The Forgery of Significations
-
peace uq,
I agree with the gist of what you are saying, however I would add one important clarification, and that is for whatever meaning/signification of a word is chosen one should ensure that it actually fits within The Quran using it's internal cross-reference, grammar, logic and practical considerations.
It is very rare to find someone present an unconventional meaning of a word coupled with comprehensive Quranic research for their choice. In fact, I would go as far as to say the lack of evidence is frequently woeful.
Background
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html -
Peace Wakas,
Yes, I agree.
I think that in most of those cases, the argument doesn't add up, neither by Quranic cross-reference, nor by Classical Arabic syntax/vocab.
I only grant the plasticity of significations where there is a sizeable body of Quranic or syntactical evidence to support it.
Otherwise, I find the practice of the intentional forgery of significations, by a person who is sane and educated, tantamount to telling lies about God.
"For whom is more unjust than the one who has invented lies about God?"
God save us from error.
-
So uq, this means that you accepted the authority of the dictionary with no critique whatever? Why is the dictionary the default authority?
-
Few ppl have the honesty to engage with this question. Instead thry prefer to swallow dictionaries in place of hadith
-
The Word it converts Abstract Realm into Physical Realm
We live in the world of Words. We listen Words, thereby we speak Words. We see how words are written; thereby we write words with our hand. These are all apparent activity. Our non apparent world-Abstract Realm is also but Words. We silently think by Words, we ponder by Words, we reflect by Words. We arrive at conclusions, decisions and thoughts which are but Words. We see and perceive with eyes closed all by Words. Word is not only all around us but inwardly in every cell of us. Minus Word, We cease to exist. The moment we listen not Word, speak word, read or write word, or think Word, "We" are no more cognizable to the majority.
The Word it converts Abstract Realm into Physical Realm
-
I have heard the arguments that zin does not mean fornication, and that nis? does not mean women, and that salh does not mean prayer. These arguments, in my view, are invalid.
Salaam
Happy for you.
hope that you will be able to explain that to God the judgement day.
That day, he will bring you a dictionnary called Quran. That dictionnay use words in multiple contexts to explain meaning of words.I hope for you that the meaning of words you have choosen fit with their quranic use. &
Peace
-
Peace all,
Do I accept dictionaries as a source of reference to understand the Quran?
Yes, invariably.
I have not the authority to refer to anything else.
Languages are not forged, they naturally evolve.
The greatest lie can be told in any language in the world, but that lie will still be told using the rules and vocabulary of the language itself.
Languages are not forged.
Granted, over the course of two centuries or so, Quranic Arabic would have mutated.
That is until an explosion of Arabic literature came about in the 8th century from which very satisfying corpora can be derived; paying special regard to the early grammarians and lexicographers.
And even still, in the space of two centuries, because the Quran was preserved in text, there would not have occurred a substantial shift in the written language; not least one which would warrant the people of today to indulge in the forgery of significations to compensate for the hypothesized loss.
On a few occasions, the Quran describes itself as an ?Arabic Quran.? Am I therefore to understand its text in anything other than the language in which it was revealed?
-
Brilliant. Languages are not forged. So you're saying what the dictionaries captured is the EXACT meaning intended by the Quran?
-
I see. So what is the meaning of alif , laam, meem?
-
Peace,
Alif is the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, Lm, the 23rd, and Mm, the 24th.
Or, according to the Abjad order, the first, the 12th, and the 14th, respectively.
They bear no intrinsic meaning.
If the allusion is to 21, we will note that the letters do not occur as part of a sentence, they are listed, as three distinct letters.
They stand for whatever the Author intended of them.
-
Peace,
Alif is the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, Lm, the 23rd, and Mm, the 24th.
Or, according to the Abjad order, the first, the 12th, and the 14th, respectively.
They bear no intrinsic meaning.
If the allusion is to 21, we will note that the letters do not occur as part of a sentence, they are listed, as three distinct letters.
They stand for whatever the Author intended of them.
Peace uq,
So what are you saying exactly? Are you trying to say that God revealed the Q to Muhammad the nabiyy as his clear/easy personal guide, and decided to include a few sets of letters that "bear no intrinsic meaning"?
Mohammed Noh
-
lol Abang Noh...my point exactly.
No Arab can agree on the meaning of alif laam meem. Forget about alif laam ra, ha meem, ain seen qaf, noon or whatever. This FIRST aya shows us the mode of language the Quran uses. Instead of the cut and paste style meaning suitable to Western thought, it's more along the lines of zen koans which realisations are sudden and paradigm shifting.
