Arabic language and the great reading
-
salams guys
br progod, i think some of your post is missing? i'd love to hear the full version if i could, it's very interesting.
just wanted to point out real quick that I did not say that an informal language is UNABLE to communicate. What I said was "slang" and "street talk" can lead to a great deal of ambiguity in the sentences, the sentence structure, etc.. a lot of times the "rules of speech" can change rapidly, one set of lingo being outdated and replaced within short order... vocabulary also changes very rapidly, etc.
As much as we'd like to think grammar exists simply to make life difficult and "rigid," it's true purpose is to fascilitate communication by standardization of forms so that meanings will not be ambiguous or easily twisted, and will be preserved for a longer period.
As far as what language the Quran is in... I think it's obviously "formal" in the sense that there is nothing slang or slap-stick about it. No laziness in structure, no shortcut in meaning... it's too precise and too perfect to be considered "informal."
I wonder if our definitions of formal and informal are the same? I think br Progod takes it to mean a holy sanctified language used for ceremonial purposes... and of course I agree that Arabic was not like that in pre-Islamic times, hence "informal"... but I think br Ayman is saying something totally different, that Arabic was just slang and street talk. A supercomputer used for propping up your feet if you will.
wassalam
-
I disagree with one point of yours (but I agree with your approach to the issue.) Conversly, I agree with ayman's classification but disagree with is approach.
Grammar are the rules of communication. Every language has it. Grammar is not a tool to preserve a language, it is the rules of expression that the language follows so that its speakers can understand each other.
Informal language is language that is used in informal situations (among your family, friends etc. when you are not trying to impress anyone)
Formal langue is language that you use in public speeches, with your teacher, older people, the priest, at a job etc, to impress people.
Not all langauges have separate styles of langauge for informal and formal situations but most do.
The grammar (rules of expression) of formal talk is intentionally frozen. It resists change on all fronts because its form of expression is uniquely recognized as dignified.
The grammar of informal talk is unintentionally frozen, only if there are no foreign linguistic influences in a societies informal situations.
As far as what language the Quran is in... I think it's obviously "formal" in the sense that there is nothing slang or slap-stick about it. No laziness in structure, no shortcut in meaning... it's too precise and too perfect to be considered "informal."
There is nothing lazy, slang or slap stick about informal language. That is just a general judgement call. Informal talk follow rules as well, rules that are native to the language as a whole, formal and informal. It is just that formal talk imitates a particular style of expression, usually the style of parents.
Formal talk is nothing but the glorification of a particular era's informal talk with its slang(jargon) and common forms of expression ( whether poetic, choppy, plain, embellished, etc.). It's like taking the way people talked in the 30's and making it the standard for English. New terms that follow the same rules but differ from the terms of the 30's are called slang and slap-stick, but in fact these terms follow the same rules of metaphor or hyperbole that words from the 30's did.
That is the danger in trying to give formal talk more merit then informal talk. It's just not true. One is in no way better than the other. The formal just imitates a certain style that achieved high status somehow.
I also believe that the language of Muhammad that the Koran was in was just as much as street vernacular as the street vernaculars in use today. Spanish used to be a street vernacular of Latin, French and Italian as well.
Now look at them. They had the same rules and structure then as they do now. Somebody just analyzed those rules and put them into a book. When those languages attained high status (through the expansion empires and the acquisition of wealth by its speakers) the books were written for a particular eras jargon and expressions and the standard was set and enforced.An isolated langauge has a certain amount of fluidity based on its rules of expression. We see in the Koran how wassaa can be used for awsaa and nazzala for anzala, mihrab for mihraab, wa for fa etc. etc. That is the fluidity of the language, which natives understand intuitively from constantly hearing and using the language. Whether people on the street conversed in it (street talk) or it was only the language of poets and kings(formal talk), without rules of expression (grammar) we can't understand what we say to each other. The use of metaphors in our street talk is well based in literature, like poetry which we mix into our daily speech. So using bread, dough, cream or cheese for money doesn't consitute NON-English expression and it can even make its way into formal expression depending on the circumstances. The only reason it is looked at as slap-stick, slang or unacceptable is because it doesn't conform to a certain era's form of speech that might not have been so easy with using poetical language. Sometimes it just has to do with who is saying (if black people say it its slang, if rich white people say it its formal english).
