The Forgery of Significations
-
What I do not agree with in this debate is the assumption that some people "forge" meanings and other sdo not.
The history of interpetation of Qur'an, and probably of any other opiniuonable question is the forging of meanings. All the time.
Some people who accuse others of forging meanings assume that there is some stand point which is objective, devoid of ego (ego es a very popular indictement when one does not agree with others), but that is not the case. No hyman mind is ever empty of preconceptions. We ALL "forge" meanings on our preconceptions. Not everybody has the same preconceptions. Some people manage to get rid of some many preconceptions, others attach to them as if they were their mothers, and would feel lost without them, but no interpretation is ever rid of preconceptions. Soaccusing some people of "forging" while assuming that others do not "forge" is pure undiluted delusion.
That is why I agree with people who deconstruct. Excesses can be commited on that count, just as on any other count. All commit excesses, not just those who deconstruct, or can commit them. But, if we do not dare deconstruct whe will be forever subjected to the dictatorship of the "consecrated" forging, official forging.
I may not go along with every deconstructive conclusion, but I think there is a point in the attempt. It helps bring light for whoever is a sincere searcher, and there is no reason to presume insincerity in anybody, although there is reason to presume preconceptions in absolutely everybody. But we don't care when those preconceptions happen to coincide with our own preconceptions.
Salaam
-
Huruf, it's no different from people saying their views are 'according to the Quran' or 'Quranic' or 'objective' and the views of others are 'interpretations'.
-
If we use sources of peoples work, be it dictionaries or their studies or whatever does that not mean we use their authority? If we agree with them how does it not have any authority?
People give authority to dictionaries, their desires, studies and others things.
Why one is seen above or better than the other is all down to personal reasoning.
At the end, everything is an interpretation.
-
If we use sources of peoples work, be it dictionaries or their studies or whatever does that not mean we use their authority? If we agree with them how does it not have any authority?
If we have APPLY the fihm in our lives and we find in it great benefit, then I believe that is God's truth. It's when these things are forced and other interpretations said to be 'forgeries' , then that becomes authoritarian.
People give authority to dictionaries, their desires, studies and others things.
Interesting phraseology - 'dictionaries, their desires, studies..'. How do you know dictionaries were not tainted by desire? I personally think they are.
Why one is seen above or better than the other is all down to personal reasoning.
At the end, everything is an interpretation.
Absolutely. We cannot escape our human condition although some folks try to impose authority on others.
-
Peace all,
I apologise for the overly late reply.
I wanted to present a well-structured and cohesive argument, but this takes time, and I?ve been busy with work and other personal matters.
I also apologise in advance for the length of the following post, but there are several subjects implicated by the topic at hand that must be addressed.
Eight points follow.
-
Use. Meaning is use. As stated in the first post of this thread, both the meanings of words (lexicon) and the way in which words are used in a sentence (syntax), are entirely dependent on how the people of that language have come to use their lexicon and syntax. Where a new use of a word arises, or a new mode of sentence formation, such uses and modes must be brought into common currency in order that they may constitute a part of that language. If, on the other hand, such uses and modes do not become popular, then the intended meaning will only be understood by the people who originated said uses and modes. In communication, we will only receive someone?s intended meaning if we confine ourselves to the rules of the language that they are using in their communication. For instance, why are you, the reader, using the vocabulary and the grammar of Modern British English to understand this text that you are reading now? Why do you not feel the need to invent new meanings for the words that I am using now? Why do you not feel the need to rearrange my sentences in order to understand the sentences better? Of course, there are some readers whose experience with English is such that they might take to the use of dictionaries, or grammars. But for all others, the one answer to all my questions is easy meaning is use. So, how do new uses and modes enter a language? This follows on to the next point mutability.
-
Mutability. The mutability of language is the process by which languages evolve; it is a most natural feature of all languages. It is the very process by which they gain, or lose, their lexicon and their syntax. Mutability implies that words are gradually used in slightly different ways with the passage of time, or that sentences are formed in slightly different ways with the passage of time. These small changes eventually accumulate, over time, to the extent that the new use is very distinct from the original use. Examples of the mutability of language
i) An example in syntax (a.k.a. syntactic change) The form of questions used by Modern English, are thought to have evolved from Middle English by the repositioning of words in a sentence, and by placing a tonal emphasis on the rearranged words. So, the following two sentences ?John does like to read.? and ?Does John like to read.? were both used as statements, not exclusively as questions. Then, over time, the latter statement quite probably gained a trend whereby it was used mostly in contexts of interrogation. Thus, it eventually became a full-on question used mostly for asking questions ?Does John like to read??
ii) An example in lexicon signification (a.k.a. semantic drift) The word gay originally meant happy, it gradually acquired sexual connotations to both men and women of any sexual orientation before being applied to homosexuals.
iii) An example in lexicon sounds (a.k.a. phonetic mutation) The participle suffix ?ing in English is usually abbreviated into ?in? with many words, as runnin? from running, eatin? from eating, readin? from reading. This is not simply a modern vernacular phenomenon, but has been recorded in the English language since the 17th century.
