The Ten readings

ayman

I agree with brother Anwar that you might get a biased answer because people here are already familiar with the passage. What you can do is give people Arabic texts without vocalization marks that they have never read before. For example, give them early Arabic manuscripts to read (all early Arabic manuscripts didn't have vocalization marks). I already gave the following link to brother Anwar

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/

You can see many documents there such as

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/enlp12.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/enlp13.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/enlp14.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/enlp15.html

If you can read the above ancient documents that have no vocalization marks, then you must agree that vocalization marks had very low functional load back then. This is an empirically verifiable fact that you can experience for yourself no matter what people say.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Salaam all,

Bro AB, could you please translate the arabic articles you posted? My arabic is read only (

Quran verse 4144

I can "read" the above verse.

But I cannot "read" the latter one.

My question for those who speak arabic (it has nothing to do with verse 4144)

Which text do you prefer to read?
How much can the latter cause divergencies among the readers?

Good Morning Andy

It is 530 AM sydney time and I promise i will translate it in the bery near future, as i have been flat out, the article is simple refuting the Sabin and Sabun alleged grammar error, and the one who wrote the article is a top class arabic language professional as well a minister in the egyptian government, please be patiet with me and i will translate

regarding your question or which one is easier to read, mate, an arabic native speaker can read both with ease, in fact a native arabic speaker does not need the tashkil to read arabic, the context can be used to figure out the pronounciation

cheers

unknownuser

Danish Who's talking about certainty in what only 'islamic scholars' has to say? Perhaps your question needs rephrasing and the answer an elaborated one, but I will summarize.

Great. Here's an example instead
DanishBoth Islamic tradition and Western scholars agree that there was no complete collection of the revelation during the Prophet's lifetime, but there were fragments of all kinds of material, on which parts of the messages were recorded.

You conveniently added my name to someone else?s quote I provided. That was a reference to ?check it out? for which I gave the link, in case you didn?t bother to check it out. That was just one link and several other findings point in the same direction. Besides, if it wasn?t for the worldly scholars and other scientists and historians of both past and present to bring about such discourses in evaluating and determining the development of Quran, where else would you look for? Would you expect any Tom, Dick and Harry on streets to give you answers?

I ask you, why do you believe this 'islamic tradition and western scholars'? If al-quraan were to deny this allegation, whom would you believe and why?

Once again, you misquote and twist words. First you ask me a question to ascertain ?certainty? having ONLY the words ?islamic scholars? as in If you don't accept Al-quraan's allegations, what makes you so certain of what 'islamic scholars' say? and then you twist around to add ?western scholars? and remove the word ?certain?, as in I ask you, why do you believe this 'islamic tradition and western scholars'? If al-quraan were to deny this allegation, whom would you believe and why?. You not only make yourself confused but twist and play games with words to bring about further confusion.

Now the other part of your question which states
If al-quraan were to deny this allegation, whom would you believe and why?
Deny what allegation, such as?

Being 'antique' as you put it doesn't make something 'historical' (if by historical you mean its content points to a narrative prior to ourselves).

Antique Belonging to, made in, or typical of an earlier period. Of or belonging to ancient times.
Historical Of or relating to the character of history. Based on or concerned with events in history.

Antique and historical are symmetrically and synonymously interlocked. What are you talking about and why such deviations from subject matter, nitpicking on words? Do you have anything substantial to talk about?

Would you call a maths book from the 1950s to be 'historical'? In the same way, al-quraan deals with constants but uses unseen narratives (nabaaul ghaib) to convey its points.

Comparing a math book to a religious book is baseless and unwarranted, rather a dodo. You might as well believe in code 19, code 7, code 666, etc. An event, circumstance or an order/command in quran are not constants (once again depending on what verses you pick and choose) but 2+2=4, square root of 9 = 3, 2 to the power 3 = 8, are. Your understanding of Quran is [minus (?) LOL to the power 10) is variable.

Must be studied? That's a personal judgement. The book itself clearly repudiates any such attempts.
And the book itself asks to verify the self ?authenticated repudiated attempts, which brings the whos, hows and whats of it. Notice the contradiction.

I'm sure it was, but it asserts to its reader that it alone is enough to fulfil its mission. How someone else understood it isn't my business, especially if that person's dead and I have no way of knowing if that person really did understand it as such.