I don't agree to the implication that informal talk is slap stick and doesn't follow exact rules, when it does. I also resent the implication that formal talk is somehow more precise than informal talk. Those are just baseless judgement calls.
Whether the Koran was in formal talk or informal talk it still followed specific rules of expression (grammar) so that its audience could understand what it was saying.
Godbless,
AnwarHope that was clear.
-
Great assessments from all, however, does this mean that the rules of grammar are infallible? Or, does God teach through the reading how He uses the language and therefore correct any contrary rules of grammar?
God would not teach through the Koran how HE uses the Classical Arabic language. He would demonstrate how the Classical Arabs used their language. If God sent us a book in English he would not violate the rules of English expression, because that would make the book incomprehendible and cause confusion, maybe even make us think that God doesn't know how to use our language.
The fact that the Koran was revealed in Classical Arabic using the Classical Arabs rules of Classical Arabic expression is a fact. Whether the grammarians got the rules of Classical Arabic expression right can be up for debate. But that has to be proven by finding a mistake in the grammarians' work. The Koran will never be able to clarify for us mistake that they may have made because we have to go through their knowledge in order to understand an inkling of what the Koran is saying. We find the mistakes where the grammarians contradict themselves.
So far people have claimed that the grammarians made mistakes based on the following
- The meaning of the words they record have multiple and distinct meanings.
That is not the basis of any mistake because a language CAN have multiple and distinct meanings for one word or root.
People also have tried to say that because an Islamic meaning doesn't fit that the grammarians made a mistake. But that is wrong. The translator made a mistake by forcing an Islamic meaning onto an Arabic word. Like Zakat for instance. Zakaat doesn't mean 'poor-rate' in Classical Arabic. That is a later, islamic invention, and the dictionary might include that Islam meaning, among other meanings, but it is up to us to be able to see that the meaning is clearly post-koranic and use other meanings found in the dictionary that are not post-koranic in origin and make sense in the context.
Godbles,
Anwar -
salam anwar,
good points... i think i am pretty much along the same line of thought that you are.
Grammar are the rules of communication. Every language has it. Grammar is not a tool to preserve a language, it is the rules of expression that the language follows so that its speakers can understand each other.
I agree, but a secondary benefit to having systematized/standardized grammar is the preservation of meaning. That is, I believe, at least partially why we can read the words of the Quran despite 1400 years having passed, whereas English even 400 years old is hard to comprehend and has very different vocabulary.
I think the whole discussion of formal informal is getting a bit confusing. We have to also remember that even a single language, e.g. English, has formal and informal forms, slang and streettalk as well. The merit of the formal form, however, is that it is more clear and erudite throughout time. At the other extreme, the slang form may not even be comprehensible outside of its time or outside of its context. If one of us were to hear a "slang" English conversation from 100 years ago, it would be quite difficult to fully understand it... or slang from different locales, such as England, Australia, etc. Informal expression may be affected by this problem to some degree, and formal should be affected least by this since it is following most closely to standardized grammatical forms and vocabulary.
Of course, Arabic, like other languages, had to start from somewhere... but by the time the Quran was revealed, it must have achieved a state wherein a high level of timeless and "spaceless" expression could be made.
There is nothing lazy, slang or slap stick about informal language.
Well I was referring to br. Ayman's comment that Arabic was at the time of the Quran, slang and street talk.
-
Peace,
God would not teach through the Koran how HE uses the Classical Arabic language.
A poor choice of words which did not clarify my point.
