New Salat Article

Layth

Peace to you all,

THE BELOW ARTICLE IS IS FOR THOUGHT/DISCUSSION ONLY

Layth

This article has been added to based on discussions on this forum.

Salat in the Quran

??And We have sent down to you the Scripture as a CLARIFICATION for all things, and a guide and mercy and good tidings to those who have surrendered.? (Quran 1689)

If the Quran is complete, there where can we find the details of Salat?.

This is by far the ?single? most repeated question whenever the discussion arises about upholding the Holy Scripture on its own and disregarding all human fabrications that have been falsely associated with it This paper will attempt to address this simple issue seeking the guidance of God through His Scripture...

What is Salat?.

Listening to the traditionalist?s explanation, we are told that Salat means ?Prayer? (Du?a), and that God ordered His prophet on the night of ascension to heaven (one must assume that 171 is referring to prophet Mohammed and not Moses) to inform his followers to perform this specific ritual 5 times each day. Of course, in the ongoing efforts to praise and exalt the prophet to a godlike status, the traditionalists add spice to the story by informing us that God originally decreed 50 Salat?s per day for the people, but that the trading skills of Arabia came in very handy (with the ever-present advise from Moses who it is said resided in the 7th heaven and is an expert bargainer) to bargain down the number with God from 50 to a mere 5 (who said that God never changes His words!).

The fault with the above explanation (if we put aside the ridiculousness of the story) is that the meaning ascribed to Salat being ?prayer? is totally incorrect based on the following verses

?And if My servants ask you about Me, I am near answering the calls of those who call to Me. So let them respond to Me and believe in Me that they may be guided.? (2186)

?And We have created man and We know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than his jugular vein.? (5016)

?And when waves surround them like mountains, they call on God, sincerely devoting the system to Him. But when He saves them to the shore, some of them revert. None discard Our signs except those who are betrayers, unappreciative.? (3132)

?And with Him are the keys to the unseen, none know them except He. And He knows what is in the land and in the sea; and not a leaf falls except with His knowledge; nor a seed in the darkness of the earth; nor anything moist or anything dry; all is in a clear record.? (659)

Note that God speaks of His servants ?praying? to Him anytime anyplace. He does not need rest, nor is He unaware of the tiniest events in our lives or on this world?He is God who is with us 24 hours a day and sees all that we declare and all that we conceal?He is not the god of 5 times a day who only listens to His servants at 612 am, 1230 pm, 310 pm, 515 pm and 722pm!.

Additionally, God already uses the word ?prayer? (du?a) in the Quran and thus the claim that Salat is also ?prayer? has no basis linguistically or logically.

Do birds perform Salat?.

?Do you not see that everything in the heavens and the earth glorifies God? Even the birds perched together, each knows its Salat and its glorification. And God is fully aware of everything they do.? (2441)

According to the Quran, the answer is ?yes?, that birds when perched together (safaat in Arabic) are actually in Salat. Are these birds performing all the rituals of ?ruku/sujood? (bowing/prostration) that people would like us to believe are the meaning of Salat?. Or is it their act of coming together that is being called a Salat?.

Did Shu?ayb receive his instructions through a ?ritual prayer? or was it something else?.

?They said ?O Shu?ayb, does your Salat order you that we leave what our fathers served, or that we do not do with our money as we please? You are the compassionate, the sane!? (1187)

The people of Shu?ayb accused him of receiving instructions from his ?Salat? which were meant for the people to change their way of life?Did Shu?ayb go to pray and then came and told his people how they should live?. Or did he carry out a deeper act which granted him an analysis of how his people have been living and where they were violating God?s decree?.

The word ?Salat? is a ?Linking? (Arabic Silla) of people together. That is the linguistic and practical meaning of the word?Not a ?prayer? or ?rituals? or any complex combination, but simply a coming together of people (or even non-humans as in the example of the birds) is called ?Salat?.

Salat = *Assembly

*Dictionary meaning for Assembly ?meeting, congregation, congress, council, legislative body?.

Why would people come together for Salat?.

In the Quran, we find that the times people are coming together for Salat are typically ?incident related? and thus designed to produce a solution to a problem

Death (5106)
War (4101-102)
Treason (9-1-5)

Thus when a man is dead and there is a dispute over how to handle his will, a Salat is called to resolve the issue using God?s book?Or when war is being fought, the believers would call for a ?Salat? to understand the laws of conduct and how to deal with their enemy?Or when an act of treason is discovered, then the Salat is used to pass judgment on the accused parties?

Overall, the ?Salat? is called to for any situation where the ?remembrance of God? is required

?I am God, there is no god but Me, so serve Me and hold the Salat for My remembrance.? (2014)

The Rules of Salat

When people call for the ?Salat? (not just a normal meeting or gathering) then the objective has already been defined that it will be a meeting relating to God and His Scripture.

The Call.

?O you who believe, if the Salat is called to at a time of gathering, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.? (629)

The ?Salat? is given precedence by the believers in ceasing all activities if the call is made for such a special gathering?It must be noted that the call to ?Salat? is incumbent on both the believing men & women JOINTLY (337-39) and is not a pure male or pure female gathering as the traditionalists try to promote.