Any similar books or handful of books (historical or recent) can be read, understood and reflected upon to fulfill ones? mission. NO biggie there. I?m sorry to say, the entire Quran is not by any means for all times and one can extract plentiful of verses out this antique book put together by men, only to find its relations to our times.

May I ask you, which VERSION of the meccan/medinan scheme are you picking from? You know that there are many. No need to dig deep, just look at Von Denfer's 'ulum al-quraan' and you'll see the many versions.

Do you even know which surahs are Meccan and which are Medinan? Do you know that in Meccan surahs there are Medinian verses mixed in and vise-versa? Do you also know that the entire Quran is a mish-mash of its literal presentation, meaning not consistent with its precise revelation? And finally, do you know that even the message has the implications of being altered by the very men who took efforts to put the methods of its collection and compilation in a book form, by its very grammatical lexicography, vocalization and vowelizing?

Correction What I do is read al-quraan as if its being revealed to me today. Whatever I read are signs which point to signs in my horizon and my self. This is what gives me faith in the book, its continous connection to a reality of a person a human author could never have known.

That is your dogmatic and corrupted view. Faith and belief in truth is not dependent entirely on Quran. As mentioned earlier, one can pick and choose the phrases and sentences out of any historical/antique book and make it happen. It is as simple as that.

If you mean 'man-authored', then I respect your assertion but I ask you to look over your analysis if you like. It's making some unfounded assumptions.

I have read studied and exercised much reason and logic as to what Quran is all about, both internally and externally. Quran IS and will remain man-authored in which it speaks. There?s no doubt about it and there?s nothing you or anyone can do about that, but live your ?divine wonderland? in blind faith. Enough said.

Finally, if one were to collect and collate some of most beautiful wisdom quotes in a book form, it will become far, far superior to Quran. A thousand years from now people may call such a book, GOD?s Words. Do you know why this book will exceed in its superiority over Quran???

mquran

DanishYou conveniently added my name to someone else?s quote I provided.

ADD your name? YOU quoted it!
Try to be reponsible. If you quote it, then please don't expect to not be associated with it.

That was a reference to ?check it out? for which I gave the link, in case you didn?t bother to check it out. That was just one link and several other findings point in the same direction. Besides, if it wasn?t for the worldly scholars and other scientists and historians of both past and present to bring about such discourses in evaluating and determining the development of Quran, where else would you look for? Would you expect any Tom, Dick and Harry on streets to give you answers?

Ah, the new Sunnism rears its head!

Sunnis If you don't learn from the scholars of Islamica, how can you understand al-quraan?

Danish If you don't learn from the 'both muslim and western scholars', how can you know of the historicity of al-quraan (as per Danish's 'This book's "origin" must be studied and acknowledged in order to comprehend the who's, how's and what's of it back then, only to read, understand and reflect upon it.)

Well, Al-quraan has set out for its reader a method of acquisition of meaning. Your biasness prevents you from accepting it.

Once again, you misquote and twist words. First you ask me a question to ascertain ?certainty? having ONLY the words ?islamic scholars? as in If you don't accept Al-quraan's allegations, what makes you so certain of what 'islamic scholars' say? and then you twist around to add ?western scholars? and remove the word ?certain?, as in I ask you, why do you believe this 'islamic tradition and western scholars'? If al-quraan were to deny this allegation, whom would you believe and why?. You not only make yourself confused but twist and play games with words to bring about further confusion

A typical Danish response. If you can't answer Danish, just say so.

Fact remains You accept your quote. You do not accept Al-quraan's rejection of your quote. I ask Why?

Can you let the discussion be about knowledge as opposed to being an exercise in your ego's aggrandisement?

Deny what allegation, such as?

Well for one thing, the study of its 'historicity'. It clearly asserts that it's detailed and that no other text is necessary for its acceptance and conveyance of its guidance.

Antique Belonging to, made in, or typical of an earlier period. Of or belonging to ancient times.
Historical Of or relating to the character of history. Based on or concerned with events in history.

Antique and historical are symmetrically and synonymously interlocked. What are you talking about and why such deviations from subject matter, nitpicking on words? Do you have anything substantial to talk about?

