New Salat Article

progod

Peace,

SECOND PART

Most Arabic words have in fact their origin in a different language. So Classical Arabic dictionaries trying to attribute almost each and every single word meaning to an Arab origin is a clear example of the Arab nationalistic bias that ails Classical Arabic studies. For example, Lisan Al-3arab falsely classifying ?allat? (5319) under LTT and claiming that it was called so because of an Arab man mixing dough (ltt) at her idol when the Nabataean origin and classification under ALH is readily obvious is moronic and dishonest Arab nationalism at its best. We are talking here about the most authoritative Classical Arabic dictionary suffering from such dishonesty and moronic bias. Fortunately, with an intelligent reading of Classical Arabic dictionaries one can easily separate the real meanings from the ones that were invented to promote Arab nationalism. So your claim that all meanings in Classical Arabic dictionaries, whether for ?salat? or any other word are 100% valid is simply false wishful thinking not grounded in reality.

It is obvious that some words don't have Arab origins. But I would not accuse Lisaan al-Arab of this as it only relates it back to word usage and form usage within the Arabic language. Lisan al-Arab does relate some words duly back to foreign origins. That mentality is more of a modern one than an ancient one. Tafsirs and lisan al-arab are full of words relating back to foreign origins. Modern Arabs however are resistant to the inclusion of foreign words into MSA so they invent Arabic words based on Arabic pattern for modern phenomena. You are confusing Classical Arabic Academic trends with MSA trends. I disagree with your assessment of allat. It is obviously a local notion with the origin of the word. It does not follow the lam, ta ta form and is just a guess at the word. But that is not lisaan-al-arabs fault. I'm sure if you look a little closer you will see how that meaning is attributed to a certain scholar. And that is where you have assessed my mentality wrong. I believe in examining all Classical Arabic dictionary meanings. But some meanings are obviously the opinion of some Islamic scholars and don't make sense within the context of Arabic grammar. Such meanings obviously must be left behind. But you are blaming the dictionary instead of the source that was clearly listed for you.

This is simply false and thus you can?t produce examples despite them being abundant. Take for example, ?alansar? in 9100 and 9117 or ?alawthan? in 2230 or ?alasbat? in 2136, 2140, 384 and 4163. They all have the same exact form and derivations as ?ala?rab?. So something having to do with idols/?alawthan? is ?something wathany?, something having to do with ?alansar? is ?something nasary? and something having to do with ?alasbat? is ?something sabaty?, etc... Therefore, something having to do with ?ala?rab? is ?something ?araby?. Certainly ?ala?rab? doesn?t mean ?people who speak more clearly? or ?people from a certain genealogy? but the term is clearly used in the great reading to mean people from the wilderness in contrast to city people or civilized people. Of course, it is not surprising that you completely ignore this empirically verifiable meaning of ?ala?rab? in your false arguments.

You show a complete lack of knowledge of Arabic form and you are obviosly having linguistic interference with your Modern Arabic vernacular language. al-asbaatu comes from sabt (NOT sabat), ansaar from nasr (NOT nasar). There are no such things as sabaty or nasary in the known language. This is a modern pronunciation of yours with originations in the poetic style of qalqalah. Where Waqt becomes waqit or waqat. You are in clear error here. Now, the form fa'l differs from the form fa'al. For instance sakr is different from sakar, and sabr is NOT sabar. These two forms convey different meanings but share a pluralized form af'aal. fa'al usually conveys a meaning of maf'ool or fa'aal (fa'aal can be an informational noun or something that embodies the root fa'ala). Whereas fa'l usually conveys the meaning of an information noun or faa'il, the active participle. But sometimes they are nouns with no root meaning being of foreign origin, especially if they are proper nouns. For instance e tair for Tyre (Misr doesn't follow any root meaning either, nor does nooh) and as I see it 'arab for the Arab originated outside of, or before an there was, an Arabic context.

In fact, even in Lisan Al3arab, the meaning for the verb ?a?rab? is given as ?speaking in a rude or boorish way? and ?i?rab during sex? means ?dirty talking during sex?. Those meanings cannot be reconciled with genealogy or with speaking clearly but is completely reconciled with having something to do with vulgar people from the wilderness.