iv) An example in lexicon presence (a.k.a. language contact) This is a relatively straightforward procedure whereby a language adopts a new word from a foreign language in order to accommodate for an item, invention, or idea with which the speakers of that language have not previously come into contact. Or, it could be because that the language is deficient and requires foreign supplementation. In many cases, a word will pass through several languages before reaching any given language; therefore, its degree of mutation from its original form is naturally greater. English is peppered with loanwords from many different sources such as Latin, French, German, Greek, Arabic, Hindi etc. Classical Arabic has a notable number of words of foreign origin, being mostly Persian, Latin and Aramaic in origin, and some of which are found in the Quran. Examples of English and Arabic loanwords?
a) ir meaning path in Arabic, borrowed from the Latin stratum meaning road
b) qiss meaning scales in Arabic, borrowed probably from the pre-Classical Latin cognate of the Ancient Greek meaning balance
c) battery in English, borrowed from the Middle French batterie
d) admiral in English, borrowed from the Arabic ?amr al-ral or possibly ?amr al-bar, meaning commander of the fleet or of the sea
e) banal meaning relating to feudal service in Medieval Latin, which then passed into French with the meaning of commonplace, and later used in English to mean trite
f) jungle in English, borrowed from the Hindi jangl meaning wilderness
g) bandanna in English, borrowed from the Hindi bandhna meaning to tie a scarf around the head
h) blitz in English, borrowed from the German blitzkrieg meaning a swift and intensive military attack
i) iceberg in English, borrowed from the German eisberg
j) amphibious in English, derived from the Greek root form - meaning living a double lifeIf a word, a meaning of a word, sound of a word, or syntactical function of a word is not borne of use, then it is forged. Thus, the next point forgery.
- Forgery. Forgery is neither rooted in mutability, nor in use; forgery is outright invention. The products of forgery are not recognized by native speakers of a language because they are not accustomed to it. As such, as far as native speakers are concerned, forgery is both unrecognized and nonsensical. Examples in forgery
i) I decide for whatever reason that woman should refer to a female of any species, not only human beings; therefore, it can be applied to a female elephant, a female dog, a female spider, etc.
ii) I decide for whatever reason that car should refer to any mode of transport, not only automobiles; therefore, it can be applied to planes, trains, horses, camels etc.
iii) I decide for whatever reason that water should refer to any drinkable liquid; therefore, it can be applied to milk, wine, juice, etc.
iv) I decide for whatever reason that questions should no longer be introduced by the interrogative verb do; therefore, instead of ?Do you enjoy reading?? I decide it should be ?Enjoy reading you??Forgery is outright invention, it is unrecognized and nonsensical, and as such, is invalid. How do we distinguish what is historically real from what is historically not? Thus, the next point authenticity.
-
Authenticity. Having established use as the definer of signifiers (words) and of syntax (rules of composition), we now address the issue of authenticity. By ?authenticity? I mean ?the degree of truthfulness of semantic sources, both lexical and syntactic.? Extant texts thus far discovered that are concomitant or proximate to the Quran are scant. This makes it extremely difficult for us, independently of the Quran, to determine, by means of textual corpora, the mode of use of 6th century Arabic. It is unfortunate that the earliest Arabic lexicons do not predate the latter half of the 8th century, for this would certainly have done much to record the mutations in the language. Notwithstanding this, we are fortunate to have the Quran, and its still-extant manuscripts, that serve as their own semantic corpus to a large extent; for this we should be ever-grateful to God for His act of preservation. Further, the Quran being the sole central source of early Islam, it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that it would have done much to fixate the shift of the language up to the point of the literary explosion that is recorded in history by circa the late 7th century. And perhaps in this respect, it would be quite apt to distinguish the Arabic proximate to the time of revelation (circa 550 to 650 CE) from the Arabic of the time after the Islamic expansion (circa 700 CE onwards). In my view, there will be, inevitably, some very mute, but nonetheless notable, differences in use between these two stages of Arabic. As such, I tend to call the prior ?Peninsular Arabic,? and the latter ?Early Classical Arabic.? I use the unqualified term ?Classical Arabic? to refer to the characteristics that were common to all the stages of Arabic from circa 500 CE to the Medieval Ages. It must be noted that all this is only pertinent to written Arabic, not to spoken Arabic. For the spoken language undergoes a much more rapid mutation than its written counterpart. So how do we empirically determine authenticity? Thus, the next point method.
-
Method. Perhaps, for the sake of demonstration, I should elucidate the standard linguistic composition and compilation of corpora. A corpus is a massive collection of texts which are gathered together, either digitally or physically, to determine the signification of words and the rules of grammar of any written language from any point in its evolutionary history. Here is an example of what the signifier ?pursue? will look like in a corpus
??The district judge saw fit to not pursue the case to appeal??
??The school?s mantra resonated ?Pursue your dreams!???
?? So he then pursued his desires??
??Andrew pursued the thief until??
??if it wasn?t that they pursued the other group, they would have??
??they gave chase and pursued the aggressing party??
