Alif; Laam and Meem with ancillary glyph/prolongation sign
-
Peace Truthseeker11,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have two additional questions
Firstly, can you please provide any links to archeological evidence of the Musnad script being used in northern Arabia? I was under the impression that Musnad script was only used in central and southern Arabia.The Musnad script being used only in central and southern Arabia is true only for Arabic inscriptions. Northern Arabian inscriptions in other Arabian dialects such as Safaitic and Thamudic do use the Arabian Musnad script.
Safaitic inscriptions such as the one I provided the link to above are found in Northern Arabia.
Secondly, I thought that the great reading suggests that it was revealed in the language of the common people (people of the prophet) and not in the language of prestige/religion (used by people of the book). My question is did the common people use two scripts for their language?
The answer is no. The common people simply didn't have any practical need for writing and thus had no use for any script. The majority of the people in the literate society of the towns were illiterate. The society is literate because literacy served religious and political function and carried prestige not because the majority of its population is literate.
The common people in the towns didn't have a script. When they needed something written, they had access to scribes who could write in the script of prestige. Usually this something was in the language of prestige. On the rare occasion when this something was in Arabic, the script of the language of prestige which the scribes normally write in (Nabataean Aramaic script in the Lakhmid province) was used to write the Arabic.
viz. the script of the nomads i.e. Musnad script and the script of the common people living in the towns i.e. Nabataean Aramaic script?
Unlike the town folk, the nomads didn't have access to scribes in the middle of the desert. Also, writing served a completely different purpose for nomads. The only purpose that nomads had for writing was scribbling graffiti on rocks to kill time during the solitary nomadic life. Ironically, due to the different purpose of writing and the lack of scribes in the middle of the desert, the nomads were more likely to write in their own oral vernacular than city dwellers. This is why unlike rare Arabic inscriptions there are thousands of Safaitic graffiti.
Wouldn't the script of prestige in towns be the Greek or Latin script instead of Nabataean Aramaic?
Greek was used in the Roman provinces by the Ghassanids, not in the Lakhmid areas.
The above is confusing me. I thought that the script of prestige was the one used for language of prestige/religion (of people of the book) i.e. Greek or Latin script. You are suggesting that the script of prestige was Nabataean Aramaic at that time.
Greek or Latin was only used in the Roman provinces not in the Lakhmid province. In the Lakhmid areas Nabataean Aramaic remained the language of prestige.
Just to make sure I have understood you correctly, are you suggesting the following for northern Arabia at the time of revelation of the great reading?
- Language of prestige/religion in towns was written in Greek or Latin script (used by people of the book).
- Language of the common people was written in two scripts
a. Musnad script by nomads/people of wilderness
b. Nabataean Aramaic script by common people living in towns.
If the above is true then your theory of some chapters of the great reading originally written in Musnad script might have some merit and be worth further consideration and research.
Here is what I am suggesting
- Language of prestige/religion in towns outside Roman dominion in Northern Arabia was Aramaic (used by people of the book).
- Much like the typical Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern country today, there were two main vernacular dialects spoken by the common folk. One dialect was spoken in the rural areas (ANA dialects such as Safaitic) and the other (Arabic) was spoken in the towns. The two dialects were largely mutually comprehensible despite their variances. This is much like say the Egyptian Cairienne dialect spoken by city dwellers and Egyptian Sinai dialect spoken by the nomads are mutually comprehensible. Like those modern day dialects, Safaitic would have been seen as a more ?rough? dialect than the Old Arabic city dialect. One can see some evidence of this ?roughness?, for example, in the Safaitic definite article having a demonstrative connotation while this is largely subdued in the Arabic definite article.
- When the common people in towns needed to write something, they had access to scribes who could write it in the language of prestige. This is why Old Arabic inscriptions are rare. On the rare occasions when Old Arabic was written, the script of the language of prestige that the scribes of that region were using was used to write it.
