The Forgery of Significations
-
Peace,
As humans, we are unique amongst earthly creatures in our capacity to speak. The formulation of statements from a number of independent sounds proceeding from our mouths to express an idea conceived in the mind can only be described as miraculous.
These sounds are expressed by humans in reference to objects, or ideas, or events. These sounds only acquire meaning by the repetitive appellation of those sounds to the same objects, or ideas, or events.
We call these sounds ?words.?
A listener will have to hear these words in use by people enough times, and in as many different situations, from which he can derive a firm idea of their meaning. I say ?listener,? because language proceeds primarily from speech, secondarily from writing.
In human history, dictionaries are a relatively modern invention, which list the entire set of words that constitute any given language. They are particularly useful to foreign students of a given language if they haven?t had any first-hand experience with the people of that language. Indeed, their use, along with the rules of grammar, is a prerequisite for the correct understanding of that language.
In the science of linguistics, ?words? are usually referred to as ?signifiers,? and ?meanings? are usually referred to as ?significations.?
Now comes my question, upon being presented with a text whose signifiers are, for the most part, unknown to the reader, would it behove that reader, in the objective pursuit of truth, to employ significations in the understanding of that text as were employed by those people who authored that text?
Or, would it behove that reader to forge significations of those signifiers as accords with his own personal fancies in order to acquire the intended significations of those people who authored that text?
I would argue the prior to be behoving.
The very fact that you, the reader, are reading this post and understanding it, is proof enough of my argument. The fact that you, the reader, are not seeking to invent new meanings for these words that I am using to write this post, proves that we must understand language as it exists at the time of its currency.
Brothers and sisters, we are not at liberty to invent meanings for words.
I have heard the arguments that zin does not mean fornication, and that nis? does not mean women, and that salh does not mean prayer. These arguments, in my view, are invalid. I will say the following about these arguments
-
I accept that the meanings of words are liable to mutate. That is a most natural phenomenon of human speech, undoubtedly. However, we must use the Quran?s Arabic, from the Quran's time, to understand the Quran, not any other dialect or language. Example at one point in history, the signifier ?man? referred to any human being, male, or female. Later, around 1000 years ago, it became exclusive to males.
-
I also accept that the Quran uses old words in new ways to introduce new concepts, or perhaps to modify existing concepts; but this can only occur to such an extent that the new concept can still relate to its original signification. Example ?shirk? originally meant ?apportionment.? However, the Quran uses it in such a way that it can lead us to understand the signification as ?polytheism/idolisation.?
Naturally, all the above is just as applicable to syntax.
I truly apologise and seek pardon for the blatant rudimentary nature of my statements about language and its use, but the arguments that are in circulation in this forum, and, sadly, among other Quranists, with regard to the forgery of significations, are also invalid on such a rudimentary level.
For stress, we are not at liberty to invent meanings for Classical Arabic words to understand the Quran.
-
-
and that salh does not mean prayer.
I've seriously never heard anyone argue otherwise, though I wouldn't be surprised if some people did.
I agree with what youpoint about not inventing word meanings - we shouldn't be trying to fit the Qur'an to what we want it to fit. However...you know you're gonna have to specifically explain further the points about zina and nisa, right? There's been a huge amount of discussion on those topics on these forums with some relatively convincing (in my opinion anyway) views expressed on them that are contrary to what you're saying.
Peace.
-
Wow, I love this discussion. Azz, I'm about to argue otherwise
How do you know when Classical Arabic as we know it was formulated?
-
There are some "words", or better said some Scriptures that point to the silence, they direct man to the "zero-point" where one, if dignified enough and deserving, can "hear" God.
Those "words", those Scriptures, serve the purpose to shut up and stop the inner chatter or inside monologue and erase the clatter of individual and subjective verbiage, and point to the Sacral Silence where one could hear the Word of God.
By the way, the "subconscious" knows all the languages!
-
peace uq,
I agree with the gist of what you are saying, however I would add one important clarification, and that is for whatever meaning/signification of a word is chosen one should ensure that it actually fits within The Quran using it's internal cross-reference, grammar, logic and practical considerations.
It is very rare to find someone present an unconventional meaning of a word coupled with comprehensive Quranic research for their choice. In fact, I would go as far as to say the lack of evidence is frequently woeful.
Background
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.html -
Peace Wakas,
Yes, I agree.
I think that in most of those cases, the argument doesn't add up, neither by Quranic cross-reference, nor by Classical Arabic syntax/vocab.
I only grant the plasticity of significations where there is a sizeable body of Quranic or syntactical evidence to support it.
Otherwise, I find the practice of the intentional forgery of significations, by a person who is sane and educated, tantamount to telling lies about God.
"For whom is more unjust than the one who has invented lies about God?"
God save us from error.
-
So uq, this means that you accepted the authority of the dictionary with no critique whatever? Why is the dictionary the default authority?