Your concept of classical versus vulgar is imaginative and unfounded. Classical langauges also have explicit words and concepts like these. And as in the case of Classical Arabic a vulgar (colloquial) language became a respected, archaic and taught (i.e.Classical) language through a process of gaining status that involved Arab/Islamic military, religious and cultural conquests as well as academic classification of the Old/Classical Arab language. But it never changed grammatically as a langauge as it moved into the realms of education, status and the classics.

Anwar, from what I have seen so far, all your knowledge of Classical Arabic (other than the progress that you made in the course of our discussion) is merely theoretical standard issue. Nothing you have said is beyond what is taught at secondary education level in any Arab government educational program. If you disagree then please list even one point that you made about Classical Arabic which is beyond that level.

At least what you have understood. But if that is so maybe you need to go back to the basics. You say it is theoretical, but all Arabic texts pre 1900 fit into this "theoritical standard" context. Whereas what you have conjectured up is not even consistent with real texts or even the Quranic text or recitation which you have biasedly tried to use as evidence for your theory. In the end what you are proposing is the theory and what I have been saying all along is to be found in every piece of non-Modern Arabic literature dating all the way back to pre-Islamic days, including and most especially the Quran, in all its forms.

Yes now you do and you would not have learned this if you kept sticking to standard Arab governmental Classical Arabic secondary education.

You should rather say "standard governmental Mondern Standard Arabic secondary education". Because what they are teaching is close to but not really Classical Arabic.

What Old Arabic literature? It takes a lot of imagination to claim that Classical Arabic literature is Old Arabic. So unless you went to Arabia and unknowingly to the rest of the world dug out some Old or Proto-Arabic literature then please stop using this Old Arabic term so haphazardly.

I'm using the term appropriately not haphazardly. If I wanted to talk about Proto-Arabic literature then i would. But Proto-Arabic is not Old Arabic. Old Arabic is Classical Arabic. And Modern Arabics are dialects and MSA.

They are not exception. There is not a single instance in the great reading where the meaning cannot be figured out without case endings. So the fact that case endings are useless is not an exception and indeed it applies to the whole language.

This is not true. Not including case endings can change meanings. Again you are comparing apples to oranges. If I say yaqool instead of yaqoolu that is subjective as opposed to present/present progressive. And there is a difference even between laa ilaaha illa allahu and laa ilaahun illa allaahu. or illa allahu and illa allaha. The point here is that in modern Arabic alot of this is not included and you base meanings more off of intonation and simpler forms. But Classical Arabic is specific leaving no doubt and that is why Classical Arabic is the language of the Quran and not Modern Arabics. Classical Arabic is the perfection of specificity and internal forms and patterns of meaning allowing for interpetation while at the same time allowing for as little doubt as possible through subtlties of case. But if you don't know or understand this, it just seems overly complicated. That is Classical Arabic, and Modern Arabics have evolved away from that.

What are you talking about? Whether Classical Arabic is a close approximation of the language of the great reading or an exact one is THE issue. What else is the issue? You never spoke Classical Arabic in your life and neither did anyone else. So there is no issue of learning Classical Arabic for communication.

They certainly did speak it in the past and all evidence points to that. If you deny this you are unduely conjecturing falsehood. But it is not spoken any more generally (although some news casters on Al-jazeerah do use every case ending and the Quran is still recited like this as well as Umayyad an Abbasid literature, plus Hadeeths, dua's and whoever recites pre-islamic poetry). It can be used for communication but its specificness for those who are not used to langauges that are of this class and calibre seems redundant. Old Arabic is a sythetic language and that was the tendency for Latin, Greek and other ancient langauges. Modern Arabic is more analytic (cnoveying subtle meanings through combination of vocabulary) and that seems to be the tendency of most modern languages. So don't feel bad if you see such subtlies as redundancy. They are not, but you are looking at it from the lense of an analytical language.

It is not surprising that everything in Abbasid literature is IDENTICAL to Hadiths and pre-Islamic poems because this is EXACTLY what one would expect if those Hadiths and poems were developed DURING the Abbasid era. So your observation actually confirms that they are post-Quranic.

It is not suprising at all, as the Ummayads and the Abbasids were still connnected to the then living tradition of Classical Arabic.

On the other hand, the language of the great reading is different as evidenced by the following obvious facts

The great reading was meant to be recited without case endings.