Location.

Since the ?Salat? is being called to in public, then there should be specific buildings/structures where such a gathering is conducted...

?Say ?My Lord orders justice, and that you be devoted at every Temple (Masjid), and that you call on Him, while being faithful to Him in the system; as He initiated you, so you will return.? (729)
?And the Temples (Masajid) are for God, so do not call on anyone with God. And when God?s servant stood up to call on Him, they nearly banded to oppose him. Say ?I only call on my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with Him.? (7218-20)

Preparation.

As we have grown accustomed to, the Quran highlights details for ?etiquette? in our lives ranging from returning a greeting (486) to keeping one?s voice humble (3119)?It is no different when we come to ?Salat? that we find certain rules to be observed

a. Hygiene

?O you who believe, if you rise to attend the Salat, then wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe you heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are filthy, then become clean; and if you are ill or traveling or you have excreted, or you have sexually touched the women, and you could not find water, then you shall do ablution from clean soil; you shall wipe your faces and your hands. God does not want to make any hardship over you, but He wants to cleanse you and to complete His blessings upon you that you may be appreciative.? (56)

b. Dress Nicely

?O Children of Adam, dress nicely at every Temple, and eat and drink and do not indulge; He does not like the indulgers.? (731)

c. Do not attend if you are intoxicated or unable to focus.

?O you who believe, do not come near the Salat while you are drunk, until you know what you are saying. Nor dirty, except for travellers, until you wash. And if you are ill or traveling or one of you has excretion or you had sexual contact with the women, and could not find water then you shall make ablution with clean soil by wiping your faces and hands. God is Pardoning, Forgiving.? (443)

d. Use a ?moderate tone? throughout.

As we have pointed out, God does not like those who make their voices loud & harsh (3119)?Thus the attendees of the Salat are to uphold a civilized and constructive gathering rather that one of noise and rabble

?Say ?Call on God or call on the Almighty. Whichever it is you call on, for to Him are the best names.? And do not be too loud in your Salat, nor too quite; but seek a path in between.? (17110)

e. Words that must be said.

Though the objective and method for Salat are covered in detail below, it is important to highlight 17111 which gives us ?specific? words that must be uttered when the Salat is being held

?And say ?Praise be to God who Has not taken a son, nor does He have a partner in sovereignty, nor does He have an ally out of weakness.? And glorify Him greatly.? (17111)

The above saying refutes the false claims that are being made to this day by the various groups

That God has a son (Christians);
That God has a partner (Sunni & Shite Muslims);
That God is weak (Jews).

The Method.

Now that we have all gathered inside the Temple for the call, it is time to look at the Quran for the general structure of what is to be done?

Leadership.

The gathering/assembly must have a leadership (Imam) as represented by Abraham and God?s instructions for us to follow his model.

?And We have made the Shrine a model for the people and a sanctuary. And take the role model of Abraham as a Musala. And We entrusted to Abraham and Ishmael ?You shall purify My Shrine for those who visit, those who are devoted, and for those who yield and submit.? (2125)

Abraham was designated by God as a leader for mankind (Imam)?Thus we hold our assemblies emulating his role model with a single leadership at the Salat.

We can see that the prophet followed these clear instructions when he led the Salat for his followers during the time of war

?And if you are with them and you hold the Salat for them, then let a group from amongst them stand with you and let them take their weapons; and when they have submitted then let them stand guard behind you; and let a group who has not yet Yusalu come and Yusalu with you, and let them be wary and take their weapons with them. The rejecters hope that you would neglect your weapons and goods so they can come upon you in one blow. There is no sin upon you if there is harm to you from rain, or if you are ill, that you put down your weapons, but be wary. God Has prepared for the rejecters a humiliating retribution.? (4102)

b. Using the Scripture.

Since the entire objective of the assembly is to apply God?s laws regarding a specific issue(s), then it becomes clear as day as to what tool will be used to settle arguments/disputes

"Recite what is inspired to you of the Scripture, and hold the Salat; for the Salat prohibits evil and vice, and the remembrance of God is the greatest. God knows everything you do." (2945)

"Surely, those who recite the book of GOD and uphold the Salat, and from our provisions to them they spend secretly and publicly-are engaged in an investment that never loses." (3529)

"As for those who hold tight with the book, and they uphold the Salat; We will not waste the reward of the upright." (7170)

c. Judging Disputes.

Once all arguments and points have been made, then the final decision rests with God and His words

?No, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge in what they dispute with each other, then they will not find in their souls any animosity for what you have decided, and they will submit totally.? (465)

d. State of Fear.

?Preserve the Salawat, the balanced Salat, and stand devoutly for God. But if you are in a state of fear, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He Has taught you what you did not know.? (2238-239)

Being in a state of fear allows the Assembly to be carried out while on the move (riding or walking)?The people would have to manage to gather the information they need from the Scripture without having the luxury of being stationary and relaxed inside the Temple?Once the emergency is over, then the Salat could be held as previously designed.

e. War-Time.