Well then, if you apply the adjective 'historical' to al-quraan, you would be wrong because al-quraan asserts that it's contains the mentioning of its reader (see 21/10, look for phrase 'dhikrkum&#039.

Comparing a math book to a religious book is baseless and unwarranted, rather a dodo. You might as well believe in code 19, code 7, code 666, etc. An event, circumstance or an order/command in quran are not constants (once again depending on what verses you pick and choose) but 2+2=4, square root of 9 = 3, 2 to the power 3 = 8, are. Your understanding of Quran is [minus (?) LOL to the power 10) is variable.

Good, stick to the ad homoniems. You're best at that. Give up the polemic game and go do stand up. The guy pelting tomatos at you would be me.

I used mathematics to build the following analogy
Mathematics contains a set of propositions given the right conditions, are true any time and any place.
Al-quraan contains a set of proposition about the human condition that are just as true at any time and place.

Any similar books or handful of books (historical or recent) can be read, understood and reflected upon to fulfill ones? mission. NO biggie there. I?m sorry to say, the entire Quran is not by any means for all times and one can extract plentiful of verses out this antique book put together by men, only to find its relations to our times

If you don't get it, that's fair enough. I'm quite tickled though, by how you keep quoting suralikeit.com but don't know a single word of its content. I hear the sound of scraping....

I have read studied and exercised much reason and logic as to what Quran is all about, both internally and externally. Quran IS and will remain man-authored in which it speaks. There?s no doubt about it and there?s nothing you or anyone can do about that, but live your ?divine wonderland? in blind faith. Enough said.

Ok, peace in your journey. A word of advice, when you read al-quraan, open your eyes. Asking questions about inheritance laws betrays a pathetic analysis.

Finally, if one were to collect and collate some of most beautiful wisdom quotes in a book form, it will become far, far superior to Quran. A thousand years from now people may call such a book, GOD?s Words. Do you know why this book will exceed in its superiority over Quran???

I don't dwell in thousand-year scenario but I can see why you do and follow 'both muslim and western scholars'. You can't think for yourself. Oh well, good luck to you.

progod

Sometimes I'll write a beautiful reply and something goes wrong and I have to write it over again. Something I know will not be as good as the first. This happened to me yesterday when I was responding to Ayman. So I'm going to suck it up and try to write something that somewhat resembles what I wrote before.

I'm just going to make some points on where I disagree with you

now one is trying to say that other languages need case endings because they don't have them. All I'm saying is that Old-Arabic had them and you can't disprove that.
Old Arabic is Traditionial Classical Arabic and it is not pretentious just because pretentious scholars are mostly the ones who utilize this language.
Just because a text doesn't write vowels is not proof that they don't exist. In the word kasara there are no fat-has written in the Arabic but you still say them. So how is it that you would try to prove that the word is just kasar when the two fathas that you pronouce aren't written either. Don't you think that that is hypocritical and intellectual dishonest?
Pointing to the early history of a script when it was still developing and didn't even have way to distinguish non-vowel consonants like 'ra' and 'za' or 'jeem', 'haa' and 'meem' is only going to undermine your points and your opinion in the eyes of those who know better. In those old scripts that you point to as proof that there were no case endings in Arabic there is also no difference between khalaq or halaqa, because there were no dots to distinguish the jeem, or khaas. So would you conclude that the reading of khalaqa is really halaqa in Old-Arabic? Why do you use their oe-side, biased conclusion to try to prove wrong points?
The corruption of Classical Arabic into dialects and even Modern Classical Arabic is a reduction of the words into roots, using foreign or simple forms. So of course if you know how to read and are familiar with alot of Arabic roots (from your colloquial or from a dictionary) you can figure out what those old texts are saying. But what I don't understand is why you are exposing those facts that I just put above? The fact that old texts habitually didn't use dots to distinguish between key letters. There was no way to recognize the difference between qaf and fa either.

Now if I saw a texts that say Alllah khala(mystery letter)man. I could understand it from context as 'God created creation.' but I could als interpret it as 'God will take man's place.' Yeah you can guess, and some people can guess write, but reading is not about figuring out how to guess right which is why the Arabic texts developled to be able to write vowels, especially to keep people from trying to mistinerpret the Quran on purpose because of a lack of clarity in the Arabic writing system.

