A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe
-
Peace,
I think the site is mistaken a bit. THe jazm, kasrah etc. were signs invented later on to represent the Quan being recited. Also the breakdown of Al-Quran is completely false. The website's denunciation of Sibawayah has not basis and we have no proof the story it proposes. I'll have to review the site some more. But it seems it may be completely wrong as it concerns the study of Classical Arabic grammar. Just because Sibawayah was persian does not limit his ability to be a competent and even masterful Arabic linguist.
Godbless,
AnwarThanks for the above reply. I looked at the meanings of Jazm in lane and in wright again, and it seem that a jazm represent a last or a shut syllable of a declinable word and sukun for an indeclinable word; a copy is attached, so I am not wrong
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000057.pdf
If we consider this, then to me it appears that the words end at these signs and a new word begins, at that sign, most of the time.
Even if we agree that these signs were put in later for correct recitation, it still makes sense that people did not want the word recited wrongly, as it would connote a different meanings.If we look at the example qouted in Al Fatiha, it has been emphasized in rectation to pronounce Al Ham Du separately by putting jazm other wise people could have called it Alhamd or Alhameda rather than Al Ham Du
I feel that the purpose of making sure that people read it correctly could have been that Al and Ham and Du were separate words carrying a separate full meanings, but written jointly in old classical script technique. This is the presence of jazm, which clarifies this fact, otherwise it would carry the meanings of Hameda or Hamd, as has always felt to be the case in all traditional translations. It is clearly neither Hamd or Hameda in recitation or in writing.
Considering above explanation as in Lanes, it would possibly mean that we should recite and understand all these three as separate words, and I see that used in www.servantofthelight.com. Separate meanings of these three words have been utilised in the attempted undersanding of the Aya in Al Fatiha. -
Peace,
If we look at the example qouted in Al Fatiha, it has been emphasized in rectation to pronounce Al Ham Du separately by putting jazm other wise people could have called it Alhamd or Alhameda rather than Al Ham Du
This makes no sense at all, I'm sorry. It is pronounced together as al-hamdu. In the page you sent me it talks about cutting off the word so that it does not decline. That means that the case endings are cut off. So you say qawl instead of qawlun/qawlan/qawlin. Or you say say yaqul, instead of yaqulu or yaqula. In essence defying correct grammar (for style, as this is done for poetic/prose style)
In this case a sukun will be used at the end of the word but the phenomena will be called jazm if it is ommiting case, which is also called declination. This is done often at a pause when reciting the Quran (or a hadeeth, prose, poetry or du'a) and finishing a word. So instead of al-hamdu lillahi, just al-hamdu lillah. But your trying to break up Arabic words and make the syllables completely different words, goes beyond ridiculous. I'm sorry but if you are serious about this you do not want to learn Arabic or the language of the Quran, you want to invent your own language and twist the Quran up in the process. You might take that as fuel for you fire and take me as just being a hater. But I really am trying to help you understand that this is NOT how Arabic (scripted or spoken) works. You are emplying pure imagination here.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I am not trying to invent anything please. All I was requesting was an understanding, so I can do it correctly, as I have been following all of this discussion just as a learner. I thank you for your kind explanation. I will look it up again and try to understand things as they are meant to be, without God forbid, creating any innovation, which I cannot even dream of doing it.
-
What, almost 24 hours and no replies yet? Some here claim to be high in knowledge of Arabic language. I am sure they are aware of, how many Hemzas are in Alkitab. They must satisfy themselves as well teach their students; as to what these mean in the text. At least they should give an answer to a very simple question; with their extensive command on the language.
With peace and love.
Badar
-
Peace,
Badar, stop with the stupid games. My answer for all the questions that you are going to ask next is 'dialect difference.' Weak vowels, including hamza's have a very interesting relationship and you should become familiar with how they interact before you start asking stupid questions, pretending to challenge someone on something that it seems you just discovered on your own. Keep reading. I mean for a month or so or more and don't forget to read the footnotes. Think on what you read for a month and then read again about 20 times before you decide to 'challenge' anyone. I find your questions annoying and and honestly somewhat retarded.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Thanks for your reply, Dear Anwar. Please read this link below, to find out who is acting retarded. It clearly says that Kureysh did not speak words with hemezh. With prophet himself, quoted to prohibt from speaking words with hemezh. If you claim to know more Arabic than prophet himself, good for you brother. My question is that why all texts presently contain Hemezh, despite clear admonition from the master of language himself.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000011.pdf
Peace and love, language of AlKitab is lost. Let us be honest, without being foolish, with ourselves and admit the fact and join hands to revive it. Hence, revive the lost, but the most glorious message of all times.