?And if you are on the offensive in the land, then there is no harm that you make the Salat brief, if you fear that the disbelievers will try you. The disbelievers are to you a clear enemy. .? (4101)

In cases of ?war?, permission is granted for the believers to shorten the assembly time required to reach conclusions and even consensus in favor of preserving the safety and security of all members involved. Once the threat is over, then the believers are to hold proper focused assembly and re-evaluate themselves and their actions (4103).

After Salat.

Now that the Salat has been completed, it is required of the participants to spread out and convey what they have learnt to others?For God wishes us to be a transparent and educated nation for mankind.

?Thus, once the assembly is complete, then you shall disperse through the land and seek God's provisions, and remember God frequently, that you may succeed. And if they come across any trade, or some entertainment, they rush to it and leave you standing! Say ?What God possesses is far better than entertainment or trade. God is the best Provider.? (6210-11)

Questions/Issues.

Aren?t There Specific Salat Times mentioned in the Quran?.

?And you shall hold the assembly at both ends of the daylight and the near part of the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.? (11114)

?You shall hold the assembly at the sun?s setting until the darkness of the night, and the Quran at dawn; the Quran at dawn has been witnessed.? (177

There are two specific times that are mentioned in the Quran for holding the Salat (Fajr & Isha 245. If we are quick to judge these verses, then it would be misunderstood that there is some ?fixed? element of time when people must meet every dawn & dusk irrespective of there being an issue to resolve or not?

However, closer reading of the verses reveals that the audience is NOT the people or the believers or even the reader of the Quran, but the audience is one person (singular) and that is the prophet himself. God is speaking to the prophet and telling him to uphold the Salat at these specific times (see 2183 to study contrast where the audience is all the believers when fasting is decreed).

Now, there are two explanations that can be offered as to why the prophet is holding Salat every day at these specific times

The prophet is the ?head of state? and thus these meetings are designed to update himself and the government on the daily issues/occurrences of his protectorate.

The prophet is holding these assemblies to give strength to the believers from his personal presence (this is the assemblies of the prophet that God has encouraged 9103).

A modern Islamic government today would most likely emulate the two fixed Salat times to keep itself abreast of developments and keep itself in touch with the people/masses?However, this does not change the fact that the ?fixed Salat? is unique and specific to the prophet (like allowing polygamy for him, or forbidding his wives from remarrying after his death) and should not be forced out of ignorance upon the people.

What About the Dawn & Dusk (Fajr & Isha) Salat mentioned in 2458?.

There are two points to consider when looking at this verse

The subject being addressed in the verse to the believers is not about Salat, but it is about seeking permission for visitations.
It has already been explained to us in the Scripture that birds also carry out a ?Salat?, and that their Salat is a result of them being gathered (perched together). The verse where this is mentioned to us is coincidently is 2441, which is the same chapter/sura where the Dawn & Dusk Salat is mentioned (245. Thus, it is the chirping of the birds at Dawn & Dusk that are being referenced as ?before the Dawn Salat, and after the Dusk Salat? rather than a human act which is being carried out each day and every day and is a reference for all the people to know when or when not to seek permission!.

What About the ?Middle? Salat in 2238?.

?Preserve the Salawaat, the ?Wusta? Salat, and stand devoutly for God.? (223

The word ?wusta? and its derivatives ?awsat/wasatan? occur in several verses as follows

?God will not hold you for your unintentional oaths, but He will hold you for what oaths you have made binding; its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor from the ?awsat? of what you feed your family?? (589)

?But when they saw it, they said ?We were so wrong! Now, we have nothing!? ?awsatuhum? said ?If only you had glorified!? (6826-2

?And as such, We have made you a ?wasatan? nation so that you may be witness over the people, and that the messenger may be witness over you..? (2143)

Clearly the use of ?middle? would not make much sense (From the ?middle? of what you feed? The ?middle? one said? We made you a ?middle? nation?). The answer we are seeking for the best meaning is simply ?balanced/average?.

God has decreed that we feed the poor in 589 from the ?average? of what we like to eat; and that the ?most balanced? of the group spoke; and that we are a ?balanced? nation?Thus the proper meaning for 2238 becomes

?Preserve the Salawaat, the balanced Salat, and stand devoutly for God.? (223

What About Facing Mecca ( the Qibla).

The ?Qibla? is the ?focal point? that believers take to rally towards?In the history of the prophets, we have precedence set by Moses who was inspired to make the homes of his people into a ?focal point? during the ordeal in Egypt

?And We inspired Moses and his brother ?Take for your people dwellings in Egypt and make your dwellings into a focal point, and hold the Salat. And give good news to the believers.? (1087)

The idea that there is a stone cube in Arabia that needs to be faced when holding the Salat has no basis from the Quran. Rather, the qibla establishes a capital and a central government where the believers are to ultimately take their direction.

?We see the shifting of your face towards the sky, We will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you; you shall set your face towards the Restricted Temple; and wherever you may be, you shall all set your faces towards it. Those who have been given the book know it is the truth from their Lord. And GOD is not unaware of what you do. ? (2144)

What About Bowing & Prostrating.

