Why no Ramadzan - replaced! by 3,10,60 Days.
-
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 -
Peace brother Anwar,
Thank you for taking time to read the article and I appreciate your comments. I also appreciate brother Truth's clarification.
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).
Brother, I hope that after reviewing the article in light of brother Truth's comments, you saw that Nabataean is a different language to Arabic (the language of the great reading). That is the point I make in the article.
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.
How would thousands of mundane inscriptions survive but the allegedly all important poetry not survive? Again, this totally destroys your traditional excuse that "Arabs didn't write".
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?
Yes, by proving that they are post-quranic inventions I already proved that they differ from the earlier Arabic of the great reading. At the very least, the great reading should be used to understand them because they are the later invention based on its style and not the other way around.
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.Hearsay is not evidence. You have zero evidence. I asked you to show me ONE poem and prove that it is pre-quranic and you didn't.
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?
See above.
On a positive note, I see that now you changed your mind and are not trying to prove that Jahiliya poetry is pre-quranic. Now you imply that even if they are post-quranic their language is the same as the great reading. This is not possible because of the NATURAL process of language evolution. ESPECIALLY, since the early Islamic period saw MAJOR social and cultural changes. Language and literature REFLECTS societal and cultural changes.
Maybe you are right and maybe you are wrong. I have read counter arguments 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?
Give one valid counter argument. The only counter argument given is the need for a widespread conspiracy. I already demonstrated that this is not needed.
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.
But this is the real issue. Please provide even ONE example of a poem and why do you think it is pre-quranic.
Let me make it easier for you. Look to the first verse of this poem that is linguistically identical to all other Jahiliya poems and is attributed to the alleged "pre-quranic" personality Madhad Ibn Amro and that you wouldn't have any problem reading
"ka'an lam yakun bayn al-hajun ila Al-Safa anis wa lam yasmur bi Makat samir."
Translation
As if amongst the pilgrims to Al-Safa there was no companion and no partying in Makkat had a partygoer.This is a poem that is very similar linguistically to all other alleged "pre-quranic" poems that we have. Why do you think that such a poem is not fabricated?
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.
No I m not being quarrelsome. I am simply correcting a common misconception. I have seen early copies of the great reading and they all have vowels Ya, Wa, Alif. You are still confusing the vowels (which are letters) with vocalization marks (kasrahs, fathats, dommahs).
According to you ALL modern Arabic newspapers are unreadable because according to you "they have no vowels" (since they have no vocalization marks).
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.
It is the job of the dictionary writer to classify correctly. In this case you acknowledge that they didn't. So once again, stop making excuses for them and acknowledge that they are merely humans who can err.
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.
They don't put qur'aan or quru'u (menses) under QRW and they don't put the meaning of "basin" under QRA'. If they saw QRW and QRA' to be the same thing, they would have listed the same meanings under both or at least some common meanings. In reality what we see is that they don't list ANY common meanings between QRA' and QRW or indicate that they are in any way related. Therefore to say that dictionary authors knew that QRA' and QRW were related but neglected to write it or that they were not aware of grammar rules is entirely your own conjecture. We can only know about the dictionary writers from what they wrote and how they classified meanings and we can't pretend to know what is in their minds to find excuses for them as you are trying to do.
p.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?
The inscription is written after the reign of King Obodas III who was deified after he died in 5BC. So the inscription can be dated to the early 1st century AD.
In what kind of script is that Arabic inscription?
The script is Safaitic, which is close to Musnad but what matters is that the language is the Safaitic Northern Arabic language, which is the direct father of Classical Arabic.
Who is to say that Nabatean wasn't a version of Arabic?
All linguists that specialize in ancient Semitic languages agree that Nabataean is a version of Aramaic and NOT Arabic. They even call it Nabataean Aramaic. Aramaic comes from the Western Semitic branch while Arabic comes from the Southern Semitic branch of languages.
Whose to say that it wasn't Arabic written in Nabatean script?
What matters is the language more than the script. Besides, the script is Safaitic, which is very close to Arabic Musnad script. Musnad is Arabic.
(Early Muslims often wrote Arabic in Aramaic script.)
Script is not relevant. The phrase "bism Allah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim" is in Arabic despite being in an English script.
Why is it impossible that two Imrul-qays's existed, one possibly named after the other?
You are missing the point and instead just repeating the traditional argument. As I pointed out in the article, the commonality is not just in the name. The real and fictitious Imru' Al-Qays have many more things in common.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that one out of each 100 Arabs is named Imru' Al-Qays. So the probability that they shared the same name is 1/100. Now let's see the other similarities. They both defeated a tribe called Assad. How many Arabs defeated a tribe called Assad? 1 in a few millions? Let's for your benefit put a probability of 1/100,000. They both were royals. How many Arabs are royals? Again, 1 in a few millions, let's again put a very conservative estimate of 1/100,000.
So if you calculate the probability based on the above, it turns out to be
1/100 x 1/100,000 x 1/100,000 = 1/1000000000000
Even using the very conservative estimates above that are in your favor, we get a 1 in 100 billion probability.
If you add the probability that both tried to unite the Arab tribes and the probability that both made an alliance with the Romans, then the probability becomes even less.
Moreover, the story of the poet Imru' Al-Qays exhibits the classical features of embellishment and melodrama that one would expect as the real story of the real Imru' Al-Qays is turned across the centuries into the legend of the poet. Your belief that the poet Imru' Al-Qays existed is exactly like believing that Hamlet really existed.
The God is the Truth. The Truth requires us to be objective. Are you going to be objective and ProTruth or are you going to take those 1 in 100 billion odds and defy common sense and be ProTraditionalists. The odds are much better in Vegas.
Why couldn't he have written his poems in Northern Arabic, which only differed from his dialect in a few, negligible ways?
Why would he write in Northern Arabic and not the dialect of his own people? Kinda is an old Southern Arabian tribe that, like most Arabic tribes, must have been proud of its culture, including its language. Why would its alleged leader compose poems in a different language and antagonize his people?
Moreover, the difference between OSA (Old Southern Arabic) and Northern Arabic dialects is significant. For instance, an immediately recognizable feature is that there is no "al" pre-posed definite article and the definite article is post-posed.
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.
Yes the religious and political elite were indeed bilingual.
Arabic replaced Nabataean, Aramaic, and Greek as the language of religion and politics only after the great reading gave Arabic prestige.
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.
My theory is in the article. Mainly that Arabic was an informal language spoken by the common people and was not used for religious purposes.
If anyone disagrees, then I ask them to please give a reference to one formal religious Arabic inscription in Northern Arabia. Examples are religious manuscripts or formal religious inscriptions (not graffiti) in pre-quranic Temples or churches or synagogues.
It can be seen from
http//www.nabateans.org/history.htmthat 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.
Script is irrelevant. Language is what matters. There is very little difference between Nabataean and Aramaic. Hence, Nabataean is often referred to as "Nabataean Aramaic". Unlike the Musnad script, you are right that the Kufic script probably developed from Western Semitic scripts but not the language.
Now, let me address the following comment that you made to brother Truth.
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.
I never said anything different. Linguists categorize Arabic into Northern and Southern Arabian dialects. As you said, Northern Arabia includes Jordan, parts of Iraq, Palestine and Syria, and the very northern part of Saudi Arabia. This is where Northern Arabian tribes lived. On the other hand, areas in what is now called Central Arabia (such as Yathrib) and Southern Arabia were inhabited by Southern Arabian tribes such as Aws, Khazraj, Kinda, etc. can all be considered Southern Arabia. Those South Arabian tribes spoke Southern Arabic dialects. Thus a division along tribal lines into Northern an Southern (which includes what is modernly termed Central) is more appropriate.
Given that the great reading is in a Northern Arabic dialect (although addressing both North and Southern Arabs), it is most likely that the prophet's people were northern Arabs who lived in the areas outlined above. Later, the evidence shows that he immigrated to Southern Arabia.
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.
I don't see what you are trying to refute. As far as I can tell, I never said anything that contradicts what you are saying.
The only way that anyone can prove me wrong about the conclusions of the article is if you bring a formal "pre-quranic" religious inscription or manuscript in Arabic. For example, bring one manuscript of a religious Christian or Jewish text, a formal religious inscription on a church or synagogue (not graffiti), or a formal pagan inscription on a pagan shrine (not graffiti). All you have to do is bring ONE such Arabic pre-quranic religious inscription OR manuscript. See how I like to make things easy for you )
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Brother, I hope that after reviewing the article in light of brother Truth's comments, you saw that Nabataean is a different language to Arabic (the language of the great reading). That is the point I make in the article.
Yes I do. I addressed that already in my previous post.
How would thousands of mundane inscriptions survive but the allegedly all important poetry not survive? Again, this totally destroys your traditional excuse that "Arabs didn't write".