Badar
-
If you study a bit more you will learn that it is common knowledge among Arabic scholars that the Quraish did not typically pronounce the hamza. You will find in the Quran both nabiyyun and nabi'un. These are dialectical differences. If you research the seven ahruf (you will see this in the hadeeth) you will see more of this. In fact there are 10 qira'at of the Quran. However, I would not take the hadeeth cited in this dictionary as some sort of golden truth, i.e that hamza is wrong. These dialectical differences in Classical Arabic were and still are well known. You have brought nothing new and now your challenge is to learn more about the ahruf of the Quran and the dialectical differences in Classical Arabic of the old/true Arabs of the Hijaaz. But don't try to act like the language of the Quran is lost. All this that you are discovering for the first time is well known by people who are truly knowledgeable in Arabic, and they are few. It is more appropraite for you to say that many Muslms including you are ignorant of the Arabic of the Quran, i.e. Classical Arabic (with all its ancient dialectical differences).
Godbless,
Anwar -
Some good quick links that will help to clarify problems that anyone may be having with this conversation
http//www.alquran-hadits.co.cc/2009/04/literary.html
http//books.google.com/books?id=hl9dkjb9r6QC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=quraysh+dialect&source=bl&ots=VoF2oZP_kh&sig=THPT6kXEVSlvRbzNFlLStheP2jU&hl=es&ei=Pgz-SvHsNuWutgfEgtyRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=quraysh%20dialect&f=false
http//www.ilaam.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html
btw I take all those hadeeth with a grain of salt as to whether the prophet said these things or not, but it opens our eyes up to the Quran being pronounced with the dialectical pronunciations of other Classical Arabic dialects. Differences are just pronunication and all still follow basic rules that all Classical Arabic possesses.
Godbless,
Anwar -
If you study a bit more you will learn that it is common knowledge among Arabic scholars that the Quraish did not typically pronounce the hamza. You will find in the Quran both nabiyyun and nabi'un. These are dialectical differences. If you research the seven ahruf (you will see this in the hadeeth) you will see more of this. In fact there are 10 qira'at of the Quran. However, I would not take the hadeeth cited in this dictionary as some sort of golden truth, i.e that hamza is wrong. These dialectical differences in Classical Arabic were and still are well known. You have brought nothing new and now your challenge is to learn more about the ahruf of the Quran and the dialectical differences in Classical Arabic of the old/true Arabs of the Hijaaz. But don't try to act like the language of the Quran is lost. All this that you are discovering for the first time is well known by people who are truly knowledgeable in Arabic, and they are few. It is more appropraite for you to say that many Muslms including you are ignorant of the Arabic of the Quran, i.e. Classical Arabic (with all its ancient dialectical differences).
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, where was this common knowledge, just few hours ago, when you said this.
Peace,
Badar, stop with the stupid games. My answer for all the questions that you are going to ask next is 'dialect difference.' Weak vowels, including hamza's have a very interesting relationship and you should become familiar with how they interact before you start asking stupid questions, pretending to challenge someone on something that it seems you just discovered on your own. Keep reading. I mean for a month or so or more and don't forget to read the footnotes. Think on what you read for a month and then read again about 20 times before you decide to 'challenge' anyone. I find your questions annoying and and honestly somewhat retarded.
Godbless,
AnwarThanks an way. Neither Rabb nor his message is dependent on any scholar.
Peace and love.
Badar
-
Dear Anwar, where was this common knowledge, just few hours ago, when you said this.
Did you not see it when I said this
Badar, stop with the stupid games. My answer for all the questions that you are going to ask next is 'dialect difference.'Here it is. clear as day. Obviously I meant Classical Arabic dialects and not modern Arabic dialects. Maybe you didn't get that.
Thanks an way. Neither Rabb nor his message is dependent on any scholar.
