A Challenge to all Arab Linguists arround the Globe
-
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 -
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
-
-
Peace all,
just my 2 cents,
along the discussion you are both implying that the "Classical Arabic" is the language of the Quraish (hijaz arabs), this view has no support in the Quran, in contrary all the signs seems to point geographically North Arabia (including Palestine/Jordania).
best Regards
-
Peace all,
just my 2 cents,
along the discussion you are both implying that the "Classical Arabic" is the language of the Quraish (hijaz arabs), this view has no support in the Quran, in contrary all the signs seems to point geographically North Arabia (including Palestine/Jordania).
best Regards
Dear Herbman, Peace. Please elaborate with examples and be more specific about such signs.
Badar
-
Peace,
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.
I am not disputing the lack of use of hamza by the Quraysh Arabs. I agree with you. I dispute whether the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) actually said that hadeeth NOT the general idea that the hadeeth is communicating. Now hamza's were typically not pronounced in Quraysh ARabic but from what I know this is only with certain words. Nabiyyun being a classic example. buwisa instead of bu'isa is another example that I have read in the past. But as far as I know there was not an absolute omission of all hamzas. There was actually a consistent pattern to this from what I understood, a pattern that the Quraysh as children intuitively learned from older Quraysh about which hamzas would be omitted in the Quraysh dialect and how. I will have to research this some more. But I'll take nabeeyyun for now. The pattern behind this is when any long ya preceded a hamza the ya was doubled and the hamza dropped. This is not against Arabic form because the hamza is a weak letter and weak letters depending on where they fall have a habit of morphing into their fellow weak letters. I'll see if I can dig up something on this Quraysh pattern of hamza omission. I remember it having a direct connection to other weak letters preceding it but again I will have to redouble the research. It may take some time. In the mean time I hope no one starts jumping to premature and ill-based conclusions.
By the way Herbman I completely disagree with you. The script of Arabic is more of a Northern Arabic invention, literally being a variant of the Nabateans' Aramaic script, but the actual spoken language itself I would guess is some sort of product of the blending of Ancient northern Proto-Arabic and Southern Proto-Arabic (himyarite and its dialects) which is congruent with Southern Arabian Migration northward after the collapse of the Ma'rab dam. Even with that said, that is a theory and my educated opinion on how Classical Arabic came about. From what I understand we have evidence of Classical Arabic that dates back to 300 AD (maybe ealier) as it was being transliterated in earlier Aramaic scripts (many Arabs (banu ghassan and banu lakhm) were Christians and Jews especially in the Northern Territories close to Eastern Rome and Persia and were familiar with Aramaic.) How this northern script made it so far south has to do with the fact that the Banu ghassan who were the most entrenched in Aramaic (including the nabateans whose script won over all others) territory. Their influence ran all the way down into Yathrib and I'm sure permeated the entire central southern part of Arabia and maybe even further. The Yemenites at a time had Jewish kingdoms and Aramaic was the Jewish religious language of choice for a very long time, until they essentially revived a very aramaicized version of hebrew to be found in the Massoretic text of the bible compiled in the 10th century AD!!
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Here are some things I've found already
And
Tusi?s discussion of the reading of 1919 is more detailed than any that I have encountered in the Sunni commentaries. It will be remembered that the majority read this aya li-ahaba la-ki (?so that I may bestow on you?) but that Abu ?Amr and Nafi? read it li-yahaba la-ki (?so that may bestow on you?). The two readings differ in respect of a single consonant; hamza in the one case, ya? in the other.
(1) Abu ?Ubayda considered Abu ?Amr?s reading weak because it departed from the consonantal text (mushaf).
(2) Ibn Khalawayh said that Abu ?Amr?s defence was that the letters of extension and softness and those with a Hamza are transformed into each other. For instance li-alla (in order not to) is pronounced li-yalla.
(3) Abu Ali the grammarian said that it is possible that whoever read it with ya? intended hamza? and only changed it to ya? in accordance with the school of Abu?l-Hasan or made it a cross between the two in accordance with the teaching of al-Khalil .
Finally, Tusi mentions that the reading with had the support of Ubaiy and Ibn Mas?ud and that he himself considers it the better reading. (pp. 175-176)
From http//answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_variants.htm
Also https//eprints.soas.ac.uk/5814/1/Shah.pdf
Go to page 263 and continue on to Declension
I am having trouble visualizing how that would work with a word like samaa' (terminal alif-hamza combo) in all of its declensions. But I have a good idea (may be possible that the hamza didn't drop but was pronounced lightly). I'll be reseaching this.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Dear Herbman, Peace. Please elaborate with examples and be more specific about such signs.