Think about it. Do you carve shakespeare on rocks? Or write lines from shakespeare on bathroom walls? People usually write mundane things on rocks and walls. There are thousands of reasons for why certain things end up on certain walls or rocks. Please don't bother me with trivial questions like this. You think about it and come up with the counter argument before you try to get me to waste my time on it. Besides that when did I say "Arabs didn't write"? I do believe that most Arabs were illiterate so so much graffit is interesting, but how could you quote something that I didn't say? I suspect that when you read my posts you read a whole lot more into them then what is really there. As a matter of fact it is quite evident, despite the fact that Truth accused me of doing that with you even though I said that you 'were suggesting' what I was saying and never quoted you as saying something that you didn't say.
Yes, by proving that they are post-quranic inventions I already proved that they differ from the earlier Arabic of the great reading. At the very least, the great reading should be used to understand them because they are the later invention based on its style and not the other way around
Heck no you didn't prove anything! Whether they are inventions or not you didn't prove that the language of the those poems is any different than the language of the Koran or Hadeeth! You didn't prove that. How can you sit there and say that you did? Just because one came after the other that doesn't mean that the language is different. You claim the langauge changed but you can't prove it, you can't even offer evidence in favor of your opinion.
Hearsay is not evidence. You have zero evidence. I asked you to show me ONE poem and prove that it is pre-quranic and you didn't.
You just don't get it do you? I'm am not talking about the content of the Hadeeth or the poems!!!!!!!! That is the hearsay part. I am talking about the actual language that it uses. When I say something that is hearsay that does not mean that the English that I use is hearsay. It means that the story that I'm telling is hearsay. The language used has nothing to do with whether what is being said a lie or not. 'Ayman is superman' is a lie, but it is grammatically correct. The hadeeth and the poems may lie but they still use correct grammar. Cl. Arabic Grammar that cannot be distinguished from the Classical Arabic grammar of the Koran. Do you get what i'm saying, or are you going to keep saying 'Hearsay isn't evidence'.
I don't have to prove that the poems are pre-Islamic. I think that the evidence of the rawis is enough to say that they survived the pre-Islamic era, just as the Koran survived the time of Muhammad through the qurras. Just as there have been mistaken recitations of the Koran, so the pre-Islamic poems. Just as people tried to corrupt the Koran I'm sure they tried to corrupt the pre-Islamic poems. Gratefully the Koran survived these attempts so that we can still read it, as far as we know, and get a common understanding between all of the versions of the Koran now in existence. The fact that you point to conjecture that those poems have to be invented because they do not conform to your idea of pre-Islamic arabia or because they have things in common with other figures that appear in written history is not proof that they are not authentic. There are doubts that can be raised about how they were accurately preserved but doubts can be risen about the accurate preservation of the Koran as well.On a positive note, I see that now you changed your mind and are not trying to prove that Jahiliya poetry is pre-quranic. Now you imply that even if they are post-quranic their language is the same as the great reading. This is not possible because of the NATURAL process of language evolution. ESPECIALLY, since the early Islamic period saw MAJOR social and cultural changes. Language and literature REFLECTS societal and cultural changes.
Give me a break Ayman! You see what you want to see, don't you? I do think that the Jahiliyah poetry is both pre-koranic and during the time of the Koran. But that doesn't matter. You talka bout this NATURAL process of language and the major social and cultural changes that HAD to have changed Arabic. But that is your speculation. Pure speculation. If you can show evidence that the language of the post-Koranic Hadeeth and the poems is different than the Koran then you will have proven something. You have to bring evidence of some clear grammatical contradictions in order to do this. Justy saying that "They came way after the Koran so they have to be in a language different than the Koran" is not sufficient. Language and literature does reflect societal and cultural changes, but with all of the societal change that has occured in the past hundred years in the United States, has our language really changed? (note that I do not consider the addition of meanings on to words to be change in the language. They are additons, which can be dated and therefore not taken into consideration when reading at texts that predates that particular usage).
Give one valid counter argument. The only counter argument given is the need for a widespread conspiracy. I already demonstrated that this is not needed.
Listen, your idea that all of the Jahiliyah poetry is a post-koranic invention is a theory, not a proven fact, despite how many times or how loud you may say it. It is only based on the criticisms of a few poems that elude to having post-koranic origins. And I'm sure that some of them do. But your idea that all of them do is a theory, and an extremist theory at that.
But this is the real issue. Please provide even ONE example of a poem and why do you think it is pre-quranic.
But this is not the issue. The issue is the issue of the language used, not whether or not what is said is a lie or not, or really pre-koranic or not.
Let me make it easier for you. Look to the first verse of this poem that is linguistically identical to all other Jahiliya poems and is attributed to the alleged "pre-quranic" personality Madhad Ibn Amro and that you wouldn't have any problem reading
"ka'an lam yakun bayn al-hajun ila Al-Safa anis wa lam yasmur bi Makat samir."
Translation
As if amongst the pilgrims to Al-Safa there was no companion and no partying in Makkat had a partygoer.This is a poem that is very similar linguistically to all other alleged "pre-quranic" poems that we have. Why do you think that such a poem is not fabricated?
Firstly doesn't 'sameer' mean '(night) entertainer'? and doesn't 'anees' mean 'sociable/amicable.' So that the poem can be rendered 'As if there were not one sociable person among the pilgrims to Al-Safa, and no entertainer to keep us up at night in Mecca.'
Regardless, what is the matter with it? Is it that it is impossible for you to believe that Jahiliyah Arabs made pilgrimages to Mecca? Is it that it is impossible for you to believe that in addition to the other literal meanings of Safa and Makkah that the Arabs of that day also called the present day Makkah, Makkah or the present day place of Safa, Safa? It is more likely that the Muslims of today and yesteryear inherited this myopic view of pilgrimage (that must be made to places in Arabic called Mecca, Safa and Marwah) from the practice of the cultural pilgrimage of the Jahiliyah Arabs in that area. So why does this poem have to be a fabrication?
You are still confusing the vowels (which are letters) with vocalization marks (kasrahs, fathats, dommahs).
No I am not for the last time. Vocalizations in Arabic are 'a, i, u.' These are also called vowels. Alif, ya and waw on there own are not vowels or vocalizations. They need the vowels/vocalizations 'a, i and u' in Arabic. I'm sorry if I going contrary to how you learned how to classify these things. But I was not incorrect in any way. A vowel, by definition is a vocalization or a vocal. I hate to make mountains out of molehills and that is what you did here. Whether you like how I classify thse terms or not be sure that I am not mistaken on this. So please don't say that I am 'confused' about something with such reprimand and then offer up a mistaken view of the issue yourself.
According to you ALL modern Arabic newspapers are unreadable because according to you "they have no vowels" (since they have no vocalization marks).
No I did not say that either. Firstly newspapers are written for the public so that generally use words common to the public. Reading Arabic newspapers or other Arabic books without vowels is a daily excercise for the Arabic reader in guessing and intuition. When a writer intends a word that may be confused with another he vowels it.
Newspapers in the US are written on a 5th grade reading level for the general public. Arabic newspapers share the same aspect of being the most inclusive of all Arabic speakers and their different levels of education without sacrificing content or ability to express that content.
Unwoveled texts exist because the public is already generally familiar with the language that is used and expected to be used. Nonetheless, with any unvoweled text there is still room for error.
The unvowled texts of the Koran could exist because most people who read the Koran already had it memorized. Just as with the unvoweled Aramaic targums of Jesus time or unvowled Hebrew religious, or popular texts.
The reason why the Koran was written with all of its vowels was to eliminate room for mistakes. With any texts with such importance and where people are intentionally taking into account a variety of interpretations the text needs to be completely voweled. As the Kurras had already preserved the Koran through memorization, all that was needed were precise written indications of every letter and every sound . THat took a while but it culiminated in the seven readings of the Koran that exists today.It is the job of the dictionary writer to classify correctly. In this case you acknowledge that they didn't. So once again, stop making excuses for them and acknowledge that they are merely humans who can err.
There you go again with that excuses crap. If your intent is to piss me off, it is working. But I will still answer with as much tact as I can muster.
The Job of a dictionary writer is not to classify all possible Arabic words. Maybe you would have liked that they did a more exhaustive job of elucidating Cl. Arabic grammar. But their job is to take words that are show up the most in the language. If no-one uses or has ever suggested the use of quraan in the sense of 'menses' so that it shows up in literature they would not try to explain the word quraan in the sense of menses.I don't know why you are exagerating the issue and making it seem like I am some kind of an apologist for the dictionaries. I understand that they are mere humans who can err. Why do you feel the need to even say that?
But God can guide the hand of whomever he wants. He guided the tongue of God's messenger Muhammad so that he could recite the Koran. And he guided the tongues of the Kurras well enough so that we can read the Koran with every sound and understand it accurately. I believe that God allowed for those different versions to show that despite human error he can still preserve His message. However, there is more evidence that points the fact that the Kurras perserved the Koran then it having been preserved through written books and scribes.
