The Ten readings
-
The word 'qir'aat' is the plural of 'qiraa'a', which comes from the root q-r-a meaning, 'to read, to recite'. 'Qiraa'a' means the recitation of something.
In Qur'aanic sciences, it refers to the various ways and manners of reciting the Qur'aan that are in existence today. As Imaam az-Zarkashee stated, the Qur'aan is the revelation that was given to Muhammad (PBUH), and the qira'aat are the variations in the words and pronunciations of this revelation. Thus the qira'aat are the verbalisation of the Qur'aan, and the Qur'aan is preserved in the qira'aat.
Each qiraa'a has its own peculiar rules of recitation (tajweed) and variations in words and letters, and is names after the reciter (Qaaree) who was famous for that particular qiraa'a.
The scholars of the succeeding generations started compiling works on the different qira'aat that were present in their times. For example, Aboo 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam (d. 224 A.H.) compiled twenty-five qira'aat, Ahmad ibn Jubayr al-Koofee (d. 258 A.H.) wrote a book on five qira'aat, and al-Qaadee Ismaa'eel ibn Ishaaq (d. 282 A.H.) compiled his book on twenty qira'aat (including the famous 'seven'. Even Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310) compiled a work on the qira'aat. However, the most famous of these books is the one by Aboo Bakr Ahmad ibn Mujaahid (d. 324), entitled Kitaab al-Qira'aat, in which he compiled seven of the most famous qira'aat of his time from the major cities of the Muslim world. He was the first to limit himself to these particular Qaarees, for he wanted to combine the most famous recitations of Makkah, Madeenah, Koofah, Basrah, and Damascus, for these were the five territories from which the knowledge of Islaam sprung forth - the knowledge of the Qur'aan, tafseer, hadeeth and fiqh.
"Every qiraa'a that conforms to the rules of Arabic, even if by one manner, and matches with one of the mus-hafs of 'Uthmaan, even if such a match is not an obvious one, and has an authentic chain of narrators back to the Prophet (PBUH), is an authentic qiraa'a. Such a qiraa'a cannot be refuted or denied, but rather must be believed in, and is amongst the seven ahruf that the Qur'aan was revealed in. Therefore the people must accept it, whether it be from the seven qira'aat (mentioned above), or from the ten qira'aat, or even other than these. And whenever any qiraa'a fails to meet one of the above mentioned three conditions, then it will be labelled (according to which of the conditions are not met) either weak (da'eef), irregular (shaadh), or false (baatil). And this (i.e., these conditions) is the strongest opinion among the scholars of the past and the present."
If a qiraa'a fails to meet any of these conditions, it is classified in a different category. Different scholars have adopted different classifications for defining those qira'aat that do not meet the above three conditions. One of the simpler ones is as follows
-
The Saheeh (Authentic) Qira'aat These are the ten authentic qira'aat, and the conditions of acceptance were discussed above.
-
The Shaadh (Irregular) Qira'aat These qira'aat have an authentic chain of narration back to the Prophet (PBUH) and conform to Arabic grammar, but do not match the mus-hafs of 'Uthmaan. In addition, they are not mutawaatir. In other words, they employ words of phrases that the 'Uthmaanic mus-hafs do not allow. Most of the time (but not all, see Suyootee's classification below) this type of qira'aat was in fact used by the Companions as explanations to certain verses in the Qur'aan. For example, 'Aa'ishah used to recite 2238 ' wa salat al-wusta' with the addition 'salat al-asr.' The meaning of the first is, "Guard against your prayers, especially the middle one." 'As'ishah's addition explained that the "middle prayer" alluded to in this verse is in fact the 'Asr prayer. There are numerous authentic narrations from the Companions of this nature, in which they recited a certain verse in a way that the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan would not allow.
Another explanation of this type of qira'aat is that they were a part of the ahruf that were revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) but later abrogated, and thus not preserved in the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan. -
The Da'eef (Weak) Qira'aat These qira'aat conform with Arabic grammar and are allowed by the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan, but do not have authentic chains of narrations back to the Prophet (PBUH). An example of this type is the recitation of 14 as malaki yawmu deen, in the past tense.
-
The Baatil (False) Qira'aat These qira'aat do not meet any of the three criterion mentioned above, and are rejected completely, even as tafseer. For example, the reading of 3528 as inama yakhsha Alllaahu min 'ibadhil 'ulama, changes the meaning from, "It is only those who have knowledge amongst His slaves that truly fear Allaah," to, "All is afraid of the knowledge of His slaves!" (All praise be to Allaah, He is far removed from all that they ascribe to Him!!)
Now that the various types of qira'aat have been discussed in detail, it is time to look at the ten authentic qira'aat, and the Qaarees whom they are named after. 443 The first seven are the ones that Aboo Bakr ibn Mujaahid (d. 324 A.H.) preserved in his book, and which ash-Shaatibee (d. 548 A.H.) versified in his famous poem known as ash-Shaatibiyyah.
-
Naafi' al-Madanee
He is Naafi' ibn 'Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Abee Na'eem al-Laythee, originally from an Isfahanian family. He was one of the major scholars of qira'aat during his time. He was born around 70 A.H., in Madeenah, and passed away in the same city at the age of 99, in 169 A.H. He learnt the Qur'aan from over seventy Successors, including Aboo Ja'far Yazeed ibn al-Qa'qa' (d. 130 A.H.), who took his recitation from Aboo Hurayrah, who took his recitation from Ubay ibn Ka'ab, who took his recitation from the Prophet (PBUH). After the era of the Successors, he was taken as the cheif Qaaree of Madeenah. Eventually his qiraa'a was adopted by the people of Madeenah.
Among his students was Imaam Maalik (d. 179 A.H.). Imaam Maalik used to recite the Qur'aan in the qiraa'a of Naafi', and he used to say, "Indeed, the qiraa'a of Naafi' is the Sunnah," 444 meaning that this qiraa'a was the most liked by him.
The two students who preserved his qiraa'a are
i) Qaloon He is 'Eesaa ibn Meena az-Zarqee (120-220 A.H.). He was the stepson of Naafi', and lived his whole life in Madeenah. After Naafi' died, he took over his position as the leading Qaaree of Madeenah.
ii) Warsh He is Aboo Sa'eed 'Uthmaan ibn Sa'eed al-Misree (110-197 A.H.). He lived in Egypt, but travelled to Madeenah in 155 A.H. to study under Naafi', and recited the Qur'aan to him many times. Eventually, he returned to Egypt, and became the leading Qaaree of Egypt. -
Ibn Katheer al-Makkee
He is 'Abd Allaah ibn Katheer ibn 'Umar al-Makkee, born in Makkah in 45 A.H. and died 120 A.H. He was among the generation of the Successors (he met some Companions, such as Anas ibn Maalik and 'Abdullaah ibn az-Zubayr), and learnt the Qur'aan from the early Successors, such as Abee Saa'ib, Mujaahid ibn Jabr (d. 103 A.H.), and Darbaas, the slave of Ibn 'Abbaas. Darbaas learnt the Qur'aan from Ibn 'Abbaas, who learnt it from Zayd ibn Thaabit and Ubay ibn Ka'ab, who both learnt it from the Prophet (PBUH).
Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee (d. 204 A.H.) used to recite the qiraa'a of Ibn Katheer, 445 and once remarked, "We were taught the qiraa'a of Ibn Katheer, and we found the people of Makkah upon his qiraa'a." 446
The two primary Qaarees who preserved his qiraa'a are
i) al-Buzzee He is Abul Hasan Ahmad ibn Buzzah al-Makkee (170-250 A.H.). He was the mu'adh-dhin at the Masjid al-Haraam at Makkah, and the leading Qaaree of Makkah during his time.
ii) Qumbul He is Aboo 'Amr Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahmaan (195-291 A.H.). He was the leading Qaaree of the Hijaaz. He was also one of the teachers of Aboo Bakr ibn Mujaahid (d. 324 A.H.), the author of Kitaab al-Qira'aat. -
Aboo 'Amr al-Basree
He is Zabaan ibn al-'Alaa ibn 'Ammaar al-Basree. He was born in 69 A.H. and passed away in 154 A.H. He was born in Makkah, but grew up in Basrah. He studied the Qur'aan under many of the Successors, among them Aboo Ja'far (d. 130 A.H.), and Aboo al-'Aaliyah (d. 95 A.H.), who learnt from 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab and other Companions, who learnt from the Prophet (PBUH).
The two primary Qaarees who preserved his qiraa'a are
i) ad-Doori He is Hafs ibn 'Umar ad-Doori (195-246 A.H.). He was one of the first to compile different qira'aat , notwithstanding the fact that he was blind.
ii) as-Soosee He is Aboo Shu'ayb Saalih ibn Ziyaad as-Soosee (171-261 A.H.). he taught the Qur'aan to Imaam an-Nasaa'ee (d. 303 A.H.), of Sunan fame. -
Ibn 'Aamir ash-Shaamee
He is 'Abdullaah ibn 'Aamir al-Yahsabee, born in 21 A.H. He lived his life in Damascus, which was the capital of the Muslim empire in those days. He met some of the Companions, and studied the Qur'aan under the Companion Aboo ad-Dardaa, and al-Mugheerah ibn Abee Shihaab. He was the Imaam of the Ummayad Mosque (the primary mosque in Damascus) during the time of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez (d. 103 A.H.), and was well-known for his recitation. Among the seven Qaarees, he has the highest chain or narrators (i.e., least number of people between him and the Prophet (PBUH)), since he studied directly under a Companion. He was also Chief Judge of Damascus. His qiraa'a became accepted by the people of Syria, He died on the day of 'Aashoora, 447 118 A.H.
The two primary Qaarees who preserved his qiraa'a are
i) Hishaam He is Hishaam ibn 'Ammaar as-Damishqee (153-245 A.H.). He was well-known for his recitation, and his knowledge of hadeeth and fiqh, and was one of the teachers of Imaam at-Tirmidhee (d. 279 A.H.).
ii) Ibn Zhakwan He is 'Abdullaah ibn Ahmad ibn Zhakwan (173-242 A.H.). He was also the Imaam of the Ummayad Mosque during his time. -
'Aasim al-Koofee
He is 'Aasim ibn Abee Najood al-Koofee, from among the Successors. He was the most knowledgable person in recitation during his time, and took over the position of Imaam of the Qaarees in Koofah, after the death of Aboo 'Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Sulamee (d. 75 A.H.). He learnt the Qur'aan from Aboo 'Abd ar-Rahmaan (who studied under 'Alee ibn Abee Taalib, and was the teacher of al-Hasan and al-Husayn), and from Zirr ibn Hubaysh (d. 83 A.H.) and Aboo ' Amr ash-Shaybaanee (d. 95 A.H.). These learnt the Qur'aan from Ubay ibn Ka'ab, 'Uthmaan ibn 'Affaan, 'Alee ibn Abee Taalib, and Zayd ibn Thaabit, who all learnt from the Prophet (PBUH). He passed away 127 A.H.
He taught the Qur'aan to Imaam Aboo Haneefah (d. 150 A.H.), who used to recite in the qiraa'a of 'Aasim. Imaam Ahmad ibn Hambal (d. 204 A.H.) was once asked, "Which of the qira'aat do you prefer?" He replied, "The qiraa'a of Madeenah (i.e., Naafi', but if this is not possible, then 'Aasim." 448
His two students who preserved his qiraa'a are
i) Shu'ba He is Shu'ba ibn 'Iyaash al-Koofee, born 95 A.H. and passed away 193 A.H.
ii) Hafs He is Aboo 'Amr Hafs ibn Sulaymaan al-Asadee al-Koofee (90-180 A.H.), a step-son of 'Aasim. He was the most knowledgable person of the qiraa'a of 'Aasim. -
Hamzah al-Koofee
He is Hamzah ibn Habeeb al-Koofee, born 80 A.H. He met some of the Companions, and learnt the Qur'aan from al-Amash (d. 147 A.H.), Ja'far as-Saadiq (d. 148 A.H.) (the great-grandson of Husayn), and others. His qiraa'a goes back to the Prophet (PBUH) through 'Alee ibn Abee Taalib and 'Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood. he passed away 156 A.H.
The two primary Qaarees through whom his qiraa'a is preserved are
i) Khalaf He is Khalaf ibn Hishaam al-Baghdaadee (150-227 A.H.). He memorised the Qur'aan when he was ten years old.
He also has his own qiraa'a, different from the one he preserved from Hamzah (see below).
ii) Khallaad He is Aboo 'Eesaa Khallaad ibn Khaalid ash-Shaybaanee. he was born 119 A.H. and passed away 220 A.H. -
Al-Kisaa'ee
He is Alee ibn Hamzah ibn 'Abdillaah, born around 120 A.H. He was the most knowledgable of his contemporaries in Arabic Grammar, and is considered one of the classical scholars in this field. He authored numerous books, and excelled in the sciences and recitation of the Qur'aan. Students used to flock to him to listen to the entire Qur'aan, and they even used to record where he stopped and started every verse. The Caliph Haroon ar-Rasheed used to hold him in great esteem. He passed away 189 A.H.
His two primary students who preserved his qiraa'a are
i) al-Layth he is al0Layth ibn Khaalid al-Baghdaadee. He died 240 A.H.
ii) ad-Dooree He is the same ad-Dooree who is the student of Aboo 'Amr al-Basree (mentioned above), for he studied and preserved both of these qira'aat.
