A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe

bkanwar2

Peace,

I can say very confidently that this is how even the prophet (God bless him) understood this word. I am not sure if English is your native language, but whatevever it is you understand all of its rules and how it is spoken without the jargon (although you can take English classes and learn the jargon for all of the grammar and words that you use). You know this from constant repitition, listening and speaking. Also you know about this from correction, mostly as a child. It is only when trying to teach a language to another person that his jargon becomes useful. Linguists also have classified all these terms that are common in languages in order to make studying (and comparing) easier as well. So to simplify it, the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) and his companions and his parents and grandparents, etc. etc. did not know fa'-'ala as measure II of fa'ala (measure I). But they knew what it meant and that it is different from all of the other measures. They knew what it connoted and they knew all of its active and passive participles and all of the things associated with it that we have jargon for even though they did not know the jargon that we use today. You get me? The jargon was invented to explain the language in a more organized and standardized fashion. But the phenomena that the jargon explains was NOT invented and is integral to the language.

Godbless,
Anwar

Dear Anwar, a very rationale answer. I do not doubt a bit that they did not understand it. Indeed and undoubtedly they completely understood it. Your description depicts linguistic facts. However, we also know that they did not write rules of grammar. This preservation started later on. Hence, my question was more pertaining to this process. These grammatical rules in most languages are also evolving. Hence, Arabic cannot be an exception. Therefore, my question was that, you have any knowledge how many rules were described in earlier times and how many are more recent.
Badar

progod

Peace,

Hmmm. I cannot reference ancient grammar books nor was I there in the schools where they taught Arabic poetry, grammar, etc. So I do not know HOW they explained all of this at any particular time. It is safe however to say that many of the terms we have jazm, jarr, raf' etc. are from these early days of people trying to codify how Arabic was spoken to bel able to teach it more correctly to others and later generations. This was mainly done because as all languages do, Arabic was evolving. It was evolving (being corrupted. However you wanna call it) into the many Arabic dialects we have today. There was also a second intentional evolution which is MSA or modern standard Arabic (also called fus-haa by some but is really 'arabiyyah mu'asirah). It is the old classical Arabic of the QUran, arabic poems and the hadeeth with many stylistic and some grammatical phenomena struck from use preference for lack of use of case endings, lack of the excitative, lack of confirming participle 'la', preferred use of VSO(verb/subject/object) because of lack of case endings, and in most cases the complete ommision of jussive and subjunctive moods. However msa fits into the greater and more archaic fus-haa but breaks the rules of fus-haa with its omission of case endings and subjunctive and jussive moods.

Godbless,
Anwar

kn

Peace,

Hmmm. I cannot reference ancient grammar books nor was I there in the schools where they taught Arabic poetry, grammar, etc. So I do not know HOW they explained all of this at any particular time. It is safe however to say that many of the terms we have jazm, jarr, raf' etc. are from these early days of people trying to codify how Arabic was spoken to bel able to teach it more correctly to others and later generations. This was mainly done because as all languages do, Arabic was evolving. It was evolving (being corrupted. However you wanna call it) into the many Arabic dialects we have today. There was also a second intentional evolution which is MSA or modern standard Arabic (also called fus-haa by some but is really 'arabiyyah mu'asirah). It is the old classical Arabic of the QUran, arabic poems and the hadeeth with many stylistic and some grammatical phenomena struck from use preference for lack of use of case endings, lack of the excitative, lack of confirming participle 'la', preferred use of VSO(verb/subject/object) because of lack of case endings, and in most cases the complete ommision of jussive and subjunctive moods. However msa fits into the greater and more archaic fus-haa but breaks the rules of fus-haa with its omission of case endings and subjunctive and jussive moods.

Godbless,
Anwar

Dear Brother Anwar and other brothers and sisters

I have been reading these sites with my utmost prayers to our Creator, to make me and all of us understand the exact meanings of Qur'Aanic verses as they were understood by the people of the language at the time of Prophet Mohammad(S) and his companions, so we could be at the right message and not arrive at the conclusions by conjecturing.