-
Peace uq,
So what are you saying exactly? Are you trying to say that God revealed the Q to Muhammad the nabiyy as his clear/easy personal guide, and decided to include a few sets of letters that "bear no intrinsic meaning"?
Mohammed Noh
Peace Mohammed Noh,
Yes.
Undoubtedly the prophet Muhammad would have recognized the Initials as letters belonging to his language, but did he know what function they fulfilled? That's open to debate.
lol Abang Noh...my point exactly.
No Arab can agree on the meaning of alif laam meem. Forget about alif laam ra, ha meem, ain seen qaf, noon or whatever. This FIRST aya shows us the mode of language the Quran uses. Instead of the cut and paste style meaning suitable to Western thought, it's more along the lines of zen koans which realisations are sudden and paradigm shifting.
Peace abdalquran,
Forgive me, I haven't understood, is the argument that due to our ignorance of the purpose of the Initials, we are at liberty to invent meanings for them? and indeed, for the entire text of the Quran?
-
Peace,
Alif is the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, Lm, the 23rd, and Mm, the 24th.
Or, according to the Abjad order, the first, the 12th, and the 14th, respectively.
They bear no intrinsic meaning.
If the allusion is to 21, we will note that the letters do not occur as part of a sentence, they are listed, as three distinct letters.
They stand for whatever the Author intended of them.
Arabic is a language of syllables. For signifying meanings we need atleast one syllable which comprises a consonant and a vowel . There is no vowel in the first Ayah. Therefore, they are just one letter and two consonants with diacritic mark of sound stretcher.
So called Mystery of Initial Letter/Consonants.
-
Forgive me, I haven't understood, is the argument that due to our ignorance of the purpose of the Initials, we are at liberty to invent meanings for them? and indeed, for the entire text of the Quran?
Oh the purpose of the letters is guidance for mankind, like the Quran itself (2/185). Since you don't know the meanings, your initial position fails here. As for 'invent' meanings, the choice of this word is very tendentious. You failed to appreciate the VAST range of meanings which are available.
Let me ask you, how is a dictionary made?
-
My confessed ignorance of the purpose of the Initials does not negate my certain knowledge of the Arabic language.
Thus, the Quran is perfectly understood without knowing what the Initials represent.
I use the words "invention" and "forgery" very intentionally for the following reason.
"Meaning is use." You will find this statement to be an axiom. The only way words acquire meanings is by their repetitive use. That is the very reason why you and I are communicating without having to invent meanings for the words that we are using in this discussion; because they already have well-established meanings. Hence, meaning is use.
Thus, if I was to use any word in a new way that no-one has used before, then I have effectively forged or invented a meaning. So, naturally, you would not receive my intended meaning.
A dictionary is a compilation of meanings.
And it behoves us to put them to use in the objective pursuit of Quranic truth.
-
peace all,
The original post was about "words". The purpose of a dictionary is to do with "words".
Definition of "dictionary"
a book, optical disc, mobile device, or online lexical resource (such as Dictionary.com ) containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc.Are "alif lam meem" etc words? Yes/No/Unsure.
If one's answer is "no" then they would appear not to fall under the remit of a dictionary/lexicon, making Farouk's argument invalid. Thus, in order to utilise them in any argument in this situation, the following has to apply
- They are proven to be or are accepted by the other party (i.e. uq) as words.
Side note
(Personally, I consider the work done by bro Ayman on the alleged initials to make sense. It's been discussed here a few times.) -
Uq, if you don't know what the muqata'at represent, how can the Quran be PERFECTLY understood? Unless you're saying they're some people's interpolation into the text? How do you understand 2/2 for example?
I'm not one given to hyperbole but I gotta say that I CANNOT AGREE MORE with you. Meaning IS established by commonality of use. And this is the PRECISE reason why I don't trust ANY dictionary. If the majority of ppl follow conjecture (10/36), why on earth would I trust THEIR use of language? Of course they would want to ratify THEIR meaning. Moreover, the Quran has made it an 3ibrah the followers of a messenger would not understand MOST of what he says (11/91). So why on earth would I what the majority thinks? I don't with hadith but stick the word 'dictionary'on the label and suddenly it becomes authoritative? ..oh PLEASE!
THANK YOU for answering the dictionary question. Most ppl don't have the guts to engage with this question because it expose their authoritarian pretensions. Dictionaries are indeed compilations of meanings. ..by WHOM exactly? Have you studied the historiography of Arabic?