He would demonstrate how the Classical Arabs used their language. If God sent us a book in English he would not violate the rules of English expression, because that would make the book incomprehendible and cause confusion, maybe even make us think that God doesn't know how to use our language.
My point exactly. The codification is frozen within the reading and mistakes of grammarians who are fallible can be perceived. HE teaches and preserves and arranges the guidance. The use of language is always subjective and the intention of the communicator is sometimes perceived differently by the listener and is diversified even with the so-called correct grammar. The God?s usage will provide us with the details and subtleties to understand the message. The formula is given within the reading irrespective of codifications in books outside the reading.
Islamic meaning--therein lays the problem. These religious meanings are forced onto words. The God has not enjoined religion. Religion is purely a man-made concept and these meanings will never fit.
-
Peace brother Anwar, all,
The fact that the Koran was revealed in Classical Arabic using the Classical Arabs rules of Classical Arabic expression is a fact. Whether the grammarians got the rules of Classical Arabic expression right can be up for debate. But that has to be proven by finding a mistake in the grammarians' work. The Koran will never be able to clarify for us mistake that they may have made because we have to go through their knowledge in order to understand an inkling of what the Koran is saying. We find the mistakes where the grammarians contradict themselves.
But we do find many expressions in the great reading that are considered "mistakes" according to the hunderds of years after the fact Classical Arabic grammar rules. Some well-known examples include 569 where "Sabi'una" should be "Sabi'ina" according to the rules of so-called Classical Arabic. "Moqimin" should be "moqimun" in 4162. In 2177 "sabirin" should be "sabirun". According to Classical Arabic grammar rules, "yakun" in 359 is in the wrong tense. There are many more. You don't see those sorts of "mistakes" in Hadith or poetry.
So because the great reading can't be wrong, it is a fact that what you call Classical Arabic does not reflect the real language of the great reading.
So far people have claimed that the grammarians made mistakes based on the following
- The meaning of the words they record have multiple and distinct meanings.
The meaning of words is not the domain of grammarians. It is the domain of lexigraphers. Since lexigraphers who developed dictionaries such as Lisan Al-3arab did so over 600 years after the fact, it is natural that they had to look at etymology. Unlike you, they knew that Classical Arabic had evolved. For example, in Lisan Al-3arab, you find many meanings where the lexigrapher says that they are archaic and are not used anymore and they always end the discussion of such meanings with "Allahu A3lam". Thus, some of those archaic meanings dating to 600 years earlier were certainly missed by the lexigraphers. This is why it is essential that we use dictionaries and the sources we have intelligently to try to figure out the etymology. This is especially true in the case where the meaning doesn't fit the context or leads to contradictions in the great reading.
What is wrong is your claim that we can't improve on the work of lexigraphers who were not fortunate to have as much access to information and sources as us. This is the same claim that Shaf3i made when he instituted the principle of "taqlid"/"immitation" (the "lays fi al-imkan a7san mima kan" syndrome) and closed the door to "ijtihad" (striving to understand).
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace beatnik,
Story I found interesting
Manuscripts 'treated as fossils'
Thank you for the very interesting link. This is what I have been saying all along to those who claim that the great reading was not in written form because of the small number of early manuscripts. The very low probability of survival of such manuscripts indicates that they came from a much larger population.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
salams all,
about the grammar "mistakes" in the quran, this has been answered to some extent by grammarians. my opinion is that those are grammatical tools for placing emphasis in a way that perhaps became archaic.
using these few examples to create a chasm between "classical Arabic" and "Quranic Arabic" is unwarranted.
here's an interesting link for those wanting to read a bit more about the topic.
http//debate.domini.org/newton/
-
about the grammar "mistakes" in the quran, this has been answered to some extent by grammarians. my opinion is that those are grammatical tools for placing emphasis in a way that perhaps became archaic.
using these few examples to create a chasm between "classical Arabic" and "Quranic Arabic" is unwarranted.