No his message is not dependent on any scholar, but it IS dependent on the knowledge that his/her scholasticism may have acquired. And obviously our Rabb is not dependent on anything, but our ability to comprehend him, to grow and get closer to him DOES depend on the level of knowledge that we have about the things that he caused to come into being.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Dear Anwar, thanks for further clarification. Ignoring the insulting parts of your post, I would like to continue this discourse. I firmly believe that continued probe of the subject with an open mind is the fundamental key to learning. Emotions are deterrence for good learning and so is personal glorification.
You have already brought up some interesting issues in your posts, which deserve further elaboration and discussion for the sake of knowledge. Please, elaborate further, what do mean and understand by dialect and its variations in relationship with classic Arabic? This is in order to before any further comments or discussion a common or at least a prospective understanding of subject in consideration is important; as different people understand the term dialect differently.
May Rabb bless you and us all.
Badar
-
[quote author=progod
btw I take all those hadeeth with a grain of salt as to whether the prophet said these things or not, but it opens our eyes up to the Quran being pronounced with the dialectical pronunciations of other Classical Arabic dialects. Differences are just pronunication and all still follow basic rules that all Classical Arabic possesses.
Godbless,
AnwarJust few further comments about this part as it appears to relate to reference from Lane, quoting prophet's admonition and later confirmation by other at his mosque about use of Hemezh, and suggestion that it was not part of Kureysh's language. I would submit the following.
- I am a big skeptic of hadith literature myself. As it is found to describe minutest details of how to clean oneself, or enter bathroom and sleep etc. But in my limited study, I did not find one hadith about language itself.
- This citation could not be considered a part of hadith literature. It is part of Lexical preservation of actual language. It?s cited authorities, in Lane are also not usual hadith Imams.
- Furthermore, spoken language is different from written language. The written language is used to convey lexical meanings (concepts in words), with syntax helping by arranging these in certain order to convey further meanings. Hence, whatever is written has to have some meanings.
- In addition, preservation of the lexical meanings/concept was important and was done. One should look at this statement attributed to prophet in this background and not just another piece of hadith literature.
May Rabb bless
Badar
-
Peace,
You have no reason to justify that hadeeth and you should dig a little more and find out what collections this hadeeth came from. It is obviously a hadeeth and hadeeths are often referenced in dictionaries to show use of language. THere's nothing wrong with that but you as the reader should be aware that although this hadeeth may be used as linguistic evidence it doesn't mean that the prophet really said that. Obviously the dictionary writer might believe the hadeeth to be from the prophet but that belief is personal, besides the point and not necessary. I could write a book about the misconceptions people have about written and spoken language. I'll research some books that might do you and others some good. But written languages always reflects some form of spoken language. That form of spoken language could have become archaic (meaning it was spoken in the past but preserved in writing) or it could be still currently spoken as a first or even second language. In the case of Classical Arabic, the written language is perfectly representative of the spoken Classical Arabic of the time of the last prophet. That is really all I have to say about that. I know everyone has their opinions but I really suggest that people grab some linguistic books that have to do with the origin of written language and its relation to spoken language and then do some serious thinking on their own. By the way, may God bless and save the last prophet and messenger of God, Muhammad. (this is because I referenced him earlier but did not give him salat's and salams, as the Quran says the believers do.)
Godbless,
Anwar -
Dear Anwar
-
Source of Prophet's saying Taj el-Aroos, an undisputed Classic Arabic lexicon.
-
Authorities Quoted 4 in number, saying Kureysh did not pronounce words with Hemezh, in addition to prophet (pbh) saying.
a. The "Sihah" by El-Joaharee
b. The "Mohkam" by Ibn-Seedah
c. The "Asas" by Ez-Zamakhsheree
d. The "Kamoos" another authentic lexicon by El-Feroozabadee.Please check and then dispute.
May Rabb bless and guide us on his path, as it is long over due.
Badar
-
-
Peace all,
just my 2 cents,
along the discussion you are both implying that the "Classical Arabic" is the language of the Quraish (hijaz arabs), this view has no support in the Quran, in contrary all the signs seems to point geographically North Arabia (including Palestine/Jordania).
best Regards
-
Peace all,
just my 2 cents,
along the discussion you are both implying that the "Classical Arabic" is the language of the Quraish (hijaz arabs), this view has no support in the Quran, in contrary all the signs seems to point geographically North Arabia (including Palestine/Jordania).
best Regards
Dear Herbman, Peace. Please elaborate with examples and be more specific about such signs.
Badar
-
Peace,
Dear Anwar
-
Source of Prophet's saying Taj el-Aroos, an undisputed Classic Arabic lexicon.