How is this a fact when Quranic recitation to this day proves the opposite? For every 10 words recited 9 are recited with case endings and the ones that aren't are poetic pauses for rhyme.

2
. You admit that the language of the great reading was a vernacular. Case endings are useless memorized forms of hypercorrections that would not have been part of the intrinsic grammar of an untaught vernacular language. This is why they are spontaneously non-existent in ALL vernacular Arabic varieties.

This is your incorrect conjectured asssesment. Case endings have their obvious grammatical place, all language forms are memorized first then use intrinsically but as case endings have no place in modern Arabics of course trying to insert them without understanding their full grammatical intention would seem useless. And they obviouly do not fall into the category of hypercorrections and cannot even be traced to Hebrew niqqood because Hebrew does not have case endings. Classical Arabic WAS a vernacular language, just as Classical, Latin, Greek and Old English. Because they fell out of use as vernaculars does not mean they were somehow different than how we know and learn them today when they were still spoken vernaculars. And the reason why cases are non-existent in all MODERN verncular Arabics is because vernacular Arabics are the result of creolization between Classical Arabic and non-case, analytical languages like vulgar Greco-greek, Aramean, berber, Coptic,Chadic, Nubic and Himyaritic languages. Creolization on its own usually reduces resulting languages to an analytic category.

The great reading contains what would be glaring grammatical errors.

Only according to the modern MSA are these glaring grammatical errors.

Unlike Hadith and Jahiliya poetry, the vocabulary of the language of the great reading reflects earlier non-religious and non-Arab-Nationalistic usage (like ?a3rab? being used in contrast to city dwellers and not having anything to do with Arab nationalistic genealogy and Allat as the name of the Nabataean deity The Goddess as opposed to having anything to do with some Arab mixing dough, etc.).

This idea is based on a lack of consideration of Arabic forms and meanings. It is well known that city dwelling Arabs considered desert dwelling Arabs to be more culturally genuine to Arabs roots of pastoralism and free range movement. So that is how &arab in its plural form also took on A meaning of desert/nomad Arabs. But it can also refer to all of the Arab tribes. The same thing happened with the word for Persian and how it began to communicate poor communication and barbarism, obvious results of Persian immigration to the area and their difficulty with the langauge and local xenophobia. As far as the explanation of allaat, this I am sure is sourced to a scholar's opinion. Just like Islam as submssion to God is sourced as a scholars opinion in Lisaan al-Arab. The dictionary is not to be blamed for this baseless (but obviously generally accepted) opinion nor is the meaning to attributed to the actual dictionary.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

Which verse(s) are you referencing for the example with Mary?

Are you working along the lines of since 'B' is mentioned in the same verse/context as 'A' then that means 'B' is done during 'A'? Or is it simply one of the possibilities?

I'm still waiting Anwar.

Yosemite

Whatever position you are in, whatever the way you are facing, God always sees us.

And you can do the prayer as true as you can, if the prayer isnt sincere, then what is the use of it

That's why i avoid public places like mosques, i feel like i pray just because everyone prays. That's bad.

progod

Wakas,

Sorry I forgot about you.

343 O Mary! Remain thou truly devout unto thy Sustainer, worship (asjudi), and bow down (arka'i) with those who bow down."

I also beleve that zakaat meaning betterment or what is right/just aa'too az-zakaata can mean do what is right (give yourself (for III) to what is right).

So in the below and in other passages that say the same

243 and be establish prayer, do what is right and bow down (along) with all who bow down.
Waaqeemoo alssalata waatoo alzzakata wairkaAAoo maAAa alrrakiAAeena

555 yuqeemoona alssalata wayutoona alzzakata wahum rakiAAoona

912 alrrakiAAoona alssajidoona (these go together)

4829 Thou canst see them bowing down, worshipping seeking favour with God and goodly acceptance

Godbless,
Anwar

sajada means to worship generally and to prostrate in worship (reverence) as thas was the custom of showing reverence then. I don't think prostration is necessary but it is totally acceptable.

Wakas

peace Anwar,

Thanks for clarifying.