here's an interesting link for those wanting to read a bit more about the topic.
http//debate.domini.org/newton/
Here is another better attempt in addition to the above at reconciling those alleged grammatical errors
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html
However, all those attempts fall short. They claim that the great reading uses something called "iltifat"/drawing attention, which requires making grammatical errors. However, what they forget is that such a device is NEVER used in alleged Jahiliya poetry or Hadiths. Hence, you NEVER find a Hadith or an alleged Jahiliya poem where, for example, as in 2177 there is an accusative "in" when it should be a nominative "un" according to the rules of Classical Arabic grammar. They also claim that it is making "sabirin" more important than the other terms. However, this excuse is completely subjective because one could argue that being from the "mutaqun" is equally or more important. The same thing can be said about "moqimin" in 4162.
As you see, from the article above they DO NOT BRING ANY EXAMPLE from Hadith or alleged Jahiliya poetry to explain ungrammatical shifts such as in Case Marker or tense because there is NONE.
Surprisingly, the best explanation they bring is not theirs but is this one
"R?z? argues that God Most High must have had His reasons for the distinctions between the inflections of the verses. Were we capable of fathoming those reasons, we should indeed have achieved perfection. When we admit that we are incapable of divining those reasons, we recognize the weakness of our human intellects, not any weakness in the Divine Word. "
The above statement ADMITS that there are things in the great reading that are not explainable by the Classical Arabic grammar rules. Are they mistakes in the great reading or are Classical Arabic grammar rules not reflecting the real Classical Arabic of the great reading?
I don't believe that the great reading is mistaken, therefore, you is mistaken, there are a "chasm" between "Classical Arabic" and the Arabic of the great reading. (Can you spot the "iltifat"?) )
You subconsciously admitted to this fact when you said "became archaic". Archaic by definition means from a prior era and that is why there is a "chasm" and those archaic features are not reflected in the more modern so-called "Classical" Arabic grammar.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
salams br ayman,
I don't believe that the great reading is mistaken, therefore, you is mistaken, there are a "chasm" between "Classical Arabic" and the Arabic of the great reading. (Can you spot the "iltifat"?)
Well, I find it hard to propose that due to a few apparent "exceptions to the rule," all of a sudden classical Arabic which apparently CAN encompass 99.9% of the Quranic language, is now wholly inadequate and there is a "chasm." How is it that you can claim that so easily?
You subconsciously admitted to this fact when you said "became archaic". Archaic by definition means from a prior era and that is why there is a "chasm" and those archaic features are not reflected in the more modern so-called "Classical" Arabic grammar.
Not subconsciously bro, consciously. I purposely said that, because I do believe that grammar is a backward viewing science based on the language at hand. Now if at the time of codification of Arabic grammar (several years AFTER the revelation of the Quran), certain linguistic techniques or poetic techniques had become archaic (or escaped the attention of the grammarian), obviously they would not be included.
I agree, so called "classical" grammar is obviously from a later date and thus it certainly could have clashes with the Quran for the above reasons... this I think points out weaknesses in the grammarians or their sources at hand.
If you look at those links carefully again bro, I can't vouch for the truthfulness since I dont have the particular sources, but one of those responses did indeed quote from jahiliyyah poetry from somewhere. It may or may not be valid, who knows.
But I do think we have to keep in mind that even though the work that comes to us as "classical Arabic grammar" clashes on those few circumstances with the Quran, on the whole it does not. Hence, I dont think it's warranted to make the claim that there is a huge chasm between classical Arabic grammar and Quranic grammar.
I understand the point you are trying to make about the informality and fluidity of Quranic Arabic... however, it seems rather out of place to make such a huge claim if it only applies to less than 0.1% of the text.
wassalam
-
Peace brother Shuaib,
Well, I find it hard to propose that due to a few apparent "exceptions to the rule," all of a sudden classical Arabic which apparently CAN encompass 99.9% of the Quranic language, is now wholly inadequate and there is a "chasm." How is it that you can claim that so easily?