Whether you would like to believe it or not Arabic in its early stages was preserved through oral traditons (Quran memorization schools), poetry schools, etc. old-Arabic speech always had case endings and vowels. The grammarians did their best to classify the rules of this language but just because they were subject to make mistakes doesn't mean that their works shouldn't be trusted or was fabricated (only to be imitated by later scholars). Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Last but no leastly, I wonder if you are doing this so that you can open up the Quran to purposeful distortion, or if the idea that the Arabic of Old is not the Arabic of now disturbs your sense of nationality and of belonging to a long, preserved tradition of Arabic, because you find these case endings foreign, alien or frustrating.

Old Arabic depending on these case endings, and that has nothing to do with Hebrew or Aramaic or any other semetic language. Amaharic uses vowels and its a semtic language as well. The writing of Arabic came out of an elitist writing culture of the Hebrews, where text were memorized and the texts only served as a general guide (most people couln't read anyway). It is because of this Judeo tradition that Arabic doesn't like to use vowels and expects a certain education level and mental acuity of it readers.

Good or bad the possible distortions that can happen in any given text from a reader were eliminated with the Quran an dthat is why it was vowelled completely. But that is the writing system. Old Arabs always spoke with these case endings and vowels, and as Arabic became more influenced by other languages the misunderstading of these case endings became more and more widespread, which is why they are preferably not used, because Modern Arabs often make mistakes with these case endings.

As it concerns Modern Arabic, which is a reduction of Old-Arabic there are two camps. On camp wants Modern Arabic to follow all of the rules, vowel wise as traditional Classical Arabic, this is the traditional camp. The new camp wants to do away with all case endings, and accept all modern meanings. I don't have an opinion of whether this is good or not, but my job is to make clear the difference between pure Old-Arabic, Traditional Classical Arabic, Modern Classical Arabic and Colloquials. I can see that you have ideas from both of these camps in your head buty you are trying to make modern Classical Arabic, traditial classical Arabic, by denying facts. In doing so, you are trying to change the language by claiming that most of Arabic grammar is a figment of grammarians imaginations. This is wrong. So I will never agree with you, because I know better. I hope no one comes to believe you, and I hope you realize your error.

I know you hate the fact that I use the word 'creole colloquial Arabics', and distinguish it so stronly from Traditional Classical Arabic but your ideas can only be accepted if you deny evidence and I am not willing to do that and will do my bes to make sure people understand what you are hiding to make your conclusions.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

I'm just going to make some points on where I disagree with you

I was hoping that you would have first pointed out the points where we agree. I think that there is probably a lot more that we agree on than what we disagree on.

now one is trying to say that other languages need case endings because they don't have them. All I'm saying is that Old-Arabic had them and you can't disprove that.

First of all, let me say that there is no 100% way to prove your or my assertions because we don't have recordings of people speech from 1400 years ago. We can only make inferences based on the physical evidence to propose various scenarios. At the end, we can only say that a certain scenario is more likely than the other one.

The scenario that Old Arabic and hence the great reading had case endings is disproved by comparing the post-quranic invented Jahilya poetry and the great reading. You see that case endings are an integral part of the rhyme of poetry but not of the great reading. Quite the opposite, you see case endings distracting from the underlying rhyme and eloquent flow of the great reading. So we can conclude that the most likely scenario is that the great reading was vocalized without case endings.

Old Arabic is Traditionial Classical Arabic and it is not pretentious just because pretentious scholars are mostly the ones who utilize this language.

Chapter 55 without the case endings has a naturally flowing recitation with a beautiful rhyme that is appreciated by everyone, even those who don't know Arabic. When you forgo this nicely flowing and smooth recitation for a heavy sounding non-eloquent recitation then this is prententious. In fact, it is so prententious that even pretentious scholars don't do it. Yet here you come and propose that we recite it with the case endings for no reason other than to conform to your idea of how vital case endings were 1400 years ago.

Just because a text doesn't write vowels is not proof that they don't exist. In the word kasara there are no fat-has written in the Arabic but you still say them. So how is it that you would try to prove that the word is just kasar when the two fathas that you pronouce aren't written either. Don't you think that that is hypocritical and intellectual dishonest?