These are the seven Qaarees whom Ibn Mujaahid compiled in his book Kitaab al-Qira'aat. Of these, all are from non-Arab backgrounds except Ibn 'Aamir and Aboo 'Amr. The following three Qaarees complete the ten authentic qira'aat.
Aboo Ja'far al-Madanee
He is Yazeed ibn al-Qa'qa' al-Makhzoomee, among the Successors. He is one of the teachers of Imaam Naafi', and learnt the Qur'aan from 'Abdullaah ibn 'Abbaas, Aboo Hurayrah and others. he passed away in 130 A.H.
His two primary students who preserved his qiraa'a were 'Eesaa ibn Wardaan (d. 160 A.H.) and Sulaymaan ibn Jamaz (d. 170 A.H.)-
Ya'qoob al-Basree
He is Ya'qoob ibn Ishaaq al-Hadhramee al-Basree. He became the Imaam of the Qaarees in Basrah after the death of Aboo 'Amr ibn 'Alaa. he studied under Aboo al-Mundhir Salaam ibn Sulaymaan. His qiraa'a goes back to the Prophet (PBUH) through Aboo Moosaa al-Ash'aree. He was initially considered among the seven major Qaarees by many of the early scholars, but Ibn Mujaahid gave his position to al-Kisaa'ee instead. He passed away in 205 A.H.
His two primary students were Ruways (Muhammad ibn Muttawakil, d. 238 A.H.) and Rooh (Rooh ibn 'Abd al-Mu'min al-Basree, d. 235 A.H.), who was one of the teachers of Imaam al-Bukhaaree (d. 256 A.H.). -
Khalaf
This is the same Khalaf that is one of the two students of Hamzah. He adopted a specific qiraa'a of his own, and is usually called Khalaf al-'Aashir (the 'tenth' Khalf).
His two primary students who preserved this qiraa'a were Ishaaq (Ishaaq ibn Ibraaheem ibn 'Uthmaan, d. 286 A.H.) and Idrees (Idrees ibn 'Abd al-Kareem al-Baghdaadee, d. 292 A.H.)
www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-qiraaat-of-the-quran/
The predominant reading today, spread by Egyptian Quran readers, is that of Asim in the transmission of Hafs (d. 190/805). In Morocco, the reading is that of Nafi
in the transmission of Warsh (d. 197/812) and the Moroccan Qurans are written accordingly. In Sudan, Nigeria and Central Africa, the prevailing reading is that of AbuAmr in the version of al-Duri. The transmissions of Hafs, Warsh, Qalun and Al-Duri are still in print today.The version of Hafs transmission which is also the most commonly used and widespread transmission was proven by the mathematical miracle of the Quran to be the version taken after the prophet Muhammed, as it meets all the criteria built in the Quran's mathematical structure as God promised in 159, 8521-22 and 7430-31. This includes the Rasm, (Orthography) of the Quran as well as the numbering, naming and division of the suras and verses. All the other version deviated from the criteria of the mathematical structure of the Quran and therefore can be rejected.
There are various versions of the Arabic Quran that are still in print. They differ in many aspects although they convey the same meaning. God has provided us with the tool to verify the correct version and confirm His preservation of the Quran. The Mathematical miracle of the Quran has proved that the Hafs transmission maintained the built in mathematical structure of the Quran.
http//www.submission.org/quran/warsh.html
-
-
Peace JM,
"Every qiraa'a that conforms to the rules of Arabic, even if by one manner, and matches with one of the mus-hafs of 'Uthmaan, even if such a match is not an obvious one, and has an authentic chain of narrators back to the Prophet (PBUH), is an authentic qiraa'a. Such a qiraa'a cannot be refuted or denied, but rather must be believed in, and is amongst the seven ahruf that the Qur'aan was revealed in. Therefore the people must accept it, whether it be from the seven qira'aat (mentioned above), or from the ten qira'aat, or even other than these. And whenever any qiraa'a fails to meet one of the above mentioned three conditions, then it will be labelled (according to which of the conditions are not met) either weak (da'eef), irregular (shaadh), or false (baatil). And this (i.e., these conditions) is the strongest opinion among the scholars of the past and the present."
If a qiraa'a fails to meet any of these conditions, it is classified in a different category. Different scholars have adopted different classifications for defining those qira'aat that do not meet the above three conditions. One of the simpler ones is as follows
-
The Saheeh (Authentic) Qira'aat These are the ten authentic qira'aat, and the conditions of acceptance were discussed above.
-
The Shaadh (Irregular) Qira'aat These qira'aat have an authentic chain of narration back to the Prophet (PBUH) and conform to Arabic grammar, but do not match the mus-hafs of 'Uthmaan. In addition, they are not mutawaatir. In other words, they employ words of phrases that the 'Uthmaanic mus-hafs do not allow. Most of the time (but not all, see Suyootee's classification below) this type of qira'aat was in fact used by the Companions as explanations to certain verses in the Qur'aan. For example, 'Aa'ishah used to recite 2238 ' ?wa salat al-wusta' with the addition 'salat al-asr.' The meaning of the first is, "Guard against your prayers, especially the middle one." 'As'ishah's addition explained that the "middle prayer" alluded to in this verse is in fact the 'Asr prayer. There are numerous authentic narrations from the Companions of this nature, in which they recited a certain verse in a way that the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan would not allow.
Another explanation of this type of qira'aat is that they were a part of the ahruf that were revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) but later abrogated, and thus not preserved in the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan. -
The Da'eef (Weak) Qira'aat These qira'aat conform with Arabic grammar and are allowed by the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan, but do not have authentic chains of narrations back to the Prophet (PBUH). An example of this type is the recitation of 14 as malaki yawmu deen, in the past tense.
-
The Baatil (False) Qira'aat These qira'aat do not meet any of the three criterion mentioned above, and are rejected completely, even as tafseer. For example, the reading of 3528 as inama yakhsha Alllaahu min 'ibadhil 'ulama, changes the meaning from, "It is only those who have knowledge amongst His slaves that truly fear Allaah," to, "All is afraid of the knowledge of His slaves!" (All praise be to Allaah, He is far removed from all that they ascribe to Him!!)
According to the above criteria, the present copy that you have in your hands of the great reading is Baatil (false). The fact is that what you have doesn't conform to the rules of Arabic and contains "errors" by Arabic grammar standards. Some well-known examples include 569 where "Sabi'una" should be "Sabi'ina" according to the rules of so-called Classical Arabic. Another is "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.
Also, ALL the 10 copies that you mention are FALSE according to the above criteria because they were all produced before vocalization marks came into existence in 300-400AH. So 3528 could be read either way in all of those copies.
The only proof of the great reading is in the message itself. As you can see, looking for other criteria, you will go on a wild goose chase and end up with a Baatil (False) copy anyway.