??On the savannah, the cheetah is always in pursuit of vulnerable prey??
This list will go on for as long as it will take to determine the signification of ?pursue? and its derivatives, independently of having a definition of it to begin with. This same technique can be used to determine the lexicon and syntax of Peninsular Arabic using the texts, not least the Quran, which were proximate to the Quran?s revelation (550 to 650 CE). Then, the same technique can be used to determine the lexicon and syntax of Early Classical Arabic. From this point, a comparative analysis can be performed to determine the extent of linguistic shift in the language. There will undoubtedly be variations in the two, however, the extent of these variations will allow us to empirically quantify the extent of said variations, and in turn, will allow us to determine the degree of truthfulness of later semantic sources, both lexical and syntactic, i.e., their authenticity. Such an empirical method will, for the objective pursuer of truth, resolutely settle the issue of historical bias with regards to unauthentic semantic sources, both lexical and syntactic. A collation of such a vast body of text ? in seeking to gain access and classify known extant manuscripts and portfolios spread all over the world ? would probably take decades to compose, and would need a healthy sum to fund the research. I would personally embark on such an endeavour; would that time and resources show me liberality! If the results of this method are rejected, it would show an utter contempt for the respect of empirical evidence in the objective pursuit of truth.
- Systematicness. Classical Arabic, arguably, has a level of systematicness and derivativeness which cannot be matched by any living language, not even when compared to Semitic sister-languages.
Classical Arabic has?
i) all its verbs derived from either a triliteral root, or a quadriliteral one,
ii) only ten (common) forms for the prior, and only four for the latter; with each having?
a) set rules of conjugation,
b) set rules of inflection, and
c) most importantly of all, set rules of meaning ? which, although, I grant are not universally steadfast, the majority conform to said rules ? as
α fa?ala = to do
β fa??ala = to do something iteratively, repetitively, or intensively
γ f?ala = to attempt to do something
δ ?af ?ala = to cause to do
ε tafa??ala = to do something to one?s self or by one's own accord
ζ taf?ala = to do something with someone else
η infa?ala = to occur to have happened in and of itself (this verb form has no subject, a ?doer?, it is almost always passive)
θ ifta?ala = to do something to one?s self (this form doesn?t have a steadfast rule, but most of its verbs are of the said order)
ι if?alla = to change colour or quality
κ istaf?ala = to request to do something
iii) a verbal noun for all its verbs,
iv) a participle, both active and passive, for all its verbs,
v) a fixed number of forms for its nouns, both singular and plural,
vi) a level of phonetic systematicness that is so characteristic of Semitic languages,
vii) only three moods for its verbs,
viii) fixed imperative forms for all forms of its verbs, and
ix) both syntactical and lexical commonalities with pre-Medieval Hebrew, Amharic, Aramaic, and Syriac; commonalities that serve as great measures of proof for the ascertainment of the usage of Peninsular Arabic and its later counterpart.It has form-fixed nouns derived from verbs that denote?
i) where a verb takes place, all of which are based on the form maf?al or maf?il,
ii) what time a verb takes place, all of which are based on the form maf?al or maf?il,
iii) the mode in which a verb takes place, all of which are based on the form fi?lah, and
iv) the instrument with which a verb is accomplished, all of which are based on the form mif?al.It has form-fixed nouns derived from other nouns that denote?
i) substantive definiteness, indefiniteness, and genericalness,
ii) paucity (defined as 3 to 10 items),
iii) plurality (defined as more than 10),
iv) quiddity,
v) relativity,
vi) diminutiveness, and
vii) many other classes of nouns such as those that denote?
a) diseases, all of which are based on the form fu?l ( ( zukm, a cold; su?l, a cough; ud?, a headache; umm, a fever; ul, a disease of the spleen; kubd, a disease of the liver; suhd, insomnia.
b) vessels, all of which are based on the form mif?al ( ( milab, a vessel for containing milk (a milk-pan); mi?bar, a container for holding needles; mibwal, a urinal; mibzaq, a vessel to spit into.
c) fragmentation, all of which are based on the form fu?lah ( ( burdah, shavings; kunsah, sweepings; quah, parings; qummah, litter.
d) places where something abounds, all of which are based on the form maf ?alah ( ( ma?sadah, a place abounding in lions; madh?abah, a place abounding in wolves; marmanah, a place where pomegranates grow abundantly; ma?nabah, a place where grapes grow abundantly.
e) devices and implements, which are named after the act that they used for, and all of which are based on the form fa??lah ( ( arrdah, a spear (from arada meaning to drive away); sayyrah, a caravan (from sra meaning to journey); arrah, a mattress (from araa meaning to lay on the ground); dabbbah, a battering ram (from dabba meaning to crawl the earth). In Modern Arabic, this feature has been utilised to refer to modern inventions, as ayyrah, aeroplane (from ra meaning to fly); barrdah, refrigerator (from barrada meaning to make cold); daffyah, heater (from daffa?a meaning to make hot).It has form-fixed adjectives derived from verbs that denote?