- When the nomads in the desert needed to write something, it didn?t serve any practical purpose but was done as a form of entertainment to kill time during the long hours of solitary nomadic life. This is why the nomads despite being illiterate scribbled thousands of graffiti in the desert of Northern Arabia. Because the purpose was entertainment and had nothing to do with literacy, they used their oral language. Also, since they didn?t have access to scribes, they used the simplest script that required no adjustments or knowledge of writing standards to represent foreign letters. Prestige was not a factor so they naturally used the Arabian Musnad script which had the 28 letters of Arabic represented.
I hope this clarifies things a little bit. As you mentioned above, this can be confusing. You are not alone to see it as confusing. There is currently no good theory on how or where Arabic was used and the evidence contradicts all the current theories. Even experts are confused. I think that the great reading provides all the answers that are needed to finally solve this puzzle. I am hoping to finally use the great reading to reduce the confusion in the book that I am working on.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
The fact is that the people of the prophet were engaged in agriculture activities as per passages such as 5664, etc.
The word "zar3" means cultivation. At the time of Abraham, the area was not cultivated by humans. This doesn't mean that it didn't have any naturally occuring vegetation or that it remained uncultivated after humans settled in it. People cultivated figs, grapes, pomegranates and olives (699, 951, etc.).
Peace,
Ayman
But brother none of the references quoted are specific to an area and are not relevant to the valley to which the Messenger belonged which has still nothing of such things. The word "Zee" with Zarin is important information giving; zarin is specific to organized cultivation of crops not gardens; perhaps.
-
Peace Mazhar,
But brother none of the references quoted are specific to an area and are not relevant to the valley to which the Messenger belonged which has still nothing of such things.
The great reading was certainly relevant to the people of the prophet. 5664 was directly addressing the people of the prophet. 951 talks directly about the figs and olives in the context of the town of the prophet. Why do you disregard what the great reading says? How do you know that this valley has "nothing of such things" when the god tells us otherwise?
1437 says ?an uncultivated valley? NOT ?a plantless valley?. Please see how the term "zar3" is used in the great reading in 1247, 5664, 4829, 6141, 1611, 134, 1437, 1832, 3227, 3921, 26148, and 4426. You can see that "zar3" involves an act of human cultivation. This doesn't mean that the valley was plantless, i.e., without naturally occurring plants. So the passage is certainly talking about an "uncultivated valley" not a "plantless valley". The valley was uncultivated at the time of Abraham but by the time of the prophet it become very much cultivated according to 5664 and many more passages.
The word "Zee" with Zarin is important information giving; zarin is specific to organized cultivation of crops not gardens; perhaps.
I am not sure what you mean. Zar3 means human cultivation of any kind of crops, including fruits.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
The great reading was certainly relevant to the people of the prophet. 5664 was directly addressing the people of the prophet. 951 talks directly about the figs and olives in the context of the town of the prophet. Why do you disregard what the great reading says? How do you know that this valley has "nothing of such things" when the god tells us otherwise?
1437 says ?an uncultivated valley? NOT ?a plantless valley?. Please see how the term "zar3" is used in the great reading in 1247, 5664, 4829, 6141, 1611, 134, 1437, 1832, 3227, 3921, 26148, and 4426. You can see that "zar3" involves an act of human cultivation. This doesn't mean that the valley was plantless, i.e., without naturally occurring plants. So the passage is certainly talking about an "uncultivated valley" not a "plantless valley". The valley was uncultivated at the time of Abraham but by the time of the prophet it become very much cultivated according to 5664 and many more passages.
I am not sure what you mean. Zar3 means human cultivation of any kind of crops, including fruits.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace brother Ayman;
Qur'aan has been called "alhaqqu"; a statement of proven fact. A proven fact never talks agaist the evident physical reality.
It is quote of the statement of a person who was present there and knew about the valley. The valley is the one where is located. And we even today find that there is nothing of the sort what in the referred Aa'ya'at is mentioned. This valley is different from the location of orchards where eventually the Last Messenger migrated and lived afterwards. All sorts of fruits are brought to this valley from outside world; they don't grow there. is perhaps mostly used for monocotyledons;family of grasses ; a botanist should critically study Qur'aan and he may find detailed information about Plant Kingdom and its major classification. is perhaps telling the peculiar feature of the land of this valley; not the act of people that they are not in habit of cultivating the land.