-
Few ppl have the honesty to engage with this question. Instead thry prefer to swallow dictionaries in place of hadith
-
The Word it converts Abstract Realm into Physical Realm
We live in the world of Words. We listen Words, thereby we speak Words. We see how words are written; thereby we write words with our hand. These are all apparent activity. Our non apparent world-Abstract Realm is also but Words. We silently think by Words, we ponder by Words, we reflect by Words. We arrive at conclusions, decisions and thoughts which are but Words. We see and perceive with eyes closed all by Words. Word is not only all around us but inwardly in every cell of us. Minus Word, We cease to exist. The moment we listen not Word, speak word, read or write word, or think Word, "We" are no more cognizable to the majority.
The Word it converts Abstract Realm into Physical Realm
-
I have heard the arguments that zin does not mean fornication, and that nis? does not mean women, and that salh does not mean prayer. These arguments, in my view, are invalid.
Salaam
Happy for you.
hope that you will be able to explain that to God the judgement day.
That day, he will bring you a dictionnary called Quran. That dictionnay use words in multiple contexts to explain meaning of words.I hope for you that the meaning of words you have choosen fit with their quranic use. &
Peace
-
Peace all,
Do I accept dictionaries as a source of reference to understand the Quran?
Yes, invariably.
I have not the authority to refer to anything else.
Languages are not forged, they naturally evolve.
The greatest lie can be told in any language in the world, but that lie will still be told using the rules and vocabulary of the language itself.
Languages are not forged.
Granted, over the course of two centuries or so, Quranic Arabic would have mutated.
That is until an explosion of Arabic literature came about in the 8th century from which very satisfying corpora can be derived; paying special regard to the early grammarians and lexicographers.
And even still, in the space of two centuries, because the Quran was preserved in text, there would not have occurred a substantial shift in the written language; not least one which would warrant the people of today to indulge in the forgery of significations to compensate for the hypothesized loss.
On a few occasions, the Quran describes itself as an ?Arabic Quran.? Am I therefore to understand its text in anything other than the language in which it was revealed?
-
Brilliant. Languages are not forged. So you're saying what the dictionaries captured is the EXACT meaning intended by the Quran?
-
I see. So what is the meaning of alif , laam, meem?
-
Peace,
Alif is the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, Lm, the 23rd, and Mm, the 24th.
Or, according to the Abjad order, the first, the 12th, and the 14th, respectively.
They bear no intrinsic meaning.
If the allusion is to 21, we will note that the letters do not occur as part of a sentence, they are listed, as three distinct letters.
They stand for whatever the Author intended of them.
-
Peace,
Alif is the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, Lm, the 23rd, and Mm, the 24th.
Or, according to the Abjad order, the first, the 12th, and the 14th, respectively.
They bear no intrinsic meaning.
If the allusion is to 21, we will note that the letters do not occur as part of a sentence, they are listed, as three distinct letters.
They stand for whatever the Author intended of them.
Peace uq,
So what are you saying exactly? Are you trying to say that God revealed the Q to Muhammad the nabiyy as his clear/easy personal guide, and decided to include a few sets of letters that "bear no intrinsic meaning"?
Mohammed Noh
-
lol Abang Noh...my point exactly.
No Arab can agree on the meaning of alif laam meem. Forget about alif laam ra, ha meem, ain seen qaf, noon or whatever. This FIRST aya shows us the mode of language the Quran uses. Instead of the cut and paste style meaning suitable to Western thought, it's more along the lines of zen koans which realisations are sudden and paradigm shifting.
-
Peace uq,
So what are you saying exactly? Are you trying to say that God revealed the Q to Muhammad the nabiyy as his clear/easy personal guide, and decided to include a few sets of letters that "bear no intrinsic meaning"?
Mohammed Noh
Peace Mohammed Noh,
Yes.
Undoubtedly the prophet Muhammad would have recognized the Initials as letters belonging to his language, but did he know what function they fulfilled? That's open to debate.
lol Abang Noh...my point exactly.
No Arab can agree on the meaning of alif laam meem. Forget about alif laam ra, ha meem, ain seen qaf, noon or whatever. This FIRST aya shows us the mode of language the Quran uses. Instead of the cut and paste style meaning suitable to Western thought, it's more along the lines of zen koans which realisations are sudden and paradigm shifting.
Peace abdalquran,
Forgive me, I haven't understood, is the argument that due to our ignorance of the purpose of the Initials, we are at liberty to invent meanings for them? and indeed, for the entire text of the Quran?
-
Peace,
Alif is the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, Lm, the 23rd, and Mm, the 24th.
Or, according to the Abjad order, the first, the 12th, and the 14th, respectively.
They bear no intrinsic meaning.
If the allusion is to 21, we will note that the letters do not occur as part of a sentence, they are listed, as three distinct letters.
They stand for whatever the Author intended of them.
Arabic is a language of syllables. For signifying meanings we need atleast one syllable which comprises a consonant and a vowel . There is no vowel in the first Ayah. Therefore, they are just one letter and two consonants with diacritic mark of sound stretcher.
So called Mystery of Initial Letter/Consonants.
