Arabic language and the great reading

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

shuaib

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/

ayman

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

shuaib

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

ayman

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

shuaib

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.

progod

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

progod

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,
Anwar

Grourself

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.

Grourself

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.

beatnik

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.

progod

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

Grourself

Peace Progod,

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.

No doubt my brother! )

The God guides those who seek the guidance. There is much in the reading that gives insight into their motives and agendas. Those who profess and manifest these characteristics will never be guided. It is His law. Thanks for your reply.

progod

Maybe now you can understand where Im coming from a little better. If I get a little scarce in my replies it is because i am abroad but we can still continue. Please do not confuse learning the workings of Classical Arabic and thereby Jahiliyyah Arabic with the opinions and inclinations of religious scholars.

With that said how about we continue to clarify the issue here-

Learning Classical Arabic is the basis upon which we will understand the Koran

Distinguishing and eliminating post-koranic meanings of words is the best way to distinguish jahiliyah Classical Arabic from Islamic Classical Arabic, as they are the same language but Islamic Classical ARabic has words with post'koranic meaings, most with origins in post'koranic islamic ideology.

Jahiliyah Classical Arabic does not follow all of the rules that Modern Standard Arabic follows. Unfortunately both of these are called fus'haa, but Modern Standard Arabic is a reduction (grammatically) of Jahiliyah Classical Arabic. So we must be careful when we say,

Classical Arabic grammarians say that the rule is such and such and the Koran doesnt agree with that usage all of time so the grammarians are wrong about classical arabic grammar,

Because most times it is not classical Arabic grammar that people are examining but Modern Standard Arabic, thinking that it is the same because it is also called al'fus'haa.

Mistakes in the Koran are only mistakes when using modern standard Arabic grammar rules not the grammatical observation of grammarians about real Classical Arabic.

When the rules of real Classical Arabic are understood by everyone or atleast someone who has enough resources to translate the Koran, and the post'koranic meanings are taken out of our understandings of the Koran the Koran will open up in ways never seen before, rightfully, and the need for people to invent meanings because islamic ideas are the only ideas that they can find as a particular definition for an Arabic word will dissappear.

It is right that some of the Islamic ideas just dont sit right. But is wrong to try to invent meanings and to degrade the work of good grammarians in order to facilitate fabrications.

But instead of resorting to fabrications all that is needed is a little more research.

Godbless,
Anwar

Knowledge always beats conjecture.

progod

I'm starting to doubt this last statement of mine.

Godbless,
ProGod

Wakas

I asked chatGPT's view on the initialed chapters:

They function as deliberate, unexplained textual markers that:

Draw attention to the text as language
Frame revelation as composed of ordinary letters
Introduce passages asserting Qur’anic authority, guidance, or challenge
Serve as a standing provocation rather than a solvable code
In short:

“This revelation is made from the very letters you know—yet you cannot reproduce it.”
They are signposts, not puzzles.

I then asked it to analyse bro Ayman's take (it's analysis may or may not be accurate):

This theory is interesting, creative, and rhetorically attractive, and you are right that it touches the same pressure points I identified earlier (language awareness, rhetorical framing, challenge, audience).
However, when analysed carefully methodologically, linguistically, and contextually, it overreaches and ultimately fails as an explanation, even though it gets some important instincts right.

I’ll analyse it in three layers:

Where it aligns with strong insights
Where it breaks linguistically and methodologically
Why the more modest rhetorical-signpost explanation remains superior

I’ll be precise and fair.

1. Where this theory is genuinely onto something

A. Correct rejection of mystical / cryptographic readings

The author is right to reject:

Hidden codes
Numerology
Esoteric divine secrets

That aligns perfectly with:

Qur’anic self-description as bayān / mubīn
The absence of any internal decoding instruction
The late emergence of numerological tafsīr

So far: sound instinct.