I didn't say that. All I said is that there is a chasm. I don't know precisely how big this chasm is. I don't know how you arrived at 99.9%. Mixing the accusative with the nominative is no small matter. However, even if it is small and only as you say 0.1% is wrong, then this means that we should not accept rules of grammar blindly. We should always verify them against the great reading. We are in agreement here.
Not subconsciously bro, consciously. I purposely said that, because I do believe that grammar is a backward viewing science based on the language at hand. Now if at the time of codification of Arabic grammar (several years AFTER the revelation of the Quran), certain linguistic techniques or poetic techniques had become archaic (or escaped the attention of the grammarian), obviously they would not be included.
Not "several years" but the first attempt at codification was over 150 years later by the Persian Sibaweh, who they call the "father" of Classical Arabic grammar.
I agree, so called "classical" grammar is obviously from a later date and thus it certainly could have clashes with the Quran for the above reasons... this I think points out weaknesses in the grammarians or their sources at hand.
I agree, all the more reason why we shouldn't blindly accept 100% of their grammatical code.
If you look at those links carefully again bro, I can't vouch for the truthfulness since I dont have the particular sources, but one of those responses did indeed quote from jahiliyyah poetry from somewhere. It may or may not be valid, who knows.
They only quote alleged Jahiliya poetry for one type out of the many types of "errors". Basically, they quote it for two of the cases for the change in person type. I didn't consider that an error and hence if you go back to my post you will see that I didn't refer to it.
But I do think we have to keep in mind that even though the work that comes to us as "classical Arabic grammar" clashes on those few circumstances with the Quran, on the whole it does not. Hence, I dont think it's warranted to make the claim that there is a huge chasm between classical Arabic grammar and Quranic grammar.
I understand the point you are trying to make about the informality and fluidity of Quranic Arabic... however, it seems rather out of place to make such a huge claim if it only applies to less than 0.1% of the text.
Brother, I didn't say that there is a "huge" chasm. All I said is that there is a chasm so we are in agreement here.
Thank you for your understanding.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
salams br ayman,
thanks for your response. yes i think we are pretty much in agreement. yes actually by several years i meant over 100 )
hmm, well I guess i am a little confused because I thought the original point you were making was that "Quranic Arabic" was informal and fluid.. but from what we can see, MOST of the quran adheres pretty well to what we call classical arabic grammar. The so-called fluidity is only apparent in a very small number of examples... i say less than 0.1% because at most i know of 15 words which are allegedly "grammatically incorrect," out of the thousands of words in the Quran.
If these "errors" were the result of fluidity, then there should be MANY more examples... the fact that there is such a strong preference towards one type of grammar and these examples are the rare exceptions leads me to believe there is some other explanation. I believe because it is so rare, it was purposeful and intentional... not the result of fluidity.
-
Those grammatial differences are grammatical differences between Modern Arabic and Classical Arabic. In those so called grammatical errors the citers are using Modern Arabic rules to say that Classical Arabic rules are wrong. That is ridiculous. They do this with illa as well. Illa is literally in + laa. It is on the same level as 'anna' and 'inna' and 'innamaa' etc. It can be declined afterwards or not declined. If it is mansoob a mood of intensity should be interpreted. If it is not mansoob it should just be taken as is. If you look in Classical Arabic grammar books you will get this. If you look in Modern Arabic grammar books you will not. Unforturanetely both Classical Arabic and Modern Arabic in Arabic are called 'Al-fushaa' however there is a fus-han qadeematun (old) and a fus-han asreeyatun(modern). Be careful not to interpret Classical Arabic rules with modern Arabic rules. That is all that those who claim mistakes are doing. For instance 'an' means so many more things in Classical Arabic than it does in Modern Arabic. But if you use Modern Arabic rules you only get part of the big picture, and you misinterpret valid Classical Arabic grammar as mistaken.