If they saw QRW and QRA' to be the same thing, they would have listed the same meanings under both or at least some common meanings. In reality what we see is that they don't list ANY common meanings between QRA' and QRW or indicate that they are in any way related. Therefore to say that dictionary authors knew that QRA' and QRW were related but neglected to write it or that they were not aware of grammar rules is entirely your own conjecture. We can only know about the dictionary writers from what they wrote and how they classified meanings and we can't pretend to know what is in their minds to find excuses for them as you are trying to do.
Did I every say that QRA' and QRW are th same thing? Never did I say that. I said that they can share forms, that is it. For instance the roots SYD (Noble/superior/lordly) an SWD(black) are distinct in their meanings but they can have overlapping forms, as the weak letters can be mutate when the words are put into forms. Aswad can be Asyad or As'ad, just as sah-eed is sayyid and vice-versa, and ta'eeb=tayyib or taib, ma'eet=mayyit or mait. This has to do with Arabic forms and their relation to each other, not really with the job of the dictionary.
The God is the Truth. The Truth requires us to be objective. Are you going to be objective and ProTruth or are you going to take those 1 in 100 billion odds and defy common sense and be ProTraditionalists. The odds are much better in Vegas.
Probability does not say anything. The fact that the world came together is not probable but it happened.
The only way that anyone can prove me wrong about the conclusions of the article is if you bring a formal "pre-quranic" religious inscription or manuscript in Arabic. For example, bring one manuscript of a religious Christian or Jewish text, a formal religious inscription on a church or synagogue (not graffiti), or a formal pagan inscription on a pagan shrine (not graffiti). All you have to do is bring ONE such Arabic pre-quranic religious inscription OR manuscript. See how I like to make things easy for you
Just as you didn't understand what I was trying to refute (I wasn't refuting anything), what would the above prove?
Given that the great reading is in a Northern Arabic dialect (although addressing both North and Southern Arabs), it is most likely that the prophet's people were northern Arabs who lived in the areas outlined above. Later, the evidence shows that he immigrated to Southern Arabia.
More guesswork?
Unlike the Musnad script, you are right that the Kufic script probably developed from Western Semitic scripts but not the language
I never said that Arabic developed from Aramaic or any script for that matter, so don't worry about me thinking that.
Why would he write in Northern Arabic and not the dialect of his own people? Kinda is an old Southern Arabian tribe that, like most Arabic tribes, must have been proud of its culture, including its language. Why would its alleged leader compose poems in a different language and antagonize his people?
Hmmm. WHy would he compose his poems, that he would present to Northern Tribes, while he lived among Northern tribes in a Northern dialect? I think you can answer that on your own. And whose to say that he was antagonizing his people Stop with these assumptions. They are too much for me.
Do you know that some linguists still confuse Arabic and Aramaic. And every linguist does not give the same theories that you do on the origin of Classical Arabic, which I am sure that you will assure us are the most correct.
Listen I need a break from this conversation. Your arguments are based on more assumptioius claims than the extraodinary claims and traditionalist defending attitude that you accuse me of. And its actually starting to serioiusly annoy me. I got banned for expressing my annoyance before, so just give a break. I'm really fed up with your antics right now. So give me some time to gain my composure.
You do know that you insist on missing the point? How can I logically come to a common conclusion with you when you continue to base your arguments on assumptions that you consider to be proofs? Then when I ask you a simple question like 'Can you offer evidence of the differences that you speak of between the language of the Hadeeth, the poetries and the Koran' the only thing you can say is that the Hadeeth and the poetries were invented after the Koran.
But you stll have not answered the crux that will solve this issue. I say that the Hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poems are my evidence, obviously talking about the langauge that they use and not the sentiments that they communicate and you say 'Hearsay is not evidence.' You object to the content of the hearsay but won't deal with the real issue; the langauge of the hearsay. Or do you think that they invented the hadeeth and poems in order to create new defintions for the words that they were using, all
(in a loud crescendoing sinister voice) part of some grand plan to corrupt the language and its classification to the point that the Koran would never be understood! Haa! Haa! Haah! Haah! . . .Oh, I'm sorry I got caught up in a cartoon moment there. But my point still stands.
Whether it is hearsay or not doesn't matter. Don't you see that? We are dealing with the language not the content. Who makes poems to intentionally corrupt they language that they speak and understand? Why are you confusing the issues, and impeding the resolution of this issue?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Ayman I understand that you are anti-traditionalists, and anti-anything that is pro-traditionalists. So I understand why you have to come up with theories that subsititue traditional claims using 'modern' evidence. But you are taking it too far. And just because an idea might be traditional that does not mean that it is wrong, nor are all traditionalist ideas right. But there is merit to some of what traditionalists say. Don't just reject it because it is traditionalist. That is unjust, and does not conisder all evidence.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaams Br. Anwar,
i think you believe the SJD in the normal sense/traditional meaning,but could you explain it in these ayats for i can't grasp it with traditional aproach, Thank you.Wa-ith qulna odkhuloo hathihialqaryata fakuloo minha haythu shi/tum raghadan waodkhulooalbaba sujjadan waqooloo hittatun naghfirlakum khatayakum wasanazeedu almuhsineena
And remember We said "Enter this town, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish; but enter the gate IN PROSTRATION , in posture and in words, and We shall forgive you your faults and increase (the portion of) those who do good."
2.WarafaAAna fawqahumu alttoorabimeethaqihim waqulna lahumu odkhuloo albabasujjadan waqulna lahum la taAAdoo fee alssabtiwaakhathna minhum meethaqan ghaleethan
And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said "Enter the GATE IN PROSTRATION"; and (once again) we commanded them "Transgress not in the matter of the sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant.
3.Wa-ith qeela lahumu oskunoo hathihialqaryata wakuloo minha haythu shi/tum waqooloo hittatunwaodkhuloo albaba sujjadan naghfir lakum khatee-atikumsanazeedu almuhsineena
And remember it was said to them "Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in PROSTRATION We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good."
4.WarafaAAa abawayhi AAala alAAarshiwakharroo lahu sujjadan waqala ya abati hathata/weelu ru/yaya min qablu qad jaAAalaha rabbee haqqanwaqad ahsana bee ith akhrajanee mina alssijniwajaa bikum mina albadwi min baAAdi an nazagha alshshaytanubaynee wabayna ikhwatee inna rabbee lateefun limayashao innahu huwa alAAaleemu alhakeemu
And he raised his parents high on the throne (of dignity), and they fell down in prostration, (all) before him. He said "O my father! this is the fulfilment of my vision of old! Allah hath made it come true! He was indeed good to me when He took me out of prison and brought you (all here) out of the desert, (even) after Satan had sown enmity between me and my brothers. Verily my Lord understandeth best the mysteries of all that He planneth to do, for verily He is full of knowledge and wisdom.
5.Awa lam yaraw ila ma khalaqaAllahu min shay-in yatafayyao thilaluhuAAani alyameeni waalshshama-ili sujjadan lillahiwahum dakhiroona
Do they not look at Allah's creation, (even) among (inanimate) things,- How their (very) shadows turn round, from the right and the left, prostrating themselves to Allah, and that in the humblest manner?
6.Qul aminoo bihi aw latu/minoo inna allatheena ootoo alAAilma min qablihi ithayutla AAalayhim yakhirroona lil-athqanisujjadan
Say "Whether ye believe in it or not, it is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand, when it is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration,
7.Ola-ika allatheena anAAama AllahuAAalayhim mina alnnabiyyeena min thurriyyati adamawamimman hamalna maAAa noohin wamin thurriyyatiibraheema wa-isra-eela wamimman hadayna waijtabaynaitha tutla AAalayhim ayatu alrrahmanikharroo sujjadan wabukiyyan
Those were some of the prophets on whom Allah did bestow His Grace,- of the posterity of Adam, and of those who We carried (in the Ark) with Noah, and of the posterity of Abraham and Israel of those whom We guided and chose. Whenever the Signs of (Allah) Most Gracious were rehearsed to them, they would fall down in prostrate adoration and in tears.
10.Innama yu/minu bi-ayatinaallatheena itha thukkiroo bihakharroo sujjadan wasabbahoo bihamdi rabbihim wahumla yastakbiroona
Only those believe in Our Signs, who, when they are recited to them, fall down in prostration, and celebrate the praises of their Lord, nor are they (ever) puffed up with pride.
Alam tara anna Allaha yasjudu lahuman fee alssamawati waman fee al-ardiwaalshshamsu waalqamaru waalnnujoomu waaljibaluwaalshshajaru waalddawabbu wakatheerun minaalnnasi wakatheerun haqqa AAalayhi alAAathabuwaman yuhini Allahu fama lahu min mukrimin inna AllahayafAAalu ma yasha/o
Seest thou not that to Allah bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind? But a great number are (also) such as are fit for Punishment and such as Allah shall disgrace,- None can raise to honour for Allah carries out all that He wills.