The version of Hafs transmission which is also the most commonly used and widespread transmission was proven by the mathematical miracle of the Quran to be the version taken after the prophet Muhammed, as it meets all the criteria built in the Quran's mathematical structure as God promised in 159, 8521-22 and 7430-31. This includes the Rasm, (Orthography) of the Quran as well as the numbering, naming and division of the suras and verses. All the other version deviated from the criteria of the mathematical structure of the Quran and therefore can be rejected.
There are various versions of the Arabic Quran that are still in print. They differ in many aspects although they convey the same meaning. God has provided us with the tool to verify the correct version and confirm His preservation of the Quran. The Mathematical miracle of the Quran has proved that the Hafs transmission maintained the built in mathematical structure of the Quran.
http//www.submission.org/quran/warsh.html
This is complete nonsense. There are no "versions" of the great reading. There are copies with minor differences. This is the same when you copy any book. There is no "mathematical miracle". Dr. Khalifa had to take out and add things from the great reading to make his false "mathematical miracle". Even using the false version of Dr. Khalifa, one can easily add or substract anything from it while preserving the so-called "Code" by doing it in multiples of 19.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Ayman
-
-
Peace JM,
"Every qiraa'a that conforms to the rules of Arabic, even if by one manner, and matches with one of the mus-hafs of 'Uthmaan, even if such a match is not an obvious one, and has an authentic chain of narrators back to the Prophet (PBUH), is an authentic qiraa'a. Such a qiraa'a cannot be refuted or denied, but rather must be believed in, and is amongst the seven ahruf that the Qur'aan was revealed in. Therefore the people must accept it, whether it be from the seven qira'aat (mentioned above), or from the ten qira'aat, or even other than these. And whenever any qiraa'a fails to meet one of the above mentioned three conditions, then it will be labelled (according to which of the conditions are not met) either weak (da'eef), irregular (shaadh), or false (baatil). And this (i.e., these conditions) is the strongest opinion among the scholars of the past and the present."
If a qiraa'a fails to meet any of these conditions, it is classified in a different category. Different scholars have adopted different classifications for defining those qira'aat that do not meet the above three conditions. One of the simpler ones is as follows
-
The Saheeh (Authentic) Qira'aat These are the ten authentic qira'aat, and the conditions of acceptance were discussed above.
-
The Shaadh (Irregular) Qira'aat These qira'aat have an authentic chain of narration back to the Prophet (PBUH) and conform to Arabic grammar, but do not match the mus-hafs of 'Uthmaan. In addition, they are not mutawaatir. In other words, they employ words of phrases that the 'Uthmaanic mus-hafs do not allow. Most of the time (but not all, see Suyootee's classification below) this type of qira'aat was in fact used by the Companions as explanations to certain verses in the Qur'aan. For example, 'Aa'ishah used to recite 2238 ' wa salat al-wusta' with the addition 'salat al-asr.' The meaning of the first is, "Guard against your prayers, especially the middle one." 'As'ishah's addition explained that the "middle prayer" alluded to in this verse is in fact the 'Asr prayer. There are numerous authentic narrations from the Companions of this nature, in which they recited a certain verse in a way that the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan would not allow.
Another explanation of this type of qira'aat is that they were a part of the ahruf that were revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) but later abrogated, and thus not preserved in the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan. -
The Da'eef (Weak) Qira'aat These qira'aat conform with Arabic grammar and are allowed by the mus-haf of 'Uthmaan, but do not have authentic chains of narrations back to the Prophet (PBUH). An example of this type is the recitation of 14 as malaki yawmu deen, in the past tense.
-
The Baatil (False) Qira'aat These qira'aat do not meet any of the three criterion mentioned above, and are rejected completely, even as tafseer. For example, the reading of 3528 as inama yakhsha Alllaahu min 'ibadhil 'ulama, changes the meaning from, "It is only those who have knowledge amongst His slaves that truly fear Allaah," to, "All is afraid of the knowledge of His slaves!" (All praise be to Allaah, He is far removed from all that they ascribe to Him!!)
According to the above criteria, the present copy that you have in your hands of the great reading is Baatil (false). The fact is that what you have doesn't conform to the rules of Arabic and contains "errors" by Arabic grammar standards. Some well-known examples include 569 where "Sabi'una" should be "Sabi'ina" according to the rules of so-called Classical Arabic. Another is "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.
Is it the same in every one of the 10 copies ?
Can these examples fit in an other set of grammatical rules , or are they really grammatical errors ?
Also, ALL the 10 copies that you mention are FALSE according to the above criteria because they were all produced before vocalization marks came into existence in 300-400AH. So 3528 could be read either way in all of those copies.
So, you are of the opinion that the vocalization marks came into existence later.
Can we assume that there be some errors in these vocalization marks in the copies of the quran we have today ?
Can we say of a word "here, it is not the right vocalization marks, so the meaning is not this but that" ?
Were the dots on the letters added later too ?The only proof of the great reading is in the message itself. As you can see, looking for other criteria, you will go on a wild goose chase and end up with a Baatil (False) copy anyway.
Have you studied all these 10 readings to determine which one is the best ?
The version of Hafs transmission which is also the most commonly used and widespread transmission was proven by the mathematical miracle of the Quran to be the version taken after the prophet Muhammed, as it meets all the criteria built in the Quran's mathematical structure as God promised in 159, 8521-22 and 7430-31. This includes the Rasm, (Orthography) of the Quran as well as the numbering, naming and division of the suras and verses. All the other version deviated from the criteria of the mathematical structure of the Quran and therefore can be rejected.
There are various versions of the Arabic Quran that are still in print. They differ in many aspects although they convey the same meaning. God has provided us with the tool to verify the correct version and confirm His preservation of the Quran. The Mathematical miracle of the Quran has proved that the Hafs transmission maintained the built in mathematical structure of the Quran.
http//www.submission.org/quran/warsh.html
This is complete nonsense. There are no "versions" of the great reading. There are copies with minor differences. This is the same when you copy any book. There is no "mathematical miracle". Dr. Khalifa had to take out and add things from the great reading to make his false "mathematical miracle". Even using the false version of Dr. Khalifa, one can easily add or substract anything from it while preserving the so-called "Code" by doing it in multiples of 19.
I agree.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Ayman
To tell you the truth, when I wrote this post, I was especially expecting a reply for you.
IMHO, you are not aware enough of the fact the quran has been preserved from its revelation to today by all these guys.Peace
-
-
Peace JM
the alleged error or Sabun and Sabin was replied to by and Egyptian Arabic language expert He was also the Minister of religious affairs in Egypt, I'm sorry it is in Arabic so i will post it first as Dr Abu Al Noor said then later on I will explain it, at least brother Ayman can have a read for now as I believe he knows how to read Arabic
.
( ) (1).
