The Ten readings
-
You've seen old text with dots and I've seen them without dots. So we can agree that both of them existed. I find some (although I'm sure you've seen them) that don't have dots. The fact that they exist still leaves the issue.
To better display my point and show you why I think your idea is not founded is because you are using texts that didn't write case endings or vowels to prove that only case endings didn't really exist.
How can you prove that the word is even 'sUbUl' and let alone 'sUbUlUN' if the even the vowels aren't written? Do you see what I'm saying your are only picking on case endings when your conclusions also eliminate the pronunciation of correct vowels. Sibal or sabl, or subl, or sibl, are not the plurals of sabeel. And just like context MIGHT lead you towards the word that you already now as 'subul' it would also lead you to whether the word is 'subula, subulu, subuli, subulan, subulun or subulin'
Context can lead you to intelligenty GUESS the right case endings just as it can lead you to intelligently GUESS the right word there.
When you are talking about popular stories or books that don't have such an impact and will not be subject to scrutiny because they are not books intended to be deep or to convey multiple meanings or very specific meanings that is fine, but when it comes to a book of importance like the Quran it is necessary to put every vowel there so that there is no confusion (unintention or purposefull).
The problem isn't the case endings it is the fact that knowledge of these case endings has be delegated to one pretentious sector of society.
As far as rhyme. The Quran is not poetry. And you can't make lack of rhyme in a book that never intended to be poetry a reason to be biased agains case endings. In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all, and is not subject to poetic license. The Quran may be 'poetic' at times, but that is not its ultimage goal, it is not a book of poetry. Why would you undermine grammar for the sake of make the book sound more rythmic.
In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all. That was a method that was used to make it more easy to memorize and more poplular among the people, tajweez, was the use of Arabic grammar and the breaking of it where seemingly not too important to make the book more rythmical. But the Quran is not poetry and it was never intended to be a great song. That is the result of Old-Arabic standards being imposed onto the Quran.
So last but not least, you are right I do believe that Traditional Classical Arabic and Old-Arabic are one in the same, where the grammarians have not institutionalized a mistake (which can be seen from clear linguistic contraditions not conjured up interpretations) and where Traditional Arabic meanings can not be put back into the time before the Quran (not religion in general) was even in existence.
In my opinion Arabic texts which don't write any vowels, let alone case endings are not representative of the actual spoken Old-Arabic, with all its vowels and case endings. And the same way that context allows the Arabic reader to read texts without vowels, context allows the reader to put in the write case endings. Both require a prior knowledge of Arabic grammar and both can easily be done with that prior knowledge, something that Arabs of Old would have had, and that the grammarians (where they weren't wrong) recorded them for us. So it is not far to pick on the case endings when the vowels within the words themselves are subject to this scrutiny as well. That's an unfair double standard.
Godbless,
AnwarWith all that said, I would like to continue to examine "grammatical mistakes" in the Hadeeth and the Quran to see if they can substantiate my claim of the realy purpose of the nasb as a mubalaagah or at least a mukhassisah, which can overide jarr and raf'.
As for maliki yamudeeni was is this NOT cosidered a grammatical error. Since the Qur'an was mainly preserved orally why wouldn't these grammatical oddities not be struck out as opposed the the correct majority. That is just taking into account human error and is apart of human scrutiny which God has used as a tool to preserve the book. Ayman whether you would like to believe it or not is through human hands and mouths that God has protected the Quran, and just like there are those who would have distorted the Quran then and gained a following there is the possibility that some of these reciters made mistakes (especially the later ones). It us up to look a these just as they are, instead of trying to hide behind them by making up lies.
-
And finally, do you know that even the message has the implications of being altered by the very men who took efforts to put the methods of its collection and compilation in a book form, by its very grammatical lexicography, vocalization and vowelizing?
Here are some links for you
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation.htm
http//www.free-minds.org/books/wadud_05.htm
http//www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/Mansoor/MA_history_3.htmPeace
Thanks JM. I am already aware of those sites and many more, some of which I am currently reviewing.
-
I'm going to edit my previoius post i found it a bit unclear
You've seen old text with dots and I've seen them without dots. So we can agree that both of these types of texts existed. I'll find some (although I'm sure you've seen them) texts that don't have dots for you. The fact that they exist, however, still lets the issue stand.
To better display my point and show you why I think your idea is not founded, I'll state it like this You are using texts that didn't write case endings or vowels to prove that only case endings didn't really exist.