?And if you are with them and you hold the assembly for them, then let a group from amongst them stand with you and let them take their weapons; and when they have submitted (Sajadoo) then let them stand guard behind you; and let a group who has not yet assembled come and assemble with you, and let them be wary and take their weapons with them. The rejecters hope that you would neglect your weapons and goods so they can come upon you in one blow. There is no sin upon you if there is harm to you from rain, or if you are ill, that you put down your weapons, but be wary. God Has prepared for the rejecters a humiliating retribution. ? (4102)

Submission (Sujood) marks the end of the Salat...Sujood is a ?frame of mind? (acceptance of what has been said) and is not to be confused with the Sunni or Shia physical act of prostration as misunderstood today.

?And to God submit (Yasjud) all those in the heavens and all those on the earth, from the creatures as well as the Angels, and they are not arrogant.? (1649)

Those who continue to insist that ?Sujood? is a ?Physical? movement are kindly requested to produce a verse from the Quran which gives allowance for those who are ill or unable to skip this mythical act of physical prostration (like the exceptions made for ablution 56, fasting 2184, shaving ones head during pilgrimage 2196, placing weapons on the ground during wartime Salat 4102). Since such an exception does not exists in the Quran, then the reason becomes evident ?it is because there is no such thing as a physical prostration in Salat?.

?And from among His signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not submit (Tasjudoo) to the sun, nor the moon; you shall submit to God who created them, if it is truly Him you serve? (4137).

This verse above (4137) is of utmost importance in understanding the meaning of Bow and Prostrate. We are commanded not to prostrate before sun and moon, which means DO NOT GET ON THE GROUND AND BOW BEFORE PHYSICAL CREATIONS thinking you are worshiping God. God uses Sun and Moon as examples to represent all day and night. No matter what direction you prostrate in the day, you are actually prostrating before the sun, and no matter what direction you prostrate in evening you are still prostrating before the moon. Instead we are commanded to prostrate before God who created them. What does this mean? How is this done? It cannot be the bowing and prostrating we see by so many different religions though out the world because these verses discredit that.

In the story of Solomon we have a clear example of how physical bowing & prostrating can only be interpreted as bowing to the ?Sun or Moon?

?And he (Solomon) inspected the birds, then said ?Why do I not see the hoopoe, or is he among those absent? I will punish him severely, or I will kill him, else he should have an evident excuse.? But the hoopoe did not stay away long, then he said ?I have seen what you do not know, and I have come to you from Sheba with news which is certain. I found them ruled by a woman, and she was given all possession, and she had a great throne. And I found her and her people submitting (Yasjudoo) to the sun instead of God! And the devil had made their work appear good to them, so he kept them away from the path, for they are not being guided.?? (2720-24)

Although we can be quite sure that this was a very ?intelligent? bird...he still did not command the ability to understand human speech (only Solomon was given this gift 2716). Thus, it becomes apparent that the bird understood what the Queen of Sheba and her people were doing by sheer ?observation?. So, what did he observe?. We are told that he observed them ?prostrating? before the sun...this would indicate that the bird witnessed a ?physical ?prostration by Sheba during the day and knew it had to be to the Sun (prostration to God is to follow His will).

Thus, there is no physical bowing & prostrating (just like Satan and the angels were not asked to bow or prostrate to Adam, but to submit to him)?Salat once again shows itself to be a tool for a people who think and reflect, a tool of service to mankind, and not a tool to be served by mankind!.

What About Friday Congregation (Al-Jum?a)?.

The Friday Salat has become so embedded in the culture of today?s Muslims that it is almost impossible that it would be given a 2nd thought?Yet, it should have been a signal to those who study the scripture that the ?7-day week? has no basis from the Quran or its calendar system (which details the day, month, and year) but is derived from the merger of the Biblical ?7-days of creation? and the Roman 7-day week where the week represented the known planets (Saturn, Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus).

The Quran does not support the bible in this matter as the universe was created in ?6-days? and God did not need to rest on the ?7th day? as the Jews would like us to believe

?And We have created the heavens and what is between them in six days, and no fatigue touched Us.? (503

The verse which the Muslim scholars use to promote a special ?Friday Prayer? is the following

?O you who believe, when the Congregational Prayer (Salat Al-Jumu`ah) is announced on Friday, you shall hasten to the commemoration of GOD, and drop all business. This is better for you, if you only knew.? (Rashad Khalifa translation of 629)

The Arabic wording is ?min yawm al-juma? when literally translated yields totally different results

?O you who believe, if the Salat is called to at a time of gathering, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.? (629)

Is there a ?Friday? in this verse?. Or is it speaking of the need for people to attend the Salat when the call is made even if they are busy together and busy trading.

Conclusions.

By confusing people about the purpose behind Salat (making it into a ritual), the leaders have managed to keep all power to themselves and confuse the masses about their rights and duties to one another...If the Islamic masses listened and thought about the words of God recited to them regularly, then no man or woman could pull the ?wool? over their eyes nor would they be in the tragic state of corruption and affairs they are in.

?After them, He substituted generations who lost the Salat, and pursued their lusts. They will suffer the consequences. (1959)

These people in the verse above did not lose the ?ritual? (every faith is loaded with rituals), but they lost the ?purpose? behind the Salat and thus lost the tool which God had provided them with making it null & void.