Badar
Salam, Peace, Bkanwar2, Progod, all,
Here are some few fact from Al Quran
along the text Allah swt give some indication about the geographic location of the revelation
1- The prophet was living in a multi-cultural envirronment and knew other language than arabic
16103
We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic pure and clear.
Not sure to find such envirronment in the middle of the desert!!!!! see also 41442- "Al lat", "Al uzza" et "Al manat" are divinity from northern Arabia (Petra/Jordania) mentionned in Al Quran.
3- Al bilad al amine, in Al Quran this formula is always used with food supply e.g. a land where food (fruit and vegetables) are in abundance
please see 2126 and 4451-53
Therefore the land spoken about in 953 is a land where food supply is not a problem and also the olives and figs are trees that grows in a mediterranean climat not a desertic climate!951 By the Fig and the Olive,
952 And the Mount of Sinai,
953 And this City of security (biladi al amini)4- Quran 37133-138--> was Lot living near Mecca?
133-So also was Lut among those sent (by us).
134- Behold, We delivered him and his adherents, all
135- Except an old woman who was among those who lagged behind
136- Then We destroyed the rest.
137- Verily, ye pass by their (sites), by day
138- And by night will ye not understand?So for all these reasons I conclude the arabic used in Al Quran is from north west Arabia (including Palestine/Jordania).
best regards
-
Peace,
I am not disputing the lack of use of hamza by the Quraysh Arabs. I agree with you. I dispute whether the prophet Muhammad (God bless him) actually said that hadeeth NOT the general idea that the hadeeth is communicating. Now hamza's were typically not pronounced in Quraysh ARabic but from what I know this is only with certain words. Nabiyyun being a classic example. buwisa instead of bu'isa is another example that I have read in the past. But as far as I know there was not an absolute omission of all hamzas. There was actually a consistent pattern to this from what I understood, a pattern that the Quraysh as children intuitively learned from older Quraysh about which hamzas would be omitted in the Quraysh dialect and how. I will have to research this some more. But I'll take nabeeyyun for now. The pattern behind this is when any long ya preceded a hamza the ya was doubled and the hamza dropped. This is not against Arabic form because the hamza is a weak letter and weak letters depending on where they fall have a habit of morphing into their fellow weak letters. I'll see if I can dig up something on this Quraysh pattern of hamza omission. I remember it having a direct connection to other weak letters preceding it but again I will have to redouble the research. It may take some time. In the mean time I hope no one starts jumping to premature and ill-based conclusions.
Godbless,
AnwarDear Anwar, thanks for marked in red, although your previous responses did not convey this. I am out searching for truth with only utmost belief in Rabb. Hence, I have opened up my mind for anything.
I have thought the implications of removing Hemzeh deep and hard on meanings of text of AlKitab. So far I can conceive none. In fact it seems to simplify further my task of understanding AlKitab. However, it may hurt some contractors and self proclaimed elites of current Islam.
I am glad you are doing further research on it. This is what we should be doing, instead of vain argument based on preconceived belief, notion or in blind following of people of past. This includes linguists of Arabic language of past.
Furthermore, if one were to read carefully; Lane's referenced page, it implies lack of Hemazh in Kureyshi language to be universal and not word specific. Please check from any of references above in Arabic, as Lane could not be considered as infallible either.
Peace and love. May Rabb bless us all and guide to his path.
Badar
Dear Herbman, evidence is weak. To use current translation, which in my humble opinion is far removed from actual; due to linguistic drift is not strong evidence. Hence, my humble attempt for translation. Please see the difference as an example between translations based on current traditional understanding of Arabic linguistics as well traditions/hadith verses my simple methodology.
Al-Lahab
(Historically The Flame.)
(Also known as Al-Masad - The Palm Fiber.)
(Abu-Lahab was the uncle of the Rasul Muhammad, and a man who refused the rope of guidance.)Surah 111 1
One who has severed utterly from all bonds of union with the guiding rope (Quran). They suffered the ruin of breaking into small pieces and perished for ever. Such a human?s refusal will lead them to be in a state, like an emotive burning with thirst, being a state of ruin and as dead.Tahir ul Qadri ( ے
Yousuf Ali Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he!Surah 111 2
Such a person will not profit at all. One who is proud and heeds themselves high above others for whatever wealth they have collected and gained.
