Why no Ramadzan - replaced! by 3,10,60 Days.
-
God bless Ayman,
The verses that will help clear up this issue of what the Koran considers to be a month, if it considers this issue at all, are 2 184, 589 and 585. All of these verses except for 589 deal with compensation (kaffaarat or fidyat) for daily fasting. As long as the topic is compensation for daily fasting then 2185 holds true in its statement that the compensation for every missed daily fast is the feeding of one, needy person. That is, a 11 ratio that allows 585 to imply that the Koran considers 2 months to be equal to 60 days in that 60 needy people must be fed for two months? worth of missed fasts.
Although it may seem that 589 contradicts that 11 ratio 589 does not state that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for feeding 10 people or that feeding 10 people is the compensation for not fasting for 3 days (3 fasts). What it clearly and specifically states is that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for a broken promise. Therefore, the 11 ratio still holds true in that 589 is not talking about compensating fasts, or fasting in order to compensate the number of needy persons that should have been fed.
589 specifically says fa siyaamu thalaathati ayyamin dhaalika dafaaratu aymaanikum
Which means Then fasting three daily fasts will be compensation for those broken promises of yours.Such a statement makes it clear that the compensation here is to be made fore the broken promises. This statement disconnects the direct relationship between the amount of missed daily fasts and the amount of needy people who must be fed to compensate for each missed fast. Had ?dhaalika kaffaaratu Aymaanikum? not been there the connection between 3 missed fasts and feeding 10 needy people would indeed have been valid.
No clarifying statement like the one in 589 exists in 2184 and 585. The connection between missed, daily fasts and the amount of people that must be fed to compensate for these fasts is naturally 11, thanks to the established precedent given to us through 2184, and seeing that there is not counteracting clause in 585 like the one in 589 that would show us our error in concluding a 11 ratio. With that said I think it is safe to say that the Koran does consider 2 months to be equal to 60 days and 1 month to be equal to 30 days. I would also like to cite the relevant parts of the passages in question and clarify their relevancy.
2189
Kutiba alaikum as-siyaamu . . . ayaaman ma?doodaatin . . .
Alladheena yuteeqoonahu fidyatun ta?aamu miskeeninFasting has been prescribed for you . . .During allotted days . .
Those who have severe difficulty with a fast can compensate
the fast by feeding a needy person.The releveant idea here is kaffaratu/fidyatu siyaami COMPENSATION FOR FASTING
589
yu-aakhidhukum bimaa &aqqad-tumul-aymaana . . fakaffaaratuhu it'aamu 'asharati masaakeena . . . fa man lam yajid . . .fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin dhaalika kaffaaratu aymaanikum
God will hold you to your sincere promises . . .To compensate for not keeping to these promises feed 10 needy individuals . . . For he who cannot afford this . . . then fasting 3 daily fasts will compensate for these broken promises of yours.
The relevant idea here is kaffaaratu/fidyatul-aymaani COMPENSATION FOR PROMISES
584-5
walladheena yudhaaw-hiroona min nisaa-ihim thumma ya'oodoona limaa qaaloo . . .fatah-reeru raqabatin . . . faman lam yajid . . .fa it'aamu sitteena miskeenan
As for those who declare Zihaar/declare open adversion to their women and then go back on that declaration . . .compensate by emancipating someone in bondage . . .whoever cannot afford then fasting for two consecutive months will compensate. . .whoever cannot . . .then feeding sixty needy individuals will compensate.
The relevant ideas here are kaffaaratu/fidyatu tahreeri raqabatin COMPENSATION FOR EMANCIPATING INDIVIDUALS IN BONDAGE
and
kaffaaratu/fidyatu siyaami COMPENSATION FOR FASTS
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace brother Anwar,
The verses that will help clear up this issue of what the Koran considers to be a month, if it considers this issue at all, are 2 184, 589 and 585. All of these verses except for 589 deal with compensation (kaffaarat or fidyat) for daily fasting. As long as the topic is compensation for daily fasting then 2185 holds true in its statement that the compensation for every missed daily fast is the feeding of one, needy person.
2184 specifies feeding only one poor person in the same way that 589 and 583 specifies freeing of one prisoner. It doesn't say 30 poor people nor does it say "one per day". These are merely assumptions that are not in the actual wording of 2184. It is based on this assumption that you then conclude the following
That is, a 11 ratio that allows 585 to imply that the Koran considers 2 months to be equal to 60 days in that 60 needy people must be fed for two months? worth of missed fasts.
Although it may seem that 589 contradicts that 11 ratio 589 does not state that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for feeding 10 people or that feeding 10 people is the compensation for not fasting for 3 days (3 fasts). What it clearly and specifically states is that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for a broken promise. Therefore, the 11 ratio still holds true in that 589 is not talking about compensating fasts, or fasting in order to compensate the number of needy persons that should have been fed.
In 589 the compensation is for a broken oath exactly like 584 where the compensation is for repeating the false saying as given in 583. In BOTH those cases abstaining is an alternative for freeing ONE prisoner. In 583, feeding 60 poor people is an alternative to abstaining two consecutive "shahr" and in 589 abstaining 3 days is an alternative for feeding 10 poor people.
583-4
Alternative 1 Freeing 1 prisoner
If one can't find a prisoner to free then
Alternative 2 abstaining 2 consecutive "shahr"
If one can't abstain then
Alternative 3 feeding 60 poor589
Alternative 1 Freeing 1 prisoner
or
Alternative 2 feeding 10 poor
If one can't find a prisoner or poor to feed then
Alternative 3 abstaining 3 daysSo in BOTH cases abstaining or feeding the poor is an alternative to FREEING 1 prisoner. So it is clear that there is no common ratio between PRISONERS and abstaining or feeding the poor. Similarly, there is no one ratio between abstaining and feeding the poor. The ratio depends on what it is we are compensating for.
589 specifically says fa siyaamu thalaathati ayyamin dhaalika dafaaratu aymaanikum
Which means Then fasting three daily fasts will be compensation for those broken promises of yours.Such a statement makes it clear that the compensation here is to be made fore the broken promises. This statement disconnects the direct relationship between the amount of missed daily fasts and the amount of needy people who must be fed to compensate for each missed fast. Had ?dhaalika kaffaaratu Aymaanikum? not been there the connection between 3 missed fasts and feeding 10 needy people would indeed have been valid.
"dhaalika kafaaratu aymaanikum" doesn't mean "will be compensation for those broken promises of yours"
"dhaalika kafaaratu aymaanikum" means "this is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours"The word "dhaalika"/this refers to the above alternatives and not just the abstinence, since any of the above alternatives can be compensation.
No clarifying statement like the one in 589 exists in 2184 and 585.
No, there is a similar clarifying statement in 584 and it starts with the same EXACT word "dhaalika". It is
"dhaalika litu'minoo bi Allah wa rasoolih"
Of course, no one can ever claim that "dhaalika" only refers to the immediate "feeding of 60 poor" that came before and not to the other compensations. This would make the sentence illogical, because it would imply that only the feeding of the poor would contribute to our faith but not the abstaining or the freeing of the prisoner.
I hope this made the issues a little clearer.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
Ayman don't think that because I have not answered you that I agree with you or that I have acceded to your argument. Honestly, I don't think we will ever agree upon much of anything. There seems to be some unrighteous competition between me and you, which I don't like at all.
To respond to your post somewhat. I truly believe that the 'dhaalika kaffaaratu aymaanikum' is the clarifying statement for the fast mentioned in that passage, and that it separates it from the other occurrences where fasting and its compensation in the feeding of needy individuals is mentioned. The 'dhaalika litu'minoo bi Allah wa rasoolih' in the other passage is of a totally different nature and does not allow for what the first 'dhaalika . . .' does. I think you know that well.
I do not appreciate your knit-picking in how I translated the passage as
"Then fasting for 3 days will be compensation for those broken promises of yours"
AND
"Then fast for three days. This is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours"
Convey the same thing in different styles, and you know that my translation is just as valid as yours. But that is your prerogative. God has given you the ability to knit-pick as you see fit.
Overall, although I disagree with your conclusion that 'shah-r' just mainly means 'full-moon' I do agree that it can means those phases of the moon that are not the crescent phases per lisaanul-arabi. But I also know from having read lisaanul-arabi that it was also used to mean from one hilaal to the other, as well as for 29 days.
I have never agreed with your method of 'meaning mixing.' That is taking one meaning such as 'full or obvious' and another meaning such as 'moon' and saying that the word then can mean 'full or obvious moon.' That is in my opinon a perversion.
I admitedly used to be guilty of practicing this method of mixing meanings but I realized my error. If a word means both 'slow' and 'cow' for instance I cannot say that the word can mean 'slow cow'. that is just plain old wrong. The person who uses the word can mean both 'slow and cow' but he cannot mean 'slow cow' unless the word has three meanings. Namely, 'slow', 'cow' AND 'slow cow'.
Despite that, I know you have something to prove here. So whether we come to an agreement or not is no concern of mine. I do not agree with you most times, as I think your logic is often faulty. But if I don't respond, do not think it is because you have proven yourself to be the victor in your logic or argument. It is just because I do not want to argue in vain when I know that you will not accept it. Respond how you will after this post, and get the last word as I know you will. It really does not matter to me.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace brother Anwar,
Ayman don't think that because I have not answered you that I agree with you or that I have acceded to your argument. Honestly, I don't think we will ever agree upon much of anything. There seems to be some unrighteous competition between me and you, which I don't like at all.
It is better to have patience and give a well thought out response than to rush an answer. So I don't assume that anyone agreed with me because they haven't answered. The only way I know that someone agrees with me, is when they simply said so.
If we didn't agree on anything, then I wouldn't have changed my view and agreed with you that the religion whose proper name Islam is completely man-made and is not the common concept of "islam" talked about in the great reading.
Since then, my understanding has improved, while I am sorry to say that it seems that yours has pretty much stayed the same. Hence, you don't see that the month whose proper name is Ramadan is completely man-made like the religion whose proper name is Islam.
This is not about you or any competition. It is about improving our understanding. This requires patience and learning. It is not my problem that you are running short on patience. So it doesn't matter how much time you take, I hope that you will respond.
To respond to your post somewhat. I truly believe that the 'dhaalika kaffaaratu aymaanikum' is the clarifying statement for the fast mentioned in that passage, and that it separates it from the other occurrences where fasting and its compensation in the feeding of needy individuals is mentioned. The 'dhaalika litu'minoo bi Allah wa rasoolih' in the other passage is of a totally different nature and does not allow for what the first 'dhaalika . . .' does. I think you know that well.
Brother, it doesn't matter what you or me "truly believe". Many people "truly believe" many false things. Many of the things that I "truly believed" turned out to be false. So stop appealing to the emotions of the reader and instead give real evidence in the form of an example. I already gave you the example of 584 where "thalika" refers to ALL OF THE ABOVE and not just the last item of "feeding 60 poor". Another example is 1882 where "thalika" refers to all explanations given above and not just the last one. But instead of trying to give even one example, you resort to the fuzzy "I think you know that well". Well, I don't know it well.