The Quran has been sent to us from God as a guiding light, and if we decide not to use the book as it was meant to be used, then we can blame none but ourselves for the state of our nation?

?And judge between them by what God Has sent down, and do not follow their wishes, and beware lest they divert you away from some of what God Has sent down to you. If they turn away, then know that God wants to inflict them with some of their sins; and most of the people are corrupt. Is it the judgment of the days of ignorance that they seek? Who is better than God as a judge for a people that comprehend?? (549-50)

Salat is more akin to a ?study group? where believers would gather together to resolve and understand issues that plague their lives or their times?It is for each community/group to determine when to call for the Salat depending on their needs and circumstances?Some communities may be developed enough to hold twice a day meetings as the prophet did with the establishment of a state, while others may find getting together once a week or once a month or as need be sufficient for their circumstances.

The objective of this article was to answer the fundamental question ?Can we find the details of Salat in the Quran??. If you have read the above points carefully, and if you have verified the information for yourself, then the answer would have been clearly a ?yes??The Quran indeed contains all the details we need.

khurram

PEACE

I agree with the ASSEMBLY aspect.

And I can imagine that at the time the Quran was revealed many believers were not lettered. Thus morning and evening, they gathered to listen to the Quran and learn of its wisdom.

THAT WAS HOW SO MANY OF THE FOLLOWERS LEARNED THE QURAN BY HEART!!!

To establish the Salaat is to JOIN THE QURANIC CLASSES that took place during the time of Rasool.

Even now, we can gather morning and evening together and learn the scripture.

Regards,
Khurram Chaudhry

Wakas

peace khurram,

You may be interested in the following article
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm

progod

Peace,

I have to disagree with the main point of your article, Wakas. Context serves to give the connotation of a word not its definiton. In the Quranic context you first give the connotation is to 'go towards' but the meaning/definition of Sallaa is to follow closely. So the subject of the first passage you mention did not follow closely (sallaa) but rather turned away (tawallaa). I think everyone here needs some lessons in grammar, context and linguistics. Context provides connotation but NEVER definition. The word means what it means and takes a slightly different connotation determined by the context. However the definitiion never changes, nor does connotation ever supersede or replace the definition of any word in any langauge.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace Anwar,

Allow me quote the article (red empahsis mine)

One could substitute this term with similar words such as link/bond/connect, remain attached, continue contact, follow closely or commitment, i.e. a word which implies to go/turn towards.

slw = go/turn towards. This is the core meaning of a general concept.

I think everyone here needs some lessons in reading properly.

progod

Peace,

I'm not going to get upset with what you said. Tit for tat. It's all good. I titted you tatted. However, I did read well. To clarify, if I was not clear, I specifically disagree with your defining of sallaa as go/turn towards, because you arrive at that conclusion by context guessing. As I stated, context gives words connotations but never definitions. The definitions are what they are before context gives a word a certain connotation (for instance knowing that an English use of 'beating' refers to preparing food when used about eggs). These definitions are set in stone (unless you are using connotations of Arabic grammatical form, as Arabic also defines its word through combinations of root definitions and grammatic form (nounal and verbal)). So again let me state that my issue has nothing to do with whether you include 'to follow closely' in the list of definitions you give for the word. My issue is how you arrive at that, taking context guessing as a valid basis for inventing what you would deem as appropriate definitions of the Arabic words found in the Quran.

Let me also add that trying to find core meanings based on a sort of logical combining of all the meanings you have come accross (some invented and some actually found in dictionaries) instead of using grammatical form and synonymous meanings is in my mind no more than an excercise in trying to find the etymology of the word. And in the case that your etymology is true it goes back to a time when Arabic wasn't Arabic or at the very least was a very archaic form of the langauge, and still previous to when it became what we find in and around the Quran's era. It is the same deal with defining Allahu as 'the god.' That is its origin (a compounding of al-ilaahu) but not its meaning. The word simply means God, and al-ilaahu means 'the god.' It would be the same if you said that the word 'woman' means wife of man. That is its germanic origin 'wief-man.' But through compounding and changes in English pronunciation it became woman, and does not mean wife of man, but simply the female human being.

I hope you see my point now.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

Glad you appreciated the tit for tat comment. ;D

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree with what you said, however I would add a few things to clarify.

I'm not sure if I'd say I came to a conclusion on the meaning, as I gave alternatives, but what I did do was bracket the meaning. Also, I wouldn't say I invented a meaning, as you yourself admitted "follow closely" is perfectly acceptable and this was a meaning I listed. The reason I opted for "go/turn towards" was that it was the obvious opposite of "go/went away", and I said this was the core meaning, not THE meaning.

The question of whether using context is an acceptable method of bracketing/determining meaning of AQ's words is a good one. Personally, I would have to say it is a superb technique. Especially considering the word usage precision of AQ is genuinely astounding.
As a side note, I cant recall an instance where using this method has led me to invent a meaning not found in a Classical Arabic dictionary, but it is a possibility.