Had the address in 56 not been the bits of general questioning and indirectly giving delicate information; and restricted for the men of those days there would not have been this
O. Their perception and common knowledge and visible experience was dropping of water from the lower clouds Alghamame. Had this been used the question and claim would have become incorrect and false today since we can drop water from the sky today. But the cloud mentioned is ; we will never be technically so advanced to drop water from . This is the statement of proven fact, the Grand Qur'aan. -
Peace Mazhar,
Qur'aan has been called "alhaqqu"; a statement of proven fact.
Well then according to the great reading "zar3" means human cultivation.
A proven fact never talks agaist the evident physical reality.
It is quote of the statement of a person who was present there and knew about the valley. The valley is the one where is located. And we even today find that there is nothing of the sort what in the referred Aa'ya'at is mentioned. This valley is different from the location of orchards where eventually the Last Messenger migrated and lived afterwards. All sorts of fruits are brought to this valley from outside world; they don't grow there. is perhaps mostly used for monocotyledons;family of grasses ; a botanist should critically study Qur'aan and he may find detailed information about Plant Kingdom and its major classification.
Restricting "zar3" to "planting of monocotyledons;family of grasses" is a false meaning of "zar3" that you just invented right now and which is not in line with the clear meaning given by how the word is used in the great reading. Your invented meaning is certainly different from how a person who was present there and knew about the valley would understand the concept.
is perhaps telling the peculiar feature of the land of this valley; not the act of people that they are not in habit of cultivating the land.
The valley was not cultivated by humans at the time Abraham settled his descendants there. This is what we know. This doesn't mean that it didn't have any plants or that it remained uncultivated thousands of years later after humans settled there.
Had the address in 56 not been the bits of general questioning and indirectly giving delicate information; and restricted for the men of those days there would not have been this
O. Their perception and common knowledge and visible experience was dropping of water from the lower clouds Alghamame. Had this been used the question and claim would have become incorrect and false today since we can drop water from the sky today. But the cloud mentioned is ; we will never be technically so advanced to drop water from . This is the statement of proven fact, the Grand Qur'aan.I don't get what you are trying to say. The people of the prophet understood this and it was meaningful and relevant to them.
Peace,
Ayman
-
A proven fact never talks agaist the evident physical reality.
It is quote of the statement of a person who was present there and knew about the valley. The valley is the one where is located. And we even today find that there is nothing of the sort what in the referred Aa'ya'at is mentioned. This valley is different from the location of orchards where eventually the Last Messenger migrated and lived afterwards. All sorts of fruits are brought to this valley from outside world; they don't grow there. is perhaps mostly used for monocotyledons;family of grasses ; a botanist should critically study Qur'aan and he may find detailed information about Plant Kingdom and its major classification.
Restricting "zar3" to "planting of monocotyledons;family of grasses" is a false meaning of "zar3" that you just invented right now and which is not in line with the clear meaning given by how the word is used in the great reading. Your invented meaning is certainly different from how a person who was present there and knew about the valley would understand the concept.
I am trying to suggest that the Grand Qur'aan is too specific and distinctly demarcates every thing, while we remain in the general frame of mind. Neither anything stated is false nor I just invented. In 4829 is specifically told as monocotyledon. The primary classification of plants is monocotyledon and dicotyledone. And all crops yeilding grain are grasses, monocotyledon. And if you look at the meanings of cultivation, it primarily means preperation of the land for growing crops and not gardens of fruits. Where there are gardens there in between is which will reflect that it is something different.
-
Peace Mazhar,
I am trying to suggest that the Grand Qur'aan is too specific and distinctly demarcates every thing, while we remain in the general frame of mind. Neither anything stated is false nor I just invented. In 4829 is specifically told as monocotyledon. The primary classification of plants is monocotyledon and dicotyledone. And all crops yeilding grain are grasses, monocotyledon. And if you look at the meanings of cultivation, it primarily means preperation of the land for growing crops and not gardens of fruits. Where there are gardens there in between is which will reflect that it is something different.