We can equally say that just because the English text doesn't write WA in "once" is no proof that the sound WA doesn't exist. In the word ONCE there is no WA written in small letters over the O but you still say it. So how do you prove that "once" is pronounced WANCE and not O-NCE? Would you accuse me of being "hypocritical and intellectual dishonest" for pronouncing it as WANCE despite the absence of vocalization marks to show us that this is how it is pronounced?

We regularly read Arabic words that don't have vocalization marks and that we have seen for the first time without any difficulty. This is why people didn't write vocalization marks 1400 years ago as evident from manuscripts and they don't write them now. They are cumbersome and useless. The pronounciation can be easily figured out from the context.

Pointing to the early history of a script when it was still developing and didn't even have way to distinguish non-vowel consonants like 'ra' and 'za' or 'jeem', 'haa' and 'meem' is only going to undermine your points and your opinion in the eyes of those who know better. In those old scripts that you point to as proof that there were no case endings in Arabic there is also no difference between khalaq or halaqa, because there were no dots to distinguish the jeem, or khaas. So would you conclude that the reading of khalaqa is really halaqa in Old-Arabic? Why do you use their oe-side, biased conclusion to try to prove wrong points?
The corruption of Classical Arabic into dialects and even Modern Classical Arabic is a reduction of the words into roots, using foreign or simple forms. So of course if you know how to read and are familiar with alot of Arabic roots (from your colloquial or from a dictionary) you can figure out what those old texts are saying. But what I don't understand is why you are exposing those facts that I just put above? The fact that old texts habitually didn't use dots to distinguish between key letters. There was no way to recognize the difference between qaf and fa either.

Now if I saw a texts that say Alllah khala(mystery letter)man. I could understand it from context as 'God created creation.' but I could als interpret it as 'God will take man's place.' Yeah you can guess, and some people can guess write, but reading is not about figuring out how to guess right which is why the Arabic texts developled to be able to write vowels, especially to keep people from trying to mistinerpret the Quran on purpose because of a lack of clarity in the Arabic writing system.

You are mistaken. In the early manuscripts that I showed you there are diacritical dots. For example, you will see that the name "Qr(t)" has two dots on the Q from F. However, what you see is that diacritical dots are added sparingly because they were only used when there is a risk of ambiguity. Do not confuse the issue with the vocalization marks with that of the dotting. In fact, there are pre-quranic inscriptions that have dotting that date as early as 267CE

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/raqush.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/jramm.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/sakaka.html

Whether you would like to believe it or not Arabic in its early stages was preserved through oral traditons (Quran memorization schools), poetry schools, etc. old-Arabic speech always had case endings and vowels. The grammarians did their best to classify the rules of this language but just because they were subject to make mistakes doesn't mean that their works shouldn't be trusted or was fabricated (only to be imitated by later scholars). Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

I have nothing against grammar and I think that it is definitely useful. What I am against is using vocalization marks as the only proof for a certain interpretation regardless of context.

As for "preserving the Arabic language through oral tradition", I don't think that there was a tradition of preserving the sounds of Arabic language no more than there is a tradition of preserving that 'once" is pronounced "wance". People just agree at a certain point of time on a certain standard for communication. We don't even know exactly how the consonantal text sounded. For example, the Q could have been sounded as G so "qalb" (heart) could have been "galb" back then. Similarly, there are indications that the K was sounded as Ch.

Last but no leastly, I wonder if you are doing this so that you can open up the Quran to purposeful distortion, or if the idea that the Arabic of Old is not the Arabic of now disturbs your sense of nationality and of belonging to a long, preserved tradition of Arabic, because you find these case endings foreign, alien or frustrating.

There is no motivation other than finding the most likely scenario.

Old Arabic depending on these case endings, and that has nothing to do with Hebrew or Aramaic or any other semetic language. Amaharic uses vowels and its a semtic language as well. The writing of Arabic came out of an elitist writing culture of the Hebrews, where text were memorized and the texts only served as a general guide (most people couln't read anyway). It is because of this Judeo tradition that Arabic doesn't like to use vowels and expects a certain education level and mental acuity of it readers.

Arabic was written using various scripts such as Nabataen and Musnad scripts long before it became a prestige script. There is no evidence of Arabic being written in Hebrew script.

Other Semitic languages don't use vocalization marks either and rely heavily on consonantal text. For example, you will see that Sabaic and Safaitic are very similar to Arabic in that regards. Also, Western Semitic languages such as Aramaic and Nabataean Aramaic make scarce use of vowels too.