Just like the possibility that those who compiled the Classical Arabic dictionaries failed to include the possible meanings of all words in AQ.

progod

Peace,

This is your choice. However, I feel that you are making the wrong choice. Using context to define words is not sound langauge. It reminds me of the fourth grade English lessons we had. The point of those lessons is to increase fluency in our own languages, enabling us to 'best' guess at a word that we don't know in order to continue with the flow of discourse. However, this technique is not a means of accurately defining words. That is why we have dictionaries in all languages. Whether you want to trust the technique (as you call it superb, and it is far from that) because it has "never let you down" - whatever that means - that is on you. However, again the purpose of the dictionaries (including the Classical Arabic ones) is to define a word from the perspective of the whole language's usage of that word, not to speculate on how one book (or speaker) uses the words that it borrowed from the language. So to me, it is futile to speculate on how the Quran defines its words, that is not the Quran's place. The Quran borrowed its words from the greater (and in this I mean expansive) language and used those words to communicate its unique message. So when it comes to the words the Quran uses, the Quran is not an Arabic authority, the Arabic language and how the Classical speaking Arabs used those words are the authority. The dictionary presents the usages of those authorities and often includes the Quran because of its impeccable (although sometimes over exaggerated) linguistic reputation.

The technique you are following should be something we do when we have no other choice. And we still have to keep in mind that we are still just guessing educatedly.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

Whether you want to trust the technique (as you call it superb, and it is far from that) because it has "never let you down" - whatever that means - that is on you.

Puting aside the fact that is not the only technique used. I'm not even sure if I use it that often but when I do it has never let me down in the sense your reliance on Classical Arabic dictionaries has not let you down...

When none of the meanings make sense then we must conclude that a meaning of a certain word may have been lost or that the Qur'an used the wrong word. The latter would be pretty much impossible to prove because of the Qur'an's esteemed reputation throughout history as a work of Classical Arabic literature, but more importantly its being a Pre-Islamic relical work, like the Pre-Islamic Poems, both being at the root of the Arabic language's codification. Any fault in it would, with the most prudence, have to be put at the culpability of the codifiers of the Classical Arabic language since it is highly trusted that the Pre-Islamic Arabs would have highly scrutinized the Quran, because of their obsession with the purity of their language. And this, from what I know, cannot be proven otherwise. Moreover, if this were to happen we MAY (and I say that with a big MAY) be able to get from the context the GIST of the meaning of the word. In this case we would never be sure what the exact meaning of the word is and could only follow the most logical GIST or partial-meaning that we could. We pray God would not fault us for this. But so far, an occurrence like this hasn't happened.

It will be interesting if we ever come across a word meaning which AQ implies means X and Classical Arabic dictionaries says it means Y.

progod

Peace,

I'm not even sure if I use it that often but when I do it has never let me down in the sense your reliance on Classical Arabic dictionaries has not let you down...

You are doing your best to make them equal. The dictionaries and that form of educated guessing are not equal at all. As you can see I have always made room for this technique as a last resort if we come accross a meaning not found in any dictionary (however we still need to take grammatical forms into consideration). Until now that has not happened, so it is better that we leave the context guessing alone unless we come across a situation where it is necessary. None of us have come across such a situation yet, which is why I have consistently been so harshly critical of employing context guessing when it comes to our study of the Quran. So far it has been completely without need and has been mostly used as a way to redefine Arabic words in order to put ideas into the Quran that fit the priorities of individuals. This in my mind is tantamount to nothing more than a attitude of rebellion against the Man, in this case the Islamic Man, or the Establishment, in this case the Islamic Establishment. We see in the Quran that a rebellious spirit is never a good thing. We have to accept and take the good and throw out the bad when it comes to everything and everyone. Not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

To clarify, at no point did I try to make them (dictionaries and "educated guessing&quot equal. I'm not even sure where you got that from.

Differing approaches (within reason) are good. One way of determining the accuracy of a methodology is to check/compare the result

http//www.quranists.com/prayer.html
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm

progod

Peace,

Wakas, you said

I'm not even sure if I use it that often but when I do it has never let me down in the sense your reliance on Classical Arabic dictionaries has not let you down...

The above is one of the reasons why I think you are trying to make them equal. To me it seems you are making relying on Classical Arabic dictionaries (I don't like the term 'reliance' here (you suggest some sort of blind dependence). It is more like referring to (as is done naturally in scholarship). I also refer to Arabic Grammar books that deal with nounal and verbal patterns and their connotations) equal to the methodology of context guessing that you are employing, and through which you have redefined Sallaa to mean 'go/turn towards.'

Godbless,
Anwar

p.s. To sum it up I guess this is like a mathematical problem. I don't have as much an issue with your answer (this is not an issue of diversity of opinion); it's your work that I have problem with (using context guessing creates the mistake in your work and the assumption that this is a reliable form of deduction and not an extreme one to be used only when there is no other choice is why I disagree with you.)

ayman

Peace Anwar, Wakas, all,

And in the case that your etymology is true it goes back to a time when Arabic wasn't Arabic or at the very least was a very archaic form of the langauge, and still previous to when it became what we find in and around the Quran's era.

