Arabic language and the great reading
-
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 -
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.
-
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,
AnwarKnowledge always beats conjecture.
-
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
YesRequires lexical stretching Yes NoExplains placement Weakly StronglyRespects Qur’anic silence No YesPredictive No YesThe 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 unsoundIt 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.
-
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