People are able to routinely read Arabic texts that they have seen for the first time without any difficulty regardless of their "education level and mental acuity". This is reality so quit trying to erect a language barrier.

Good or bad the possible distortions that can happen in any given text from a reader were eliminated with the Quran and that is why it was vowelled completely. But that is the writing system. Old Arabs always spoke with these case endings and vowels, and as Arabic became more influenced by other languages the misunderstading of these case endings became more and more widespread, which is why they are preferably not used, because Modern Arabs often make mistakes with these case endings.

Vocalization marks appeared late and were added gradually over the span of hundreds of years. If there was already a system where Old Arabs always spoke with the case endings and vocalization marks, this wouldn't have been so late and gradual. So again the most likely scenario is that the vocalization system underwent gradual development and refinement until it became what it is.

As it concerns Modern Arabic, which is a reduction of Old-Arabic there are two camps. On camp wants Modern Arabic to follow all of the rules, vowel wise as traditional Classical Arabic, this is the traditional camp. The new camp wants to do away with all case endings, and accept all modern meanings. I don't have an opinion of whether this is good or not, but my job is to make clear the difference between pure Old-Arabic, Traditional Classical Arabic, Modern Classical Arabic and Colloquials. I can see that you have ideas from both of these camps in your head buty you are trying to make modern Classical Arabic, traditial classical Arabic, by denying facts.

With respect to vocalization marks in Modern Standard Arabic, there are no "two camps". MSA has no vocalization marks period. Yet even people with low "education level and mental acuity" are able to read the newspaper everyday without difficulty.

In doing so, you are trying to change the language by claiming that most of Arabic grammar is a figment of grammarians imaginations. This is wrong. So I will never agree with you, because I know better. I hope no one comes to believe you, and I hope you realize your error.

I am not saying that Arabic grammar is imaginary. All I am saying is that making interpretations based solely on the later added vocalization marks without regards to context is wrong.

I know you hate the fact that I use the word 'creole colloquial Arabics', and distinguish it so stronly from Traditional Classical Arabic but your ideas can only be accepted if you deny evidence and I am not willing to do that and will do my bes to make sure people understand what you are hiding to make your conclusions.

I don't hate or like any particular words. What you are missing is that there are other more accurate ways to distinguish Arabic

The Arabic of the great reading (pre-quranic Arabic).
Medieval Fusha Arabic (this is what you refer to as Classical/Quranic Arabic, when it is not).
Regional Arabic colloquials.
Modern Standard Arabic. This is a formal language that no Arab speaks at home.

Where we differ is that you see 1 and 2 as the same while I see them as different. You only have your opinion and the opinion of scholars as proof. I have the physical evidence of manuscripts and internal evidence from the great reading

The very low functional load of vocalization marks not just in the quranic text but also in mundane early Arabic manuscripts. One can verify this empirically because we have no difficulty reading those documents for the first time without vocalization marks.
The fact that passages in the great reading sound like they were meant to be recited without case endings, and in reality this is how they are regularly recited even by the most ardent defenders of Fusha Arabic.
The fact of the existence of what are considered grammatical "errors" in the great reading by the Medieval Fusha Arabic standards.

Based on the evidence, the classification that I propose is the most likely scenario.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956

And finally, do you know that even the message has the implications of being altered by the very men who took efforts to put the methods of its collection and compilation in a book form, by its very grammatical lexicography, vocalization and vowelizing?

Here are some links for you
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation.htm
http//www.free-minds.org/books/wadud_05.htm
http//www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/Mansoor/MA_history_3.htm

Peace

progod

You've seen old text with dots and I've seen them without dots. So we can agree that both of them existed. I find some (although I'm sure you've seen them) that don't have dots. The fact that they exist still leaves the issue.

To better display my point and show you why I think your idea is not founded is because you are using texts that didn't write case endings or vowels to prove that only case endings didn't really exist.

How can you prove that the word is even 'sUbUl' and let alone 'sUbUlUN' if the even the vowels aren't written? Do you see what I'm saying your are only picking on case endings when your conclusions also eliminate the pronunciation of correct vowels. Sibal or sabl, or subl, or sibl, are not the plurals of sabeel. And just like context MIGHT lead you towards the word that you already now as 'subul' it would also lead you to whether the word is 'subula, subulu, subuli, subulan, subulun or subulin'

Context can lead you to intelligenty GUESS the right case endings just as it can lead you to intelligently GUESS the right word there.