Same with the iltifaat. Those difference in tenses are sometimes grammatical and other times misinterpreted because everyone thinks that God narrates the Koran. The first passage of the Koran makes it clear that God is not narrating the Koran. Secondly, the Koran uses a style of quotes that sometimes uses 'an' to begin it, 'wa' to begin it or nothing at all. It iis very vernacular in feel. If one goes to the passages about teh three boys and the dog in the cave one will see how the Koran begins to quote without stating so once it has already established that it is in a certain time or dealing with a certain person separate from the narrator of the Koran.
If one takes this into consideration and take into consideration that Gabriel narrates the Koran with the help of other angels and that he is in charge of other angels than all of those we's, you's and I's become clear.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Grouryourself, you said
Islamic meaning--therein lays the problem. These religious meanings are forced onto words. The God has not enjoined religion. Religion is purely a man-made concept and these meanings will never fit.
This statment is scary to me. It speaks to how your arguments might be tainted and stubborn. I may be wrong but that statement is a broad and presumptious one. You might find it rigteious because "religion" has a negative stigma and you are trying to distance your self from this stigma that modern/secular society has given to religion as a whole because of certain religions' errors and egregious abuses.
Religion is not really a man-made concept. I don't know what your perceptions about religion are, but a religion is a world-view that entails rites and rituals in order to appease some supreme authority. That can translate into secular terms also but a secular person will fight you on this becuase they believe that for something to be a 'god' you have to refer to it as a god. Despite that, any supreme authority is a god to the persoon that views that thing or person as a supreme authority.
Despite that the rest of your post was answered in my previoius one. The 'grammatical errors' really come from the mistake of viewing Classical Arabic through modern Arabic lenses. Modern Arabic is mistakenly also called 'fus-haa' because it follows most of the rules of fus-haa but is limited in its grammar and meaning. Modern Arabic borrows from Classical Arabic, it is a reduction of Classical Arabic. Modern Arabic will always follow Classical Arabic rules but Classical Arabic rules will not always follow Modern Arabic rules, because it is bigger than that.
As for Ayman's statement that the occurence of the Koran made Classical Arabic a formal langauge. That is a presumption, and not a good one based on the evidence. Just because you want to believe that everything in the Hadeeth and the Pre-islamic poems are post-koranic forgeries doesn't make it so. Aramaic and the Arabic languages mixed as well, not talking about the scripts. Those transliterations that you give make it obvious that Hebrew and Aramaic had been mixing with Arabic in those areas where the inscriptions are found.
As for Sabaic, good point. However, when I speak about Southern Arabic I'm not speaking about Sabaic. That is obviously an ancestor of Southern Arabic. What I am speaking about is was called Himyaree in the days of Muhammad.
Godbless,
AnwarGodbless,
Anwar -
Peace Progod
This statment is scary to me. It speaks to how your arguments might be tainted and stubborn. I may be wrong but that statement is a broad and presumptious one. You might find it rigteious because "religion" has a negative stigma and you are trying to distance your self from this stigma that modern/secular society has given to religion as a whole because of certain religions' errors and egregious abuses.
It was meant to be a broad statement but informed and not presumptuous. I won?t presume to try to analyze why you have fears and maybe you?ll explain this. I?m clear on the word religion and there is no religion in the Qur'aan. You perhaps mistake confidence for stubbornness. I think G. A. Parvez has made an excellent case in ?Islam A Challenge to Religion? to give one reference.
Religion is not really a man-made concept. I don't know what your perceptions about religion are, but a religion is a world-view that entails rites and rituals in order to appease some supreme authority. That can translate into secular terms also but a secular person will fight you on this becuase they believe that for something to be a 'god' you have to refer to it as a god. Despite that, any supreme authority is a god to the persoon that views that thing or person as a supreme authority.