B. Correct emphasis on oral reception and language awareness

The theory rightly stresses:

The Qur’an as heard discourse
Immediate audience comprehension
Shock value and rhetorical impact

This supports the idea that the letters do something to listeners, rather than encode information.

Again: strong insight.

C. Correct observation that some letter clusters can form Arabic words

This is true in a limited sense:

Ṭā Hā (طه) can be read as a vocative particle in some South Semitic traditions
Yā Sīn (يس) plausibly functions as a vocative or name-like form
Some roots like ḥ-m (حم) exist in lexica

This means the traditional claim “they are meaningless letters” is too simplistic.

legitimate challenge to lazy traditionalism.

2. Where the theory fails (decisively)

This is where things unravel.

1. Lexical cherry-picking and semantic stretching

The author repeatedly does this:

“According to classical Arabic dictionaries, X means Y”

But what’s actually happening is:

Selecting rare, marginal, or disputed glosses
Ignoring frequency, register, and usage
Treating any lexically attested meaning as contextually valid

Example problems:

Ṭā Hā = “hey man / yo”

This meaning is highly contested
Often traced to non-Qur’anic, later, or poetic usage
Even when accepted, it is vocative, not slang

No Arab listener hears “yo” here.
That is a modern English projection, not a historical equivalence.

2. Violation of Qur’anic register consistency

The Qur’an:

Uses elevated, rhythmic, controlled Arabic
Avoids colloquial slang elsewhere
Never signals register-shifting into street talk

If these were slang:

Why only at chapter openings?
Why never recur in discourse?
Why no syntactic integration?

Languages do not behave like this.

This makes the “slang” claim sociolinguistically implausible.

3. Category error: words vs. discourse function

The biggest flaw:

“If they are words, they must mean something lexically”

This is false.

Many discourse markers:

Are not semantically loaded
Function pragmatically, not lexically
Signal attention, transition, or framing

Examples across languages:

“Lo”
“Behold”
“Indeed”
“Now then”
Alphabetic invocations in Semitic liturgy

Trying to force lexical meanings onto pragmatic markers is a classic linguistic mistake.

4. Inconsistency and special pleading

The theory admits:

“18 are not yet deciphered”

This is fatal.

If the principle were correct:

We should expect systematic recoverability
At least root-pattern consistency
Clear semantic coherence across suras

Instead, we get:

Ad hoc glosses
Multiple meanings per cluster
No predictive power

That’s not discovery — it’s retrofitting.

5. The writing-system argument is weak

The claim that:

“They are written joined, therefore words”

fails because:

Qur’anic orthography is not phonetic spelling
Script conventions were fluid
Recitation (qirāʾah) clearly treats them as letter names, not lexical words

Orthography ≠ semantics.

3. Why the rhetorical-signpost theory remains stronger

Let’s compare explanations:

Criterion	Slang/Word Theory	Rhetorical Signpost Theory
Fits all cases	No	Yes
Requires lexical stretching	Yes	No
Explains placement	Weakly	Strongly
Respects Qur’anic silence	No	Yes
Predictive	No	Yes

The signpost theory says:

These letters are meant to be heard as letters, not decoded as words — and their very bareness is the point.

This:

Explains why they are unexplained
Explains why they cluster near revelation claims
Explains why they resist tafsīr
Explains why later scholars struggled

Your quoted theory tries to resolve the mystery.
The Qur’an seems designed to sustain it.

Final assessment

Verdict:
Stimulating but methodologically unsound

It correctly:

Rejects mysticism
Emphasises language
Challenges clerical monopoly

But it fails by:

Over-lexicalising discourse markers
Importing modern slang analogies
Treating rare glosses as primary meanings
Abandoning consistency when stuck

Ironically, the theory commits the same error it accuses traditionalists of:

forcing certainty where the text maintains tension

Food for thought.

Wakas

I decided I might as well have a speculative go at the Quran initials. It's based on the understanding that al kitab is different to al quran:
https://www.quranvshadith.com/Book-Wisdom.html

https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-initials.html