's response, like all those who emotionally defend pre-Quranic poetry, he takes his cue from Hadith defenders by resorting to a straw man and screaming "conspiracy theory" to anything questioning the traditional. Ironically, one of the least controversial and hence most overlooked aspects of Crone and Cook's book, "Hagarism" deals with the cultural forces affecting the Ummayad and Abassid empires. Those cultural forces created strong demand for Arabic pre-Quranic and prophetic literature. Of course, demand naturally creates supply and the natural law of supply and demand negates the need for any conspiracies.
Peace,
Ayman