It was with great interest that I started to read the chapters on Gezm, Shadda, Sukun, and few other simple grammar rules from Lanes and Wright. What I understood from these readings and from the various discussions on this forum, that Qur'Aan script does not necessarily use the cursive writing technique, but extensively uses joining of one or more words with the help of the above signs. If it is so then these multiple words, jointed together, could erroneously appear as one, when in fact, they need to be broken at the above signs, and meanings separated for all the words present in the jointed compound, before we could actually understand as to what that sentence might be saying.

I see that using this technique, few of our Brothers have been posting their understanding of the Qur'Aanic verses, by breaking the words at the above signs and using the grammar rules and thus finding as to what are the words in those "compouded scripted words" and looking up at all those words in Lanes and then conceptualising the new sentences that come out of it, with almost different, but very profound meanings. When I was reading different translations before, my elders always told me to accept it as it has been explained that way by Ulema for centuties, although a lot of time it gave me no real insight into the message. When I started to look at these meanings posted here and at www.servantofthelight.com, suddenly a more clear message started to appear to a naive like me.

Can some one, like Brother Anwar and other peopole with interest in linguistics, look at the concepts of Gezm, Shadda, Sukoon and other simple grammar rules, one more time, as is suggested by these brothers, and test out the technique promoted by these brothers to see if that is possibly the right linguistic technique. If it is so , can someone please use it, apply it, as they are applying, and check to see wether those newer concepts in meanings are more closer to what our Creator may have said in Qur'Aan. If it is not so, then do we need to go go back to the preconceived meanings pounded into our minds by previous and even a lot of current generations of our Ulema, who claim that the language is clear and obvious to them and they do not need to look at these concepts, since they understand it better.
Can some one with understanding, for a moment look at all of this, with a clean slate of mind, one more time to see if we may have been wrong all along, without being ashamed of it, and see if the script wrting technique at that time was such that multiple words were joined togeter, and we really need to break them down with the help of Gezm, sukoon, etc., as has been done at www.servantofthelight.com, where new understanding of the words are being posted. If this technique is proved with reasons to be wrong, then we can stop looking at it, otherwise we all may have to join hands with them, without being ashamed of accepting our possible errors in decoding the script.
The reason that we need to look at it with a clear slate of mind again is, as I see it now, that with the current knowledge and understanding of Qur'Aan, it is hard to claim that we have the Book where the meanings are more profound and we can put a constituion for peace for humanity, better than anyone else. We have no consensus at all. The world sees Qur'Aan as book of punishments, scaring sentences, using gifts in the hereafetr to attract people and some biblical stories and a few words about good deeds claimed by all others too.
I see Islam as not just a religion like all other religions, but in fact it is Deen-e Islam and not just Mazhab-e- Islam. Qur'Aan calls it Deen-e- Islam, which I think means Path and journey to peace, with Muslim as the bearer of peace, and Qur'Aan being a source of guidance to this journey to peace, rather than a set of do this and do not do that, like all other religions do, with everyone claiming that their do's and dont's are better than others.

I pray to our Creator to make us understand his guiding message in a way that our Prophet (S) and his companions understood it.

progod

Peace,

I think the site is mistaken a bit. THe jazm, kasrah etc. were signs invented later on to represent the Quan being recited. Also the breakdown of Al-Quran is completely false. The website's denunciation of Sibawayah has not basis and we have no proof the story it proposes. I'll have to review the site some more. But it seems it may be completely wrong as it concerns the study of Classical Arabic grammar. Just because Sibawayah was persian does not limit his ability to be a competent and even masterful Arabic linguist.

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

And reading al-fatihah, I must say that the tranlsation is completley and utterly erroneous.

Godbless,
Anwar

kn

Peace,

I think the site is mistaken a bit. THe jazm, kasrah etc. were signs invented later on to represent the Quan being recited. Also the breakdown of Al-Quran is completely false. The website's denunciation of Sibawayah has not basis and we have no proof the story it proposes. I'll have to review the site some more. But it seems it may be completely wrong as it concerns the study of Classical Arabic grammar. Just because Sibawayah was persian does not limit his ability to be a competent and even masterful Arabic linguist.