The term Arabic and especially Classical Arabic is a somewhat misleading name. There was no language named Arabic in and around the era of the book commonly named Quran no more than there was a language named A3jami. Those are descriptions not meaningless labels. Unfortunately, we are stuck with this name much like we are stuck with other even more grossly misnamed languages like Thamudic (which has nothing to do with the ancient tribe of Thamud).

The language of pre-Quranic inscriptions, the Quran, and early post-Quranic manuscripts and inscriptions is decidedly different from Classical Arabic (the Abbasid era theoretical language of fabricated Hadiths and pre-Islamic poetry). Some readily observable examples of differences include no vocalization case endings, casual disregard for even consonantal case endings and extensive use of the ?waw? device almost as a punctuation mark.

Language evolves and interacts and there are no artificial clear delineations such as this perfectly formalized Classical Arabic as you think. In fact, I would suggest that the Old Arabic (for a lack of better term) of the great reading is much closer to the vernaculars than it is to Classical Arabic. This is why the vernaculars appeared very quickly before even CA was formalized. I would propose that the language of the great reading was in itself a vernacular amongst the people of the prophet. I hope that Anwar will not get angry because of my opinion.

It is the same deal with defining Allahu as 'the god.' That is its origin (a compounding of al-ilaahu) but not its meaning. The word simply means God, and al-ilaahu means 'the god.' It would be the same if you said that the word 'woman' means wife of man. That is its germanic origin 'wief-man.' But through compounding and changes in English pronunciation it became woman, and does not mean wife of man, but simply the female human being.

But the word "allah" is clearly used in 63 when "al-ilah" (the god) is intended

...wa huwa allah fi al-samawati ...
...and he is the god in the heavens ...

So ?al-ilah? is not just the origin but it also does convey the meaning.

If you are suggesting that ?allah? simply means ?god?/?ilah? then 63 and many other passages don?t make sense

?wa huwa ilah fi al-samawati?? doesn?t convey the meaning properly.

Similarly, ?la ilah illa ilah? doesn?t make much sense while ?la ilah illa al-ilah? does.

The word God (capitalized) is actually a way of talking about ?the god? not a ?god?. So I am OK with using the term God if you like. I prefer to try to stick as close as possible to the meaning most likely intended in the great reading (of course we can never be 100% sure).

To clarify, at no point did I try to make them (dictionaries and "educated guessing&quot equal.

But the dictionary is based on the ?educated guessing? of the dictionary author. This is reality. A dictionary doesn?t suddenly fall down from the sky. In fact, there are many ancient languages that didn?t have dictionaries and yet people were able to understand them based on context and educated guessing. Thus researchers are able to understand the ancient Egyptian language and its vast epigraphic record based not on dictionaries but on only one inscription, the Rosetta stone. Similarly, people in the past were able to understand dead languages such as Aramaic, etc. without dictionaries but based on context and educated guessing. Dictionaries are a useful tool but they contain many errors, are incomplete and often contain irrelevant information. This is especially true in the case of CA dictionaries which strain to attribute many meanings to religious, nationalistic and nostalgic Arab origin from the desert. Thus one must use them intelligently, which despite what anyone claims, will often involve ?educated guessing? of one form or another.

Peace,

Ayman

Wakas

peace,

Also, remember we are dealing with AQ and one of it's claims is its internal consistancy/accuracy, thus its logical and word precision will be of the highest quality... which so far, I have found to be true.

wildguest1956

Hello,

One may also ask how are the dictionaries built. As far as I know, the author of a dictionary finds the word in one or several sources, and then guesses (more or less accurately) the meaning of the word from its usage. The source maybe the Quran, poetry, hadiths, or anything else. So, it may be pre-quranic, quranic, or post-quranic. Thus, using a dictionary may tantamount to using hadith (post-quranic Arabic), if its author relied on hadith to set the meaning of the word.
Disregarding the dictionaries, and using the Quran alone to guess the meaning of the words is thus tantamount to disregarding any source but the Quran for setting the meanings of the words ; so, it maybe more accurate. We may also try to use pre-quranic poetry (as Toshihiko Isutzu does in his books), provided we are sure it is really pre-quranic (and not post-quranic).

Peace

progod

Peace,

Ayman, once I again I cannot disagree with you more. The only thing I do somehwat agree with you on is in the fact that Classical Arabic was a vernacular, as was every Classical language before it gained status, Classical Greek and Classical latin and any other Classical langauge were all vernaculars at one time in the past. What you and others seem to not understand is that vernaculars also have rules, but it takes someone to sit down and think about them in order to teach others or put that language in a book and teach it to others. Because of the Quran, Arabic gained status and became a Classical Language. It went from a low status vernacular to a high social status vernacular (hence gaining the title Classical). But that has no bearing on rules and grammar. All languages (be they considered classical or colloquials) have rules and grammar. The title classical is more about status then having any bearing on rules and grammar.

Also, that usage of waw is a standard use in Classical Arabic. Maybe not MSA but I have read hadeeths and other literature that use the waw just this way.