I do not appreciate your knit-picking in how I translated the passage as
"Then fasting for 3 days will be compensation for those broken promises of yours"
AND
"Then fast for three days. This is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours"
Convey the same thing in different styles, and you know that my translation is just as valid as yours. But that is your prerogative. God has given you the ability to knit-pick as you see fit.
No they don't convey the same meaning. A new sentence saying "This is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours." can refer to all of the above alternatives. On the other hand, the sentence "Then fasting for 3 days will be compensation for those broken promises of yours" makes it appear as if compensation only referring to the 3 days abstinence is the sole way to understand the sentence. As you saw from the examples, this is not the case.
Overall, although I disagree with your conclusion that 'shah-r' just mainly means 'full-moon' I do agree that it can means those phases of the moon that are not the crescent phases per lisaanul-arabi. But I also know from having read lisaanul-arabi that it was also used to mean from one hilaal to the other, as well as for 29 days.
Lisan Al-3arab is not a book of astronomy to give the meaning of 29 days. Also, that meaning is wrong because the lunar cycle is not 29 days and that is a fact.
The meaning of "from one "hilal" to the next" is also wrong and in fact CONTRADICTS the meaning of 29 days. According to the SAME DICTIONARY of Lisan Al-3arab, "hilal" means the crescent moon at BOTH the end and the start of the lunar cycle. Hence, the time between one "hilal" to the next is NEVER 29 days. It can be either 2-3 days (between thinning and widening crescents) or about 20 days (between widening and thinning crescents).
Again, Lisan Al-3arab is not a book of astronomy no more than it is a book of religion and history. One should use dictionaries intelligently while knowing their limitations. Dictionaries are best at giving the etymology of words and that is how I use them. The etymology of the word "shahr" points to the full-moon.
I have never agreed with your method of 'meaning mixing.' That is taking one meaning such as 'full or obvious' and another meaning such as 'moon' and saying that the word then can mean 'full or obvious moon.' That is in my opinon a perversion.
I admitedly used to be guilty of practicing this method of mixing meanings but I realized my error. If a word means both 'slow' and 'cow' for instance I cannot say that the word can mean 'slow cow'. that is just plain old wrong. The person who uses the word can mean both 'slow and cow' but he cannot mean 'slow cow' unless the word has three meanings. Namely, 'slow', 'cow' AND 'slow cow'.
There are thousands upon thousands of words in English and Arabic and yet you are unable to give one real example and instead resort to a hypothetical one that is only in your imagination. The words "cow" and "slow" are not etymologically related at all. Etymology is about relationship between MORE THAN ONE meaning, otherwise there is no etymology.
Despite that, I know you have something to prove here. So whether we come to an agreement or not is no concern of mine. I do not agree with you most times, as I think your logic is often faulty. But if I don't respond, do not think it is because you have proven yourself to be the victor in your logic or argument. It is just because I do not want to argue in vain when I know that you will not accept it. Respond how you will after this post, and get the last word as I know you will. It really does not matter to me.
A logical answer is not what you or I think, it is what can be proven. Brother, it is OK if you don't want to respond. This is a public forum and I never write on a public forum for one person. If I wanted to, I would have sent you a private email. I write so that as many people as possible can read, logically criticize, and help improve our understanding. Therefore it is the duty of ANYONE here on this forum who is interested in the truth to respond to me and correct me.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
God bless,
As it refers to the dhaalika case I don't think we will agree at all. Dhaalika can mean all of the above and it can also mean what was just mentioned. In the case of 'dhalika li tu'minoo' in 585 it can only mean 'all of the above.' In the case of 589 it can mean both 'all of the above' as well as 'what was just mentioned' being 'fast for 3 days.' So here there is a choice of two options.
Of course I'm going to pick the choice that is conisistent with my conclusion that a month is equal to 30 days. The verse allows me to do this, and consistency when it comes to the Koran holds more weight than inconsistency. The fact that 30 days equaling a month is a consistent finding in every other occurence is more than enough to incline me to understand the dhalika kaffaratu aynaanikum as refering to the fasting for three days and not all of the above, especially when there is no need to understand it in a way that it would contradict the other consistent occurences, and when the understanding is perfectly valid.
I can't give you any more proof that than that, and I can't say whether or not that is sufficient enough for you.
As it concerns the cow and slow. I thought I would make up an example to make the phenomenon more clear to you and others (as you said you said you don't just write for me and I just don't write for you).
You said
Etymology is about relationship between MORE THAN ONE meaning, otherwise there is no etymology
Now, I wasn't speaking about etymology at all. And maybe that is the problem here. Do you feel that for a root to have more than one distinct meaning these meanings HAVE to be related in some way? Well, whether I do or don't is of no issue here. Maybe we can share our views or debate about the etymology of Cl. Arabic words privately.
We should not be dealing with the etymology of any Classical Arabic word when we approach it in the Koran or in any form of Cl. Arabic literature. For instance, I understand that the etymology of the word woman comes from 'wife of man'. But when I see 'woman' in English there is no reason for me to be thinking that woman means 'wife of man'. That's just going too far. I don't mean to be rude or anything when I say this, so please don't take it the wrong way. But you should not be concerned with the etymology of the Classical Arabic words that the Koran uses. You should be concerned with the meanings of the words. That is how the Arabs of Muhammad's day would have used them, as that is the language that the Koran uses.
As far as it concerns the meaning of shah-r. I understand that 29 days contradicts from one hilaal to another. I understand that from one hilaal to another might not take 29 days. But they do not have to be in agreement with each other to be definitions of the same word. I understand that lisaanul-arabi is not an astronomy book. All it points out is how the Arabs used the word 'The language of the Arabs' is just what 'Lisaanul-arabi' means. As you and I know. But that does not take away from the fact that shah-r can mean all of these things, whether they have relations or not (from the beginining of one crescent moon to the end of another can be 29 days just to let you know).
Anyway, you say that the etymology of the word 'shah-r' is 'full-moon.' That is your opinion, and it may be true. But we are not concerned with the etymology of Classical Arabic words because people who speak a language do not use its words in the sense of their etymologies. They use the language's words in the sense of their definitions, however distinct these definitions may be.
I'm not sure why you are concerned with the etymologies of the Cl. Arabic words that the Koran uses. I have a hunch that it comes from a belief that you may hold that the Koran would only use the original meaning of a Classical Arabic word, and in that case you attempt to get a single etymological meaning of that word. But understand that when you start dealing with the etymologies of a word you are pre-dating the language and all of the meanings of that language that you are dealing with. To state it more simply, when you get into the etymology of a word that belongs to the Arabic of Muhammad's day you're now dealing with a parent language or the language that came before the Classical Arabic language of Muhammad's day. Etymology always deals with the language(s) that came before the one your looking at.
Just as Old English is a parent Language of Modern English and the language that we look at to get the etymologies of words that we use today.
Godbless,
Anwar
I hope we've made some progress on this issue. -
Peace brother Anwar,
Of course I'm going to pick the choice that is conisistent with my conclusion that a month is equal to 30 days. The verse allows me to do this, and consistency when it comes to the Koran holds more weight than inconsistency.
Brother, you are merely picking the choice that is consistent with your pre-existing bias that "shahr" means month and that month is 30 days.
The fact that 30 days equaling a month is a consistent finding in every other occurence
What fact? This is not fact and is false by any measure. Please point to even ONE occurrence where "shahr" is said to equal 30 days. Moreover, 30 days is NOT a month neither in the so-called Islamic calendar or even the Georgian calendar. In fact, there is no calendar in existence where a month is 30 days. This is for the simple reason that the number of days in the year is not divisible by 30, and now that's a fact. So 30 days equaling a month is not reality.
is more than enough to incline me to understand the dhalika kaffaratu aynaanikum as refering to the fasting for three days and not all of the above, especially when there is no need to understand it in a way that it would contradict the other consistent occurences, and when the understanding is perfectly valid.
It does contradict the other occurrences. For example, your interpretation would contradict 936. It also contradicts the other occurrences of "thalika" in the great reading and you failed again to show one example where it only refers to the last thing talked about from a list.
Moreover, you contradict what you said earlier about a month being 29 days. You also contradict reality because in the real world a month is NOT 30 days.
I can't give you any more proof that than that, and I can't say whether or not that is sufficient enough for you.
That is the thing, you didn't give any proof. On the other hand, you unsuccessfully tried to justify your pre-existing conclusion that "shahr" means month and that there are 30 days in your imaginary month.
As it concerns the cow and slow. I thought I would make up an example to make the phenomenon more clear to you and others (as you said you said you don't just write for me and I just don't write for you).
Brother, myself, as well as others (I am sure), are still waiting for a valid example.
Now moving on to etymology, you make an excellent point here
I'm not sure why you are concerned with the etymologies of the Cl. Arabic words that the Koran uses. I have a hunch that it comes from a belief that you may hold that the Koran would only use the original meaning of a Classical Arabic word, and in that case you attempt to get a single etymological meaning of that word. But understand that when you start dealing with the etymologies of a word you are pre-dating the language and all of the meanings of that language that you are dealing with. To state it more simply, when you get into the etymology of a word that belongs to the Arabic of Muhammad's day you're now dealing with a parent language or the language that came before the Classical Arabic language of Muhammad's day. Etymology always deals with the language(s) that came before the one your looking at.
When someone who knows how and when Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Lisan Al-3arab came about tries to truly understand the great reading, then etymology is exactly what they would be concerned with.
If you knew that Lisan Al-3arab was written by Imam Ibn Al-Manzoor who lived 1233-1311AD and hence wrote it over 600 years after the great reading, then you would not have been surprised by my study of etymology.
The fact is that even the earliest attempts at developing Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Tahthib Al Lughah by Abu Mansur Al-Azhari (895-980 AD) was over 300 years after the revelation of the great reading. Since you have faith in dictionaries, you should know that.
Hence, what is called today Classical Arabic is not the language of the great reading. Today's Classical Arabic should be better termed Medieval Arabic and it falls somewhere between Modern Arabic and the Arabic at the time of the great reading.
Unless you are making the extraordinary claim that a language doesn't evolve one bit in over 300-600 years, then I hope that you can now clearly see why we must look at etymology, especially when the meaning given by the dictionaries doesn't fit in the context.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace be upon you Ayman,
When someone who knows how and when Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Lisan Al-3arab came about tries to truly understand the great reading, then etymology is exactly what they would be concerned with.
If you knew that Lisan Al-3arab was written by Imam Ibn Al-Manzoor who lived 1233-1311AD and hence wrote it over 600 years after the great reading, then you would not have been surprised by my study of etymology.
The fact is that even the earliest attempts at developing Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Tahthib Al Lughah by Abu Mansur Al-Azhari (895-980 AD) was over 300 years after the revelation of the great reading. Since you have faith in dictionaries, you should know that.
Hence, what is called today Classical Arabic is not the language of the great reading. Today's Classical Arabic should be better termed Medieval Arabic and it falls somewhere between Modern Arabic and the Arabic at the time of the great reading.
Unless you are making the extraordinary claim that a language doesn't evolve one bit in over 300-600 years, then I hope that you can now clearly see why we must look at etymology, especially when the meaning given by the dictionaries doesn't fit in the context.
Great info! Very powerful argument.