Godbless,
Anwar

Thanks for the above reply. I looked at the meanings of Jazm in lane and in wright again, and it seem that a jazm represent a last or a shut syllable of a declinable word and sukun for an indeclinable word; a copy is attached, so I am not wrong

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000057.pdf

If we consider this, then to me it appears that the words end at these signs and a new word begins, at that sign, most of the time.
Even if we agree that these signs were put in later for correct recitation, it still makes sense that people did not want the word recited wrongly, as it would connote a different meanings.

If we look at the example qouted in Al Fatiha, it has been emphasized in rectation to pronounce Al Ham Du separately by putting jazm other wise people could have called it Alhamd or Alhameda rather than Al Ham Du

I feel that the purpose of making sure that people read it correctly could have been that Al and Ham and Du were separate words carrying a separate full meanings, but written jointly in old classical script technique. This is the presence of jazm, which clarifies this fact, otherwise it would carry the meanings of Hameda or Hamd, as has always felt to be the case in all traditional translations. It is clearly neither Hamd or Hameda in recitation or in writing.
Considering above explanation as in Lanes, it would possibly mean that we should recite and understand all these three as separate words, and I see that used in www.servantofthelight.com. Separate meanings of these three words have been utilised in the attempted undersanding of the Aya in Al Fatiha.

progod

Peace,

If we look at the example qouted in Al Fatiha, it has been emphasized in rectation to pronounce Al Ham Du separately by putting jazm other wise people could have called it Alhamd or Alhameda rather than Al Ham Du

This makes no sense at all, I'm sorry. It is pronounced together as al-hamdu. In the page you sent me it talks about cutting off the word so that it does not decline. That means that the case endings are cut off. So you say qawl instead of qawlun/qawlan/qawlin. Or you say say yaqul, instead of yaqulu or yaqula. In essence defying correct grammar (for style, as this is done for poetic/prose style)

In this case a sukun will be used at the end of the word but the phenomena will be called jazm if it is ommiting case, which is also called declination. This is done often at a pause when reciting the Quran (or a hadeeth, prose, poetry or du'a) and finishing a word. So instead of al-hamdu lillahi, just al-hamdu lillah. But your trying to break up Arabic words and make the syllables completely different words, goes beyond ridiculous. I'm sorry but if you are serious about this you do not want to learn Arabic or the language of the Quran, you want to invent your own language and twist the Quran up in the process. You might take that as fuel for you fire and take me as just being a hater. But I really am trying to help you understand that this is NOT how Arabic (scripted or spoken) works. You are emplying pure imagination here.

Godbless,
Anwar

kn

I am not trying to invent anything please. All I was requesting was an understanding, so I can do it correctly, as I have been following all of this discussion just as a learner. I thank you for your kind explanation. I will look it up again and try to understand things as they are meant to be, without God forbid, creating any innovation, which I cannot even dream of doing it.

bkanwar2

This is a real challenge for all Arab linguists. Did tribe of Kureysh pronounced words with Hemza?

Peace,

Badar

bkanwar2

What, almost 24 hours and no replies yet? Some here claim to be high in knowledge of Arabic language. I am sure they are aware of, how many Hemzas are in Alkitab. They must satisfy themselves as well teach their students; as to what these mean in the text. At least they should give an answer to a very simple question; with their extensive command on the language.

With peace and love.

Badar

progod

Peace,

Badar, stop with the stupid games. My answer for all the questions that you are going to ask next is 'dialect difference.' Weak vowels, including hamza's have a very interesting relationship and you should become familiar with how they interact before you start asking stupid questions, pretending to challenge someone on something that it seems you just discovered on your own. Keep reading. I mean for a month or so or more and don't forget to read the footnotes. Think on what you read for a month and then read again about 20 times before you decide to 'challenge' anyone. I find your questions annoying and and honestly somewhat retarded.

Godbless,
Anwar

bkanwar2

Thanks for your reply, Dear Anwar. Please read this link below, to find out who is acting retarded. It clearly says that Kureysh did not speak words with hemezh. With prophet himself, quoted to prohibt from speaking words with hemezh. If you claim to know more Arabic than prophet himself, good for you brother. My question is that why all texts presently contain Hemezh, despite clear admonition from the master of language himself.