i) permanence of a quality, all of which are based on the form fa?l ( ( merciful; big; small.
ii) repetitiveness of a quality, all of which are based on the form fa??l ( ( often-lying (a liar); often-begging (a persistent beggar); often-eating (a greedy person).
iii) intensiveness of a quality, all of which are based on the form fa?l ( ( excessively lying (addicted to lying); excessively persistent (importunate); excessively greedy (a glutton).It has an unusually systematic phonetics-based etymology; examples
i) qaafa = to strike off qaafa = to pick off
ii) faama = to break qaama = to break into 2 parts
iii) faala = to separate waala = to join
iv) laiqa = to stick laziqa = to slip
v) madda = to expand adda = to restrict
vi) laama = to slap lakama = to punch
vii) nahasa = to bite with the incicors naha?a = to bite with the molars
viii) qadda = to cut vertically qaa = to cut horizontally
ix) kusf = solar eclipse khusf = lunar eclipse
x) d? = disease daw? = medicineIt has an unusually systematic signification-based etymology; examples
i) rann = whining hann = quiet whining
ann = loud whining ?ann = excessive whining (as heard when one is in severe pain)
ii) nma = to sleep af = to nap
raqada = to sleep at length sabata = to sleep interruptedly
qla = to take a siesta arra = to sleep insufficiently
iii) j?a = to be hungry saaba = to be very hungry
aratha = to be extremely hungry aw = to starve
iv) ?ata?a = to be thirsty ami?a = to be very thirsty
ad = to be extremely thirsty jda = to experience life-threatening thirst
v) abba = to love haw = to be in love
kalifa = to love with infatuation ?a?iqa = to love violently
vi) kariha = to hate qal = to detest
maqata = to loathe baaa = to utterly abhor
vii) ta = to issue sound a = to issue a loud sound
aw? = clamour in general wa = the clamour of battle
viii) hamasa = to speak quietly arakha = to scream
waswasa = to whisper jamjama = to mumble
dandana = to hum amama = to shout a battle cry
ix) nafar = 3 to 7 people rah = from 7 to 10 people
sarbah = from 20 to 30 people ?ubah = up to 40 people
fawj = a wave of people zumrah = a massive congregation of people
x) ?a?b = a nation (ancient lineage that is common to all tribes)
qablah = a tribe (relations by ancient generations)
?imrah = subsection of a tribe (relations by 20 or more generations prior)
ban = subsection of a ?imrah (relations by 8, 9 or 10 generations prior)
fakhdh = subsection of a ban (relations by the great grandfather or the great great grandfather)
falah = subsection of a fakhdh (grandparents and their siblings)
?a?rah = extended family including closest friends
?itrah = extended family (uncles and cousins)
?usrah = immediate family (parents, children, partner and siblings)I hope the entirety of this sixth point does something to ablate the unfounded charge levelled against the Classical Arabic tongue, being that it is a chaotic and untidy language with no order or systematicness. Comparatively, many Indo-European languages are left foaming at the mouth, not least English, for want of such gracious regularity.
-
Anomaly. Is the issue of the paradigmatic shift in linguistic usage and the issue of the corruption of meanings confined only to Classical Arabic? Or, is it that this proposition applies to all languages? If the prior, how anomalous the proposition! If the latter, should we no longer understand any text composed in the recorded history of mankind within the framework and within the pre-set rules of the language in which it was composed in order to receive the intended signification of its author(s)? but instead, forge meanings for that text as accord our personal proclivities? Thus, if this latter case was true, we should no longer understand the works of Dickens, Wordsworth, Bronte, Milton, and Shakespeare within the context of the rules of the English language proximate to the time respective of each author; this is not at all feasible, in my view.
-
Divine Rhetoric. To flout syntax is to miss out on some real semantic gems in the Quran. The blinding specificity of God?s use of the Classical Arabic language truly marks the Quran as a literary marvel in the entire history of Arabic literature, and, I would argue, in the recorded history of mankind. All this is lost if one does away with the confinement of one?s understanding of the Quranic text to the rules which it employs to relate said specificity.
?We sent not a messenger, except in the tongue of his kinsmen to be clear with them. God then misguides whomever He wills, and he guides whomever he wills. He is the mighty, the judicious.?
-
-
Salam Uq,
Apologies for the very late reply, and lengthy post.
Anyway, it is very interesting that you decided to quote 144. More translations here http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=14&verse=4.
Using the translation that you have provided, the first part of the verse says that, "We sent not a messenger, except in the tongue of his kinsmen to be clear with them."
So it implies that God will always send a messenger (to a person or group of people) who will always speak in the language/tongue that the person or the group of people must understand.
The Q is a compilation of the revelations received by Muhammad the nabiyy, and since he was an Arab, the Q is understandably in Arabic. Muhammad did not compose, write nor compile the Q, but some people after him decided to compile the revelations he received into a book. That's the Q that we now have.
If say, you were an Eskimo, has God sent you or your group of people a messenger who spoke in the language that you or your group of people understand?
And if there was nothing that you know of regarding this matter, does it mean that God has never sent a messenger to you or your group of people?