-
Everyone excuse the long post, but if you read it all I'm sure you'll find it interesting.
Ayman I understand your skepticism but
Thank you for the dates of those dictionaries. I really appreciated that. However you do know that the groundworks for those dictionaries were laid down way before the dictionaries. Dictionaries are a very complicated and organized thing. Yes, the first dictionaries came much later but they were based of off works that came much earlier. This much earlier stretches from about 100 years after the Koran, examining Bedouins and how they used their speech (being closest to the language of Muhammad), and even in the study of Hadeeth which also keeps to Cl. Arabic language of the same type of the Koran (the language of Muhammad and his people). The pre-Islamic poetries which were preserved through a class of people called Rawis (and the Koran was preserved through a class of people called Qurras) were constantlys studied and imitated as well. There were ample examples, living and memorized of the language of Muhammad and his people.
To answer your question about the evolution of Cl. Arabic 300 years after the Koran, the language was evolving in areas where it made contact with other languages and new ideas. That is how we get most of our colloquials today. But for scholarly reasons of being able to preserve the understanding of the Koran, the Hadeeth and the Pre-Islamic poetry a number of people invested their time in recording the grammar and usage of Arabic words and phrases. All of these sources which definitely connect to the linguistic era of Muhammad and his people continued to be studied 200, 300 and even 1000 years later to map out the pattterns of the Cl. Arabic language that had already been recorded and those that were not. The people who did and do this are called grammarians. Their ethinic origin (whether they were persian or part persian, Arab colonists or the descendants of Arab colonists residing in persia) doesn't really matter, because that does not discount their intelligence or familiarity with the Classical Arabic language of Muhammad, his descendants and the descendants of his contemporaries.
Aside from the evolution of Classical Arabic into archaic and modern Arabic colloquials Classical Arabic was still preserved (and its complete evolution frozen) through the efforts of many. Its rules and definitions have been preserved through the efforts of many, early and later in history, but all using sources that linguistically connect as close to the era of Muhammad as is possible, therefore connecting to his linguistic era.
Classical Arabic evolved only in its acquisition of new ideas that came about after the Koran which were attached to Classical Arabic words. Some grammatical usages also fell out of use but they could still be studied, learned and even used, even if they wouldn't have been generally understood by even the learned.
Some of these ideas were religious and some military or social and they can all be dated as far as I know. The definitions, rules and grammar of Classical Arabic was used and studied amongst learned Arabs, Persians and others up until the era of Colonialism. During and after the era of Colonialism is when Modern Arabic ( a reduced version of Classical Arabic that includes the defintion of words that are the new ideas that came after the Koran). It took that many years for Classical Arabic to evolve and it was done intentionally due to the general uneducation of Arab countries and the trouble that the masses had mastering this language (due to the severe differences between Classical Arabic and their colloquials as well as new attitudes about religion that was given to them by their western colonists.)
The only difference in the Classical Arabic that came to be used hundreds of years after the Koran and the original one of Muhammad's day are
The regular disuse of certain grammatical usages such as 'deen' as 'rule or system or any 'ism'' and particular phrases such as yawma'idhin etc. and the use of the perfect tense in the sense of 'May he or Would he' which has still been preserved in the phrase 'sallaa allaahu &alahi' May God bless him! or Qaala as 'May he say.'
There are other uses that fell out of use also.
Additionally, the use of Classical Arabic words to describe new religious, social or military ideas, such as 'jizyat' as 'Christian or Jewish taxes', 'Islaam' as 'submission to God', taqwaa as 'Fearing God' , 'Salat' as "Canonical Prayer' and 'du'aa' as 'encantation' or 'a prayer.'
Brother, you are merely picking the choice that is consistent with your pre-existing bias that "shahr" means month and that month is 30 days
You are right about me picking (but not 'merely picking' which hints at disregard) the choice that is consistent with my findings.
What fact? This is not fact and is false by any measure. Please point to even ONE occurrence where "shahr" is said to equal 30 days. Moreover, 30 days is NOT a month neither in the so-called Islamic calendar or even the Georgian calendar. In fact, there is no calendar in existence where a month is 30 days. This is for the simple reason that the number of days in the year is not divisible by 30, and now that's a fact. So 30 days equaling a month is not reality.
It does contradict the other occurrences. For example, your interpretation would contradict 936. It also contradicts the other occurrences of "thalika" in the great reading and you failed again to show one example where it only refers to the last thing talked about from a list.
936 does not contradict my findings because when counting each month as 30 days there is still 12 months in a year, with 5 days left (which do not amount to another month). Whether any other calender follows this method is of no matter. They all tried to integrate these extra 5 days into the 12 months so that they didn't just stick out. The Egyptians were the only ones that didn't do this and left the 5 days there.
I'm not going to pin 'thaalika' into one use whether you want me to or not. Thaalika means 'that' or 'this.' And just as 'that' or 'this' can refer to 'all of the above' or ' what was just mentioned' so can thaalika. So there are cases which I'm sure you can find on your own where it refers to both of these. I don't have to provide you with numerous examples for such a simple fact like this. All I am stating is that in the case of 589 it can and should be understood as 'what was just mentioned' because it then does not contradict the findings that a month is 30 days, allowing for consistency.
I am not saying that the Koran says that a month is thirty days and forgive me if I ever said that. I am saying that the Koran implies that a month is thirty days by saying that
- Feeding 1 person makes up for missing a day's fast. (2184)
- Feeding 60 people makes up for 2 months worth of missed fasts. (585)
Moreover, you contradict what you said earlier about a month being 29 days. You also contradict reality because in the real world a month is NOT 30 days.
I never said that a month is only 29 days. I said that that is ONE of the meanings of month or 'shah-r' that the Arabs of Muhammad's day used.
In no calendar that we have today is a month consistently reckoned as 30 days. But as the Koran implies we should be reckoning a month as 30 days. Whether the five days left belong to a month or not.That is the thing, you didn't give any proof. On the other hand, you unsuccessfully tried to justify your pre-existing conclusion that "shahr" means month and that there are 30 days in your imaginary month.
I tried to justify the conclusion that the Koran implies that we SHOULD be reckoning our months as 30 days. It is not a pre-existing conclusion, and the word shah-r does indeed mean all of the things that are mentioned in the dictionaries month, moon (including the hilaal and between the hilaal),
full, etc.I need to research other dictionaries to see if it mentions 30 days, but the Koran implies that a month should be reckoned as 30 days per 218 and 585.
This justification was unsuccessful to you because you require a sole purpose for the term thaalika, which is just not the case and you require that the Arabic word shah-r mean only 1 thing, which also is not the case.
You also seem to require that one of the meanings that I am proposing for 'month' be consistent with some existing calendar, which is not necessary either.Unless you are making the extraordinary claim that a language doesn't evolve one bit in over 300-600 years, then I hope that you can now clearly see why we must look at etymology, especially when the meaning given by the dictionaries doesn't fit in the context.
I addressed most of the last part of your post in the beginning of my email, but of course the meanings that the dictionary gives won't fit if you trying to pigeon hole the word into a sole meaning and when you are not satisfied with the defintions that the dictionaries give when it comes to how you want to interpret the Koran.
Lastly but not leastly
I wrote
As it concerns the cow and slow. I thought I would make up an example to make the phenomenon more clear to you and others (as you said you said you don't just write for me and I just don't write for you).
And you responded
Brother, myself, as well as others (I am sure), are still waiting for a valid example.
How about shah-r? You saw how in the dictionary it means 'full' and it means 'moon' and how it also means 'fame.' So are you then going to tell me and everyone on this forum that the word really means 'famous full moon', and that is how the Koran uses it, all of the time?
You don't see the error in that?
Godbless,
Anwar -
God bless all,
I find it interesting that all those who have become anti-hadeeth to the extreme are also the same people who are so anti-dictionary and anti-grammarian to the extreme.
It is as if hadeeth=Grammar Books/Dictionaries to these people and
the Muhadithoona=the grammarians.But it seems that their deep skepticism for anything done by human beings that affects their belief and understanding of their divine book, the Koran, has grown into a sort of mania.
I can understand having skepticisms about traditional doctrines that find most of their support in beliefs outside of the Koran or in intentional misquotation of the Koran.
But all that these grammarians were trying to do is record to the best of their ability how the Arabs of Muhammad's day and their descendants who shared this language used it, so that they could forever understand the Hadeeths, Pre-Islamic poetry and the Koran.
They weren't secretly trying to distort the Classical Arabic language to forever skew our understanding of the Koran. The only people who did anything close to that were the religious scholars who kept back meanings and hid the work of grammarians from being widely studied. I'm sure that at times these works just weren't available to them and so they had to rely on their mistaken understandings. That is why what the dictionaries and lexicons tried to do later was to create a vessel that communicated what all of these early sources said about the use of Classical Arabic. The sources always existed and those who had access to these had access to correct understanding. Those who didn't have access where sh*t out of luck.
But these are the resources that Religious scholars have been hiding from us so that we can't understand the Koran correctly, as the Arabs of Muhammad's day would have been able to understand it (note that i"m not saying that all of them understood the message of the Koran but they had the potential to understand it because they fully understood the language that it was in).
Even the compilers of the Hadeeth didn't do it maliciously. They were trying to take all the fancy sayings that were spread around about Muhammad and verify them. They did it wrongly, if we consider the way it should have been done. But the real crime came from those who said that these rumors should be taken as the direct words of Muhammad and that Muhammad occupied a status of being able to best explain the Koran. That is the real evil, not the compilation of the hadeeth or the stories that people inherited about Muhammad and his companions.
The skepticism held by those who are anti-hadeeth is too extreme and it is forcing their logic and intelligences to take a back seat.
These grammarians are the only resources that we have to the language of Muhammad and therefore the language of the Koran. The Koran served as a living example through which wrong conclusions about the grammar of the Classical Arabic language could be compared, just as the pre-Islamic poetries, the Hadeeth and the still living people who spoke the language of the hadeeth, the Koran and the pre-Islamic poetry. Just as any already published and generally approved English book could serve to correct wrong conclusions that any of us may make about English grammar or the definition of some English word (of course we would already understand most of the words used in the context for us to go about trying to understand the word or phrase that we may scrutinizing.)
So yes, we all have to trust these grammarians and the dictionaries. It is not a matter of trusting people over God, it is a matter of intelligence and logic and God has told us to trust these. This matter of trusting the dictionries and the grammarians defnitely cannot be likened to trusting the Hadeeth over the Koran. God has worked through these people so that we can understand the language of the Koran and therefore have the potential to understand the Koran. Just as he worked through the scribes and haafidhoona so that we can read the Koran to this day.
I don't know where these conceptions come from. Maybe someone can write me personally and explain it to me, because frankly, they just don't make sense.
I understand the unsurity that comes with all of these things fully. But we can create doubt about what we see before our eyes, but that still does not deny the logic that we see them or prove that those things are not there.
The truth is that we have to trust the dictionaries and the grammarians to understand the language of the Koran. Whether we like that or not is of no consequence. If want to prove that the grammarians and dictionaries are wrong then we have to find the inconsistencies in their works, because again all they did was record how the words are used in the language in question. T
rying to say a word can truly only mean one thing, that there are no such things as synonyms, or thinking that the Koran in some way supersedes the language that it was written in (and the means by which we understand this language) will all lead down the road to error.