So, from the verses you referenced Mary is not linked to "bowing" in "salat" but as part of "sajada" which you translate as "worship" from the possibilities. In my opinion this is not what I call solid evidence for your statement below

Now the Quran does associate raka&a (which is to bow or kneel) with Salat in particualr Mary's salat.

And in the other verses you referenced, you cant make a direct link to "bowing" in "salat" but make this link based on "sajada" being "worship" and presumably its proximity to the word "salat" in some contexts. Is this correct?

Also, I dont think you answered my second question. I will clarify it you imply that bowing is part of prayer (I will assume you mean "salat" by prayer) due to its proximity in context (or do you have some other evidence?) so my point was do you also consider other things mentioned in close proximity to "salat" as part of "salat", e.g. "atawoo az-zakat"? If not, what is your criteria for what you think is part of it and what is not or do you have no criteria?

progod

Peace,

Yes you are correct that is based on sajada. I'll do my best to find some contexts where it is mentioned more specifically with the word Salat. But I will say that I think it is logical that when our Salat means prayer and it is directed towards God that it implies worship. As I said also eetaa' uzzakaat is doing what is right/just, so in the contexts where it is mentioned with Salaat it can be connected to Salaat or considered on its own. I'm sure at one time I had enough evidence for this, which is why i bow in some form when I pray. But honestly, when I come accross this evidence I apply it in my life and don't write it down or formulate it to prove it to others because in the end many won't accept what I have to say anyway. There are so many things I have seen in my study of the Quran that I don't decide to write down and bring up here on free-minds, that when the topics come up I'm at a loss for soild evidence to disprove the unquranicness of the many erroneous statements people say here. I'm sure those are just words to many of my enemies and critics here. But they can buzz off, because it is truth. So I apply these discoveries in my life and live and let live. But you'll have to give me some time to more deeply re-discover where and why i came to this conclusion, and the other verses that may have pointed me in this direction. As of this point I could care less about challenges to give concrete evidence. If you'd like to know my reasons for your own edification I'd be happy to dig up the passages and my reasonings and give them to you however. I'm sure you can easily see how any context where we are bowing to God in worship is salat (in its meaning of prayer.)

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace Anwar,

I am all for "live and let live" but when things are discussed, I think it is important to be accurate, as only then can evidence be weighed and the truth determined.

progod

Peace,

You know I didn't even check my website. Go see the article on Prayer there. I need to review it as well. You might fnd your answer there.

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

Peace,

Don't worry. I just checked it. My conclusion is definitely based on the fact that when we pray we are definitely in worship. And I remember being of the opinion that whenever we pay respects (the real meaning of worship) we should bow in some way. So yes, when we worship God we should bow or kneel in someway. To me that can be a head bow, a full kneel or prostration it doesn't really matter. I have not been able to connect this with the specific word Salaat but if the logic is sufficient and prayer is obviously a form of worship, is that necessary? Do you see what I mean? Looking forward to your comments.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

Do you see what I mean?

I understand what you are trying to link and how you are trying to link it, but I dont consider it solid. I have no qualms about what prayer and worship may or may not involve, to kneel or not kneel, as a general point, only that you said bowing/kneeling was part of Mary's "salat", when this is not what is said in AQ. That was my main point, and it was related to my following point to take a word mentioned in close proximity to "salat" and then say it's part of "salat" with no evidence.

As a sidenote, in your explanation, you implied sajada=worship. In terms of AQ's usage, I disagree. That is not it's primary usage, however I do not wish to discuss it, as it has been discussed in detail many many times before.

AlFajr

Peace all,

I was reading the Quran and a couple of verses reminded me of this thread

969 Have you seen the one who deters,
9610 A servant from communing?
9611 Have you seen if he was being guided,
9612 Or he ordered righteousness?
9613 Have you seen if he lied and turned away?
9614 Did he not know that God can see?
9615 Alas, if he does not cease, We will strike the frontal lobe.
9616 A frontal lobe which lies and errs.
9617 So let him call on his supporter.
9618 We will call on the guardians.
9619 So do not obey him, prostrate and come near.

This seems to signify prostrating and coming near is part of "communing". It could be more than a case of proximity. Anyway I hope this helps your discussion.

progod

Peace,

Aalmakto,

It is that word "prostrating" that we are discussing. It can mean to prostrate or to worship (and worship means to pay homage to).