-
Authorities Quoted 4 in number, saying Kureysh did not pronounce words with Hemezh, in addition to prophet (pbh) saying.
a. The "Sihah" by El-Joaharee
b. The "Mohkam" by Ibn-Seedah
c. The "Asas" by Ez-Zamakhsheree
d. The "Kamoos" another authentic lexicon by El-Feroozabadee.Please check and then dispute.
May Rabb bless and guide us on his path, as it is long over due.
I am not disputing the lack of use of hamza by the Quraysh Arabs. I agree with you. I dispute whether the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) actually said that hadeeth NOT the general idea that the hadeeth is communicating. Now hamza's were typically not pronounced in Quraysh ARabic but from what I know this is only with certain words. Nabiyyun being a classic example. buwisa instead of bu'isa is another example that I have read in the past. But as far as I know there was not an absolute omission of all hamzas. There was actually a consistent pattern to this from what I understood, a pattern that the Quraysh as children intuitively learned from older Quraysh about which hamzas would be omitted in the Quraysh dialect and how. I will have to research this some more. But I'll take nabeeyyun for now. The pattern behind this is when any long ya preceded a hamza the ya was doubled and the hamza dropped. This is not against Arabic form because the hamza is a weak letter and weak letters depending on where they fall have a habit of morphing into their fellow weak letters. I'll see if I can dig up something on this Quraysh pattern of hamza omission. I remember it having a direct connection to other weak letters preceding it but again I will have to redouble the research. It may take some time. In the mean time I hope no one starts jumping to premature and ill-based conclusions.
By the way Herbman I completely disagree with you. The script of Arabic is more of a Northern Arabic invention, literally being a variant of the Nabateans' Aramaic script, but the actual spoken language itself I would guess is some sort of product of the blending of Ancient northern Proto-Arabic and Southern Proto-Arabic (himyarite and its dialects) which is congruent with Southern Arabian Migration northward after the collapse of the Ma'rab dam. Even with that said, that is a theory and my educated opinion on how Classical Arabic came about. From what I understand we have evidence of Classical Arabic that dates back to 300 AD (maybe ealier) as it was being transliterated in earlier Aramaic scripts (many Arabs (banu ghassan and banu lakhm) were Christians and Jews especially in the Northern Territories close to Eastern Rome and Persia and were familiar with Aramaic.) How this northern script made it so far south has to do with the fact that the Banu ghassan who were the most entrenched in Aramaic (including the nabateans whose script won over all others) territory. Their influence ran all the way down into Yathrib and I'm sure permeated the entire central southern part of Arabia and maybe even further. The Yemenites at a time had Jewish kingdoms and Aramaic was the Jewish religious language of choice for a very long time, until they essentially revived a very aramaicized version of hebrew to be found in the Massoretic text of the bible compiled in the 10th century AD!!
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Here are some things I've found already
And
Tusi?s discussion of the reading of 1919 is more detailed than any that I have encountered in the Sunni commentaries. It will be remembered that the majority read this aya li-ahaba la-ki (?so that I may bestow on you?) but that Abu ?Amr and Nafi? read it li-yahaba la-ki (?so that may bestow on you?). The two readings differ in respect of a single consonant; hamza in the one case, ya? in the other.
(1) Abu ?Ubayda considered Abu ?Amr?s reading weak because it departed from the consonantal text (mushaf).
(2) Ibn Khalawayh said that Abu ?Amr?s defence was that the letters of extension and softness and those with a Hamza are transformed into each other. For instance li-alla (in order not to) is pronounced li-yalla.
(3) Abu Ali the grammarian said that it is possible that whoever read it with ya? intended hamza? and only changed it to ya? in accordance with the school of Abu?l-Hasan or made it a cross between the two in accordance with the teaching of al-Khalil .
Finally, Tusi mentions that the reading with had the support of Ubaiy and Ibn Mas?ud and that he himself considers it the better reading. (pp. 175-176)
From http//answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_variants.htm
Also https//eprints.soas.ac.uk/5814/1/Shah.pdf
Go to page 263 and continue on to Declension
I am having trouble visualizing how that would work with a word like samaa' (terminal alif-hamza combo) in all of its declensions. But I have a good idea (may be possible that the hamza didn't drop but was pronounced lightly). I'll be reseaching this.
Godbless,
Anwar