God gave us his message in the form of the Classical Arabic Koran
He preserved the language of his message in the form of the works of the early grammarians and the works that are based on these that have made Classical Arabic Grammar and the definitions of its words more widely available and accessable.
God bless,
Anwar -
Peace brother Anwar,
Thank you for the dates of those dictionaries. I really appreciated that. However you do know that the ground works for those dictionaries were laid down way before the dictionaries. Dictionaries are a very complicated and organized thing. Yes, the first dictionaries came much later but they were based of off works that came much earlier.
You are correct. Imam Ibn Al-Manzoor (1233-1311AD) borrowed from Abu Mansur Al-Azhari (895-980AD) when developing Lisan Al-3arab. However, there are no documents of any lexicon works prior to that, which is over 300 years after the revelation of the great reading.
This much earlier stretches from about 100 years after the Koran, examining Bedouins and how they used their speech (being closest to the language of Muhammad),
There is ZERO evidence for what you are saying. If you disagree then please give even ONE reference to any manuscript of any lexicon work dated to about 100 years after the revelation of the great reading as you say.
and even in the study of Hadeeth which also keeps to Cl.
The earliest Hadeeth literature can only be dated to a period of the Abbasid era at least 150-200 years after the fact. Moreover, those 200 years or so have been very turbulent and have seen much upheaval, civil wars, major societal change, etc. Literature is a mirror of society. Thus, it is certain that literature and how the language is used also experienced major changes over that period.
Arabic language of the same type of the Koran (the language of Muhammad and his people). The pre-Islamic poetries which were preserved through a class of people called Rawis (and the Koran was preserved through a class of people called Qurras) were constantly studied and imitated as well. There were ample examples, living and memorized of the language of Muhammad and his people.
Anwar, I am disappointed that you are comparing the imagined preservation of the so-called Jahiliya poetry with the preservation of the great reading because I didn't expect you to simply blindly repeat the traditional arguments and not verifying such arguments for yourself.
Unlike the great reading, we do not have any evidence of "pre-quranic" poetry. What is termed today Jahiliya poetry has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a post-quranic invention of the Umayyad and Abbasid era storytellers and political propagandists. There is ZERO evidence for this alleged Jahiliya poetry. Again, if you disagree, then please produce a reference to even ONE pre-quranic manuscript of ONE verse of ONE alleged Jahiliya poem. If you fail, then don't feel disappointed because you will not be the first, many Orientalists have tried to produce such evidence and failed.
Unlike alleged Jahiliya poetry, there are many early manuscripts of the great reading that can be dated to the first century of the new era. Some of those manuscripts even show faded text where the same words have been re-written over. Thus, the original text of the great reading can be dated to an even earlier period. Given that there is only a slim probability of survival of such manuscripts, the fact that we have so many indicates that they came from a very large population. Moreover, there are many rock inscriptions of parts of the great reading that are dated to the first century of the new era. More importantly, the great reading itself tells us that it is a KITAB. The word KITAB means a WRITTEN DOCUMENT. On what basis do you reject that it was a KITAB and instead have faith in the traditional argument that it was preserved through so-called Qura'a?
If you want to compare the supposed preservation of so-called Jahiliya poetry to something, then you can compare it to Hadiths. There is evidence from those bodies of literature themselves that they were spread by the Qasassin (the storytellers). Those are entertainers who went from one town to the next telling their stories. That is why unlike later or present day poets, all alleged Jahilya poets have very interesting and amazing life stories and their poems are weaved into their stories in such a way so that a poem is always uttered at the opportune moment. This is very similar to a Bollywood Hindi movie where the hero and a chorus of singers and dancers are always ready at the opportune moment in the story to spontaneously delight the audience with a song. Alleged Jahiliya poets entertain us with their poems at the exact perfect time in their melodramatic stories.
Of course, the storytellers had to give the audience what they wanted to hear. Hence, for liberal audiences, they would tell the story of Imru-Al-Qays and his romantic endeavors or Qays Ibn Al-Mulawa and Layla. In more conservative towns, the storytellers would tell the stories of the monotheist poets and tales of courage and valor. Later, the same storytellers propagated Hadiths as the Abbasid theocracy took over and demand for religious programming increased. There is evidence from Bukhari's bibliography that he started out as one of those storytellers himself, traveling from town to town and gathering audiences like the circus.
The discussion on alleged Jahiliya poetry is very interesting and can probably take a lot of space, so let me make some brief points
-
Many of the alleged poets were supposedly from Southern Arab tribes (for example the fictitious Imru' Al-Qays was alleged to be from Kinda) and thus would have spoken and made their poems in an Old Southern Arabic (OSA) dialect such as Sabaic and not the Northern Arabic dialect of the great reading.
-
There is physical archeological evidence that the most famous and prominent Jahiliya poet, Imru' Al-Qays is a fictitious figure based on a much earlier historical figure.
-
No sane person would think that Romeo and Juliet really existed and that they are not the figment of imagination of Shakespeare, yet for some baffling reason the majority of Arabs and those who imagine that they are studying Classical Arabic have no problem believing that Majnoon Layla really existed and that he said all those poems and that he and Layla are not a figment of the imagination of the Umayyad and Abbasid era storytellers.
-
Anyone who has carefully studied alleged Jahiliya poetry knows that Jahiliya poems are amongst the least artful works of literature. All one has to do to utter Jahiliya poetry is to follow the rhyme. That is why you can easily take a Jahiliya poem and insert verses in between or rearrange the order of the verses without losing any of the non-existent author personality.
-
Many alleged Jahiliya poems are sprinkled with verses which seem to be put there for no other reason except to bolster certain "post-quranic" sectarian claims. They are there to prove that words had a certain meaning that contradicts the actual Arabic meaning in the great reading.
To answer your question about the evolution of Cl. Arabic 300 years after the Koran, the language was evolving in areas where it made contact with other languages and new ideas. That is how we get most of our colloquials today.
The "colloquials" of 200-300 years after the revelation of the great reading is what you take to be Classical Arabic today. If you disagree then please give us examples of specific points of difference between the colloquial of 200-300 years after the revelation of the great reading and what you imagine to be Classical Arabic.
Every bit of any human language makes contact with new ideas and has the potential to evolve at any point of time. In particular, religious and political concepts seem to evolve more rapidly than any other types of concepts as sects and political forces spin the meanings to their advantage.
But for scholarly reasons of being able to preserve the understanding of the Koran, the Hadeeth and the Pre-Islamic poetry a number of people invested their time in recording the grammar and usage of Arabic words and phrases. All of these sources which definitely connect to the linguistic era of Muhammad and his people continued to be studied 200, 300 and even 1000 years later to map out the pattterns of the Cl. Arabic language that had already been recorded and those that were not. The people who did and do this are called grammarians. Their ethinic origin (whether they were persian or part persian, Arab colonists or the descendants of Arab colonists residing in persia) doesn't really matter, because that does not discount their intelligence or familiarity with the Classical Arabic language of Muhammad, his descendants and the descendants of his contemporaries.
Aside from the evolution of Classical Arabic into archaic and modern Arabic colloquials Classical Arabic was still preserved (and its complete evolution frozen) through the efforts of many. Its rules and definitions have been preserved through the efforts of many, early and later in history, but all using sources that linguistically connect as close to the era of Muhammad as is possible, therefore connecting to his linguistic era.
We KNOW for sure that Hadeeth and so-called pre-Islamic poetry is a later day invention. Why did this urge to "preserve understanding" suddenly come about 300 years after the fact? In all likelihood, it came about because many false meanings were being propagated. So again, your notion that Classical Arabic was somehow frozen over 300 years after the fact is nothing more than na?ve wishful thinking. You have ZERO evidence of any lexigraphic source for the meaning of Arabic words prior to 200 or even 300 year after the great reading and that is why you are forced to resort to such wishful thinking. If you disagree then please give even ONE example of such source. If a manuscript of Lisan Al-3arab was dated to the year 630AD then we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't be claiming that the Arabic language was somehow "frozen" in time in order to be presented on a golden plate for dictionary writers such as Imam Ibn Al-Manzoor over 600 years later.
Classical Arabic evolved only in its acquisition of new ideas that came about after the Koran which were attached to Classical Arabic words. Some grammatical usages also fell out of use but they could still be studied, learned and even used, even if they wouldn't have been generally understood by even the learned.
Some of these ideas were religious and some military or social and they can all be dated as far as I know. The definitions, rules and grammar of Classical Arabic was used and studied amongst learned Arabs, Persians and others up until the era of Colonialism. During and after the era of Colonialism is when Modern Arabic ( a reduced version of Classical Arabic that includes the defintion of words that are the new ideas that came after the Koran). It took that many years for Classical Arabic to evolve and it was done intentionally due to the general uneducation of Arab countries and the trouble that the masses had mastering this language (due to the severe differences between Classical Arabic and their colloquials as well as new attitudes about religion that was given to them by their western colonists.)
The only difference in the Classical Arabic that came to be used hundreds of years after the Koran and the original one of Muhammad's day are
The regular disuse of certain grammatical usages such as 'deen' as 'rule or system or any 'ism'' and particular phrases such as yawma'idhin etc. and the use of the perfect tense in the sense of 'May he or Would he' which has still been preserved in the phrase 'sallaa allaahu &alahi' May God bless him! or Qaala as 'May he say.'
There are other uses that fell out of use also.
Additionally, the use of Classical Arabic words to describe new religious, social or military ideas, such as 'jizyat' as 'Christian or Jewish taxes', 'Islaam' as 'submission to God', taqwaa as 'Fearing God' , 'Salat' as "Canonical Prayer' and 'du'aa' as 'encantation' or 'a prayer.'
I don't agree with those being "the only differences" and your statement completely contradicts your earlier wishful thinking that Classical Arabic was somehow frozen. You don't know for sure that those are "the only differences". The fact that there are differences even on fundamental concepts such as "deen" and "islam" leads us to believe that the probability of differences on less fundamental concepts such as "shahr" is even higher. Thus, we have to look at etymology to get at the original meaning of over 300-600 years earlier and it is not surprising that the meaning based on etymology fits better in the context of the great reading than the traditional meaning and resulted in finally solving the issue of the timing of "shahr ramadhan" (which you still haven't translated).
936 does not contradict my findings because when counting each month as 30 days there is still 12 months in a year, with 5 days left (which do not amount to another month). Whether any other calender follows this method is of no matter. They all tried to integrate these extra 5 days into the 12 months so that they didn't just stick out. The Egyptians were the only ones that didn't do this and left the 5 days there.
The statement that there are 12 "30 day periods" in a year is clear falsehood by any measure, unless you are implying that The God doesn't know about fractions. Why didn't The God say 12 and 1/6th ("sudus") "shahr"?
Surely, The God knows about fractions and so did the Arabs as evident from the many fractions given (including "sudus") in verses such as 412. Your interpretation ignores this fact. The God doesn't make the clearly false statement that your interpretation implies hence it must be your understanding that is false. Even the dictionaries that you have faith in don't say that "shahr" means "30 day period". Your entire understanding of the word "shahr" and hence the rest of your argument is based on this false premise.