How can you prove that the word is even 'sUbUl' , let alone 'sUbUlUN' if the even the vowels aren't written? Do you see what I'm saying? Your are only picking on case endings when your conclusions also eliminate the pronunciation of correct vowels. Sibal or sabl, or subl, or sibl, are not the plurals of sabeel. And just like context MIGHT lead you towards the word that you already now as 'subul' it would also lead you to pronouncing the right case endings, whether the word is 'subula, subulu, subuli, subulan, subulun or subulin'
Context can lead you to intelligenty GUESS the right case endings just as it can lead you to intelligently GUESS the right word in the context without internal vowels.
When you are talking about popular stories or books that don't have such an impact and will not be subject to scrutiny because they are not books intended to be very profound or to convey multiple meanings or very specific meanings that is fine, but when it comes to a book of importance like the Quran it is necessary to put every vowel there so that there is no confusion (unintentional or purposeful).
The problem, in your mind or period, isn't the case endings. It is the fact that knowledge of these case endings has been delegated to one pretentious sector of society.
As far as rhyme. The Quran is not poetry. And you can't make lack of rhyme in a book that never intended to be poetry a reason to be biased against case endings. In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all, and is not subject to poetic license. The Quran may be 'poetic' at times, but that is not its ultimage goal, it is not a book of poetry. Why would you undermine grammar for the sake of making the book sound more rythmic?
In my opinion the Quran shouldn't be sung at all. That was a method that was used to make it more easy to memorize and more poplular among the people. Tajweez, was the use of Arabic grammar and the breaking of it where seemingly not too important in order to make the book more rythmical. But the Quran is not poetry and it was never intended to be the great "song." That is the result of Old-Arab standards of what makes a piece of literature attractive being imposed onto the Quran. And that might have been beneficial to the the preservation and spreading of the Quran, but again, the Quran was not intended to be rythmic poetry or a great hymn or song.
So last but not least, you are right I do believe that Traditional Classical Arabic and Old-Arabic are one in the same, where the grammarians have not institutionalized a mistake (which can be seen from clear linguistic contraditions not conjured up interpretations) and where Traditional Arabic meanings can apply to the times before the Quran was even in existence (which doesn't mean excluding all religious concepts from Classical Arabic because Christians, Jews, and even traditional religions prayed, sacrificed, had houses of God etc., etc. and all these were before the Quran.)
In my opinion Arabic texts which don't write any vowels, let alone case endings are not representative of the actual spoken Old-Arabic, with all its vowels and case endings. And the same way that context allows the Arabic reader to read texts without vowels, context allows the reader to put in the write case endings. Both require a prior knowledge of Arabic grammar and both can easily be done with that prior knowledge, something that Arabs of Old would have had, and that the grammarians (where they weren't wrong) recorded them for us. So it is not fair to pick on the case endings when the vowels within the words themselves are subject to this scrutiny as well. That's an unfair double standard.
Godbless,
AnwarWith all that said, I would like to continue to examine "grammatical mistakes" in the Hadeeth and the Quran to see if they can substantiate my claim of the real purpose of the nasb as a mubalaagah or at least a mukhassisah, which can overide jarr and raf'(kasrataan and fat-hataan).
As for maliki yamudeeni how is this NOT considered a grammatical error. Since the Qur'an was mainly preserved orally why wouldn't these grammatical oddities not be struck out as opposed the correct majority. That is just taking into account human error and is apart of human scrutiny which God has used as a tool to preserve the book. Ayman whether you would like to believe it or not it is through human hands and mouths that God has protected the Quran, and just like there are those who would have distorted the Quran then and gained a following there is the possibility that some of these reciters made mistakes (especially the later ones). It is up to us to look at these just as they are, instead of trying to hide behind them by making up lies.
-
Salaam all,
Bro AB, could you please translate the arabic articles you posted? My arabic is read only
Good Morning Andy
It is 530 AM sydney time and I promise i will translate it in the bery near future, as i have been flat out, the article is simple refuting the Sabin and Sabun alleged grammar error, and the one who wrote the article is a top class arabic language professional as well a minister in the egyptian government, please be patiet with me and i will translate
Where is this article please? Sabioon and Sabieen is no mistake.
-
Salaam all,
Bro AB, could you please translate the arabic articles you posted? My arabic is read only
Good Morning Andy
It is 530 AM sydney time and I promise i will translate it in the bery near future, as i have been flat out, the article is simple refuting the Sabin and Sabun alleged grammar error, and the one who wrote the article is a top class arabic language professional as well a minister in the egyptian government, please be patiet with me and i will translate
Where is this article please? Sabioon and Sabieen is no mistake.
In the previous page.
For bro AB, don't worry bro ...if you are busy or have many things to do then take your time wisely )