And consequently therefore, the first part of verse 144 is a lie. Is it?
Now, the second part of the verse is even more interesting "God then misguides whomever He wills, and he guides whomever he wills. He is the mighty, the judicious.?
Since this part is related to the first (note the presence of 'then' in this second part of the verse), and lets say that there has never been a messenger sent to you or your group of people, then there is no possibility that God will guide nor misguide you or your people? And God is judicious, remember?
So of course we must take note of 2143 (some translations here http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=143). We read in this verse that (Arberry), "but God would never leave your faith to waste."
When we have the full faith in God that He is compassionate, merciful, judicious and wise, and that as our Lord (rabb), "He teaches man what he knew not" (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=96&verse=5), and that we appoint Him as our teacher, reference, friend, helper and supporter in our daily lives, are we still fearful that God will misguide us?
But really, who are the misguided? Or the people that God will surely misguide? Do we not learn about this in the Q?
Are they not the 'thalimeen'? But what is 'thalim'? Browse here (http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Zlm) for some ideas.
Here is from Hans Wehr "unjust, unfair, iniquitious, tyrannical, oppressing; tyrant, oppressor; offender, transgressor, sinner."
Here is from Lane "Acting wrongfully, unjustly, injuriously, or tyrannically and wronging ; or treating, or using, wrongfully, etc."
And to further assist you, here is the verb entry by Hans Wehr "to do wrong or evil; to wrong, treat unjustly, ill-treat, oppress, beset, harm, suppress, tyrannize (s.o.), commit outrage (upon s.o.); to act the tyrant, act tyrannically (toward or against s.o.)."
The word that could generally represent all the meanings entered by Hans Wehr and Lane for the term 'thalim' is 'prejudice' (http//thesaurus.com/browse/prejudice).
The messages brought by past 'anbiya' and messengers always contained 'different or strange' ideas from those already known by the people. The idea of the singularity or omnipotence of God is very strange to past communities, even in the 6th & 7th Century. In fact the idea that majority ideas are always wrong is still a strange idea, even to many of us now.
But to those who have full faith in God and the last day in this earth, they treat every different or strange ideas that downed upon them with open-mindedness (without prejudice) and immediately they ask God for further clarifications. God knows, so we don't, and thus it is only proper for us to only seek for God's counsel.
Books and dictionaries are study tools that assists, but the final word must come from God when we have full faith in God.
The theory is that God is the teacher. We learn about this in the Q.
The practice is simply to appoint God as our teacher. The way of learning with God as our teacher dictates that we must first empty the cup - rid the mind of all ideas or attain zero mind. We do this in meditations. Automatically all past learnings, ideas and theories will degenerate into mere information (that could be correct or incorrect according to God) that we are very much detached from. The concept is detachment from attachment.
To be detached from our 'mind' (ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) is a very difficult exercise indeed. We have spent many years learning, or much money was spent for them, and some have even be identified by them. All these demand a very strong faith in God and equally strong will to be successful is studying with God as our teacher.
As our teacher, God will always be the reference, or the first and only reference. We used to first employ uncle Google, or asked around for ideas. God has always been the number 5, if not 20. Yet we dare say that God is "al-awwal"!
If we acknowledge that God is "al-awwal", then we must appoint God as the number 1, or the first in reference, and better still in everything that we need to know or do. We should take the lessons of Ibraheem, Yaaqub, Zakariya, Maryam and Moosa (just to name a few). The Q also mentions that we should put God as the first in our mind on waking up from sleep (you will not read about this in popular translations).
Or that we must immediately seek for God's guidance whenever invited to a meeting or a date. Or that we must make our meditations the approach to God whenever we need to attain God's guidance.
These are very different or strange ideas to you. Are they wrong? Are they correct? But who is to tell you other than God?
And I must only speak for myself here. I don't create new meanings, nor forged them out of prejudice or fancy, no matter how different or strange they seemed to you.
As I have frequently wrote, get God to tell you the truth.
Your lengthy post is excellent, but these are mere tools for language studies. But the Q is not an ordinary book. It was never revealed by any man, neither composed by any man. The Q is from God. And again I repeat, the final word on the true meaning of the Q must come from only God.
May God guide us all correctly.
Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Peace all.
I'm very dissapointed because I am lag of this discussion cause I'm rarely online in that time.
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. I will say the following about these arguments
You're true uq, translating the Quran too literally or only use harfiyah tarjamah will be very misslead indeed.
I mean even we reject hadith or some tafsir kitabs as source for fiqh, aqidah, fatwa, but atleast we can still use them to found some Islamic terminologies.
The easy example is the meaning of word "junub" in 56.
Junub in literal meaning is "far" like in QS 2811, in that ayat the word "junub" translated in to "far".But it's imposibble if we translate the word "junub" as "far" in 56.
So the conclusion is we may translate the Quran literally but dont forget about tafsiriyah translation.To be detached from our 'mind' (ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) is a very difficult exercise indeed. We have spent many years learning, or much money was spent for them, and some have even be identified by them. All these demand a very strong faith in God and equally strong will to be successful is studying with God as our teacher.