.
Waalnnajmu waalshshajaru yasjudani
And the herbs and the trees - both (alike) prostrate in adoration.
Wa-itha quri-a AAalayhimu alqur-anula yasjudoona
And when the Qur'an is read to them, they fall not prostrate,(the unbelievers)
God Bless.
-
Peace brother Anwar,
Think about it. Do you carve shakespeare on rocks? Or write lines from shakespeare on bathroom walls? People usually write mundane things on rocks and walls. There are thousands of reasons for why certain things end up on certain walls or rocks. Please don't bother me with trivial questions like this. You think about it and come up with the counter argument before you try to get me to waste my time on it. Besides that when did I say "Arabs didn't write"? I do believe that most Arabs were illiterate so so much graffit is interesting, but how could you quote something that I didn't say? I suspect that when you read my posts you read a whole lot more into them then what is really there. As a matter of fact it is quite evident, despite the fact that Truth accused me of doing that with you even though I said that you 'were suggesting' what I was saying and never quoted you as saying something that you didn't say.
If, like the "pre-quranic" desert dwelling poets, Shakespear had lived in the desert over 1400 years ago and all he had were a rock to write on, he would have certainly wrote some poems on the rock.
The Arabic inscriptions talk about exactly the kind of subjects that one sees in alleged "pre-Islamic" poetry. For example, they talk about grief for the dead so one would have expected some quoting of "ritha'a" poetry or at least some common styles with poetry. They also talk about things like war, love, and the joy of finding water, etc., which are all very good settings for poems. Yet, even one verse of one poem is remarkably absent. Additionally, the style of all Arabic inscriptions is completely different to those alleged "pre-quranic" poems.
Heck no you didn't prove anything! Whether they are inventions or not you didn't prove that the language of the those poems is any different than the language of the Koran or Hadeeth! You didn't prove that. How can you sit there and say that you did? Just because one came after the other that doesn't mean that the language is different. You claim the langauge changed but you can't prove it, you can't even offer evidence in favor of your opinion.
The language changed like all languages change. This is normal.
You just don't get it do you? I'm am not talking about the content of the Hadeeth or the poems!!!!!!!! That is the hearsay part. I am talking about the actual language that it uses.
Since it is after the fact, the language imitates the language of the great reading. There is no guarantee that they the imitators got it 100% right.
In the great reading we are told that it is in Arabic. We are not told that it is in the Arabic of 200 years later into the future.
When I say something that is hearsay that does not mean that the English that I use is hearsay. It means that the story that I'm telling is hearsay. The language used has nothing to do with whether what is being said a lie or not. 'Ayman is superman' is a lie, but it is grammatically correct.
Language is temporal. Hence, it is not grammatically correct to say "Ayman is superman" before the invention of the superman comics in the 1930s. So back in the 1920s, this phrase would have indeed been both a lie AND ungrammatical.
This is exactly the situation with alleged "pre-Islamic" poetry. It is as if you claim that you told me "Ayman is superman" in the 1920s. Someone who reasons like traditionalists would then come and claim that superman comics were not invented in the 1930s but are depicting the life of an actual person who lived in the 1920s because he heard that you told me this in the 1920s. They would then wrongly conclude that "Ayman is superman" was a grammatical phrase in the 1920s.
The hadeeth and the poems may lie but they still use correct grammar. Cl. Arabic Grammar that cannot be distinguished from the Classical Arabic grammar of the Koran.
If poetry is used to define the grammar in the first place then this is a circular argument. It is like
I will use poetry to define Classical Arabic ---> poetry is in Classical Arabic
I think that the evidence of the rawis is enough to say that they survived the pre-Islamic era, just as the Koran survived the time of Muhammad through the qurras.
What evidence do you have of those "rawis"?
You talka bout this NATURAL process of language and the major social and cultural changes that HAD to have changed Arabic. But that is your speculation. Pure speculation. If you can show evidence that the language of the post-Koranic Hadeeth and the poems is different than the Koran then you will have proven something. You have to bring evidence of some clear grammatical contradictions in order to do this.
Very well. There are many examples of expressions in the great reading that are ungrammatical by Classical Arabic standards. Therefore, this further proves that the language of the great reading is not the same as what you take to be Classical Arabic.
I am sure that, like most of us, you came across many expressions in the great reading that don't sound grammatical. Is the fault in the great reading or in the grammar?
Some well-known examples include 569 where "Sabi'una" should be "Sabi'ina" according to the rules of so-called Classical Arabic. "Moqimin" should be "moqimun" in 4162. In 2177 "sabirin" should be "sabirun". According to Classical Arabic grammar rules, "yakun" in 359 is in the wrong tense. There are many more. You don't see those sorts of "errors" in Hadith or poetry.
Is the great reading wrong or is what you call Classical Arabic not reflecting the real language of the great reading?
Justy saying that "They came way after the Koran so they have to be in a language different than the Koran" is not sufficient. Language and literature does reflect societal and cultural changes, but with all of the societal change that has occured in the past hundred years in the United States, has our language really changed? (note that I do not consider the addition of meanings on to words to be change in the language. They are additons, which can be dated and therefore not taken into consideration when reading at texts that predates that particular usage).
Language does reflect societal change and this is common sense. Existing words take different meanings and the old meaning is forgotten. For example, unlike the 1950s, if you tell somebody today that you think that he is "gay", he will not think that you are telling him that he is "happy". Another 50 years from now a modern dictionary of the English language will not capture the meaning of "happy". Keep in mind that over 300 years have elapsed before the FIRST attempts at a rudimentary dictionary were made. Also, over 150 years had passed before the appearance of Hadith and alleged "pre-quranic" poetry.
Listen, your idea that all of the Jahiliyah poetry is a post-koranic invention is a theory, not a proven fact, despite how many times or how loud you may say it. It is only based on the criticisms of a few poems that elude to having post-koranic origins. And I'm sure that some of them do. But your idea that all of them do is a theory, and an extremist theory at that.
Again, show me ONE authentic alleged "pre-quranic" poem and prove that it is indeed "pre-quranic" despite it being reported a few hundred years (if not thousands) after the fact.
But this is not the issue. The issue is the issue of the language used, not whether or not what is said is a lie or not, or really pre-koranic or not.
Fair enough, I already showed you the following proofs
- Archeological evidence showing that Arabic was not a language of religion.
- Archeological evidence that the most reliable and prominent Jahiliya poet is a fictitious character.
- Specific examples where the great reading doesn't follow Classical Arabic grammar rules.
On the other hand, you have given no proofs of your wishful thinking.
Firstly doesn't 'sameer' mean '(night) entertainer'? and doesn't 'anees' mean 'sociable/amicable.' So that the poem can be rendered 'As if there were not one sociable person among the pilgrims to Al-Safa, and no entertainer to keep us up at night in Mecca.'
Thank you for providing a better translation than the one I had. I totally agree with your translation. You were able to translate it very easily because it is in the very familiar Classical Arabic.
Regardless, what is the matter with it? Is it that it is impossible for you to believe that Jahiliyah Arabs made pilgrimages to Mecca? Is it that it is impossible for you to believe that in addition to the other literal meanings of Safa and Makkah that the Arabs of that day also called the present day Makkah, Makkah or the present day place of Safa, Safa? It is more likely that the Muslims of today and yesteryear inherited this myopic view of pilgrimage (that must be made to places in Arabic called Mecca, Safa and Marwah) from the practice of the cultural pilgrimage of the Jahiliyah Arabs in that area. So why does this poem have to be a fabrication?
The poem is definitely a fabrication. There is no doubt about that.
Now, if an expert like you who has access to much more information and verification methods than late Abbasid era linguists can't figure out if it is a fabrication or not, then I guess I must raise my hat for them and take away what I said in the article about them being na?ve. I can now see that the poor fellows were trying their best with their primitive methods and with no access to archeological evidence, manuscript analysis, the Internet, etc. etc.
There was no way for those poor fellows to know that Madhad Ibn Amro who they reported to be the son of law of Ismael and lived in a different MILLENIUM never heard of this Arabic, let alone composed poems in it that are easy to read by you today, that is if he even existed. The poor fellows probably believed that Arabic existed since the creation of the heavens and the earth (which they probably thought took place a few thousand years ago).
Now what is really amazing is that traditionalists really believe that this poem is not a fabrication. But who can blame them if an enlightened person like you is having trouble figuring it out.
No I am not for the last time. Vocalizations in Arabic are 'a, i, u.' These are also called vowels. Alif, ya and waw on there own are not vowels or vocalizations. They need the vowels/vocalizations 'a, i and u' in Arabic. I'm sorry if I going contrary to how you learned how to classify these things. But I was not incorrect in any way. A vowel, by definition is a vocalization or a vocal. I hate to make mountains out of molehills and that is what you did here. Whether you like how I classify thse terms or not be sure that I am not mistaken on this. So please don't say that I am 'confused' about something with such reprimand and then offer up a mistaken view of the issue yourself.