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000011.pdf

Peace and love, language of AlKitab is lost. Let us be honest, without being foolish, with ourselves and admit the fact and join hands to revive it. Hence, revive the lost, but the most glorious message of all times.

Badar

progod

If you study a bit more you will learn that it is common knowledge among Arabic scholars that the Quraish did not typically pronounce the hamza. You will find in the Quran both nabiyyun and nabi'un. These are dialectical differences. If you research the seven ahruf (you will see this in the hadeeth) you will see more of this. In fact there are 10 qira'at of the Quran. However, I would not take the hadeeth cited in this dictionary as some sort of golden truth, i.e that hamza is wrong. These dialectical differences in Classical Arabic were and still are well known. You have brought nothing new and now your challenge is to learn more about the ahruf of the Quran and the dialectical differences in Classical Arabic of the old/true Arabs of the Hijaaz. But don't try to act like the language of the Quran is lost. All this that you are discovering for the first time is well known by people who are truly knowledgeable in Arabic, and they are few. It is more appropraite for you to say that many Muslms including you are ignorant of the Arabic of the Quran, i.e. Classical Arabic (with all its ancient dialectical differences).

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

Some good quick links that will help to clarify problems that anyone may be having with this conversation

http//www.alquran-hadits.co.cc/2009/04/literary.html

http//books.google.com/books?id=hl9dkjb9r6QC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=quraysh+dialect&source=bl&ots=VoF2oZP_kh&sig=THPT6kXEVSlvRbzNFlLStheP2jU&hl=es&ei=Pgz-SvHsNuWutgfEgtyRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=quraysh%20dialect&f=false

http//www.ilaam.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html

btw I take all those hadeeth with a grain of salt as to whether the prophet said these things or not, but it opens our eyes up to the Quran being pronounced with the dialectical pronunciations of other Classical Arabic dialects. Differences are just pronunication and all still follow basic rules that all Classical Arabic possesses.

Godbless,
Anwar

bkanwar2

If you study a bit more you will learn that it is common knowledge among Arabic scholars that the Quraish did not typically pronounce the hamza. You will find in the Quran both nabiyyun and nabi'un. These are dialectical differences. If you research the seven ahruf (you will see this in the hadeeth) you will see more of this. In fact there are 10 qira'at of the Quran. However, I would not take the hadeeth cited in this dictionary as some sort of golden truth, i.e that hamza is wrong. These dialectical differences in Classical Arabic were and still are well known. You have brought nothing new and now your challenge is to learn more about the ahruf of the Quran and the dialectical differences in Classical Arabic of the old/true Arabs of the Hijaaz. But don't try to act like the language of the Quran is lost. All this that you are discovering for the first time is well known by people who are truly knowledgeable in Arabic, and they are few. It is more appropraite for you to say that many Muslms including you are ignorant of the Arabic of the Quran, i.e. Classical Arabic (with all its ancient dialectical differences).

Godbless,
Anwar

Dear Anwar, where was this common knowledge, just few hours ago, when you said this.

Peace,

Badar, stop with the stupid games. My answer for all the questions that you are going to ask next is 'dialect difference.' Weak vowels, including hamza's have a very interesting relationship and you should become familiar with how they interact before you start asking stupid questions, pretending to challenge someone on something that it seems you just discovered on your own. Keep reading. I mean for a month or so or more and don't forget to read the footnotes. Think on what you read for a month and then read again about 20 times before you decide to 'challenge' anyone. I find your questions annoying and and honestly somewhat retarded.

Godbless,
Anwar

Thanks an way. Neither Rabb nor his message is dependent on any scholar.

Peace and love.

Badar

progod

Dear Anwar, where was this common knowledge, just few hours ago, when you said this.

Did you not see it when I said this
Badar, stop with the stupid games. My answer for all the questions that you are going to ask next is 'dialect difference.'