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " .
" " " " "" " ".
" " " " " " " " "" " " . .
(ً " " " " " " " " " "- .
- .
" "
" " " " " " " " " ". " " (2)." " " ".
..
" "
.
" " " " " " " " " " " " .
" " " " " " " " " " " " " ".To be continued.....
-
.
(3) .
" " " " " " " .
." " (4)
" " (5)." " " (6).
" "
" " . " " " " " " " " . (7).
" "
" " ( " " "- .
- .
- .
- .
.
.
.
.
.
.
To be continued....
-
(9).
.
.
.
.
" " .
" " " " " " . .
.( ( . " " " " .
(1) 69.
(2) (4/354).
(3) (66) (1/475).
(4) " " " " .
(5) (1/630).
(6) (2/71).
(7) " " (4/352) .
( (4/360).
(9) " " . .
. ( ( 136.
.Peace
-
Peace JM,
Is it the same in every one of the 10 copies ?
Firstly, let me clarify that those are not errors in the great reading. The great reading simply reflect the real pre-quranic Arabic. The grammar rules that we have today were invented by a Persian (Sibaweh, the father of Arabic grammar) over 150 years after the revelation of the great reading. So it is the grammar rules that are wrong NOT the great reading.
Although I haven't studied the 10 copies, I am pretty sure that those "errors" are in all of them. None of the people who refuted or presented those errors attributed them to differences in the copy. So it must be that the copies are consistent on those.
Can these examples fit in an other set of grammatical rules , or are they really grammatical errors ?
There are no Arabic grammar rules that can explain those. This is for the simple reason that grammar rules weren't invented at the time of the great reading. They were invented later to formalize what is essentially an informal language of the common people. Such informal street languages often defy rigid rules as we see here.
You can see this in the pages of hanging at every straw there is to refute just the one error in 569 where "Sabi'una" should be "Sabi'ina" according to the rules of so-called Classical Arabic. Notice how all those pages of lame excuses that they give fail to address the same issue found in "moqimin" in 4162 and "sabirin" in 2177. This despite the fact that they are the same type of error. This is why Mr. Zaqzooq, the minister of Egyptian religious affairs doesn't address this same phenomena in 4162 and 2177. Addressing them would expose his nonsense and his true motivation and his supporters. Their motivation is not to defend the word of God, their motivation is to defend Arabic grammar. In fact, they will CHANGE the word of God instead of admitting the fallibility of their self-made idol of the Arabic grammar. So as we see above, they falsify The God's words like this
" "
Instead of the true
" "So, you are of the opinion that the vocalization marks came into existence later.
Yes. This is supported by archeological evidence. There is a complete absence of vocalization marks in any manuscript or inscription from the 1st century AH. There are a few manuscripts from the 2nd century AH where some vocalization marks (in the form of red dots) have been added by later hands (At least 3rd-4th century AH hands). In the 3rd century AH we start seeing some vocalization marks but they were few and far between and not on every letter as we see now and many manuscripts still lacked them totally. It is not until the 4th - 5th century AH that we gradually see more consistency in the vocalization. This is a full 300-400 years after the revelation of the great reading.
Moreover, even without the abundant and irrefutable archeological evidence, an intelligent reading of the text will show that vocalization marks have very low functional load and any possible ambiguities can be easily resolved using context.
Even without an intelligent reading of the text, those who recite the great reading routinely completely ignore vocalization marks because many passages in the great readin sound awkward with them. For example, try reading Chapter 55 with the case endings and you will see why everyone intuitively doesn't use the vocalization marks for the case endings there. Just listen to any recitation. You will NEVER hear anyone saying "AlrahmanU 3allama alquranA". You will ALWAYS hear them say "Alrahman 3alam alquran". Even the most stringent defenders of vocalization marks and Arabic grammar are forced to read it this way and are forced to admit this fact. Reading it any other way would sound terribly awkward and not eloquent.
Can we assume that there be some errors in these vocalization marks in the copies of the quran we have today ?
Yes.
Can we say of a word "here, it is not the right vocalization marks, so the meaning is not this but that" ?
To be safe, you have to use context and internal evidence from the great reading and not vocalization marks to determine the meaning.
Were the dots on the letters added later too ?
No. There are examples of both quranic and non-quranic manuscripts from the first century AH that are dotted. There are also Arabic pre-quranic inscriptions that are dotted. So unlike post-quranic invented Arabic grammar and vocalization marks, dotting existed before the great reading was sent down.
The only proof of the great reading is in the message itself. As you can see, looking for other criteria, you will go on a wild goose chase and end up with a Baatil (False) copy anyway.
Have you studied all these 10 readings to determine which one is the best ?
No. I am not going on a wild goose chase. I am satisfied with the message I have in my hands.
To tell you the truth, when I wrote this post, I was especially expecting a reply for you.
IMHO, you are not aware enough of the fact the quran has been preserved from its revelation to today by all these guys.It hasn't. Whatever they did, it was The God and not them who preserved it. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Wow, I'm getting vertigo thinking on how I'm going to reply to these posts. There is so much mistaken information here from the errors of the quran to why 'arrahmaanu &allama al-qur'aana' doesn't sound right to a modern Arabic speaker.
I'm just going to make a few points
-
If Arabic grammar can't explain the Quran it is because the grammarian is not skilled enough, or has a limited view from a previoulsy mistaken grammarian.
-
That is not to say that grammarian works are to be thrown in the trash. That just means that sometimes they make a rule for a linguistic phenomeon and they were mistaken in their concept of that phenomenon and how it really worked. The grammarians are right on 98 percent of their works, although sometimes they didn't have the right concept of what they saw or didn't express it right. That happens with all sciences.
-
Old school Arabic sounds strange to modern Arabs because Arabic has changed since those days. Tashkeel has alot of functional load in Old Arabic. In MODERN ARABIC or CREOLE INFLUENCED ARABIC it doesn't have much functional load. All Classical Arabic speakers today (unless they grew up in a non-Arab country) have CREOLE ARABICS as their first language. CREOLE ARABICS don't use tashkeel, so when they speak CLASSICAL ARABIC they often don't find much functional need for taskeel either.
4.Whether Classical Arabic was a street language or not, all languages follow rigid rules of expression. Sometimes they have exceptions, or the rules are more multi-faceted then what it may seem at first look. Sibaweiyah and other grammarians did their best to put on paper the rules that Classical Arabic followed when it was a street language. Whether he was persian doesn't mean anything. There have been many people of persian decent who grew up bilingual or in Arabic speaking areas. All grammarians of course are subject to making mistakes. Yes, Classical Arabic was a local, popular "street" language amongst the Arabs from the Arabian Penninsula but that does not mean that it was any less grammatical than any other language. Even street languages are highly grammatical, their grammar just differs from the "standard" language, which is usually just a prestigious dialect of the same language. Most times an old dialect that through time, history, wars, conquest and interests has now become the Classical Language. All languages have rigid rules for expression unless they are being influenced by outside languages and thus evolving. Modern Arabic is an evolving language.