As our teacher, God will always be the reference, or the first and only reference. We used to first employ uncle Google, or asked around for ideas. God has always been the number 5, if not 20. Yet we dare say that God is "al-awwal"!
Yes Abang Muhammad Nuh, Allah is our only guru in "Islamedeena" ( 268, 2187, 2219)
But the Allah's explanation is ayah in the Quran itself, not the translation.
Translation science is human problems and we must use our intellegence from Allah to learn it.Translation is one of the way to understanding Allah's explanation of Islam (the Quran)
Salaam
-
Salam Earthdom,
I beg to disagree with your views here
But the Allah's explanation is ayah in the Quran itself, not the translation.
Translation science is human problems and we must use our intellegence from Allah to learn it.Since the passing of Muhammad the nabiy, later on the rasool, in the 3rd decade of the 7th C, we have yet to find a translation (in our case should be in English or Malay) of the Q that could appease our hearts. And those translations were done by masters, no less, of the the languages involved. But why?
Why are we having differences in understanding even the basic theories and practices taught in the Q? Is it a case of one having a more refined grasp of the Arabic language than the others? And therefore we should leave the translation of the Q to this person?
And the more than a billion people who professed to be true Muslims have found it hard to denounce religious massacres simply they follow the translator's idea that 'oqtul' rigidly means 'kill' as in putting to death by shedding the blood.
Lets look at 2191 here http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191. Did you really presume that the compassionate and merciful God has commanded massacre in this verse? Even when i 2191 (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191) God has issued a warning that we should not transgress the limit? So what kind of God do we presume He is then?
Lets look at Hans Wehr's entry "to kill, slay, murder, assasinate (s.o.); to mitigate, alleviate (sth., e.g. the cold, hunger, etc.); to mix, dilute (sth. with, e.g., wine with water); to know, master (sth., e,g, skill)."
And when there was a command from God, "... faoqtuloo anfusakum thalikum khayrun lakum AAinda bari-ikum ..." (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=54) Did God ask us to kick the bucket, then? Or is it better for us to be dead?
As in my earlier post in this thread, our biggest enemy is prejudice (thalim). When prejudiced we only subscribed to some sets of notions or ideas.
So to me, the thing to kill is the notions.
In 224 it should read, "... then kill your notions, that is better for you in the sight of your Creator ..."
"What notions?" you may ask. It is that idea of adopting the calf mentioned earlier in the verse.
And for 2191, to me it is, "And kill their notions wherever you find them, and express your views against them because they have expressed their views against you. But the temptation is greater on the kill. But don?t strive against them on the forbidden occasion of reverence, unless they strive against you on it, so if they strive against you, kill their notions. Like that is the retribution for disbelievers."
"... But the temptation is greater on the kill. ..." "How about this?" you may also ask. It means, while in deliberations, we are quite often tempted to kill. Kill here implies killing the persona or simply to character assasinate. This we come across quite often here in FM.
The Q is more often addressing issues very close to our hearts than the person next or opposite to us, because the Q is a guide on us becoming. The oblivious will become arrogant while the mindful will become humble.
But still, you may choose to continue subscribing the ideas contained in your post. I have no problem whatsoever about it. We all enjoy the freedom of choice. You have yours, and i have mine.
May God guide us all correctly.
Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Peace abang Joe Betik.
Thank you for your explanation.Actually Arabic grammar and translation is not my main and my main discipline, instead i study it in autodidact ways.So maybe I little bit confused to reading your explanation.
And the more than a billion people who professed to be true Muslims have found it hard to denounce religious massacres simply they follow the translator's idea that 'oqtul' rigidly means 'kill' as in putting to death by shedding the blood.
Yeah it's the true, why some radical Muslim intepretate Quran based on their hatred and forget if all the verses in the Quran is correlated each other.
It's like the verse 551, for how the Sunni translate the word "auliya" with simple minded by saying if we musn't use Yahudi and Nasrani as our leader.
They didn't care if the word "auliya" have multiple meaning such like "helper, best friend etc"
Plus they also didn't care if Jews and Nasrani mentioned in 551 is the hypocrite people who attacking Muslim, instead they keep descriminating Jews or Nasrani by using ayat 551 as their bases.Regards.
Tegar -
Spiritual texts, enven while dealing with everyday hapennings, are open texts. No use putting a lid on them, because they are nourishment for the individual, and I highlight individual, because they have the potential to awake any person, to evoque very personal things to every person. In facct that happens with any text. But the spiritual texts, being inspired, they go very deep into the conscience, subconscience, and all the recesses of the human mind and feelings.
Also, conditionning is the most powerful limit to reading what may be enclosed in a word, a phrase, a set of phrases.
We may follow paths that may be do not take us where we thoought they would, but at the very least that provides as always, with a better grasp of whatever we are trying to clear or get to. And also it gives us width of understanding in general, of fats and words and what is behind the words. Language is anything but rationhal. It is rational to some extent, but it is our let out for everything we experience cosncious or unconscious, more so the unconscious. We let the cat out through words. And we let the cat out when we understand certain words, expressions in one way and not in another.