Tahir ul Qadri (ی
Yousuf Ali No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains!Surah 111 3
Such a person has deluded and deceived themselves, and caused themselves to fall into destruction. So kindle a fire to ransom yourself from the evil of such persons. Persons, who?s unwillingness to change will lead them to be in a state, like an emotive burning with thirst, being a state of ruin and as dead.Tahir ul Qadri
Yousuf Ali Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame!Surah 111 4
Have no self pity, after passing beyond the right and straight course open to you. That is the course in my decree towards you. The one that incites urges and instigates.Tahir ul Qadri (ث (ی ( ر ( ر ( ے
Yousuf Ali His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!-Surah 111 5
On account of this, to save your neck without delay tie yourself with the guiding rope from me (Quran), then to continue your guided journey laboriously and energetically.Tahir ul Qadri (ی ( ے
Yousuf Ali A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck! -
Peace,
This is what we should be doing, instead of vain argument based on preconceived belief, notion or in blind following of people of past. This includes linguists of Arabic language of past.
There's not need to blindly follow anything,but the linguists of the past would have had better knowledge of Classical Arabic and it's dialects than we do. The only way we can even hope to improve on their work is to have read, understood and compared all of their work. Old Arabic language lingusts NEVER discounted the Quraysh dialect. We just need to find out all that was said about it.
Wright partially explains the issue on page 18, section C. I will be searching for more evidence on the topic. If sound Quotes that said that Quraysh did use final and middle hamza in certain cases.
The phenomenon from what I have learned so far is called tas-heel or takhfif al-hamzah, as opposed to tahqiq. I will be trying to gather more info on it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Here's another good source
http//books.google.com/books?id=QtcUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=tahqiq+hamzah&source=bl&ots=rQQRI1NXyP&sig=manfdl6tdtL88ZI70V4LkRLp9WI&hl=es&ei=c80BS8vqE8z8nAfB-tTrAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=tahqiq%20hamzah&f=false
Apparently all of this is dealt with in the science of tajweed and in the aspects of 'ulum al-quran dealt with by zamakshari.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Peace,
Check out this page http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-five.html
http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-four.html
Looks like tas-hil (lightening of the hamza) is the answer when the word stands alone with a dammah or dammatain. But when it connects to other words with hamzas it an morph to a waw, yaa or use tas-heel again.
It explains the phenomena I was wondering about. That is, words like samaa'un etc.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Check out this page http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-five.html
http//www.abouttajweed.com/ibn-katheer-al-bazee-and-qunbul-/lesson-four.html
Looks like tas-hil (lightening of the hamza) is the answer when the word stands alone with a dammah or dammatain. But when it connects to other words with hamzas it an morph to a waw, yaa or use tas-heel again.
It explains the phenomena I was wondering about. That is, words like samaa'un etc.
Godbless,
AnwarPeace, AlKitab means "a bound book of principles" and not just a book of recitation. However, is it not later, truly the concept of most Muslims? Hence, only sounds no results. No results because correct results are dependent on correct actions. With sounds only comes no understanding. No understanding bigots to misunderstanding; resulting in perverted actions and results. What a pity?
Badar
-
Peace,
The information I gave you was designed to help you understand how the QUran factors in to the various Classical Arabic dialects, including the Quraysh. I hope you are not now scoffing at it or disregarding it.
Al-Kitaab means book/writing or law/decree. Either or. You can understand both ideas but they have to be taken as separate interpretations, conveying ideas that may be compatible or incompatible.
Understanding the words and meanings that these sounds communicate, then understanding the message communicated by these words and then acting on the messages found in the words that are found in the sounds is the key to our quest to learn and live the Quran.
We must have both the little and big picture in mind.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
The information I gave you was designed to help you understand how the QUran factors in to the various Classical Arabic dialects, including the Quraysh. I hope you are not now scoffing at it or disregarding it.
Godbless,
AnwarNo I am not. Whatever, can help to understand AlKitab, is the goal for me. I have ordered "The Arabic Language Its Role in History Escrito por Anwar G. Chejne" and it is on its way to me. I think it may prove to be interesting.
"Understanding the words and meanings that these sounds communicate, then understanding the message communicated by these words and then acting on the messages found in the words that are found in the sounds is the key to our quest to learn and live the Quran".
For the above I would like you to consider this. The sounds of people of time of prophet are only preserved in archives of writing. Current spoken sounds of Arabic are only renderings and distractions for correct understanding. This includes the grammatical rules including Sibawaih. Who contrary to popular belief among some Arabicits did not use Quranic Arabic as a basis for his Analysis.
Hence, MY CLAIM OF LOST LANGUAGE AS A SPOKEN ONE; as well my call to help join hands to reconstruct it, in order to have better understanding of AlKitab.