-
Ayman is right that that grammatical phenomon where the words take 'een' if plural or 'an' if singular is in other places in the Quran as well, where they don't "grammatically fit". In my opinion this case is a from of mubaalaghah or tashdeed, emphasis. Pointing to the especially important character of the word. It is a common feature of old school Arabic. I'm sure some of the "grammatical" mistakes of the hadeeth could probably clear this up as well. But as Ayman pointed out sometimes grammarians would rather prove the Quran wrong then their grammatical concepts.
-
I would like to see the 'maliki yawmudeeni' passage. That doesn't seem right at all. There are alot of modern readings or reading that have continued after the vocalization of the Quran, and the readers show how they are influenced by their CREOLE ARABICS. You can find 'ni'badu' for 'na'badu' and tons of other variations in readings that are products of linguistic influences that have taken root in the common language of Arab peoples. That is one of the main reasons why most Arabs don't pronounce tashkeel.(the vowels, often called tashkeel or harakaat or al-a'raab.)
-
As for the readings being wrong or corrupted because no text had tashkeel, I'll just say that maybe this was a statement that wasn't well thought out. The Quran took two forms, written and memorized. The memorized forms obviously had vowels, because all Arabic is spoken with vowels, spoken being the key word. Why wasn't it written with vowels? Because Arabic script was a very weak, undeveloped script back then, and it didn't have vowels. When recitations were compared to texts it was only done in a general way. A good way of getting the correct text, without its corruptions would be to compare all of the readings and strike out the verses that aren't in common. Texts were there to check corruption, and the deficient Arabic text could do this only in a limited way. That is why the Uthmanic text was formulated, a text that allowed the common sayings of the recitations. These mistakes were like when you accidently get some dots on the Arabic text (from mass print) that don't belong there. But instead since you are dealing with people's memory and reverence of people, the errors continue on. The errors of the Qur'an are minimal. And variant texts shouldn't exist, only variant verses. This shows the lack of scholarship to create a Quran without doubts. Everyone should have one Quran with variant verses stuck to the side. It's ashame how people did their best to distort the Quran, with good intentions or bad intentions. Good scholars long ago should have struck out every verse that has EXTRA words that don't conform with the majority of the the readings, and should have included variant verses alongside the common ones. But Islamic scholarship is too stuck in tradition and not progress. That is why, relying on the work of Orientalists as well, as grammatical sources is good, as long as they don't 1. Try to understand Arabic words THROUGH other semetic languages (comparing is okay) or 2. Give opinions that are not founded and try to undermine the Quran through them.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Peace Anwar,
Wow, I'm getting vertigo thinking on how I'm going to reply to these posts. There is so much mistaken information here from the errors of the quran to why 'arrahmaanu &allama al-qur'aana' doesn't sound right to a modern Arabic speaker.
There are errors in Classic Arabic grammar not in the great reading. I didn't see anything in what you wrote that addresses the fact that 'arrahmaanu &allama al-qur'aana' certainly sounds awkward compared to 'arrahmaan &allama al-qur'aan' to anyone who appreciates more free flowing eloquent style as opposed to artificially rigid pretentious style.
- If Arabic grammar can't explain the Quran it is because the grammarian is not skilled enough, or has a limited view from a previoulsy mistaken grammarian.
Agreed.
- That is not to say that grammarian works are to be thrown in the trash. That just means that sometimes they make a rule for a linguistic phenomeon and they were mistaken in their concept of that phenomenon and how it really worked. The grammarians are right on 98 percent of their works, although sometimes they didn't have the right concept of what they saw or didn't express it right. That happens with all sciences.
Agreed.
- Old school Arabic sounds strange to modern Arabs because Arabic has changed since those days. Tashkeel has alot of functional load in Old Arabic. In MODERN ARABIC or CREOLE INFLUENCED ARABIC it doesn't have much functional load. All Classical Arabic speakers today (unless they grew up in a non-Arab country) have CREOLE ARABICS as their first language. CREOLE ARABICS don't use tashkeel, so when they speak CLASSICAL ARABIC they often don't find much functional need for taskeel either.
Tashkeel doesn't have alot of functional load in Old Arabic. This is not just my opinion and I didn't come up with it. Linguists on both sides of the debate agree to this fact.
Vocalization marks have an equal or less functional load in Arabic than in languages that have no Tashkeel such as English. This is why in English, phonics only have limited usefulness and English learners eventually have to learn to recognize certain pronounciations by sight as opposed to trying to vocalize letters.
Another fact is that the real Classical Arabic was creole influenced and it bears much influence from Persian, Greek/Latin, Syriac/Aramaic, and Southern Arabian dialects. Thus, in terms of style and vocalization approach, I would say that modern colloquials have more in common with the real Classical Arabic (which is also a creole colloquial). The artificial formalized "Fusha" Arabic is merely a theoretical language that no one ever spoke in real life and it was made up when Arabic became a prestige language, hence it became necessary to formalize it.
4.Whether Classical Arabic was a street language or not, all languages follow rigid rules of expression. Sometimes they have exceptions, or the rules are more multi-faceted then what it may seem at first look. Sibaweiyah and other grammarians did their best to put on paper the rules that Classical Arabic followed when it was a street language. Whether he was persian doesn't mean anything. There have been many people of persian decent who grew up bilingual or in Arabic speaking areas. All grammarians of course are subject to making mistakes. Yes, Classical Arabic was a local, popular "street" language amongst the Arabs from the Arabian Penninsula but that does not mean that it was any less grammatical than any other language. Even street languages are highly grammatical, their grammar just differs from the "standard" language, which is usually just a prestigious dialect of the same language. Most times an old dialect that through time, history, wars, conquest and interests has now become the Classical Language. All languages have rigid rules for expression unless they are being influenced by outside languages and thus evolving. Modern Arabic is an evolving language.
The real Classical Arabic was also influenced by outside language and in fact contains many words that were borrowed from foreign languages, including non-sematic languages such as Persian and Greek.
- Ayman is right that that grammatical phenomon where the words take 'een' if plural or 'an' if singular is in other places in the Quran as well, where they don't "grammatically fit". In my opinion this case is a from of mubaalaghah or tashdeed, emphasis. Pointing to the especially important character of the word. It is a common feature of old school Arabic. I'm sure some of the "grammatical" mistakes of the hadeeth could probably clear this up as well. But as Ayman pointed out sometimes grammarians would rather prove the Quran wrong then their grammatical concepts.
The types of "errors" that I presented have nothing to do with plural or singular or mubaalaghah (exageration) or tashdeed (emphasis). The errors that I presented cannot be found in any of the much later Hadiths.