By your definition, English doesn't have any vowels because it has no vocalization marks. In fact, according to your definition most languages have no vowels.
No I did not say that either. Firstly newspapers are written for the public so that generally use words common to the public. Reading Arabic newspapers or other Arabic books without vowels is a daily excercise for the Arabic reader in guessing and intuition. When a writer intends a word that may be confused with another he vowels it.
Newspapers in the US are written on a 5th grade reading level for the general public. Arabic newspapers share the same aspect of being the most inclusive of all Arabic speakers and their different levels of education without sacrificing content or ability to express that content.
Unwoveled texts exist because the public is already generally familiar with the language that is used and expected to be used. Nonetheless, with any unvoweled text there is still room for error.So according to you "unvoweled" (since they don't have vocalization marks) are all texts in most languages apart from some Classical Arabic texts, including the great reading. As for the vowels, they are for the languages that no one is familiar with. This doesn't make any sense.
The unvowled texts of the Koran could exist because most people who read the Koran already had it memorized. Just as with the unvoweled Aramaic targums of Jesus time or unvowled Hebrew religious, or popular texts.
Unvoweled texts of the great reading exist because that is how the great reading has always been, just like the Arabic (and English) newspapers. Sure there is going to be a little ambiguity in some passages but those ambiguities can be resolved in the same way that ambiguity in ALL languages without vocalization marks is resolved, using context. No one ever suggests that unvoweled newspapers exist because most people who read the newspapers already had them memorized, so you can add the above to your long list of extraordinary claims.
The reason why the Koran was written with all of its vowels was to eliminate room for mistakes. With any texts with such importance and where people are intentionally taking into account a variety of interpretations the text needs to be completely voweled.
Yes, vocalization marks REFLECT interpretation.
There you go again with that excuses crap. If your intent is to piss me off, it is working. But I will still answer with as much tact as I can muster.
The Job of a dictionary writer is not to classify all possible Arabic words. Maybe you would have liked that they did a more exhaustive job of elucidating Cl. Arabic grammar. But their job is to take words that are show up the most in the language. If no-one uses or has ever suggested the use of quraan in the sense of 'menses' so that it shows up in literature they would not try to explain the word quraan in the sense of menses.I don't know why you are exagerating the issue and making it seem like I am some kind of an apologist for the dictionaries. I understand that they are mere humans who can err. Why do you feel the need to even say that?
So at least you acknowledge that they could have done a better job in classifying. If usage is the criteria as you say, then they should have classified "quru'a" under QRW because it is used to mean "menses" and that is related to "QRW"/"basin where liquid gathers".
But God can guide the hand of whomever he wants. He guided the tongue of God's messenger Muhammad so that he could recite the Koran. And he guided the tongues of the Kurras well enough so that we can read the Koran with every sound and understand it accurately. I believe that God allowed for those different versions to show that despite human error he can still preserve His message. However, there is more evidence that points the fact that the Kurras perserved the Koran then it having been preserved through written books and scribes.
The God also misguides whom He wants.
Did I every say that QRA' and QRW are th same thing? Never did I say that. I said that they can share forms, that is it. For instance the roots SYD (Noble/superior/lordly) an SWD(black) are distinct in their meanings but they can have overlapping forms, as the weak letters can be mutate when the words are put into forms. Aswad can be Asyad or As'ad, just as sah-eed is sayyid and vice-versa, and ta'eeb=tayyib or taib, ma'eet=mayyit or mait. This has to do with Arabic forms and their relation to each other, not really with the job of the dictionary.
But if we take usage as the criteria then aswad would always be classified under SWD because that is where it is widely used.
Probability does not say anything. The fact that the world came together is not probable but it happened.
Liking the creation of the world to the poems of Imru' Al-Qays would have been funny, if you weren't serious. It shows that no matter what evidence is presented, you are letting your emotions get in the way of objectivity. Serving the Truth requires objectivity.
The creation of the universe predates time and had eternal chances to take place, thus even assuming that the laws of probability applied back then, even a 1 in 100 billion probability is still high if you have infinity for this chance to occur. On the other hand, a 1 in 100 billion chance in the span of 200 years is in the realm of impossibility.
Hmmm. WHy would he compose his poems, that he would present to Northern Tribes, while he lived among Northern tribes in a Northern dialect?
I read the poems and the audience doesn't seem to be other tribes. Also, even according to the hearsay tales, he only left kinda for a short time and he was composing poetry BEFORE he left and many of his poems recount his story after returning to take the leadership of Kinda. Thus, even according to the hearsay that you appeal to, your story doesn't add up.
Listen I need a break from this conversation. Your arguments are based on more assumptioius claims than the extraodinary claims and traditionalist defending attitude that you accuse me of. And its actually starting to serioiusly annoy me. I got banned for expressing my annoyance before, so just give a break. I'm really fed up with your antics right now. So give me some time to gain my composure.
We all don't like annoying others. You would be considerably less annoyed if you don't let your emotions get in the way of objectivity.
You do know that you insist on missing the point? How can I logically come to a common conclusion with you when you continue to base your arguments on assumptions that you consider to be proofs? Then when I ask you a simple question like 'Can you offer evidence of the differences that you speak of between the language of the Hadeeth, the poetries and the Koran' the only thing you can say is that the Hadeeth and the poetries were invented after the Koran.
But you stll have not answered the crux that will solve this issue. I say that the Hadeeth and the pre-Islamic poems are my evidence, obviously talking about the langauge that they use and not the sentiments that they communicate and you say 'Hearsay is not evidence.' You object to the content of the hearsay but won't deal with the real issue; the langauge of the hearsay. Or do you think that they invented the hadeeth and poems in order to create new defintions for the words that they were using, all
(in a loud crescendoing sinister voice) part of some grand plan to corrupt the language and its classification to the point that the Koran would never be understood! Haa! Haa! Haah! Haah! . . .Oh, I'm sorry I got caught up in a cartoon moment there. But my point still stands.
As I said in the article, there is no need for an evil conspiracy. The law of supply and demand negates that. People wanted entertainment and diversion, rulers wanted propaganda, and the clergy wanted power over the people. This created a lot of demand for fabricated meanings that didn't exist before (especially proper names since they are the easiest to conjure up). In modern political lingo, this is called "spinning". But even without "spinning", the natural process of language evolution results in meanings changing and forgotten over the period of a few hundred years between the time of the great reading and the time of later material.
In most cases the original meanings remained. An example is "makkat"/destruction/wearing down remaining despite the corrupted proper name that was invented later. In a few cases, such as "shahr", the original meaning did not remain and was forgotten, however with a little research, one can easily figure out the original meaning from the etymology and dictionaries are valuable tools in that regards. So don't throw out your dictionaries, just use them while knowing their purpose and limitations. That is true for any tool.
Whether it is hearsay or not doesn't matter. Don't you see that? We are dealing with the language not the content. Who makes poems to intentionally corrupt they language that they speak and understand? Why are you confusing the issues, and impeding the resolution of this issue?
Evolution of language is as natural as evolution of species. Therefore the language of poems and Hadiths from the Abbasid era reflects the realities of that era and the major turbulent and violent changes that have taken place since the revelation of the great reading.
Ayman I understand that you are anti-traditionalists, and anti-anything that is pro-traditionalists. So I understand why you have to come up with theories that subsititue traditional claims using 'modern' evidence. But you are taking it too far. And just because an idea might be traditional that does not mean that it is wrong, nor are all traditionalist ideas right. But there is merit to some of what traditionalists say. Don't just reject it because it is traditionalist. That is unjust, and does not conisder all evidence.
Our approach should be based on a tradition of "objective truth" and we should be anti any approach based on a tradition of dogmatic and subjective emotions or attachments. If objectivity dictates that I reject false information then I must reject it. It is simple.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Fair enough, I already showed you the following proofs
-
Archeological evidence showing that Arabic was not a language of religion.
-
Archeological evidence that the most reliable and prominent Jahiliya poet is a fictitious character.
-
Specific examples where the great reading doesn't follow Classical Arabic grammar rules.
-
So Arabic wasn't the official religion of Judaism or Christianity, and it wasn't the official religious language of the Nabateans (who it seems were bilingual in Arabic too) but why does that have ramifications on the rest of the non-Nabatean, Non-Jewish and non-Christian Arabs. How is what you said proof?