Wakas,

I understand your point. And for the most part I have done my best to connect issues of salat to contexts with just the word salat mentioned. However, we may disagree on this point, because I feel that when we pray to God we are paying homage/respects to God and when paying respects/homage we are to bow or kneel in someway. As for the contexts of the Quran and sajada, I think you know that this word is used in many places only in the meaning of to pay homage/respects. However, I do understand that the word can also mean to prostrate in homage. I believe I may have rejected this last meaning previously. As far as I know I don't know if i had a good reason to. Although I will say that to prostrate and then kneel is a very backwards and almost illogical kind of wording. To kneel is to go from a standing position down or an upright position to a less upright one. So to say 'prostrate in homage and bow down/kneel' is definitely more of an ambiguous wording than 'worship and bow down/kneel.' I'll be giving this some more thought. Thanks Wakas, it might have been time for me to refresh my conclusions on this topic.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace bro aalmakto,

A few points

9610 has the verb form "salla".

You can study the verb form occurrences in PRL. It poses problems for a "prayer" understanding

salla (&#1610 vb.II m.
perf. act. 7531, 8715, 9610
impf. act. 339, plu. neg. 4102, plu. 4102, tusalli (&#1604 neg. 984, yusallee (&#1610 sing. 3343, yusalloona (&#1606 plu. 3356
salli (&#1604 impv. 9103, salloo (&#1575 plu. 3356, 1082
musalleena (&#1606 pcple. act. plu. acc. gen. 7022, 7443, 1074

It does link sjd with "salla", perhaps not in a concrete way, but reasonable. What we can deduce from this usage is that "sjd and come near" (to God) is contrasted to "obey him" (i.e. the person who was deterring). If it was a physical prostration, it obviously does not mean "come near" in a literal sense, as one would be stationary when prostrating. The primary usage of sjd in AQ is 'to acknowledge / give recognition', which also fits the context. I'm not aware of an occurrence in whic sjd clearly means "prostrate" but I am aware of occurrences where it definitely cannot mean to physically "prostrate" (124, 4154, 25.

It should also be read in conjunction with chapter 107.

God_Within

Peace be upon you,

To "sujood" to God is to submit to God, this draws us closer.

Islam is peacefulness, not submission.

progod

Peace,

Yeah, based on the meanings of the CLASSICAL ARABIC words found in the Quran and the wording when it comes to the use of sujood I am going to stick with the position I laid out in my last post in this topic (two posts above). Wakas, you have done a lot of research and have made alot of resources available about these Classical Arabic words I would hope that you would not abondon that because of the naive and simple idea of the Quran somehow being a dictionary of the words it borrowed from the Classical Arabic language. Anyways, to God within I'm not going to comment on your meaning of sujood as I think my position is clear on context guessing and not using Classical Arabic dictionaries to understand the Old Arabic words used in the Quran. (I use Old Arabic and Classical Arabic as synonyms). However as for your definition of Islam, that is only ONE of the definitions of this word. Now you won't find that meaning in any dictionary but you will find it in the connotations of form 4 when the root salima is used. (For those who think that I am somehow contradicting myself here I have always said that dictionary defintiions AND grammatical, formed based connotations are the rules to understand the langauge that the Quran uses. That has been my stance for a very long time now. So if you misunderstood me that was your misunderstanding not my contradiction.)

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

I would hope that you would not abondon that because of the naive and simple idea of the Quran somehow being a dictionary of the words it borrowed from the Classical Arabic language.

I have no idea why I would abandon that based on the above, but erm, ok, thanks for the advice.

I follow a methodology that gives more weight to Quranic usage than to Dictionary usage, you dont, simple.

progod

Wakas,

I follow a methodology that gives more weight to Quranic usage than to Dictionary usage, you dont, simple.

We could continue this on a pm basis if you would like because I don't want this to sound like a challenge or for it to get out of hand because of what may be interpreted as antogonistic comments. But anyway, I would like to know why you follow this methodology and your reasons for it. My first set of questions following this will be clarification for my own edification and then I will follow up with a set of possibly challenging, but respectful, questions.