Badar
-
So here is the question, if one does not like to call it a challenge. The word is said to be a word derived from root . It is further said that it is female gender of this root, due addition of female marker at the end which is . However, who ever wrote these Arabic grammar rules, how can he justify such a rule to belong to the time of prophet; when Kureysh even did not speak words with Hemezh?
Peace to all
Badar
-
Peace,
The Quraysh did use hamza. After alif they lightened it heavily enough so that it was almost not heard and they asimilated it after waw and yaa. But they DID use hamza (final, middle and terminal), they just did not pronounce it as strongly as other tribes and they tended to assimlate it wherever it could be assimilated. There are definitely wierd words in Arabic. in my opinion is one of them. It's form is the verbal noun of faa'ala (form/measure 3). However this form is not necessarily from measure 3. Take ridaa' for instance. Anyway it can come from two roots. anasa where the alif dropped somehow and this female alif, yaa was added, Making it the femine of Unaasun (another wierd from which supposedly comes from Unaasun). It is possible that with this root the alif likes to run away. This is not unheard of but this would most likely be an archaic form even for Classical Arabic, meaning that it happened before the language known as Classical Arabic matured into the language of the Quran and the Arabic of its kind. However it can also come from noon, seen, waw. Given the form niswatun that may be more the case. the waw in niswatun would correspond to the last hamza in
(I hope you are still not confused about how the weak letters can transform into each other) It is very unlikely that is a variation of a form like niswaa'. I don't see why it would assimilate from niswaa' to . But I may have more to learn.So look up the root using noon, seen, waw, and look for forms that correspond to a form like nisaa' where the alif drops and an alif, hamza added. It is possible but given the word niswatun it is very unlikely. By the way niswatun is not just colloquial or dialect it is Fushaa as well. And I do remember having seen it in the Quran.
Godbless,
Anwar -
It is very evident that this word has nothing to do with women. I should have further broken it down for general audiences. is actually the Medda in , actually indicate elimination of second Alif/hemzeh . Hence, the female maker actually is and not . Since this female marker is a grammatical inovation of later time. Hence, neither relavant to language of Kureysh nor part of any original roots in the lexicon. The actual root for this word is , which is here in the lexicon.
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/00000039.pdf
Peace,
Badar
-
Peace,
Badar, even though I agree with your conclusion, how you got there is completely wrong. So yes the root of is or even noon, seen, waw. However you should read Wright, i., page 24, E., 22, to see how your conclusion about the alif-maddah is not fully correct.
equals
not
We even see that in old texts we find this
You will also see on page 27 in the second paragraph under (a) labelled REM., that the feminine form that adds alif and hamza does include a maddah. Look at the feminine form of red, Hamraa' and you will see that it takes a Maddah.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Thanks for pointing this out, two alifs with hemzeh in the begining of word can take medda and not at end. In end it has to be an alif preceeded by fetha followed by alif hemezh.
Just few things while reading Wright or Lane one has to keep in mind that they are only works of translations from original Arabic sources. They have translated and combined several sources in one. Hence, they should be viewed as such.
In addition, when one applies the grammatical rules to lexicon, one has to keep in mind that lexicon is foremost and grammar only to help lexicon to further convey the lexical concepts. Hence, if a grammatical rule does not agree with lexical part, need to be skeptical about it.
Furthermore, from historical prospective we know that original preservation was mainly in the form of lexical concepts only. By this I mean only consonantal skeletal was preserved. The lexical meanings are in this consonantal part only. All grammatical additions are later phenomenon. May with good intention, but seem to have caused more confusion.
In word under consideration. I was only trying to draw attention that Medda is there to suggest presence of two alifs. Since, there is no original consonantal root in lexicon with either two alif in the end or with a Medda and Hemezh. Hence, last hemezh, and alif are not original. This is inspite of established rules of Arabic grammar later.
However, once this rule of combining two alif by sign of medda was established as such, a female marker was easy to make. Based upon this female marker one could make, so to call grammatical new words by adding it to consonantal roots of interest. The new words were made based on these rules and now are well established in the language. These new words are now established to the extent, that even natives can not recognize these as not part of original language.
Hence, imagine if lexicon of original consonantal skeletal was not available. There was no way one could say with certainty now, that this word meaning woman was not part of the original language.
Peace, hope keeping this discussion in public domain is helping others. Everybody, please ask relavant questions but please referain from not relavant ones.
Based upon improved understanding from Wright = = . If this is the case. It would imply
- That cosonantal root has no female marker attached to it.
- One need to still ponder what is implying to root or else it is not related to this root at all and in reality a pronoun for the following word.
- I have yet to look up verses where this word is used to check how contextual relationship of words will help to decide its use.
Badar