But most conditioning, and most lethal comes from previous assumed "correct" interpretations, of which assumption we are not even conscious.
Salaam
-
peace joe betik,
If say, you were an Eskimo, has God sent you or your group of people a messenger who spoke in the language that you or your group of people understand?
And if there was nothing that you know of regarding this matter, does it mean that God has never sent a messenger to you or your group of people?
And consequently therefore, the first part of verse 144 is a lie. Is it?
I do not see how 144 can be said to be a lie with the reasoning you have provided. 144 is simply saying if/when God sends a messenger to a people it is done so in the language of those people, i.e. the messenger speaks their language.
Perhaps you are also combining 1646, but even then I do not follow your reasoning.
An Eskimo may not be aware of a messenger being sent but this does not mean a messenger was not sent.
Perhaps you can clarify.
-
peace joe betik,
I do not see how 144 can be said to be a lie with the reasoning you have provided. 144 is simply saying if/when God sends a messenger to a people it is done so in the language of those people, i.e. the messenger speaks their language.
Perhaps you are also combining 1646, but even then I do not follow your reasoning.
An Eskimo may not be aware of a messenger being sent but this does not mean a messenger was not sent.
Perhaps you can clarify.
Peace Wakas,
May God guide us all correctly.
Perhaps the more appropriate verse to be read together with my related post is 1047 (corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=10&verse=47).
And I am with you when you wrote, "An Eskimo may not be aware of a messenger being sent but this does not mean a messenger was not sent."
A matter worth pondering upon is, "Was a 'rasool' (messenger) ever sent to Muhammad the 'nabiy' (lets just say that Muhammad the 'nabiy' was the person who received the Q we now have) prior to his appointment as a 'rasool'?"
The underlying ideas in the 2 paragraphs above may give us some pointers, hopefully, on who actually is the rasool
a. for a person such as Muhammad, Ibrahim, Isha, Moosa, Zakariya, Maryam, or even you and me, etc.;
b. for a community/group of people such as the people around Muhammad, Ibrahim, Isha, Moosa, Zakariya, Maryam, or even you and me, etc..Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Peace all.
I'm very dissapointed because I am lag of this discussion cause I'm rarely online in that time.
You're true uq, translating the Quran too literally or only use harfiyah tarjamah will be very misslead indeed.
I mean even we reject hadith or some tafsir kitabs as source for fiqh, aqidah, fatwa, but atleast we can still use them to found some Islamic terminologies.
The easy example is the meaning of word "junub" in 56.
Junub in literal meaning is "far" like in QS 2811, in that ayat the word "junub" translated in to "far".But it's imposibble if we translate the word "junub" as "far" in 56.
So the conclusion is we may translate the Quran literally but dont forget about tafsiriyah translation....
Salaam
Salam Earthdom,
May God guide us all correctly.
I trust I have to post a commentary on the first part of your post. As for the second part of your post, I have already posted my comments.
- Literal translation.
I read the Q to understand the message, and if ever I posted my personal understanding of the verses, then they are just my personal understanding. Although I seek God's counsel in my studies, never I do not claim to hold the sole truth of the meaning of the verses. It is up to God to reveal the meaning to me. And even then, I could have missed something or other. Thus I used to remind anyone reading my posts to simply consider to ponder. Otherwise forget it.
- You have taken the word 'junub' in support of your stand that we cannot disregard "tafsiriyah".
Lets now look at 'j-n-b' here http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=jnb.
Here is Hans Wehr's entry for 'junub' "in a state of major ritual impurity; not belonging to the tribe, not a kinsman."
While here is an edited version of Lane's entry ?Ajnab? signifying A stranger; as also a man who is distant, or remote or distant, or remote, in respect of relationship or not a relation; and ?Janeeb? signifies one alighting, or descending and abiding, or settling, as a stranger, among a tribe ?Jaru aljunub? The person who is one's neighbour, but who belongs to another people; who is not of one's family nor of one's lineage; who is of another lineage than he of whom he is a neighbour; who is not a relation or one who is distant, or remote, in an absolute sense or the person who is not a relation to another, and who comes to him, and asks him to protect him, and abides with him such has the title to respect that belongs to him as neighbour of the other, and to his protection, and as relying upon his safeguard and promise.
If you have the time to spend, please browse Lane's Lexicon here http//www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/
So how could we understand 56 (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=6)?
Lets ponder on my personal understanding
You people who have believed, when you attend to a relationship/communion/gathering, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads and wash your feet up to the two ankles. And if you were ?junuban?, then have yourselves cleaned/a bath. And if you were ill or on a journey, or one of you comes from the latrine, or you have had sex with women but could not find water, then resort to an agreeable goodness, so wipe your faces and hands. God does not intend to put you in any difficulty, but He intends to make you clean, and to complete His comfort for you, so that perhaps you might be grateful.
So what is 'junuban', then? Couldn't it be related with the idea of 'far' as you have asserted?