When you are talking about popular stories or books that don't have such an impact and will not be subject to scrutiny because they are not books intended to be deep or to convey multiple meanings or very specific meanings that is fine, but when it comes to a book of importance like the Quran it is necessary to put every vowel there so that there is no confusion (unintention or purposefull).

The problem isn't the case endings it is the fact that knowledge of these case endings has be delegated to one pretentious sector of society.

As far as rhyme. The Quran is not poetry. And you can't make lack of rhyme in a book that never intended to be poetry a reason to be biased agains case endings. In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all, and is not subject to poetic license. The Quran may be 'poetic' at times, but that is not its ultimage goal, it is not a book of poetry. Why would you undermine grammar for the sake of make the book sound more rythmic.

In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all. That was a method that was used to make it more easy to memorize and more poplular among the people, tajweez, was the use of Arabic grammar and the breaking of it where seemingly not too important to make the book more rythmical. But the Quran is not poetry and it was never intended to be a great song. That is the result of Old-Arabic standards being imposed onto the Quran.

So last but not least, you are right I do believe that Traditional Classical Arabic and Old-Arabic are one in the same, where the grammarians have not institutionalized a mistake (which can be seen from clear linguistic contraditions not conjured up interpretations) and where Traditional Arabic meanings can not be put back into the time before the Quran (not religion in general) was even in existence.

In my opinion Arabic texts which don't write any vowels, let alone case endings are not representative of the actual spoken Old-Arabic, with all its vowels and case endings. And the same way that context allows the Arabic reader to read texts without vowels, context allows the reader to put in the write case endings. Both require a prior knowledge of Arabic grammar and both can easily be done with that prior knowledge, something that Arabs of Old would have had, and that the grammarians (where they weren't wrong) recorded them for us. So it is not far to pick on the case endings when the vowels within the words themselves are subject to this scrutiny as well. That's an unfair double standard.

Godbless,
Anwar

With all that said, I would like to continue to examine "grammatical mistakes" in the Hadeeth and the Quran to see if they can substantiate my claim of the realy purpose of the nasb as a mubalaagah or at least a mukhassisah, which can overide jarr and raf'.

As for maliki yamudeeni was is this NOT cosidered a grammatical error. Since the Qur'an was mainly preserved orally why wouldn't these grammatical oddities not be struck out as opposed the the correct majority. That is just taking into account human error and is apart of human scrutiny which God has used as a tool to preserve the book. Ayman whether you would like to believe it or not is through human hands and mouths that God has protected the Quran, and just like there are those who would have distorted the Quran then and gained a following there is the possibility that some of these reciters made mistakes (especially the later ones). It us up to look a these just as they are, instead of trying to hide behind them by making up lies.

unknownuser

And finally, do you know that even the message has the implications of being altered by the very men who took efforts to put the methods of its collection and compilation in a book form, by its very grammatical lexicography, vocalization and vowelizing?

Here are some links for you
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation.htm
http//www.free-minds.org/books/wadud_05.htm
http//www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/Mansoor/MA_history_3.htm

Peace

Thanks JM. I am already aware of those sites and many more, some of which I am currently reviewing.

progod

I'm going to edit my previoius post i found it a bit unclear

You've seen old text with dots and I've seen them without dots. So we can agree that both of these types of texts existed. I'll find some (although I'm sure you've seen them) texts that don't have dots for you. The fact that they exist, however, still lets the issue stand.

To better display my point and show you why I think your idea is not founded, I'll state it like this You are using texts that didn't write case endings or vowels to prove that only case endings didn't really exist.

How can you prove that the word is even 'sUbUl' , let alone 'sUbUlUN' if the even the vowels aren't written? Do you see what I'm saying? Your are only picking on case endings when your conclusions also eliminate the pronunciation of correct vowels. Sibal or sabl, or subl, or sibl, are not the plurals of sabeel. And just like context MIGHT lead you towards the word that you already now as 'subul' it would also lead you to pronouncing the right case endings, whether the word is 'subula, subulu, subuli, subulan, subulun or subulin'

Context can lead you to intelligenty GUESS the right case endings just as it can lead you to intelligently GUESS the right word in the context without internal vowels.