How about shah-r? You saw how in the dictionary it means 'full' and it means 'moon' and how it also means 'fame.' So are you then going to tell me and everyone on this forum that the word really means 'famous full moon', and that is how the Koran uses it, all of the time?
You don't see the error in that?
The meaning of "mash-hoor"/famous probably came from the meaning of "shahr"/full-moon, since the "full-moon" is indeed obvious/famous. Let me give you an example. In modern Egyptian Arabic when a guy is flirting with a girl, he says to her "ya qamar". It is best translated as "hey beautiful" but literally it means "hey moon". Perhaps 300 years from now the modern Egyptian Arabic would evolve and the meaning of "beautiful" would become the primary dominant meaning and future Egyptians would stop using the word to describe the moon. There will be no error in this and it is a normal scenario that can happen in any language. Remember that language is how certain people at a certain time and place standardize the way they communicate. There is no right or wrong. There is only conforming to the prevailing but continuously evolving standards.
But all that these grammarians were trying to do is record to the best of their ability how the Arabs of Muhammad's day and their descendants who shared this language used it, so that they could forever understand the Hadeeths, Pre-Islamic poetry and the Koran.
The sequence that you gave of what the late Abbasid linguists were trying to understand actually accurately reflects their priorities. Their first priority was to understand false Hadeeth and false Pre-Islamic poetry that is actually Post-Islamic and then the great reading was secondary. Hence, some of the meanings in dictionaries often fit perfectly in the context of false Hadeeth and false Pre-Islamic poetry but don't fit at all in the context of the great reading. No one ever hears in a dictionary that in the context of the great reading this word means so and so and hence it must mean so and so in this or that poem. We always hear the opposite, i.e., that this word means so and so in this poem so it must mean so and so in the great reading.
They weren't secretly trying to distort the Classical Arabic language to forever skew our understanding of the Koran. The only people who did anything close to that were the religious scholars who kept back meanings and hid the work of grammarians from being widely studied. I'm sure that at times these works just weren't available to them and so they had to rely on their mistaken understandings.
The linguists used the religious scholars and their Hadeeths as sources for meanings. Hence, it is inevitable that they were influenced by their mistaken understandings.
That is why what the dictionaries and lexicons tried to do later was to create a vessel that communicated what all of these early sources said about the use of Classical Arabic. The sources always existed and those who had access to these had access to correct understanding. Those who didn't have access where sh*t out of luck.
But these are the resources that Religious scholars have been hiding from us so that we can't understand the Koran correctly, as the Arabs of Muhammad's day would have been able to understand it (note that i"m not saying that all of them understood the message of the Koran but they had the potential to understand it because they fully understood the language that it was in).
If they fully understood the language then there wouldn't be any mistakes and misclassifications and contradictions in dictionaries. We all know that dictionaries have many examples of all of the above.
You keep talking of "sources" but you never say what those mysterious "sources" are. The fact is that you can hardly go through one page of Lisan Al-3arab without reading some quote from a Hadeeth lie or a fabricated so-called Jahiliya poem. If those are the mysterious "sources" that you have in mind that will enlighten us with the answers to all our questions then I am afraid that this is nothing more than another wishful thought. The fact is that the Religious scholars never tried to hide any of those "sources".
Even the compilers of the Hadeeth didn't do it maliciously. They were trying to take all the fancy sayings that were spread around about Muhammad and verify them. They did it wrongly, if we consider the way it should have been done. But the real crime came from those who said that these rumors should be taken as the direct words of Muhammad and that Muhammad occupied a status of being able to best explain the Koran. That is the real evil, not the compilation of the hadeeth or the stories that people inherited about Muhammad and his companions.
The skepticism held by those who are anti-hadeeth is too extreme and it is forcing their logic and intelligences to take a back seat.
These grammarians are the only resources that we have to the language of Muhammad and therefore the language of the Koran. The Koran served as a living example through which wrong conclusions about the grammar of the Classical Arabic language could be compared, just as the pre-Islamic poetries, the Hadeeth and the still living people who spoke the language of the hadeeth, the Koran and the pre-Islamic poetry. Just as any already published and generally approved English book could serve to correct wrong conclusions that any of us may make about English grammar or the definition of some English word (of course we would already understand most of the words used in the context for us to go about trying to understand the word or phrase that we may scrutinizing.)
So yes, we all have to trust these grammarians and the dictionaries. It is not a matter of trusting people over God, it is a matter of intelligence and logic and God has told us to trust these. This matter of trusting the dictionries and the grammarians defnitely cannot be likened to trusting the Hadeeth over the Koran. God has worked through these people so that we can understand the language of the Koran and therefore have the potential to understand the Koran. Just as he worked through the scribes and haafidhoona so that we can read the Koran to this day.
The fact is that the dictionaries do contain many mistakes and were produced over 300-600 years after the great reading. So if anything, it is fully trusting error ridden, 300-600 years after the fact dictionaries that is extreme and illogical. This is true in any language and not just Arabic. Remember Arabic is just an average human language and there is nothing "divine" about it.
Even in this day and age of information, would anyone fully trust a modern English dictionary to understand a 600 year old or even a 300 year old English text? Of course not! Why should Classical Arabic be any different? Were people who lived in the late Abbasid era more intelligent than today's people and had access to more information than modern English linguists? I think not.
I don't know where these conceptions come from. Maybe someone can write me personally and explain it to me, because frankly, they just don't make sense.
I understand the unsurity that comes with all of these things fully. But we can create doubt about what we see before our eyes, but that still does not deny the logic that we see them or prove that those things are not there.
When we watch a play of Romeo and Juliet, we see it before our eyes, yet no one claims that the poetry that Romeo is saying was actually said by a poet named Romeo who actually existed and that this was not a story told by Shakespeare. Thus, we see many things before our eyes, but it doesn't mean that they always convey the truth. This common sense escaped those who claim that alleged Jahiliya poets really existed.
The truth is that we have to trust the dictionaries and the grammarians to understand the language of the Koran. Whether we like that or not is of no consequence. If want to prove that the grammarians and dictionaries are wrong then we have to find the inconsistencies in their works, because again all they did was record how the words are used in the language in question.
If the author of Lisan Al-3arab fully trusted existing dictionaries, then he wouldn't have wrote it and would have simply relied on an existing dictionary. So the authors of dictionaries themselves didn't fully trust dictionaries. This is very similar to what you described above about Hadeeth collectors not intending for their works to be trusted as "divine inspiration" and then extremists coming a few hundred years later suddenly treating their works as "divine inspiration". I am certain that the author of Lisan Al-3arab didn't intend for you to come here a few hundred years later and suddenly fully trust his dictionary.
As for inconsistencies, there are indeed many inconsistencies, misclassifications, and outright clear mistakes in dictionaries. I would be happy to provide you with many examples if you want.
Trying to say a word can truly only mean one thing, that there are no such things as synonyms, or thinking that the Koran in some way supersedes the language that it was written in (and the means by which we understand this language) will all lead down the road to error.
God gave us his message in the form of the Classical Arabic Koran
He preserved the language of his message in the form of the works of the early grammarians and the works that are based on these that have made Classical Arabic Grammar and the definitions of its words more widely available and accessable.
I understand that your statement is general and not specifically addressed to me but I don't think that anyone is saying that there is no such thing as synonyms. Your whole objection was to studying etymology
The God didn't preserve anything except the "thikr"/reminder. We remember by learning. Part of learning is studying logically. Logic and common sense dictates that since dictionaries were written over 300-600 years after the great reading and were largely based on post-quranic inventions such as Hadeeth and alleged Jahiliya poems, then studying etymology is prudent, especially for words where the traditional meaning doesn't fit.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
-
Peace ayman,
I actually find your theory of shahr meaning full moon very compelling.
My question is in relation to 936 where the number of shahr is 12 since the earth was created.
If a full moon occurs on the first day of the year then there will be 12 full moons. The 12th full moon occurs on the 354th day of the year. If the first full moon occurs on the 12th day of the year then there will only be 11 full moons in that year as the previously 12th full moon will have moved outside of the 365th day leaving 11 within the year.
Does this information impact on the shahr = full moon theory?
I'd appreciate your comments on this.
Regards.
-
Peace truth,
I actually find your theory of shahr meaning full moon very compelling.
My question is in relation to 936 where the number of shahr is 12 since the earth was created.
If a full moon occurs on the first day of the year then there will be 12 full moons. The 12th full moon occurs on the 354th day of the year. If the first full moon occurs on the 12th day of the year then there will only be 11 full moons in that year as the previously 12th full moon will have moved outside of the 365th day leaving 11 within the year.
Does this information impact on the shahr = full moon theory?
Actually, if the full-moon occurs on or before the 11th day of the year (as will happen next summer solstice) then there will be 13 full moons in that year. There cannot be less than 12 full-moons in a year but every three years we would observe a year where there are 13 full-moons.
The key to understanding 936 is to understand the word 3D(t)/
and how it is different to the word 3DD/. Here are their occurrences in the great reading3DD/
105, 1712, 23112, 1811, 7224, 72283D(t)/
936, 937, 3349, 2184-185, 1822, 651, 654, 7431, 9463349 makes it clear that the meaning of "3D(t)" is clearly not "number" since the women that we divorce do not owe us a "number" but they owe us a "count". They have to count three menstrual cycles. This doesn't mean that women only have three menstrual cycles or that they only get three in a year. What this means is that out of the number/3DD/ of menstrual cycles from the time of divorce, they only owe us the count/3D(t)/ of three.
Similarly, 651 orders us to be accurate with the count/3D(t)/ . So once again, we see that 3D(t)/ is what we measure/count out of a larger population (see 936-37, 651-4) or estimate from possible alternatives (see 1822).
Notice the same word used in 946 to indicate what we count in preparation for battle. For example, we prepare by counting supplies based on the military objective. We don't just get any absolute number of supplies.
Notice that the same word is used in 7431 to indicate that the "fitna(t)"/trial is in counting 19 and not in the number 19 itself. There is no trial inherent in any abstract number but there is trial in our actions.
Thus, in summary, even if we observe 13 full moons in a year starting with the summer solstice, we should only count 12 out of the 13 and skip counting the 13th moon. This would automatically reset the count so that the next full-moon is the scorching full-moon after the summer solstice. It is a simple but surprisingly efficient system. All that it requires is that we have faith in what The God tells us and in a year only count 12 even though we see 13.
I hope this helps clarify the issues.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Ayman you said,
The earliest Hadeeth literature can only be dated to a period of the Abbasid era at least 150-200 years after the fact. Moreover, those 200 years or so have been very turbulent and have seen much upheaval, civil wars, major societal change, etc. Literature is a mirror of society. Thus, it is certain that literature and how the language is used also experienced major changes over that period.
So you believe that 200 years is enough for any language to have to have undergone radical change? So you believe that the language of 1800 England is radically different from the language of 2000 England? And therefore you believe that there is no way that we can understand a 19th century book correctly using our 21st century understanding of English. Is that correct? Even if literature (that at the very least mocked 18th century style English) is consistently available from the 19th century all the way up until the 21st?