I trust it should, since the Q is consistent in word usage and meaning. The meaning has to be consistent with word usage.
In the above verse it relates to people who are 'far' or 'distant' from the group that was having the relationship/communion/gathering. So, 'junuban' in this verse could refer to 'newcomers' or 'strangers' to the event. People who come from distant places strictly for the event could also fall into this category. This must not be confused with those on a journey (AAala safarin), for they didn't make the journey purposely to attend the event; they just dropped by, rather.
An example of such event is like a lecture on the the forbidden occassion of reverence that was held in London. Some people took the bus to attend the lecture. Some had to drive only for a few minutes. But some had to take the train across the Europe, while some others had to take flights across the Pacific Ocean.
So those who had to take a long journey purposely for the event and those newcomers/strangers to the the people or the subject to be lectured upon, they are essentially 'junuban'.
Lets now look at 443 (http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=43).
Lets ponder on my personal understanding
You people who have believed, don?t approach relationship/communion/gathering when you are intoxicated, not until you know what you are saying, and not ?junuban? unless crossing path, and be it only after you have yourselves cleaned/a bath. But if you were ill or on a journey, or anyone of you came from the latrine, or have had sex with women but did not find water, then resort to an acceptable goodness, and so wipe your faces and your hands. Indeed God is pardoning with forgivness.
I hope you can now notice that the meaning for 'junuban' in verse 443 is consistent with verse 56.
We also note that 'junuban' in 443 is related with the next phrase, i.e. "... wala junuban illa AAabiree sabeelin ... ."
The phrase "... illa AAabiree sabeelin ... ," is the clue. In this verse we don't cross path with God, but with people - acquaintances and strangers.
It is normal that we would say hello and spend some time exchanging news or even personal experiences and comprehensions. Sometimes the acquaintance(s) or even us have strangers or newcomers in our company.
Sometimes the event is scheduled, at times impromptu. At times we would be discussing family matters, while at others we might be having a discussion on company marketing strategy. Even at others we might be approached by people with questions. All this is about 'salat' = relationship/gathering among people. It could be just two, or it could be in the thousands.
Preparing for the 'salat' = 'communion (with God)' is also the same - we need to prepare ourselves as mentioned in verse 56 and 443. We commune with God by meditation (bayt), everytime on waking up from sleep (musbiheen) as mentioned in Chaper 68 and every night as mentioned in Chapter 73.
So now comes the big question, "Am I doing 'the forgery of signification' simply because i do not follow others' understanding/translation, eventhough the meanings I have could easily be found in the dictionaries/lexicons?"
But please also note this again Although I have a different comprehension regarding the Q from others, it does not mean that I consider their translations or understandings to be wrong. Never. To each his own, indeed.
Cheers!
mohammed noh -
Thank you abang Muhammad Nuh, your explanation about "junub" is very helpful.
I have no comment for your explanation, and I want study more so I will became smart like you.
Salaam from Indonesia
Tegar Abdul Hutama -
This is offtopic, but perhaps I should also put a note here that in all my years of studying and discussing the lessons of the Q, I am now almost sure that the Q is not for any Tom, Dick and Harry. The Q is only for those who wanted to be true servants of God, thus willing to sacrifice their priceless possession and love, i.e. the mind.
It is not that God is against the mind that He created for us. No. He created the mind for us to think, to have common sense or to subscribe simple logic.
In the first revelation (Chapter 96) we learn that God created man to be dependant on Him, but do we always have God in the equations of the things we think and do? Isn't it common sense that since God created man to be dependant on Him, man should reciprocate by depending on God for everything. Isn't it common sense too when we learn that God teaches man what he knew not, we should reciprocate by learning with God as the teacher?
And a servant of God is one who appreciates/values the relationship/connection between himself/herself and God. As in any relationship, communication is key, thus he/she must talk to God, though one should never have this idea that God will surely speak to him/her. In the Q we learn that God is the ever-listener whenever we talk to Him. We also learn that He answers all of our prayers/du-a, no matter how oblivious we are of God's answers.
A servant of God also does whatever is commanded without questions, lest they become like the 'banee isra-eel' in the hadith of the heifer in Chapter 2.
But most people, even in this forum are careless or oblivious of the very basics of becoming true servants of God. They became servants of their very own minds, instead. They turned arrogant because they have ideas/notions (baneen) or good grasp of the Arabic language. Indeed, they have turned into the very proofs for the truth of the many hadith in the Q, because they are careless about the God who revealed the Q they claimed to study.
My apology, but I write this because I fear for some of you. "God knows best," is the perfect attitude, and therefore when we accept that we are not beholders of the truth, then we should never make dubious remarks on God, on the Q or on others. We must have respect for God, and of course for ourselves for having that attitude of "God knows best".
Indeed when we hold the truth, it will surely lead us to become humble peacemakers, but if we hold the false, it will definitely lead us to become arrogant instigators. We come across these terms in the Q that we study, and as such, this is how we should measure ourselves, I suggest.
May God guide us all correctly.
Cheers!
Mohammed NohBrilliant!! bravo
You put words to my thoughts!