2.How does archeological evidence point to the most reliable and prominent Jahiliyah Arabic as fictitious? The only conclusion that can lead to that is the assumption that you make that any meaning that is associated with Islam must be a post-koranic invention. Because the word Makkah is used by Muslims to name a city where they make pilgrimage you assume that this meaning really came later, when it could well have also been the pre-Islamic name for the city as well that carried over into Islam. Instread, you should look for evidence that the name Makka was coined in Islamic times for the city, then you would have a case. The skepticism of your archeologists about the pre-Islamic poems is just that, skepticism, not proof. Just because pilgrimage to Makkah and Safa is mentioned does not mean that the poem is post-Koranic, unless you can prove the origin of the pilgrimage that Muslims do now can be dated to post-Koranic times. If you can prove that you have to follow the consistent aspect of the rumor that says that the pilgrimage was actually a pre-Islamic practice that Islam adopted (something probably promoted by the Arab conquistadors.)
-
Please bring out those grammatical errors. You'd be suprised about why those things are considered grammatical errors. It usually has to do with with unfamiliarity with Classical Arabic grammar or Islamic interpreters who disagree with the inferences that such grammatical examples imply. I've seen some of those grammatical errors, they are not errors at all. One error that had to do with Salaat being mentioned as 'asalaata' and zakaat being mentioned in the same grammatical contexts as 'azakaatu.' That would mean that Salaat is emphasized more. A certain scholar found it inappropriate that Salaat be emphasized more than Zakaat and so said that Salaat in that passage is grammatically incorrect. So look at those 'mistakes' carefully. For you they are 'rumored' mistakes. Believe me they are not mistakes at all.
-
Lastly, you believe in the evolution of Classical Arabic (without due evidence) over anything else. So you will not accept the conclusion that Classical Arabic did not evolve based on the linguistic evidence available because to you "all languages evolve over a certain period of time." So you would rather believe that all the Hadeeths and all the poems were clever inventions that merely mock the language of the Koran (which would take some real linguistic genius if the language had really evolved). You have less evidence that the recorders of the hadeeth and the jahilieeyah poems merely copied the language of the Koran (despite the different Arabic langauge that they spoke 150-200 years later) than I do that the language stayed the same. Think about it, you are the one making the extraordinary claim. All I have to say is that I do not believe that Classical Arabic completely evolved due to the linguistic pride of the Arabs that was promoted because of the superior social situation of the Arabs which was enforced by the the Koran and the pre-Islamic poetry (Again you have not shown proof that these poems are fabricated only a myopic skepticism which I'm sure some, but not all, archaelogists endorese.)
-
As for those other specifics, explanations can be given for all of them. According to what you say about the creation of the world I guess it was very probable for the world to come together by complete accident. So I guess you do not believe in God's plan(s) for all things, that is divine intervention, or providence. That the world was formed was not probable, even over millions of years. That gives credence to the fact that God was the force behind the creation of the world, not probability. Understand that probability is only a way for us to realize if there are more chances for a good thing to happen than a bad thing. Despite figuring out the chances, life constantly defies probability and what we don't expect to happen (even using probability) can easily happen. So please don't bring probabiliity into the picture. It doesn't make your case any better. It actually just gives me the impression that you are grasping for straws.
So again do you have proof that the language of the Hadeeth and the Pre-Islamic poetries is different than the language of the Koran?
If you don't have proof of this, then what proof do you have the language evolved as you said? Pointing out the fact that most languages changed over a period of 200 years and stating that evolution is a natural process of languages is not proof of othe evolution of Classical Arabic. It is a hunch, a speculation. It give you reason to find proof but it is not proof in and of itself that Classical Arabic evolved.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Dear progod,
- So Arabic wasn't the official religion of Judaism or Christianity.....
With the way some traditionalists think you might well think that "Arabic" was a religion.
I for one do not understand why you raise this point at all. Arabic was not the official language of any of those religions; it was not a religious language at all up to the point of the Koran.
If you believe it was the official language of any religion before Islam then it is up to you to provide the proof.
2..... Instread, you should look for evidence that the name Makka was coined in Islamic times for the city, then you would have a case.
Is the name Makkah used at all for any city in the Hijaz prior to Islam?
I don't think there is evidence of any such city existing beforehand.
What is illuminating is the fact that the name of "Yathrib" was changed over to "Madina" only because the reading talks about "madina" which simply means 'city' - any city; but the traditionalists usurped the title by changing the name of Yathrib to this alleged Koranic name when it is not in fact a name. What was the motivation? Could there be an ulterior motive? Of course there can.
Why was the name "Yathrib" not used in the reading then?
The skepticism of your archeologists about the pre-Islamic poems is just that, skepticism, not proof. Just because pilgrimage to Makkah and Safa is mentioned does not mean that the poem is post-Koranic, unless you can prove the origin of the pilgrimage that Muslims do now can be dated to post-Koranic times. If you can prove that you have to follow the consistent aspect of the rumor that says that the pilgrimage was actually a pre-Islamic practice that Islam adopted (something probably promoted by the Arab conquistadors.)
If there are poems mentioning a pilgrimage to Makkah and Safa that indeed predate Islam then one has to ask, who was performing these rites? Was it monotheists or idolators? The present rituals performed in Makkah are veiled idolatrous practices. This point does not help your case at all.
- .... So please don't bring probabiliity into the picture. It doesn't make your case any better. It actually just gives me the impression that you are grasping for straws.
Anwar I think you're looking in the mirror here. Ayman has shown clearly that the "ImrulQays" character is a person who lived much earlier and was adapted fictionally to have lived later. If that is not clear to you as being a reasonable conclusion then I would seriously question whether it is sane debating with you at all.
To dismiss the probabilistic argument by throwing in a red herring, shows the weakness of your defence.
So again do you have proof that the language of the Hadeeth and the Pre-Islamic poetries is different than the language of the Koran?
If you don't have proof of this, then what proof do you have the language evolved as you said? Pointing out the fact that most languages changed over a period of 200 years and stating that evolution is a natural process of languages is not proof of othe evolution of Classical Arabic. It is a hunch, a speculation. It give you reason to find proof but it is not proof in and of itself that Classical Arabic evolved.
Just ask yourself whether Arabic as a language has evolved? There are multitudes of varieties in the modern world with some variations being almost mutually unintelligible. So evolution of languages happens.
When you say Classical Arabic you are creating a somewhat artificial demarcation. As long as people continue to speak and use a language it will evolve. That's a truth that no linguist will even question.
If you are saying that there is a version of Arabic - a classical arabic that has ceased to be spoken at some stage and was frozen then you might argue that version hasn't changed. At what point was Classical Arabic frozen?
But the problem with that is that, while it was used - and that seems to have occurred for many hundreds of years - it would most certainly have evolved.
The next problem is that unless one had full documentation of the language at that point of freezing then the time that passes between its common use and its subsequent future study becomes a reason why original meanings are obscured or lost.
Peace.
-
Salaams ,
i was going to do what sabo just did , but then i checked up the meaning of Tharaba in qd,To blame ,find fault with.
Try puting this in the ayat and according to the context , Yathrib wasn't , i believe a name of a town as such but the pagans used this first as it SOUNDS " O people of yathrib BETTER". and then/now are using Madina instead .
WITH THE QD's MEANING -" O people of blame (there is) no stand for you therefore go back and ask for permision e.t.c"
Sounds okay with the meaning!?
I wonder if there was ever a yathrib before the quran!?
Salaams.
-
Peace truth,
You asked
Why was the name "Yathrib" not used in the reading then?
Who said that? check 3313
Best regards,
saboPeace sabo,
Thank you for pointing it out. I realised that it was likely a case sensitive search was the reason for my failure to find it.
And if nothing it's raised it for discussion. I wonder if Ayman would agree with mz357's view of 'ahla yathriba' to be 'people of blame' or 'people of fault'; it's addressing the hypocrites.
I am leaning towards this understanding also.
Regards.
-
Dear all,
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would they blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
When you say Classical Arabic you are creating a somewhat artificial demarcation. As long as people continue to speak and use a language it will evolve. That's a truth that no linguist will even question
But it can stay the same in certain circles. Classical Arabic did evolve where it made everyday contact with Persians and Arameans, those are the colloquials. But it stayed the same in isolated areas and among those people who wanted to uphold the linguistic tradition of Arabic.
There are two theories among linguists on language evolution. Some think that a language will evolve even if it is isolated. Whereas others believe that a language will only change when it can draw from the expression of another language.
In isolated areas Classical Arabic would not have changed at all. In the past many bedouin tribes (even 300 years after the Koran) still would have spoken the same language as the Koran. As well, those who committed themselves to pride in the Arabic language of Muhammad's day and the pre-Islamic poems would have preserved their language.
I understand that certain additions in the language would have occurred. But I am of the opinion that the Arabs who sought to preserve their language or who were very isolated would have done so sufficiently even over 300 years.
I understand that you are taking into consideration what you think is a linguistic fact, but it is not as much of a fact as you think. English has evolved from the 1700's in the area where it came into contact with other langauges (Deep South (african languages & Romance languages and Native languages) etc. In the 18 hundreds there were numerous evolutions of English due to the high influence of languages in the South and the West (Native American languages. And that was only a period of 100 or so years. But among the isolated English and among the upper class who sought to preserve English, it has stayed the same in how it uses its words and the grammar that it uses. There have been additional vocabulary but they can all be dated so that they wont be mistakenly read into early works. That is the only way in which the language of the 1700's and now has changed, but it is not a real change and therefore not an evolution.