4829 doesn't suggest that the meaning of zar3 is restricted to monocotyledon, let alone it being the primary meaning. In fact 4829 makes it clear that the primary meaning is that it is human planted plants because of the clear reference to "pleases the people who planted it/zura3". Again, the only thing we can say for sure is that "zar3" involves a human act of planting, anything else is speculation.
Peace,
Ayman
-
I am trying to suggest that the Grand Qur'aan is too specific and distinctly demarcates every thing, while we remain in the general frame of mind. Neither anything stated is false nor I just invented. In 4829 is specifically told as monocotyledon. The primary classification of plants is monocotyledon and dicotyledone. And all crops yeilding grain are grasses, monocotyledon. And if you look at the meanings of cultivation, it primarily means preperation of the land for growing crops and not gardens of fruits. Where there are gardens there in between is which will reflect that it is something different.
4829 doesn't suggest that the meaning of zar3 is restricted to monocotyledon, let alone it being the primary meaning. In fact 4829 makes it clear that the primary meaning is that it is human planted plants because of the clear reference to "pleases the people who planted it/zura3". Again, the only thing we can say for sure is that "zar3" involves a human act of planting, anything else is speculation.
Brother here it goes 4829
If it is not monocotyledon then what else is this?
-
Peace Mazhar,
Brother here it goes 4829
If it is not monocotyledon then what else is this?
Monocotyledon is one possible meaning but it is not the only one or the exclusive one. Here is what Lisan Al-3arab says
.
.Translation
The sprout of plants and palm trees
Leaves of vegetationAgain, the only sure thing from 4829 is that this is human-planted plants.
Irrespective of what type of plant "zar3" is, the sure thing is that it is human planted. So please focus on the indisputable fact that 1437 talks about a valley that didn't have any human-planted plants at the time Abraham settled his family. This doesn't mean that the valley wasn't fertile and didn't have naturally occuring vegetation. It also doesn't mean that thousands of years later humans didn't plant anything in it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 094713 PM
Brother here it goes 4829
If it is not monocotyledon then what else is this?
Monocotyledon is one possible meaning but it is not the only one or the exclusive one. Here is what Lisan Al-3arab says
.
.Translation
The sprout of plants and palm trees
Leaves of vegetationAgain, the only sure thing from 4829 is that this is human-planted plants.
Irrespective of what type of plant "zar3" is, the sure thing is that it is human planted. So please focus on the indisputable fact that 1437 talks about a valley that didn't have any human-planted plants at the time Abraham settled his family. This doesn't mean that the valley wasn't fertile and didn't have naturally occuring vegetation. It also doesn't mean that thousands of years later humans didn't plant anything in it.
What Lisan Al-3arab indicated is precisely and exclusively monocoteledon. He has translated , singular sprout of and only NOT all plants. And he did not say "leaves of vegetation". Both and are monocotyledon. Arabic is a scientific language, each Root containing in it the physical realities.
-
Peace Mazhar,
What Lisan Al-3arab indicated is precisely and exclusively monocoteledon. He has translated , singular sprout of and only NOT all plants.
This is a circular argument. You are trying to prove that means exclusively monocotyledons so this cannot be one of your premises.
And he did not say "leaves of vegetation". Both and are monocotyledon.
The Arabic word "waraq" means "leaves". Leaves are not exclusive to monocotyledons.
Arabic is a scientific language, each Root containing in it the physical realities.
Nope. It is a human invented language full of inconsistencies. If it wasn't for the great reading, it would have been a dead language by now. You sound like you worship it.
At any rate, at least you are no longer disputing the following fact
1437 talks about a valley that didn't have any human-planted plants at the time Abraham settled his family. This doesn't mean that the valley wasn't fertile and didn't have naturally occuring vegetation. It also doesn't mean that thousands of years later humans didn't plant anything in it.