No there is not much written evidence of literature from 632 until the codification of the Hadeeths 150 years later. And even though I'm sure i can find other evidence for you of non-religious written manuscripts, look at the Hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poetry and tell me how the language of the two differ so greatly. Give me your evidence that would point to these languages being utterly distinct.
Yes you point out the difference in years. That is important. However from the grammar of the hadeeth, of the pre-Islamic poetry and of other scripts here and there Classical Arabic hadn't changed that much. In fact there is no real proof that it changed at all.
That may seem impossible but is very possible seeing that there were frozen styles of literature in existence, the pre-Islamic peotries via the poets of that era who were taught in those styles and the Koran, whose texts were in existence (though not very reliable texts due to the deficiencies of the Arabic script) but which was mainly preserved through the use of the qurras. The seven different Koranic scripts which we have today attest to the the Kurras being the main venue of Koranic preservation. The differences are clearly differences of understanding, pointing to memorization as the main mode of Koranic preservation.
Just as the English of today and the English of the 17 and 18 hundreds hasn't changed much in the educated classes, nor did Classical Arabic. The span of years between the Koran's revelation and the works of the Classical Arabic poets, hadeeth writers and grammarians points to the increased chances of the language having changed but it does not point to the fact that the language DID change.
As I admit, it did change in many city places (Arabic hybrids arose), but among the educated classes and the Bedouins it did not change even up until that time.
The turbulence and political upheavals would have given way to new terms for different phenomena. However, the burden of proof is on us to say "hey this can't be how the word was originally used, because so and so coined this term in such and such a year." That is the only way that we can PROVE language change.
It is a shame that the Hadeeth was studied more than the Koran. But the Hadeeth speaks the same language as the Koran, so any understanding of words used in a Hadeeth can be applied to these words when they are used in the Koran, unless it can be seen that the meaning was coined/invented.
I know it does not sit well with any of the Koranists here, to whom the Koran is the end all and be all, that we must rely on works that were done after the Koran to understand the Koran.
But that is better than becoming self-proclaimed etymologists and going through these same works to come up with some supposed 'original' meaning for a word that the Koran must have meant when it used that word.
I feel confident from what I have read of the hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poetry that they belong to the same linguistic era as the Koran.
The studies that have been done with the language of the Pre-Islamic poetries, the hadeeth and the bedouins (who have attested to also have spoken the language of these literatures) of that area I trust reflect the language of the Koran as well. I only reject coined understandings of scholars and terms that relate to phenomena that are irrevocably post-koranic. The dictionaries are a record of all of these, some dictionaries excelling others in how much they have recorded.I do not feel confident in my or anyone else's ability to pidgeon hole one meaning of an Arabic word as its original meaning, with improvised methods of etymology. Nor do I think that etymology is necessary because I believe that the later language of the Hadeeth and pre-Islamic poetry (that portends to continue the style of poetry of the pre-Islamic era) is of the same linguistic era of the Koran.
Therefore I feel as though the studies that have been done to record the undertandings of the Cl. Arabic words by (as far as we know) Classical Arabic speakers when it comes to the Hadeeth, the Pre-Islamic poetry and the Koran are sufficient for us to get an accurate understanding of the Arabic of Muhammad's day. The only things that need to be rejected are coined understandings of scholars and understandings that only relate to post-Koranic phenomena.
If I come upon sources that are before 150 years after Muhammad's death (which is not alot of years considering) that point to written records of the early works of grammarians I will bring them to light, and that will be an added bonus. However it does not really matter to me because whereas there might not be any written evidence that the language didn't change there is no written evidence that the langauge did change in these 150-300 years.
Moreoever there is more evidence that the language stayed relatively the same in the style and usage of the language of the Hadeeth and the disputed pre-Islamic poetry that came about after these 150-200 years.
There is no reason for us to believe that the Hadeeth uses the word 'wa' any differently than the Koran uses it. Or any other word for that matter. The fact that the grammar seems to be the same, and that they seem to use the same words in the same way is ample evidence to point to the fact that the language did not change over this 150-300 years between Muhammad's day and the written appearence of these later works of literature (aside from the appearence of Arabic hybrid languages). If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, even if you haven't seen a duck for 150-300 years. There is a chance that it might not be a duck. But there is more evidence pointing to it being a duck than to it not being a duck.
If you can find the mistakes of these dictionaries and point them out I would be very appreciative. Please note that I do not consider multiple, unrelated meanings as mistakes. I believe that these multiple and unrelated meanings are just a feature of the Classical Arabic language. This feature of multiple and unrelated meanings can be found in other languages as well.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace brother Anwar,
So you believe that 200 years is enough for any language to have to have undergone radical change? So you believe that the language of 1800 England is radically different from the language of 2000 England? And therefore you believe that there is no way that we can understand a 19th century book correctly using our 21st century understanding of English. Is that correct? Even if literature (that at the very least mocked 18th century style English) is consistently available from the 19th century all the way up until the 21st?
No one is claiming that there was a radical change so your questions are arguing against a point that I didn't make. All I said is that there was definitely change.
For example, if you look up the word "art" in the Cambridge English dictionary, you will get the following meanings
art
noun
1 the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings
Can television and pop music really be considered art?
I enjoyed the ballet, but it wasn't really great art.2 the activity of painting, drawing and making sculpture
Art and English were my best subjects at school.
an art teacher3 paintings, drawings and sculptures
The gallery has an excellent collection of modern art.
an exhibition of Native American art
Peggy Guggenheim was one of the twentieth century's great art collectors.
The Frick is an art gallery in New York.4 an activity through which people express particular ideas
Drama is an art that is traditionally performed in a theatre.
Do you regard film as entertainment or as an art?
She is doing a course in the performing arts.5 a skill or special ability
the art of conversation
Getting him to go out is quite an art (= needs special skill).The dictionary doesn't tell you that the word "art" in the 19th century actually meant "are". Hence, you art mistaken .
In the future please try to support any hypothesis with concrete examples. Here is the same Biblical passage from Old, Middle, and Early Modern English respectively. The difference between each of those evolutions of English is about 200-300 years. This is about the same timeframe as between the literature of Hadith and fabricated pre-Islamic poetry and the great reading.
Old English
F?der ure ?u?e eart on heofonum
si ?in nama gehalgod tobecume ?in rice gewur?e ?in willa on eor?an swa swa on heofonum
urne ged?ghwamlican hlaf syle us to d?g
and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfa? urum gyltendum
and ne gel?d ?u us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele so?lice.Middle English
Oure fadir ?at art in heuenes halwid be ?i name;
?i reume or kyngdom come to be. Be ?i wille don in her?e as it is dounin heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis ?at is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris ?at is to men ?at han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.Early Modern English
Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heauen.
Giue us this day our daily bread.
And forgiue us our debts as we forgiue our debters.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliuer us from euill.As everyone can see, there are differences between each evolution of the English language so that even within Modern English, the Early Modern English has differences to the Late Modern English of today.
Again, your theory that Arabic was "frozen" in time over 300 years after the fact is an extraordinary claim for which you have not brought any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.
No there is not much written evidence of literature from 632 until the codification of the Hadeeths 150 years later. And even though I'm sure i can find other evidence for you of non-religious written manuscripts, look at the Hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poetry and tell me how the language of the two differ so greatly. Give me your evidence that would point to these languages being utterly distinct.
Brother, no one is saying that they are utterly distinct. All I am saying is that there are some differences. Those differences can be resolved by studying etymology. By giving different meanings, the dictionaries are very useful at helping us to study etymology. For example, one can see how certain meanings have branched from the same common prior meaning.
Yes you point out the difference in years. That is important. However from the grammar of the hadeeth, of the pre-Islamic poetry and of other scripts here and there Classical Arabic hadn't changed that much. In fact there is no real proof that it changed at all.
There is abundant proof that all languages change over the course of 300 years. That Arabic somehow remained frozen for 300 years is the extraordinary claim. There is ample evidence to the contrary. You gave some examples already of words whose meanings have changed over 300 years such as "islam", "deen", etc. So once again, you are contradicting yourself.
Moreover, if you read my previous post carefully then you would have seen that there is no such thing as pre-Islamic poetry and that it is a post-quranic fabrication. We already know that Hadith is a post-quranic fabrication. Thus, the rest of your arguments are based on fabricated pre-Islamic poetry and Hadith, which only proves that you don't have any real evidence for claiming that Arabic was frozen for over 300 years.
If you can find the mistakes of these dictionaries and point them out I would be very appreciative. Please note that I do not consider multiple, unrelated meanings as mistakes. I believe that these multiple and unrelated meanings are just a feature of the Classical Arabic language. This feature of multiple and unrelated meanings can be found in other languages as well.
One of the mistakes in Classical Arabic dictionaries is that they claim that the plural of "quran" is "quru'a" and they say that both come from the root QRA'. They claim that this is the same as the word "quru'a" found in 2228 and it can also mean "menses".
According to my study of etymology, the word "quru'a" comes from the root QRW and not QRA' as dictionaries claim and hence it is unrelated to "quran".
Here is what is found under the root Q-R-W
Here is what another Lexicon said
(ُ
The word "qrw" signifies a "7awdh"/sink/basin/bowl where liquid is gathered.
Interestingly, "7awdh" also means pelvis. The pelvis creates the basin of the lower abdominal cavity. The closely related word "ma7ydh" is used to mean menses in 654 and 2222. Hence, "quru'a"/menses in 2228 is likely to be related to "QRW" and not to the entirely different root Q-R-'A. So here, by trying to figure out the etymology, even a novice like me can, with The God's help, correct the meaning of the dictionary.
Amazingly, based on this clear mistake, the dictionaries then went down a slippery slope in justifying how "quran" is related to "menses". The result is that this mistake is hidden under a heap of scholarly justification that is in reality nothing more than BS.
I hope this example helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
God bless you Ayman,
The dictionary doesn't tell you that the word "art" in the 19th century actually meant "are". Hence, you art mistaken
To that I would say 'bad dictionary!' That is why you have to look at more than one dictionary. I have to disagree with you on 'art' being 'are' in the 19th century however. It is more like the early 1600's and early 1700's. In fact it is still used today in poetic language or language that attempts imitate the King James Bible (Seeing that the King James Bible was so important in the past I wouldn't be suprised if that imitation of the King James Bibles was more widespread than it is now.)
'Art' as 'are' is a feature of Elizabeathen English (1500's to early 1700's) and the only reason it survives is because of Shakespearean plays and the Elizabethean English Bible aka the King James Version. The language of the 19th and even late 18th century is the language of the Consititution of the United Sates which is the same as Modern English (the differences lying only in prevalent styles). The grammar of our proper English has been frozen in the era of the language of the consititution, due to the consititution. That is from 1776 until 2005; 229 years. And that is what I'm saying happened with Classical Arabic, due to the Koran. It can be seen in the language of the Hadeeth and the Pre-Islamic poetries that they demonstrate fluency in the same language that the Koran uses.
Again, your theory that Arabic was "frozen" in time over 300 years after the fact is an extraordinary claim for which you have not brought any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise
My evidence is the hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poetries.
Brother, no one is saying that they are utterly distinct. All I am saying is that there are some differences.