I will also explain that from my perspective there is really no such thing as Quranic usages versus dictionary usage, as you imply. The Quran uses/chooses from the dictioanary uses so the two will never conflict. (you may find more usages in the dictionary but the usage that fits the Quran's context will always be there as well). In addition to that grammatical connotations which cannot be found in the dictionary but are apart of the usage of Classcical Arabic words is another source for understanding Classical Arabic words in Quranic context or any other context. Honestly, I just don't fully understand your phrasing above because the Quran borrowed the Classical Arabic language and the dictionaries are tools for exposing the usages of this language, which again the Quran borrowed, in their entirety. So I don't see the dichotomy and as such I don't see the reasoning in your above phrasing. Thanks.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

Giving more weight to one than the other does not imply a dichotomy in my opinion. Perhaps a preference.

Anyways, I would genuinely love to discuss if I felt I would be able to give it the attention/time it deserves. Sadly, I dont think I would be able to.

progod

Peace,

Alright, I guess I'll have to accept. Again pm is always an option if you ever do get some sufficient time and want to keep it between us. Anyway thanks for the honest response. Hopefully we'll discuss it one day and one day come to a consensus.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

Thank you for your help. I was hoping that you would present some new non-traditional arguments but unfortunately you pretty much sang the traditional chorus

Like fallacious minded traditionalists you keep asking for negative proof that fictionalized Jahiliya poems are not true.
In one way you have defended Jahiliya poetry more dogmatically than the average traditionalist because you proclaimed that the way the great reading was preserved is similar to how Jahiliya poetry was preserved. Only the most irrational traditionalist would dare to make such claim about Jahiliya poetry.
Like traditionalists, in reality you have more faith in Classical Arabic than you do in the great reading. You don?t realize that the god could have easily made the great reading rhyme with all of the vocalization case endings. The god doesn?t need to be inconsistent or ?9 out of 10? to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading. So for anyone who has more faith in the great reading than in Classical Arabic, this fact alone is completely sufficient as evidence that the language of the great reading couldn?t have had any vocalization case endings. Moreover, it is an indisputable fact that those case endings have very low functional load and thus are grammatically useless. They are nothing more than hypercorrections made by later scholars who drew on Jewish scholarship and who (much like you) never spoke Classical Arabic in their lives but wanted to appear more learned than the average street language speaker by imitating Biblical Hebrew case endings.
Like traditionalists you are desperately trying to find excuses for the many glaring errors in Classical Arabic dictionaries as if their authors were not humans who can make errors (and no, there is no attribution to a scholar for the meaning or classification of Allat in Lisan Al-3arab as you conjecture).
You claim that the Abbasid spoke Classical Arabic, when in fact we can only find Classical Arabic in formalized writings but not in any early mundane inscriptions or manuscripts such as business documents, etc. In fact, we often see dotting in those mundane documents used for disambiguating the Nabataean Aramaic Alphabet but never for case endings.
Like traditionalists you claim that CA grammatical errors in the great reading are not errors but then you conveniently fail to quote any Classical Arabic rule according to which these are not errors. For example, you never provide any reference to a Classical Arabic grammar rule by Sibaweh or any CA grammarian where it is prescribed that ?sabirin? instead of ?sabirun? should be used in 2177 or ?sabi?un? instead of ?sabi?in? should be used in 569 or ?moqimin? instead of ?moqimun? should be used in 4162. Instead, you make up your own excuses for those clear errors.
The only new argument that you make is a laughable one about words of the form Fa3aLY as relating to the form AF3AL being non-existent in the Arabic language, which even the most ignorant traditionalist wouldn?t dare to make. This is because there are too many examples to list such as AWThAN/WaThaNY, A3RAB/3aRaBY, ANSAR/NaSaRY, ASBAT/SaBaTY, ANBAT/NaBaTY, etc. Of course, you make this argument to distance the word A3RAB from 3aRaBY (and its clear meaning of having to do with A3RAB). Traditionalists have tried to detach the meaning but they never say why and in fact Lisan Al-3arab claims that 3aRaBY has nothing to do with A3RAB and no reason is given other than the insinuation that A3RAB are portrayed in an unfavorable light in the great reading (and of course this doesn?t bode well for Lisan Al-3arab extreme Arab nationalistic bias).

At this junction, I think that given all the objections that you presented, the facts and arguments that I provided are solid and can stand up well to any traditional arguments brought against them.

Peace,

Ayman