This is what matters.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
This is a circular argument. You are trying to prove that means exclusively monocotyledons so this cannot be one of your premises.
I am not trying to prove anything. Qur'aan is telling that like the ; what is peculiar he/that discharged his/its . "ka" Like; and the peculiar feature of is that it discharges one single which Lisan ul Arab translates as sprout of....and then tries to equate it with one leaf of and not "leaves of vegetation- vegetation means plants in general" while neither Qur'aan nor Lisan is talking about plants in general. Both are specific. Qur'aan is extremely precise and exactly according to the physical fact when its uses instead of waraq leaf. Monocotyledons means Angiosperm (flowering plant) having an embryo with a single cotyledon, or seed leaf (as opposed to dicotyledons, which have two). Monocotyledons usually have narrow leaves with parallel veins and smooth edges, and hollow or soft stems. Their flower parts are arranged in threes. Most are small plants such as grasses , and lilies, but some are trees such as palms.The Arabic word "waraq" means "leaves". Leaves are not exclusive to monocotyledons.
If you change the words of Qur'aan one can mean anything he likes to understand. The word is singular one leaf; it is about discharge not about leaves on the stem. There are only two types of plants, one who sprout/ discharge/germinate with only one needle like leaf and the others with two leaves.
Nope. It is a human invented language full of inconsistencies. If it wasn't for the great reading, it would have been a dead language by now. You sound like you worship it.
Qur'aan keeps rotating its Aa'ya'aat so that people can understand and see a thing from 360 angles. One perceives things from the angle he is looking at. I do not "worship" even Allah what to say of a language. I praise a thing which deserves praise. You ascribe the existence of Arabic to Qur'aan but Allah says "Qur'aan has been made easy in your language, O Muhammad sas". If you accept and repeatedly call that Qur'aan is a great reading, how can you deny that the Arabic language is great. Have you thought of your inherent contradictions?
At any rate, at least you are no longer disputing the following fact
1437 talks about a valley that didn't have any human-planted plants at the time Abraham settled his family. This doesn't mean that the valley wasn't fertile and didn't have naturally occuring vegetation. It also doesn't mean that thousands of years later humans didn't plant anything in it.
This is what matters.
Do you know or have you visited in these days the valley where Ibrahim alahissalm was statnding? Even today no body cultivates . Do not confuse Saudi Arabia with the valley.Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
This is what matters.
Do you know or have you visited in these days the valley where Ibrahim alahissalm was statnding? Even today no body cultivates . Do not confuse Saudi Arabia with the valley.One could equally ask you
Do you know or have you visited in these days the valley where Ibrahim alahissalm was standing? How do you know that today no body cultivates ?
Qur'aan keeps rotating its Aa'ya'aat so that people can understand and see a thing from 360 angles. One perceives things from the angle he is looking at. I do not "worship" even Allah what to say of a language. I praise a thing which deserves praise. You ascribe the existence of Arabic to Qur'aan but Allah says "Qur'aan has been made easy in your language, O Muhammad sas". If you accept and repeatedly call that Qur'aan is a great reading, how can you deny that the Arabic language is great. Have you thought of your inherent contradictions?
If it is so great, why don't you speak Quranic Arabic at home? People call a certain language a living language because it evolves. Quranic Arabic has not evolved and thus it is a dead language that is not used in everyday life. If the prophet spoke English then the god would have equally made the great reading easy in the prophet's language. The specific language doesn't matter. The god can take any imperfect and inconsistent human language and use it to compose a consistent and powerful message.
By the way, here is what Lisan Al-3arab says about Al-zar3
Here is what Lisan Al-3arab says about Al-zar3
I hope that you can see the inconsistency in Lisan Al-3arab.
Peace,
Ayman
-
One could equally ask you
Do you know or have you visited in these days the valley where Ibrahim alahissalm was standing? How do you know that today no body cultivates ?
I visited quite many times and witness that in that valley there is no cultivation of . And let me tell you it will remain so till the last day because I know the words of the man who gave information about this fact are nothing but the truth since he was cautious about his reputition to be known as truthful in history and Allah has confirmed he was absolutely a truthful person. The people who keep spraying conjectural thoughts and opinions are never considered truthful.
