Arabic language and the great reading

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