- I would like to see the 'maliki yawmudeeni' passage. That doesn't seem right at all. There are alot of modern readings or reading that have continued after the vocalization of the Quran, and the readers show how they are influenced by their CREOLE ARABICS. You can find 'ni'badu' for 'na'badu' and tons of other variations in readings that are products of linguistic influences that have taken root in the common language of Arab peoples. That is one of the main reasons why most Arabs don't pronounce tashkeel.(the vowels, often called tashkeel or harakaat or al-a'raab.)
I agree. This whole chapter doesn't flow right with the case endings and sounds awkward. This is why most people read "aldeeni" as "aldeen" and you actually see "nasta3in" without any case ending in the text.
- As for the readings being wrong or corrupted because no text had tashkeel, I'll just say that maybe this was a statement that wasn't well thought out. The Quran took two forms, written and memorized. The memorized forms obviously had vowels, because all Arabic is spoken with vowels, spoken being the key word. Why wasn't it written with vowels? Because Arabic script was a very weak, undeveloped script back then, and it didn't have vowels. When recitations were compared to texts it was only done in a general way. A good way of getting the correct text, without its corruptions would be to compare all of the readings and strike out the verses that aren't in common. Texts were there to check corruption, and the deficient Arabic text could do this only in a limited way. That is why the Uthmanic text was formulated, a text that allowed the common sayings of the recitations. These mistakes were like when you accidently get some dots on the Arabic text (from mass print) that don't belong there. But instead since you are dealing with people's memory and reverence of people, the errors continue on. The errors of the Qur'an are minimal. And variant texts shouldn't exist, only variant verses. This shows the lack of scholarship to create a Quran without doubts. Everyone should have one Quran with variant verses stuck to the side. It's ashame how people did their best to distort the Quran, with good intentions or bad intentions. Good scholars long ago should have struck out every verse that has EXTRA words that don't conform with the majority of the the readings, and should have included variant verses alongside the common ones. But Islamic scholarship is too stuck in tradition and not progress. That is why, relying on the work of Orientalists as well, as grammatical sources is good, as long as they don't 1. Try to understand Arabic words THROUGH other semetic languages (comparing is okay) or 2. Give opinions that are not founded and try to undermine the Quran through them.
Since the vocalization marks have very low functional load, there is no such thing as "two forms" of the great reading. Whtever ambiguity resulting from the absence of vocalization marks is minimal and is no more than in languages without vocalization marks scuh as English. Even such rare minimal ambiguities can be easily resolved using context and an intelligent reading of the text.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace be upon you Ayman, Ahmed Baghat, Anwar
You guys are not helping someone like me who have no knowledge of Arabic. I can follow Anwer advice and pick up a good classic Arabic dictionary but that really will not make me a Arabic Language scholar (aalim). I look at you all because of your command on Arabic language. It is very frustrating for me to reach to a definate conclusion when you all do not agree on verses. Please just when you are discussing a topic reach to a mutual understanding without trying to prove others wrong.
-
Peace be upon you Ayman, Ahmed Baghat, Anwar
You guys are not helping someone like me who have no knowledge of Arabic. I can follow Anwer advice and pick up a good classic Arabic dictionary but that really will not make me a Arabic Language scholar (aalim). I look at you all because of your command on Arabic language. It is very frustrating for me to reach to a definate conclusion when you all do not agree on verses. Please just when you are discussing a topic reach to a mutual understanding without trying to prove others wrong.
Peace bro
I was not trying to prove anyone wrong bro, brother Ayman posted a note regarding an alleged grammae error "Sabin and Sabun issue", what i posted in Arabic was the reply of a very knowleadgable Arabic langugae expert to this specefic allegation, I will try to summerize an english version to it mate sometime later
Take care
-
Peace be upon you Ayman, Ahmed Baghat, Anwar
You guys are not helping someone like me who have no knowledge of Arabic. I can follow Anwer advice and pick up a good classic Arabic dictionary but that really will not make me a Arabic Language scholar (aalim). I look at you all because of your command on Arabic language. It is very frustrating for me to reach to a definate conclusion when you all do not agree on verses. Please just when you are discussing a topic reach to a mutual understanding without trying to prove others wrong.
Peace be with you KGB,
Actually bro, it would be so much better for you if you learn the Arabic Language. That way, you would be able to read the Arabic Qur'aan and make your own conclusions and not have to worry about relying on others for understanding. Who knows, if you study hard enough maybe others here at this forum will be asking you for some helpful advice about the Arabic Qur'aan.
To borrow a saying from Wakas....Why ask another student when you can learn directly from The Teacher?
Peace be with you Bro,
Damon.P.S. This is a very interesting thread guys.
-
Peace be upon you Damon
I will never reach to the level of native Arabic speakers even if I try to start learning the language. I progressed a lot in past four years atleast I can read Arabic words and learn the meaning of very simple words. But when I see debate going on certain words and Ayman, Anwer, Ahmed Bahgat and now we have a sister Samia coming up with different meanings that means Arabic is a very rich language which has many different meanings depending upon how it is written.
Thank you brother. I will keep growing slowly on my Arabic.
-
Peace KGB,
I will never reach to the level of native Arabic speakers even if I try to start learning the language. I progressed a lot in past four years atleast I can read Arabic words and learn the meaning of very simple words. But when I see debate going on certain words and Ayman, Anwer, Ahmed Bahgat and now we have a sister Samia coming up with different meanings that means Arabic is a very rich language which has many different meanings depending upon how it is written.
Thank you brother. I will keep growing slowly on my Arabic.
I know many native Arabic speakers who understand the great reading much less than any non-Arabic speaker. Many so-called scholars have spent their entire academic and professional career studying Arabic and yet they don't understand much of what the great reading is actually saying. You may be at an advantage because sometimes it is better to start with a blank sheet of paper without any preconceptions than to start with a false modern understanding that is completely different to the understanding of a pre-quranic Arab hearing the great reading for the first time.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
Thank you for your encouragement. I really get lost when people who have command of the language do not agree on certain words. Please make it simple by coming to a mutual understanding of words. That will help me a lot to reach a definite decision.
-
Peace Ayman
Thank you for your encouragement. I really get lost when people who have command of the language do not agree on certain words. Please make it simple by coming to a mutual understanding of words. That will help me a lot to reach a definite decision.
Sadiqi
This mutual understanding can be achived with ease when trying to understand the Quran as literal as possile unless it states otherwise or unless it is obvious to an average human that a specific verse(s) should not be taken literally
salam
-
Peace Ayman,
Talking about using vowel endings with Old-Classical Arabic you said,
'as opposed to artificially rigid pretentious style
.'This is your bias speaking. In old Arabic for instance 'huwa yakhruju min al-baabi hadhaa' is different then 'huwa yakhruj min al-baab hadha' In old Arabic when you don't pronounce the case endings you change the meaning. the first is 'he leaves' the second is 'he may/would leave.' Your idea of free flowing Arabic comes from the fact that you are heavily influenced by the more recent Arabic creoles, which don't depend on these case endings. Old Arabic does.