-
By the way, here is what Lisan Al-3arab says about Al-zar3
Here is what Lisan Al-3arab says about Al-zar3
I hope that you can see the inconsistency in Lisan Al-3arab.
May I know what you think the inconsistency is? And if you think there is insistency in the explanation by Lisan how can you attribute it to the language itself that it suffers from inconsistencies? Some one could have said that the language is inconsistent because it applies the same Root for menses and quraan; but today we would have said that he was himself ignorant of the reality and fact.
And have given a thought to the fact that you are basically not aware of the Plant Kingdom and its classification that might be causing inconsitency in your perception? Qur'aan and Arabic Mubeen are not based on generalizations; both are specific and act as making everything specific and distinct. When you say Arabic suffers from inconsistences you in fact refute the "Grand Reading" which tells its language is Mubeen.
-
Peace Mazhar,
I visited quite many times and witness that in that valley there is no cultivation of . And let me tell you it will remain so till the last day because I know the words of the man who gave information about this fact are nothing but the truth since he was cautious about his reputition to be known as truthful in history and Allah has confirmed he was absolutely a truthful person. The people who keep spraying conjectural thoughts and opinions are never considered truthful.
Then tell us where that valley is so that we can visit it too and verify if you are truthful or lying.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Mazhar,
May I know what you think the inconsistency is? And if you think there is insistency in the explanation by Lisan how can you attribute it to the language itself that it suffers from inconsistencies?
Among other things, it is saying that "7arth" and "zar3" can have the same meaning while they are clearly used in the great reading to mean plants at different stages of the agriculture cycle.
Some one could have said that the language is inconsistent because it applies the same Root for menses and quraan; but today we would have said that he was himself ignorant of the reality and fact.
This is a wrong classification by Lisan Al-3arab. The term "QuR'AN" should be under QR'A not under QRW. There are many such classification errors in Lisan Al-3arab. Another example is its misclassification of Allat in 5319 under LTT as opposed to its correct classification under ALH, etc.
And have given a thought to the fact that you are basically not aware of the Plant Kingdom and its classification that might be causing inconsitency in your perception? Qur'aan and Arabic Mubeen are not based on generalizations; both are specific and act as making everything specific and distinct. When you say Arabic suffers from inconsistences you in fact refute the "Grand Reading" which tells its language is Mubeen.
You are spraying conjectural thoughts and opinions that contradict reality.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Some one could have said that the language is inconsistent because it applies the same Root for menses and quraan;
but today we would have said that he was himself ignorant of the reality and fact.This is a wrong classification by Lisan Al-3arab. The term "QuR'AN" should be under QR'A not under QRW.
Where did you find that Quran is under QRW? Both menses and quran is under qra, in Lane's lexicon. one meaning collection of blood and the other means collection of words; commonaility is that of collection, the basic perception of the Root.
-
Peace Mazhar,
Where did you find that Quran is under QRW? Both menses and quran is under qra, in Lane's lexicon. one meaning collection of blood and the other means collection of words; commonaility is that of collection, the basic perception of the Root.
Lisan Al-arab is wrong. Menses should be under QRA/QRW not under QR'A. The meaning of "collection of words" would make 7517 illogical since "its collection and its collection" is nonsense. On the other hand, / is a synonym of .
I also noticed that you evaded addressing my other points. It seems that your idea about the valley where Abraham settled some of his descendants was nothing but conjecture.
Peace,
Ayman
-
I also noticed that you evaded addressing my other points. It seems that your idea about the valley where Abraham settled some of his descendants was nothing but conjecture.
The valley he referred is the one where he said "your honourable bait is located" and that is what I know Mecca. I hope you agree and restrit yourself to the word "valley" and do not expand it whole of Arabia. Kaaba is located in the valley. That valley is not cultivated for crops even today. It is not conjecture but ground reality. This valley was not created for cultivation and agriculture; its purpose is defined and it only takes the visitors from outside it.