When you are talking about popular stories or books that don't have such an impact and will not be subject to scrutiny because they are not books intended to be very profound or to convey multiple meanings or very specific meanings that is fine, but when it comes to a book of importance like the Quran it is necessary to put every vowel there so that there is no confusion (unintentional or purposeful).

The problem, in your mind or period, isn't the case endings. It is the fact that knowledge of these case endings has been delegated to one pretentious sector of society.

As far as rhyme. The Quran is not poetry. And you can't make lack of rhyme in a book that never intended to be poetry a reason to be biased against case endings. In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all, and is not subject to poetic license. The Quran may be 'poetic' at times, but that is not its ultimage goal, it is not a book of poetry. Why would you undermine grammar for the sake of making the book sound more rythmic?

In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all. That was a method that was used to make it more easy to memorize and more poplular among the people. Tajweez, was the use of Arabic grammar and the breaking of it where seemingly not too important in order to make the book more rythmical. But the Quran is not poetry and it was never intended to be the great "song." That is the result of Old-Arab standards of what makes a piece of literature attractive being imposed onto the Quran. And that might have been beneficial to the the preservation and spreading of the Quran, but again, the Quran was not intended to be rythmic poetry or a great hymn or song.

So last but not least, you are right I do believe that Traditional Classical Arabic and Old-Arabic are one in the same, where the grammarians have not institutionalized a mistake (which can be seen from clear linguistic contraditions not conjured up interpretations) and where Traditional Arabic meanings can apply to the times before the Quran was even in existence (which doesn't mean excluding all religious concepts from Classical Arabic because Christians, Jews, and even traditional religions prayed, sacrificed, had houses of God etc., etc. and all these were before the Quran.)

In my opinion Arabic texts which don't write any vowels, let alone case endings are not representative of the actual spoken Old-Arabic, with all its vowels and case endings. And the same way that context allows the Arabic reader to read texts without vowels, context allows the reader to put in the write case endings. Both require a prior knowledge of Arabic grammar and both can easily be done with that prior knowledge, something that Arabs of Old would have had, and that the grammarians (where they weren't wrong) recorded them for us. So it is not fair to pick on the case endings when the vowels within the words themselves are subject to this scrutiny as well. That's an unfair double standard.

Godbless,
Anwar

With all that said, I would like to continue to examine "grammatical mistakes" in the Hadeeth and the Quran to see if they can substantiate my claim of the real purpose of the nasb as a mubalaagah or at least a mukhassisah, which can overide jarr and raf'(kasrataan and fat-hataan).

As for maliki yamudeeni how is this NOT considered a grammatical error. Since the Qur'an was mainly preserved orally why wouldn't these grammatical oddities not be struck out as opposed the correct majority. That is just taking into account human error and is apart of human scrutiny which God has used as a tool to preserve the book. Ayman whether you would like to believe it or not it is through human hands and mouths that God has protected the Quran, and just like there are those who would have distorted the Quran then and gained a following there is the possibility that some of these reciters made mistakes (especially the later ones). It is up to us to look at these just as they are, instead of trying to hide behind them by making up lies.

TheSabi

Salaam all,

Bro AB, could you please translate the arabic articles you posted? My arabic is read only

Good Morning Andy

It is 530 AM sydney time and I promise i will translate it in the bery near future, as i have been flat out, the article is simple refuting the Sabin and Sabun alleged grammar error, and the one who wrote the article is a top class arabic language professional as well a minister in the egyptian government, please be patiet with me and i will translate

Where is this article please? Sabioon and Sabieen is no mistake.

andy

Salaam all,

Bro AB, could you please translate the arabic articles you posted? My arabic is read only

Good Morning Andy

It is 530 AM sydney time and I promise i will translate it in the bery near future, as i have been flat out, the article is simple refuting the Sabin and Sabun alleged grammar error, and the one who wrote the article is a top class arabic language professional as well a minister in the egyptian government, please be patiet with me and i will translate

Where is this article please? Sabioon and Sabieen is no mistake.

In the previous page.

For bro AB, don't worry bro ...if you are busy or have many things to do then take your time wisely )