If it is not ?really? a man-made concept then what is it? A concept revealed by God for mankind to adopt as guidance? The negative stigma you mention is what differentiates God?s prescribed way of life from religion which perpetuates division, shirk. The God tells us what is ?righteousness? in the reading so what I think is irrelevant. There is no appeasement of God in the reading. Anything we do benefits or is harmful to ourselves. A moral, just, chaste, charitable person is not necessarily a religious person by definition. The guidance in the reading is not dogmatic including the acceptance of the Creator. He has presented proof of His existence and the proof of the soundness of the injunctions for us is verifiable, attainable and logical. I agree that referring to a thing as a god is not the criterion for actually taking a thing as a god. As for the grammarians and lexicologists, where is the perfect translation of the reading that should be so easy for these scholars? It?s even a small book as books go and God says "Its easy" -). It?s absence represents the dynamic of the God teaching and conveyance of the message into the hearts of those who would be guided. I really respect your intellect and education but I cannot accept the mastering of Arabic grammar as a prerequisite for understanding God?s universal message to mankind and I?m not saying that this is your position. This science has its limitations when it comes to understanding the reading. It hasn?t helped the writers of the grammar books and lexicons and I?m not saying that it hasn?t helped you. I like your approach in your introduction that gives the reader insight into the understanding and or biases of the translator. I?d like to read extensive introductions including the translators? insights, understanding and agenda and even an autobiography. Thanks for sharing your understanding.
A side thought, I watched ?Something The Lord Made? twice in one day. I was profoundly touched by the natural instinct of Dr. Vivien Thomas an African-American non-doctor at Johns Hopkins and a pioneer in heart surgery who lacked a formal education in his field. I?ll watch it again this week with my grandchildren. Some of us work very hard to be good at what we do but then some of us are inspired.
-
If one takes this into consideration and take into consideration that Gabriel narrates the Koran with the help of other angels and that he is in charge of other angels than all of those we's, you's and I's become clear.
Peace Progod
Can you give the Quranic references that support this understanding? It is very interesting. Thanks.
-
linkage again today. Sorry I dont have anything interesting to add to the debate, but when I come across links that remind me of this thread, I have the urge to give you all the heads up
http//preterhuman.net/texts/history/arabic/
3 links to the same book I think, in pdf format (need Adobe reader to open and read) and html.
Important to note that it is ancient account of Arabia, have to take the words of dead people.
-
Grouryourself,
I do believe that mastery of Classical Arabic is prerequisite to understanding the Koran. But that doesn?t mean that your heart will open up to its message. All of the things that I?ve explained, the difference between Islamic Arabic and pre'Islamic arabic and how to reckon that is not something that those who master arabic are concerned in. Those who master arabic are concerned in reading the opinions of Islamic scholars and become prominent Islamic scholars. So of course they will not approach the Koran with this approach. To them everything is accounted for. To them the Islamic opinions are all that matter so they don?t have to think about Jahiliyah and its Arabic.
It is because of their motives and perceptions that they haven?t seen what I?ve been saying. It is because of thse motives that they haven?t mastered Arabic fully or understood its full range. They understand that Islamic meanings didn?t exist in pre'Islamic times but that is not important to them because they belive that that Islam validates the Koran and not the other way around.
Reading the Koran in its correct language will open up our ABILITY to understand it. Whether our hearts are there is another question, whether we want to understand that the Koran and its meanings were before Islam and its meanings is another question. Those people haven?t mastered Arabic they?ve mastered Islam. And those orientalists who?ve mastered Arabic have their hearts set in westernism or athiesm, just as many of the Jahiliyah Arabs had their hearts set in their cultures and ways that they practiced before the Koran.
Mastering the language ensures that you understand it. Once you?ve gotten to that point you have to really consider it to believe in it and take something away from its messages. There were plenty of Jahiliyah Arabs and Muslim Arabs (even Persians who mastered the language) who understood the language of the Koran perfectly but they considered, rather regarded, the importance of their respective cultures more.
Godbless,
Anwar