Allah allam al-quraan is a broken version of old classical Arabic which says 'allahu allama al-qur'aana.' The case endings point out the role of the words in the sentence, which allows for more playing with sentence order in Old Classical Arabic. For instance you can say 'al-qur'aana allama allahu' in Old Arabic and it has the same meaning as the above two phrases, that is, 'God taught the Quran (basically).' But if you say 'al-qur'aan allam allah' in the broken Old-Arabic that Arabs prefer today and view as 'free flowing' because it resembles their creolized Arabic dialects, that changes it in meaning completely and it now means 'the Quran taught God'. Do you see what I'm saying now? You think it is awkward and pretentious because the true Old Classical Arabic has taken on this social attribute (mainly because it has been the language of pretentious scholars who have isolated this language to their circle). It sounds awkward because it is not apart of your native register. Your colloquial doesn't emphasize these case endings and that carries into the way you speak Old-Arabic, meaning you slightly corrupt Old-Classical Arabic when you speak it, but you think you are making it more natural.When I talk about tashkeel I'm not talking so much about the actual vowels in written form. I'm talking about those same vowels in oral form. The text doesn't concern me so much because writing represents what is (or in this case was) spoken.
Another fact is that the real Classical Arabic was creole influenced and it bears much influence from Persian, Greek/Latin, Syriac/Aramaic, and Southern Arabian dialects. Thus, in terms of style and vocalization approach, I would say that modern colloquials have more in common with the real Classical Arabic (which is also a creole colloquial). The artificial formalized "Fusha" Arabic is merely a theoretical language that no one ever spoke in real life and it was made up when Arabic became a prestige language, hence it became necessary to formalize it.
All languages are essentially creoles so don't get me wrong. You just need to recognize that your creole is different than the Old-Arabic creole. All languages are creoles because from what we know all languges come about from the mixture of different languages. With the old semetic languages it gets a little compiclated when it comes to who believes what because these langugaes are religiously charged. Hebrew is a creole of Canaanite and the language that the Hebrews spoke coming out of Egypt (most likely a highly Egyptianized language if not Egyptian itself). Remember that the twelve sons of Jacob settle in Egypt and obviously married egyptians. So they most likely spoke Egyptian, this language and the language of the cananites mixed to form Hebrew.
Arabic atleast when the Quran came about had loan words from old persian, greek, Ethiopian, etc. I'm sure there are a bunch of theories about where Old-Classical arabic came from, but I'm not going to begin to speculate. It is considered closest to the "original" mother of the Semetic languages. But only God really knows?
The word creole is usually used with languages that have formed in relatively recent history (usually as opposed to the history of its mother language (which in its beginning also was a creole)) and are clear mixtures of languages that still exist separately from the still recognizable parent languages, or atleast one of the still recognizable parent language. So try not to confuse the issue. Just becuase a language has loan words from other languages doesn't make it exactly a creole. Loan words are not the criteria for cosidering a language a creole.
The artificial formalized "Fusha" Arabic is merely a theoretical language that no one ever spoke in real life and it was made up when Arabic became a prestige language, hence it became necessary to formalize it.
Fus-haa arabic is not a theoreical language that no-one spoke, it was a language that all of the ancient Arabs of early Islam and a little before this time spoke. It is the language that the Quran is in, the old Arabic poetries and then the Hadeeths. The real reason for the language becoming prestigious was the Quran, and the position of power that the Arabs came to occupy when they united and conquered the previously Roman, Greek, Persian and Ethiopian Areas. The grammarians took on the job of codifying that language which was constantly recited with the Quran, Poetry and the speech of the people, in particular the bedouin Arabs were referred to to ensure the same quality of speech of Muhammad's actual era as these people are more isolated from the linguistic mixing in the commercial centers.
Since the vocalization marks have very low functional load, there is no such thing as "two forms" of the great reading. Whtever ambiguity resulting from the absence of vocalization marks is minimal and is no more than in languages without vocalization marks scuh as English. Even such rare minimal ambiguities can be easily resolved using context and an intelligent reading of the text.
Like I said, I'm not so much concerned with the text, as texts represent what is actually spoken. Vocalization, not vocalization marks, has very high functional load in Classical Arabic. Saying vocalization has no functional load is saying that there is no real difference saying 'u' and 'a' in 'buck and back.' 'yukhriju' 'he expels or extracts' is very different in meaning from 'yakhruju' 'he leaves or exits'. I've seen Arabs equate yakhruju to yukhriju, in their attempts to speak Classical Arabic and letting their colloquials take over (where they mainly only say one form). English does have vocalization marks 'a, i, u, e,o' Vocals= Vowels, vocalization=vowelization. Consider what I'm saying here Ayman. I hope I said it clearly.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace all,
Thanks Ayman and Anwer for well summarizing the development of the Arabic language, which was partly a continuation role in expanding my topic on "Quran - Word for Word" down to its scriptural messaging exegesis.
Please also check the following out as few may be aware of
Both Islamic tradition and Western scholars agree that there was no complete collection of the revelation during the Prophet's lifetime, but there were fragments of all kinds of material, on which parts of the messages were recorded. The actual collection of all these fragments took place after the death of the Prophet. According to the tradition, the third caliph, 'Uthmaan (r. 25/644-35/656), ordered the establishment of an authoritative codex of the Qur?aan . He entrusted this edition to Muhammad's scribe Zayd, who had already been involved in the recording of the text during the Prophet's lifetime. When the work was finished, the codex was sent to the important centres of the Islamic empire, where it was to replace all existing alternative readings. Acceptance of this text, usually called al-mu S Haf, was slow, and non-canonical variants continued to be transmitted; but eventually, by the end of the second century of the Hijra, the 'Uthmaanic text had become the basis for religious teaching and recitation almost everywhere. In the first grammatical treatise of Arabic, Seebawayhi's (d. 177/793) Kitaab, all deviations from the consonantal text of the codex are rejected and only some divergence in the vocalisation of the text is allowed. Around the variant readings ( qiraa?aat ), a massive literature arose which at the same time contributed to the linguistic study of the text and the language of the Qur?aan .
Do read this link and pages that follow in its entirely http//arabworld.nitle.org/texts.php?module_id=1&reading_id=17.
I am well aware of several other similar and unparallel findings regulating Quranic originalilty, development, messaging, compilation, vocalization and finally its current enigmatic, puzzling and somewhat unintelligible presentation to have simply become "The Best Hadith" of "Muhammad's words", let alone alleging Allah's.