So if there are isolated peoples (in this case certain bedouins) and a class of people with linguistic pride who seek to preserve their language (the poets and qurras and those who admired them and kept in their company) then the languages evolution can easily be halted.
Where isolation was not a factor and where people didn't particularly care to preserve the Arabic of Muhammad's day the language did evolve. The product of this evolution with dialects of Aramean, Persian, Arabic and later on Turkish are the Arabic colloquials of the Levant. However the same Classical Arabic that was officially codified by around 1000 A.D. has been the same from that time up until the 1900's, as a matter of fact up until now in 2005. So where is the language evolution there.
Only when foreigners live among each other and exert no effort in preserving tjheir respective languages does language evolve. Additonial names for new events or new phenomena is not evolution.
If you are saying that there is a version of Arabic - a classical arabic that has ceased to be spoken at some stage and was frozen then you might argue that version hasn't changed. At what point was Classical Arabic frozen?
The next problem is that unless one had full documentation of the language at that point of freezing then the time that passes between its common use and its subsequent future study becomes a reason why original meanings are obscured or lost.
But you can't say that an original meaning was lost until you have sufficient evidence to say that the subsequent language is not the original language. You can speculate that certain meanings were lost but what proof do you have of that.
But you can't prove that any word of Classical Arabic changed in meaning or lost a meaning from the time of the Koran until the time of the Hadeeth.
It is only a hunch that you and Ayman have based on your belief that the language had to have naturally evolved, completely and entirely, from the time of the Koran up to the time of the Hadeeth. And it did evolve in city areas where foreigners met with the only goal in mind of communication.However, amidst the company of the qurras, the rawis and the bedouins the language that they learned from their forefathers of Muhammad's day was viewed as a preferable language and so they made sure to preserve their ability to use and understand that language. The books didn't come about until later, but their efforts and isolation alone is enough to defy evolution even over 300 years within their circles. Once the books were written and the groundworks set it slowly became a language that was only taught in schools and by tutors. When it fathers and mothers no longer spoke their kids in this language and it was only taught in school, then it was frozen in the sense of not even being able to take additional meanings for new phenomena and events.
Anwar I think you're looking in the mirror here. Ayman has shown clearly that the "ImrulQays" character is a person who lived much earlier and was adapted fictionally to have lived later. If that is not clear to you as being a reasonable conclusion then I would seriously question whether it is sane debating with you at all.
No, he presented a theory, which you like. I see the reasonability behind it if you think probability accurately relflects the events of life. But it doesn't. It reminds me of those people who say, with conviction, that the lunar cycles is 28.5 days. That is an average of all of the lunar cycles that are sometimes 28, sometimes 29 and sometimes 30. The probabilities can be slim and the thing can still happen. That the second Imrul-qays could have descended from the first actually makes the second Imrul-qays more likely. People frequently name their children after admirable forefathers. The similarity does not say that one negates the other. and animosity between tribes can last for generations. That an Imrul-Qays named after a great king that is a forefather of his defeats a rival tribe that has been a rival for generations is not exactly an impossible thing or even far-fetched. I'm sure there has been embellishment in the poem as that happens even for real kings and their deeds but that does not say that the poems is an invention. Those embellishments could have been embellishments from before. But that doesn' t even matter because the embellisher would have been so familiar with the language that he inherited from his father's father's father that he is still a credible source for even his great-great grandfather's language.
To dismiss the probabilistic argument by throwing in a red herring, shows the weakness of your defence.
It doesn't suprise me that you say that after my comments in the past posts. Red herrings are frequent in life, if a red herring troubles your theory then you have to admit that your theory may not be correct, and is not exactly concrete proof. I think the red herring is likely, so I reject the theory. You think that it is not likely. So that evidence is proof of the post-Koranic origin of the Jahiliyah poems, because of the red herring (as you say) it is not proof to me of the fictitious nature of these poems (which to me is not even the issue) or the post-koranic origin of these poems.
If there are poems mentioning a pilgrimage to Makkah and Safa that indeed predate Islam then one has to ask, who was performing these rites? Was it monotheists or idolators? The present rituals performed in Makkah are veiled idolatrous practices. This point does not help your case at all
So if the idolaters made the pilgrimage and the poets are reciting idolotrous poems of Muhammad's day how does that undermine the linguistic worth of those poems? What case of mine does this not help?
I also believe that the pilgrimage peformed in Makkah are remnants of the culture of the pre-Islamic Arabs, whether they were idolators or not. It was more a cultural union where Arabs came to unite with each other and pay homage to what they valued, be that God or idols that represented different things. A familiar thing among traditional relgiions is idols they are worshipped publicly but they reprsent things. Just as a plaque that says ALLAH represents God. But when the plaque becomes the revered thing instead of what it says then idolatry is in effect. The plaque becomes an idol. The more the Koran becomes less and less understood by people the more it has a chance of becoming an idol as well. People put it on altars already. They kiss it already and there are already people who have lost touch with what it really is and is for. It would not suprise me for instance if a giant plaque,made of marble, were constructed and embellished with the entire Koran on it. With Muslims current blind belief that the Koran is the word of God (without even studying it to verify that) and what they believe about the blessings that come when it is recited or is in their presence the Koran could easily become an idol.I said all that to say that the idolatry that was going on in Makkah and the famous temple there, even with statues and the black rock in it (a beautiful work of God) would have been of the same nature. None of them worshippers there would have denied God or him being the Supreme Being and the Creator, but all of these representations became more important. Just as the adoration for Muhammad at his tomb (God bless im) in Medina can overshadow the purpose of the mosque and the purpose of what a reminder of Muhammad (God's messenger) should provoke.
I personally think that the mandates in the Koran about pilgrimage apply to all Sanctuaries/Holy temples throughout the world that are built for the worship of God. Sanctuaries are holy temples, and they are God's houses only when God is the main focus despite what its parishioners may say. If Muhammad and his people worked to purify the famous holy temple in Makkah through the ideas that the Koran promoted that was a good thing. That famous temple, like the Mosque in Medina, despite the idolatry there, was a place where people could still come to worship God.
But whereas the Arabs naturally would have continued to make a pilgrimage there (it being a grand focal point for the Arabs of that region), it was not the only place where they could have made pilgrimage to. If they knew of a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue of the right mind they could have made a pilgrimage there too. However, as the Arabs became the conquistadors of that part of the world and as they spread their cultural and ethnic pride to other lands it is obvious that they would have kept up the promotion of pilgrimage to the Holy Temple in Mecca, as that would keep them in the lime-light as a culture so great that a centre that represented their origins and homeland must be visited and and respects payed there.
As for Mecca and Medina. It is documented that Medina was a later name given to the city called Yathrib. They did not call it Medina because the Koran mentions the word Medina. They called it Al-Medina to honor it. Al-Medinah can mean 'The City' in the sense of someone being praised by being called 'The Man.'
Meccah name is pre-Islamic. There is a greek source I think Homer that says that there is a city called Macaroba that is also a place of pilgrimage for the Arabs. It is easy to see how Maca + Roba could be a greek corruption of some epithet of the city where Makkat is mentioned first. It is feasibly a corruption of a much longer epithet that includes Maca (Makkah) Makkatu Arrubaa could be the original epithet or it could be some other that was corrupted. But it is defintely not far-fetched to consider that Maca comes from Makkatu and Roba comes from some other Arabic word.
Godbless,
Anwar -
GOd bless all,
I said the below
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would they blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
What I meant was
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would HE blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
Godbless,
Anwar -
The probabilities can be slim and the thing can still happen. That the second Imrul-qays could have descended from the first actually makes the second Imrul-qays more likely. People frequently name their children after admirable forefathers. The similarity does not say that one negates the other. and animosity between tribes can last for generations. That an Imrul-Qays named after a great king that is a forefather of his defeats a rival tribe that has been a rival for generations is not exactly an impossible thing or even far-fetched.
What you are saying is even less possible because the inscription is North Arabian and the information in it refers to North Arabian events. On the other hand, the alleged poet is South Arabian and his alleged tribe and the alleged tribe that he defeated is South Arabian. I don't know why you have a thing for Imru' Al-Qays where you defy all odds and objectivity to defend his existence at any cost.
Your problem is that you are trying to build your religion based on "literature" whose purpose is entertainment.
What difference does it make to you if he was a legend told by the Abassid era storytellers? From a purely literary point of view his poems and story are still fun to read.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
God bless you Ayman,
What you are saying is even less possible because the inscription is North Arabian and the information in it refers to North Arabian events. On the other hand, the alleged poet is South Arabian and his alleged tribe and the alleged tribe that he defeated is South Arabian. I don't know why you have a thing for Imru' Al-Qays where you defy all odds and objectivity to defend his existence at any cost.