Here it is. clear as day. Obviously I meant Classical Arabic dialects and not modern Arabic dialects. Maybe you didn't get that.

Thanks an way. Neither Rabb nor his message is dependent on any scholar.

No his message is not dependent on any scholar, but it IS dependent on the knowledge that his/her scholasticism may have acquired. And obviously our Rabb is not dependent on anything, but our ability to comprehend him, to grow and get closer to him DOES depend on the level of knowledge that we have about the things that he caused to come into being.

Godbless,
Anwar

bkanwar2

Dear Anwar, thanks for further clarification. Ignoring the insulting parts of your post, I would like to continue this discourse. I firmly believe that continued probe of the subject with an open mind is the fundamental key to learning. Emotions are deterrence for good learning and so is personal glorification.

You have already brought up some interesting issues in your posts, which deserve further elaboration and discussion for the sake of knowledge. Please, elaborate further, what do mean and understand by dialect and its variations in relationship with classic Arabic? This is in order to before any further comments or discussion a common or at least a prospective understanding of subject in consideration is important; as different people understand the term dialect differently.

May Rabb bless you and us all.

Badar

bkanwar2

[quote author=progod

btw I take all those hadeeth with a grain of salt as to whether the prophet said these things or not, but it opens our eyes up to the Quran being pronounced with the dialectical pronunciations of other Classical Arabic dialects. Differences are just pronunication and all still follow basic rules that all Classical Arabic possesses.

Godbless,
Anwar

Just few further comments about this part as it appears to relate to reference from Lane, quoting prophet's admonition and later confirmation by other at his mosque about use of Hemezh, and suggestion that it was not part of Kureysh's language. I would submit the following.

I am a big skeptic of hadith literature myself. As it is found to describe minutest details of how to clean oneself, or enter bathroom and sleep etc. But in my limited study, I did not find one hadith about language itself.
This citation could not be considered a part of hadith literature. It is part of Lexical preservation of actual language. It?s cited authorities, in Lane are also not usual hadith Imams.
Furthermore, spoken language is different from written language. The written language is used to convey lexical meanings (concepts in words), with syntax helping by arranging these in certain order to convey further meanings. Hence, whatever is written has to have some meanings.
In addition, preservation of the lexical meanings/concept was important and was done. One should look at this statement attributed to prophet in this background and not just another piece of hadith literature.
May Rabb bless

Badar

progod

Peace,

You have no reason to justify that hadeeth and you should dig a little more and find out what collections this hadeeth came from. It is obviously a hadeeth and hadeeths are often referenced in dictionaries to show use of language. THere's nothing wrong with that but you as the reader should be aware that although this hadeeth may be used as linguistic evidence it doesn't mean that the prophet really said that. Obviously the dictionary writer might believe the hadeeth to be from the prophet but that belief is personal, besides the point and not necessary. I could write a book about the misconceptions people have about written and spoken language. I'll research some books that might do you and others some good. But written languages always reflects some form of spoken language. That form of spoken language could have become archaic (meaning it was spoken in the past but preserved in writing) or it could be still currently spoken as a first or even second language. In the case of Classical Arabic, the written language is perfectly representative of the spoken Classical Arabic of the time of the last prophet. That is really all I have to say about that. I know everyone has their opinions but I really suggest that people grab some linguistic books that have to do with the origin of written language and its relation to spoken language and then do some serious thinking on their own. By the way, may God bless and save the last prophet and messenger of God, Muhammad. (this is because I referenced him earlier but did not give him salat's and salams, as the Quran says the believers do.)

Godbless,
Anwar

bkanwar2

Dear Anwar

Source of Prophet's saying Taj el-Aroos, an undisputed Classic Arabic lexicon.
Authorities Quoted 4 in number, saying Kureysh did not pronounce words with Hemezh, in addition to prophet (pbh) saying.

a. The "Sihah" by El-Joaharee
b. The "Mohkam" by Ibn-Seedah
c. The "Asas" by Ez-Zamakhsheree
d. The "Kamoos" another authentic lexicon by El-Feroozabadee.

Please check and then dispute.

May Rabb bless and guide us on his path, as it is long over due.

Badar