But how have you proven these differences between the language of the Koran and the language of the Hadeeth/Pre-Islamic poetries?
There is abundant proof that all languages change over the course of 300 years
This abudant proof abounds for every language except for Classical Arabic, because I have not seen your proof or any proof that the language of the Hadeeth, the Pre-Islamic poetries or the grammarians is different from the language of the Koran. Please don't say 'all.' What you mean is 'most.'
That Arabic somehow remained frozen for 300 years is the extraordinary claim. There is ample evidence to the contrary. You gave some examples already of words whose meanings have changed over 300 years such as "islam", "deen", etc. So once again, you are contradicting yourself.
That is where you misunderstood me. I have always held to the fact that Classical Arabic has retained its grammar and meanings since Muhammad's day even up until now. I never stated that the meanings of the words 'islam' and 'deen' changed. I said that new meanings were added on to these words, giving them additional meanings, not changing their old meanings. The word 'islam' still has the pre-Islamic meanings that it has always had, as does the word 'deen.' The language did not change. Rather additional meanings were given to words because of events, ideas or decrees given by authorities that became popular. I have been saying all along, however that these new meanings did not replace old meanings or change the meaning of any Classical Arabic word. These new meanings are additonal meanings that when researched can be dated to a person or time after the Koran and should not be read into the Koran. The grammar of Classical Arabic is still the same and it still has the meanings that it carried since Muhammad's day, these meanings have not changed and were not eliminated. Please bring your proof if they were.
New meanings were added on to words after the Koran that, thanks to God, can be seen as meanings that were coined in post-koranic times, and therefore should not be read into the Koran, or the hadeeth for that matter if they were coined in post-hadeethic times.
Moreover, if you read my previous post carefully then you would have seen that there is no such thing as pre-Islamic poetry and that it is a post-quranic fabrication.
I did read it carefully, so please don't assume that I didn't do something that I in fact did do. The reason why I mentioned it again is because just as there is skepticism about whether these poems really survived the pre-Islamic era there is analysis that supports that they did. The same skepticism that you give can be said for the Hadeeth as a whole. But that is not correct because just as I am sure that some hadeeth did survive Muhammad's day some pre-Islamic poetry survived the pre-Islamic era.
Yes I do believe that some of the narrators of the hadeeth did accurately record Muhammad or his companion's deeds and/or sayings. As did the Rawis the pre-islamic poetries and the qurras, the Koran. The last two being more successful than the first because of their organization. Also there were many poetries made in the style of the pre-Islamic poetries that are not pre-Islamic. Also understand that I am not talking about the content or the purpose of the pre-Islamic poetries. I am talking about the langauge that it uses. Whether they were elaborate and fabricated stories does not matter. But the fact that they were preserved through an organized society of preservers speaks to their validity as a representation of the language of the Arabs of Muhammad's day.It has not been proven beyond a doubt that the Hadeeth or the Jahileeyah poetries are completely fabrications that originated after Muhammad's time. What can be agreed upon is that written evidence of both the Hadeeth and the Pre-Islamic poems did not surface until 150 + years after Muhammad's day. And that is fine. I don't really want to discuss that the rawis(reciters) were much more organized than the reciters of the hadeeth or that only fragments of completely or mainly unvowled Korans can be found from that period between Muhammad's day and the era of the Hadeeth, which doesn't attest for the whole Koran that we have; naturally allowing for doubt about whether the koran has really been preserved completely intact and allowing for the belief that the Koran was corrupted by the qurras (the 19ers stance), who were the real vehicles for the preservation of the complete and voweled Koran. Also kitaab can means 'writing, as well as decree, prescription, law etc.' So I question those places where you say that the Koran says that it is a book. I do believe that Muhammad copied it but we don't have that copy. Nor do we have the mu'allaqaat that were also written down. The complete written Koran surfaced way after Muhammad's time also. So will be believe the stories of those orientalist that say that the Koran is a hodge-podge mix-matching of different texts that existed before it was put together into one book? The Koran was preserved mainly by the the qurras and that is a fact, as we only have fragments of a written Koran which doesn't attest to the whole thing having been preserved by being copied down into complete books.
If I go into all that I feel that our conversation will digress. So speaking on the pre-Islamic poetry I would like to ask you where is your proof that the language of the pre-Islamic poetries (and also the Hadeeth) is different from the language of the Koran? From what I know they are the same, and so it seems that the same evolution that occurs with other languages, and I do believe that they occur with most other languages, didn't occurr with Classical Arabic.
One of the mistakes in Classical Arabic dictionaries is that they claim that the plural of "quran" is "quru'a" and they say that both come from the root QRA'. They claim that this is the same as the word "quru'a" found in 2228 and it can also mean "menses".
So what is the matter with that? And what makes it so incorrect? So their homynyms and they mean two different things.
According to my study of etymology, the word "quru'a" comes from the root QRW and not QRA' as dictionaries claim and hence it is unrelated to "quran".
And that is where you are mistaken. Because quru'a can be a derivative of both roots. QRW, QRA' and QRY (for that matter) will all have forms that they share in common, because of the fact that W,A and Y can all mutate in the same manner. Sallaa can come from both the root SLW and SLY. From SLW it means 'Prayer, blessings, etc.' from SLY it means 'to burn.' They are homynyms. That's not a mistake of the dictionaries. Besides that what makes your etymological guessing so right? Especially when they don't take into acccount simple things such as homynyms.
Amazingly, based on this clear mistake, the dictionaries then went down a slippery slope in justifying how "quran" is related to "menses".
So they engaged in the same mistake that you are making. Trying to connect totally separate meanings that happen to share root letters. Right?
But in this case they are more justified than you because the word quran could have a meaning that has to do with menses but that does not mean that its meaning of 'reading/recital/study/compilation' has to be connected to the idea of menses. They are just homynms. And I'm sure the dictionary doesn't try connect them. But you have to try to connect them (or prove that they are not connected and that one of the meanings is wrong or has to come from another root) to satisfy your etymological guessing. ( I won't call it a game because I don't want to insult you or make you think that I think you are being intentionally manipulative. But your method of etymological conjecture is baseless and overlooks too much.)
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace brother Anwar,
My evidence is the hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poetries.
Since when is hearsay considered evidence? You have built a house of cards.
Please see the evidence that destroys the house of cards here
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3115&sid=7963cc5e03216684ce4a9a4d11561956
This abudant proof abounds for every language except for Classical Arabic, because I have not seen your proof or any proof that the language of the Hadeeth, the Pre-Islamic poetries or the grammarians is different from the language of the Koran.
I am not the one making the extraordinary claim that a language doesn't change in over 300 years. Despite the fact that I don't need to bring any proof since I am not the one making extraordinary claims, please see the proof in the above link. Unlike your hearsay based house of cards, I provide REAL evidence.
I did read it carefully, so please don't assume that I didn't do something that I in fact did do. The reason why I mentioned it again is because just as there is skepticism about whether these poems really survived the pre-Islamic era there is analysis that supports that they did.
There is no analysis that proved that those poems are "pre-Islamic". If you disagree then please provide ONE such analysis ith proof that they are "pre-Islamic". The so-called "analysis" that I have seen are based on the false premise that a widespread conspiracy is needed. It is easily proven that a conspiracy is not needed (as you can see in the above link).
The same skepticism that you give can be said for the Hadeeth as a whole. But that is not correct because just as I am sure that some hadeeth did survive Muhammad's day some pre-Islamic poetry survived the pre-Islamic era.
Which ones? Please give even ONE Hadith or "pre-Islamic" poem that survived and prove that it did.
I don't really want to discuss that the rawis(reciters) were much more organized than the reciters of the hadeeth or that only fragments of completely or mainly unvowled Korans can be found from that period between Muhammad's day and the era of the Hadeeth, which doesn't attest for the whole Koran that we have; naturally allowing for doubt about whether the koran has really been preserved completely intact and allowing for the belief that the Koran was corrupted by the qurras (the 19ers stance), who were the real vehicles for the preservation of the complete and voweled Koran.
What are you talking about? ALL the early copies of the great reading are COMPLETELY voweled. It seems that you don't know the difference between vowels and vocalization marks and hence are confusing them.
If I go into all that I feel that our conversation will digress. So speaking on the pre-Islamic poetry I would like to ask you where is your proof that the language of the pre-Islamic poetries (and also the Hadeeth) is different from the language of the Koran? From what I know they are the same, and so it seems that the same evolution that occurs with other languages, and I do believe that they occur with most other languages, didn't occurr with Classical Arabic.
Please see the link above for proof that completely demolishes the house of cards of pre-Islamic poetry.
And that is where you are mistaken. Because quru'a can be a derivative of both roots. QRW, QRA' and QRY (for that matter) will all have forms that they share in common, because of the fact that W,A and Y can all mutate in the same manner.
Not according to dictionaries who give QRW and QRA' completely different meanings. If dictionaries thought like you did, they would have put the same meanings under the roots QRW, QRA' and QRY. So you are just making up lame excuses for a clear mistake by the authors of the dictionaries.
But in this case they are more justified than you because the word quran could have a meaning that has to do with menses but that does not mean that its meaning of 'reading/recital/study/compilation' has to be connected to the idea of menses.
Again, if what you are saying is true then why didn't the dictionaries list quran and quru' under both QRA' and QRW?
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
God bless you Ayman,
Peace brother Anwar,
progod wrote
My evidence is the hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poetries.Since when is hearsay considered evidence? You have built a house of cards.
Please see the evidence that destroys the house of cards here
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3115&sid=7963cc5e03216684ce4a9a4d11561956
You didn't provide any evidence here, only your conjectures about Arabic and Nabatean. 16103 doesn't provide proof that the Koran is really in Nabatean(which is really what you are suggesting). I guess that is the real reason behind all of your conjured up etymologies.
You also did not prove that the Arabic of the Arabs wouldn't have been revered for poetry. Poems are not particularly scholarly or religious, nor were the Arabs of the Hijaaz rumored to have been. So of course Jewish Arabs would have read religious materials in Hebrew and Christians in Greek or Aramaic. That still does not discount the use of Jahileeyah Arabic being respected for its poetry throughout Arab-dom, especially seeing that it is a language that all Arabs even those Perianized and Christianized Arabs had in common.
The lack of rock inscriptions doesn't prove that it wasn't used for poetry either. Just because it didn't survive in written form doesn't mean that it did not exist or that it is not valid.
But you elude my point as this is not the issue. Can you prove that the Arabic of the so-called (for your benefit) Pre-Islamic poetries differ from the Arabic of the Koran?
progod wrote
This abudant proof abounds for every language except for Classical Arabic, because I have not seen your proof or any proof that the language of the Hadeeth, the Pre-Islamic poetries or the grammarians is different from the language of the Koran.I am not the one making the extraordinary claim that a language doesn't change in over 300 years. Despite the fact that I don't need to bring any proof since I am not the one making extraordinary claims, please see the proof in the above link. Unlike your hearsay based house of cards, I provide REAL evidence.
That's fine. Elude my point by saying that I am making an extraodinary claim. Good strategy for winning a debate! But you are not helping to solve the misunderstanding. I will restate I have not seen you proof or any proof at all that the language of the Hadeeth, the pre-Islamic poetries or the grammarians is different from the language of the Koran.