Well that does change it up and makes my opinion totally inappropriate. However, you shoudl understand that it is not that I'm trying to "defy all odds of objectivity or to defend his existence at any cost," as you say. I'm trying to let you understand that the existence of this second Imrul-Qays is possible. All you can really say is that 'It is most likely that 'Imrul-Qays' of the Jahiliyah poems didn't really exist.' If the evidence suggest that to you (note that i said suggest) than instead of stating it like a hard fact like you do, you need to be open to the fact that these things that you are presenting are just theories. Don't expect me to take them as hard facts when they are just theories. Despite the theories about whether the stories about this individual is real or not this does not necessarily prove that the story did not come from the Jahiliyah era, or for that matter, that the language of the poems is an invalid representative of the language of Muhammad's time.
Questions still pop up into my mind like "What if the fabrication was a pre-Islamic fabrication?" "Or, particularly a fabrication that occured during or shortly after Muhammad's time?" In that case it is still representative of the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I am not really arguing a case for whether the content of the poems is true or not. What I'm arguing is whether or not they stand as valid representatives of the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I think they do. And I don't think that arguing about the truth of the poems means that these poems are post-koranic or whether or not they are valid representatives of the language of Muhammad's day. Or that arguing about the truth of the hadeeths has anything to do with whether or not the language of the Hadeeth represents the same Arabic as the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I do think that the situations presented after the death of Muhammad allowed for the preservation of the language that Muhammad spoke as well as allowing for the evolution of that language in city areas amongst people that had no reason to keep speaking the way their fathers did. Some of that evolution had already taken place in the areas of the ghassanids and the lakhmis to my knowledge, during Muhammad's time. Creole languages had already devoloped between Arabic and Aramean (the Nabateans were probably the first with this) and Arabic and Persian.
Just for pondering's sake, can you tell me the likelihood of an Aramean/Aramaic Imrul-Qays? I mean unless they were writing Arabic in Nabatean script something seems fishy to me. It seems fishy to me because Nabatean is an Aramaic/Aramean language and Imrul-Qays is obviously an truly Northern/Central Arabic name. But didn't you say that a similarity between the first Imrul-Qays and the second is that they came from the tribes of Kinda? Or is this just a mistake on my part. If it is I apologize for confusing that.
I'm not arguing whether these poems are wholly factual, or fictitious for that matter as that is not the real issue. Its fictitious character could have been acquired before or during Muhammad's times just as well as after his time.
I think I demonstrated well the fact that it is just as likely for certain Islamic practices to have pre-koranic origins just as well as post-koranic origins. We need to look for clues as to when and where these practices or meanings of words are coined to say that they are post-koranic innovations. All the literature is pretty consistent on the pilgrimage to Makkah being a cultural phenomenon of the pre-Koranic Arabs. If you want classify the practice as idolatrous because of that (as Truth does) you can go ahead and do that, but I would not take it that far.
I think the important parts to understand when it comes to this particular pilgrimage, Makkah and the Koran are the following things
- The Koran tells us to make pilgrimage to His House, and to Holy Temples/Sanctuaries or Al-Masjidul-Haraam. Both of these can be collective as well as singular, that is fact. So I think that it was only natural that the Arab conquerers (who in my mind and other historians' minds didn't really represent the religion that Muhammad preached through the Koran, but who were on a roll at that time) start highlighting their temple as if it were the only House of God and the only Holy Temple/Sanctuary. That factor of divinity gave them the cultural upperhand that they needed to continue their rule.
That however, I admit is my theory on the issue. Although I think it is quite likely that it happened like this. The divine character of the Arabs soon came under scrutiny by other cultures, especially the Persians, as these cultures became Muslim and expected to be treated as equals. I do not think that it is improbable or unlikely that Muhammad also made pilgrimage to this house and did it in the way that his people did it (the way that he knew how). However, I don't think that it was so full of idols like the Hadeeths potray it. Even if it were, and I am wrong, I do not think that the culture of the Arabs (as opposed to the Christians who make God equal to His messenger) would have allowed for these idols to be the central theme of their Temple. It shows in the Koran that they readily agreed to the existence of God and his power, and that they thought that the angels were God's daughters. As far as we know Al-laat, al-Uzaa and Al-Ukhraa (All feminine and attested to in the Koran) were considered angels by them, despite whether or not they were also viewed as gods or not.
All of these names also have Classical Arabic meanings and can be likened to someone considering "Lady Wisdom" as one of God's angels. A study of primitive cultures and their gods will show that these gods were gods only because they were revered for the power that they represented or possessed, but they were never made equal to God. God is often just said to be far removed from the world. These cultures many times disregarded God and regarded the other things that they revered more than God. It would be the same as asking Gabriel (God bless him) for help without taking into account that Gabriel acts on behalf of God, always.
Trinitarians try to shadow God out too by actually giving Jesus (God bless him) all of God's power, despite what their books actually say. They took the game to a whole new level in my opinion.- As it concerns Makkah. I understand that the word has meanings that refer to concepts and not a place. Those meanings are 'Destruction/Sucking/Sucking dry, Lacking water etc.' However, just because it has these meanings does not mean that the Arabs didn't use it to also refer to the city of Mecca. Look at it like the phrase 'The Big Apple.' I can distinguish it from 'the big apple' as in 'a particular apple' by using capitals when I write it, but you can't do this in Arabic script or when you say it in English for that matter. In Arabic it would be 'atuh-fatul-kabeeratu.' I look at the the passage in the Koran as having a lesser meaning and a greater, more encompassing meaning.
For instance, lets take the passage " There was a man walking through the bustling city of New York eating a pretty sizeable apple. While walking he was struck by a thought and paused in the middle of the big apple, despite the overwhelming crowds around him."
Now if I were saying these lines some of you might think I meant that the man stopped in his tracks, and would think that I mean the city by 'the big apple.' Others might think I actually mean that the man stopped eating the apple while right in the middle of it. The truth is, I can mean either one. If I were telling a story just to narrate a happening it wouldn't really matter. Later clues would probably clear it up, or prove that it is a trivial part of the story and can be disregarded. But if the author intends to make you think he can validly mean both things.
- That is the way that I look at Makkah when I see it in the Koran. The Koran tells us to read and to take the best interpretation. So it knows that the language that it is using allows for different interpretations. There is no reason to try to say that Makkah only means one thing in Classical Arabic; either Mecca the place or one of the ideas that it is defined as. It can mean both, in the Koranic passage as well. However, when we read that passage, to read Makkah as destruction carries a bigger and better meaning that envelops its meaning of Makkah.
Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran
Yeah, God may well have held back His loyalists and his disloyalists from each other in the middle of Makkah (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata ) but I think the main point is that he held back His loyalists and His disloyalists from each other while in the midst of true destruction. (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata )They were annihilating each other and God held both sides back. But even more encompassing than that meaning is that God's loyalists understand that would God hold us back from our enemies and/or vice-versa in the mist of certain destruction, afterwards
he will give us the victory. He will see everything we do. (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran)Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaams all,
A new vew
2185
(lanes and qd)
Shahr-un = He paraded(an offender)as a public example.
= new moon
=month
Shahra = devuldgeAnd ayman said
I looked up the word "shahr" in the dictionary (Lisan Al-3arab) and it doesn't seem to mean "month", "30 consecutive days", or "30 intermittent days". The primary meaning is "something obvious", "something public", and "something wide". It is also reported in the dictionary that the Arabs used to call the moon "shahr". In modern Arabic, someone "mashhur" is a public celebri
The meaning one way is by comparission of rahman and ramdzan
Rahima=To love/have tenderness/have mercy/pity/forgiveness???.
Rahman=One having the above qualities.Simerlarly
Ramidza=something becoming intensely hot, ? by the action of the sun /or by hot stones /or by a fire/ ,or something beaten between two stones to sharpen it.
Simerlarly
Ramdzan=One having the above qualities
Another meaning from lanes
Ramdzan=One of the names of God =He who obliterates sins.
Ramadzun= distress and disquietude, or grief as a consequence of some of our actions.2185
of your parading obliterate sins those revealed in it the quran a guidance for mankind and clear proofs of the guidance and the criterion ,who whosoever witnesses amongst you such parading he should fast(remove/ expunge) it and whosoever is sick or on journey (the same) number of days other wants Allah for you ease and not want for you hardship so that you complete the number and that you should magnify Allah on that he guided you so that you may give thanks.And from my other post a fast has nothing at all to do with food and drink.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3506
Salaams.
-
In Muheetul-muheet it defintes month as 1 part out of twelve parts in a year. I'll have my results in a little bit.
Also not to attack buy Ayman I always found your idea bout the difference between 'iddat and adad very weak. But I'll get back to you on all that.
Godbless,
ProGod