You say that you don't need to bring any proof because my claim is extraordinary but I have more evidence for my extraordinary claim than you do for your ordinary claim. Have you any proof that the language of the Hadeeth, the pre-Islamic poetries or the grammarians is different from the language of the Koran?There is no analysis that proved that those poems are "pre-Islamic". If you disagree then please provide ONE such analysis ith proof that they are "pre-Islamic". The so-called "analysis" that I have seen are based on the false premise that a widespread conspiracy is needed. It is easily proven that a conspiracy is not needed (as you can see in the above link).
Maybe you are right and maybe you are wrong. I have read counter argu ments on both sides, but that is not the issue. Whether these poems originated in the Pre-Islamic era or not can you prove that the Arabic of the so-called (for your benefit) Pre-Islamic poetries differ from the Arabic of the Koran?
Which ones? Please give even ONE Hadith or "pre-Islamic" poem that survived and prove that it did.
We can discuss this privately, becuase this is not the real issue.
What are you talking about? ALL the early copies of the great reading are COMPLETELY voweled. It seems that you don't know the difference between vowels and vocalization marks and hence are confusing them.
Oh, please! Give me a break. Now you are trying to pick an argument on trivial things. You know well what I meant. If you didn't (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) I mean all of the kasrahs, fathats, dommahs and their tanweens. Vowels and vocalization marks are the same thing. With a comment like that I would really think that you are in this for argument's sake and not to come to an understanding of this issue. I'm not here to be quarrelsome.
Not according to dictionaries who give QRW and QRA' completely different meanings. If dictionaries thought like you did, they would have put the same meanings under the roots QRW, QRA' and QRY. So you are just making up lame excuses for a clear mistake by the authors of the dictionaries.
That's fine, call them lame excuses if you want. You see, whether the composers of the dictionaries realized that or not doesn't really matter. What you require is a grammar book for this, and that doesn't fall under the job of a dictionary-writer. All a dictionary writer does is record how a certain word is used. It is not his job to go into all of the possible grammatical forms and from which roots they can derive. So if they didn't do that I'm not going to get all in a humbug about it. Hopefully the researcher is familar with Arabic forms and can understand that a particular from can share more than one root if it shares every thing in common except for a weak letter.
Again, if what you are saying is true then why didn't the dictionaries list quran and quru' under both QRA' and QRW?
Because they know of these words being connected to certain meanings. So they go to the root that shares the most in meaning with the word that they are examining. If people use quraan as 'reading' then they will go to qara'a because it is connected to the idea of reading. But qur'aan could can be a derivative of qarawa. If used in that way it will have the connotations that the form fu&laan implies, along with following the theme that qarawa implies.
Godbless,
Anwarp.s. as far as all your conjectures about Arabic and Nabatean we all can do the same type of guessings. So when was that Nabatean rock inscription with Arabic below it dated? In what kind of script is that Arabic inscription? Who is to say that Nabatean wasn't a version of Arabic? Whose to say that it wasn't Arabic written in Nabatean script? (Early Muslims often wrote Arabic in Aramaic script.) Why is it impossible that two Imrul-qays's existed, one possibly named after the other? Why couldn't he have written his poems in Northern Arabic, which only differed from his dialect in a few, negligible ways?
If Nabateans were the ruling people/tribe in a certain area why is it impossible that the Arabs in that region were biligual, giving the Nabatean language certain prestige? And whose to say that Nabatean continued on, and that Cl. Arabic didn't replace it in the region as one of prestige among the Arab tribes. It would seem so. But if that is not what you are saying, still prove that the language of the Hadeeths and the Jahileeyah poems are different than the language of the Koran. I don't understand your contention on these issues but I would rather you address your theories about nabatean, pre-Islamic Arabic and the Arabic of the Koran in a private message rather than confuse the real issues on these posts. -
It can be seen from
http//www.nabateans.org/history.htm
that the Nabateans spoke Aramaic and their script developed from the Aramaic script. The Arabic script developed from the the Aramaic script as well but Classical Arabic did not develop from Aramaic or Nabatean which was Aramaic.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Dear Anwar,
I am stepping in here to comment that I feel you seem not to be reading Ayman's replies without bias. This is evident from the fact that you seem to make very gross errors in understanding what seems to be plain. Please do not take this personally; I'm just saying that it might be a good idea to re-read what Ayman has written and then re-read what you yourself have posted.
I'll try to give examples here.
You didn't provide any evidence here, only your conjectures about Arabic and Nabatean. 16103 doesn't provide proof that the Koran is really in Nabatean(which is really what you are suggesting). I guess that is the real reason behind all of your conjured up etymologies.
This is not what I understood or understand. The suggestion is that religious matters in the pre-koranic times was conducted in a language foreign to the Arabs.
So that the matters of religion, idolatry, state etc. were conducted in a language that was not spoken by the common people. This served as an exclusive barrier and a way of maintaining an elitism by the religious men.
Such things happen in other religions. The Catholics conduct masses in Latin, a separate and dead language to what is spoken by Catholics today; the Jews conduct services in Hebrew (the OT form) which is a dead language etc. This effectively excludes the majority of people from access to the real message.
The Arabs of the time were conducting their pre-koranic religion in Nabatean Aramaic which only a few so called religious men understood. Their worship was claps and whistles to the population.
When the Koran was revealed in the commoners language, it was ridiculed for being so - but it was for the purposes of being available and clear to all people, not the select few.
But you elude my point as this is not the issue. Can you prove that the Arabic of the so-called (for your benefit) Pre-Islamic poetries differ from the Arabic of the Koran?
Anwar this statement is very typical of what I meant at the beginning. It's obvious that such alleged 'Pre-Islamic' poetry is actually POST-KORANIC and are fabrications designed to bolster the false interpretations of a new wave of religious corruptors.
I don't understand your contention on these issues but I would rather you address your theories about nabatean, pre-Islamic Arabic and the Arabic of the Koran in a private message rather than confuse the real issues on these posts.
After writing a whole page of 'rebuttal' you conclude by admitting you do not understand the 'theories'. I would advise that you kill your ego in this matter and try to understand before you flood the debate with irrelevant argument (for the sake of argument).
No one wins or loses - when there is argument for the sake argument then everyone loses.
Peace.
-
God bless all,
Brother Truth, you said that you understand Ayman's page on Nabatean as the following
The Arabs of the time were conducting their pre-koranic religion in Nabatean Aramaic which only a few so called religious men understood. Their worship was claps and whistles to the population.
Okay, that is fine. I did misunderstand the full implications of that post. I wasn't sure whether Ayman was trying to say that the Koran is really in Nabatean or not, although I did understand the point as you illustrated it above. I was addressing what I thought was the full implications of his theory. I was wrong, forgive for that.
This claim, however, is still unfounded, seeing that Nabatean is Aramaic according to all of the sources that I've checked, and only existed in the very north of Arabia, where Petra is, that is Jordan, as well as parts of Iraq, Palestine and Syria. We have no evidence that the non-Christian or non-Jewish Arabs (the jews had reffered to Aramaic to help the populaces understand the Hebrew texts in Jesus' time, God bless him) of Muhammad's day(God bless him), or Arabs other than the ones living in those areas, also spoke this Aramaic language. As for that passage in the Koran about claps and whistles, it can be interpreted quite differently than that, tasdeeya comes from SDY, which has the meaning of 'averting' and I can't remember what whistle is in Cl. Arabic. Maybe you can help me out.
progod wrote
But you elude my point as this is not the issue. Can you prove that the Arabic of the so-called (for your benefit) Pre-Islamic poetries differ from the Arabic of the Koran?
Truth, you say
Anwar this statement is very typical of what I meant at the beginning. It's obvious that such alleged 'Pre-Islamic' poetry is actually POST-KORANIC and are fabrications designed to bolster the false interpretations of a new wave of religious corruptors.Hunh? Truth, now that is conspiracy theory. Ayman doesn't believe that these poetries were apart of some grand conspiracy, as far as I know. He just believes that they were in a language that can't be applied to the Koran because of their written debut was significantly after the Koran (which is evidence to him that they didn't exists before that). Because of the time frame between these poetries and the Koran and because of the fact that there is skepticism about all of the poems really originating from the pre-Islamic era he chooses to deny that any of these poems are reallly poems that survived the pre-Islamic era, as he also chooses to deny that any hadeeth could be an accurate record that survived Muhammad's day intact. I, on the other hand, take a more moderate position and believe that there are both Hadeeths and Pre-Islamic poems that could have surived Pre-Islamic times and Muhammad's day. Evidence within the poems that suggest otherwise would have to be examined and appropriate actions taken as to the specific poem that contains evidence that is contrary to it being from the Jahileeya era. As for the Hadeeths we know that they are rumor and were not preserved by any particlar class of reciters so a more rigid historical approach would have to be taken with them, examining content and searching for possible contradiction in itself and with the Koran (particulary with madates to Muhammad and the faithful). The hadeeth collectors only completed the first step towards saying that these sayings are historically accurate. And even that step was not very efficient as it concerns the piecing together of history. They left the job, in my mind, incomplete.
Just as Ayman does not believe that the poems have anything to do with a conspiracy theory neither do I. Can you prove that all of the pre-Islamic poems are post-koranic inventions and fabrications designed to do what you say they were designed to do? To my knowledge these poems developed totally separately from the religious life of Muslims and had much more to do with Arab pride than islamic identity. They ended up playing a role in preserving the language of Muhammad's day so that more poems could be written in this language, the Koran could be forever understood and so that the Hadeeth could be forever understood.
That is a huge accusation that you are making there, and whether or not they are post-koranic inventions or not can you prove that they were invented to corrupt the Classical Arabic language and to distort how people understood the Koran, instead of just preserving and continuing the linguistic legacy of the Arabs that had been preserved orally up until the post-koranic time that they were written down?
progod wrote
I don't understand your contention on these issues but I would rather you address your theories about nabatean, pre-Islamic Arabic and the Arabic of the Koran in a private message rather than confuse the real issues on these posts.
After writing a whole page of 'rebuttal' you conclude by admitting you do not understand the 'theories'. I would advise that you kill your ego in this matter and try to understand before you flood the debate with irrelevant argument (for the sake of argument).
I did not say that I didn't understand his theories. I said that I didn't understand his contention on these issues (the basis for why he needs these theories). I thank you for your suggestion to kill my ego. I don't know how I will go about that but I assure you that I am not letting my pride interfere with this discussion. It seems like this post was more a defense of Ayman's positions then a post dedicated to helping me understand what I had obviously misunderstood. If I am wrong about this then God forgive me for my errors.
No one wins or loses - when there is argument for the sake argument then everyone loses.
I understand that and I think you know that from my previous post where I suggested that Ayman was arguing for argument's sake. Why would you even come at me like that? You think I said that strategically, to unfairly debase his argument in front of the forum. No. I really meant it. Instead of just defending Ayman because you agree with him, or attacking me because you believe that you smell a hint of arrogance behind my posts why don't you address the issue at hand and help me understand what you think I have misunderstood. That would add much more to this discussion. You began your post with that in mind. Stay the course, please.
Godbless,
Anwar