And lastly being a long standing disagreement between us is that just because vocalizations are not written (they historical have not been even within words and not just their endings. This tradition of not writing vowels is also something that went for Hebrew, Aramaic and even ancient egyptian because of the exclusiveness of education. Now just as english readers memorize the highly variable pronunciatons of English words and educatedly guess when they read, Arabic readers memorize the most used vocabulary and educatedly guess when they read. To give you an example of what I mean how could you pronounce fa, ayn, lam as fA&AlA or even fA&Al without vowels. Even the wowels between the consonants were not and still are not written, yet you still pronounce those vowels.)

Again there is no reason to go into your post bit by bit. I could go on for days about your ideas about Allaahu and al-ilaah. I'm sure you and everyone who knows me knows what it is that I exactly disagree with, and I am not willing to start a long over-drawn back and forth on points that you know I disagree with and why.

None the less Arabs never cease to amaze me when it comes to how little they know about the language called Arabic. By the way A'jami was a name and a description and araby is only a description of all things that are associated with the Arab tribes. Arabun= Arabs and Araby = of the the Arabs. A'jam and A'jami (of the A'jam) DOES mean persian, foreign, barbarian and unclear Arabic. It obvioiusly comes from the experience of the Arabs with the Persians, seeing them as the most frequent outsiders in their territories, barbarians (because of contrasting cultural issues), and bad speakers because Arabic was their second language when they moved to Arab territories and there were no schools back them to teach them how to master the language). The Persians are the only people in that area that don't speak an Afro-Asiatic language that can be partially understood by the Arabs of that day and I'm sure Arabic was not easily learned by them for that reason. Araby only means of the arab tribes in this case describing their langauge, but also being a descriptive for everyting that belongs or is associated with these tribes.

Today's vernacular Arabic is not Arabic. No more than Modern Greek is the same as Ancient Greek, or Romanic languages the same as Roman/Latin, or Elizabethan or even the more ancient Old English the same as Modern Englishes. It would be idiotic to think that Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are the same languages just because they are called Greek. Or that Modern Roman and Ancient Roman are the same just because they are both called Roman. Or even Old English or Elizabethan English the same as Modern English because they are all called English. And again the few grammatical patterns that we find in the Quran that coincide with modern vernaculars and not MSA are the things that MSA struck from usage or doesn't use but remained in the dialects. Such things are called archaism. We find them in English often, where they are in Elizabetan English and in vernaculars but not in the standard language. For instance the use of reckon, yonder, or irregular verbal patterns axe for ask, kilt, spelt instead of killed, spelled. And there are more. But if you don't know about langauges you will be lost and led to conclude the wrong thing.

Most of you already know my opinion on this. Take it if you will or leave it if you will. It is your loss, either way. Accepting truth brings rejection and rejecting truth brings darkness of the soul and mind.

Godbless,
Anwar

p.s. For those of you who have never heard of a spoken language being different than the written langauge. Please consider Jamaican English, Afro-American English, Liberian, Nigerian and Sierra Leonan English or even South African English, all of which are considerably different than their written counterparts. The same goes for Brazilian and African Portuguese dialects and even some Spanish dialects as it concerns the written versions of these languages often written in newspapers. Also, consider Hatian French as opposed to written French. The list can go on and on. The reason why Arabs are having a tough time with this is because they have not gone through a societal upheaval or a separation from the idea of the original Arabs and their language like other places have. Nor are they a very introspective, analytical culture. And this is a cultural statement. There are always individuals who do not fit the mold within any culture. I have met a few of those Arabs, although my assessment is that they are far and few between. Take it if you will, leave it if you will.

ayman

Peace Anwar,

Fortunately, there are many realities that go against your well known thesis.

Of course vocalizations are pronounced. When we open our mouth to talk we are "vocalizing". Which leads us to the first reality, which is that Classical Arabic vocalization of words is different from the real vocalization of the language of the great reading as empirically verifiable by the majority of its passages.

For example, in the language of the great reading we say "al-rahman allam-al-quran".

On the other hand, in Classical Arabic, we should say "al-rahmanu allam-al-qurana".

The natural pleasantly flowing rhyme of the great reading is the closest thing we have to an ancient voice recorder and what we hear from this recorder is that in the real language of the great reading there were no case endings (this is also vastly unlike later Classical Arabic Jahiliya poetry where the case ending is an integral part of the rhyme). You can argue infinitely about how people pronounced words 1400-1500 years ago but this will never amount to anything more than repeating an Abbasid era theory and will not change this empirically verifiable fact. Whether we like it or not, this empirically verifiable fact makes the Classical Arabic language (including its grammar) not exactly the same language as that of the great reading.

The second reality is that as you correctly said, a low status vernacular is exactly what the language of the great reading was. However, this means that it couldn?t have been a ?prestigious? poetry language that gave those who recited it elite status as Classical Arabic literature would have us think. Classical Arabic literature is not in the language of the great reading but is in a later idealized theoretical language.

The third reality is that a vernacular is fluid and has looser standards than a formal language. So it does have an impact on grammar. In a vernacular language, no one makes a big deal or raises an eyebrow when someone says ?wasssssssaaaaap? instead of ?what is up?? or ?what?s up? no more than an average Arab at the time of the great reading would have been scolded for saying to his family ?al-walad akal-al-khubz? instead of ?al-waladu akal-al-khubza?. I am also certain that his family would have known exactly what he meant had he said ?akal-al-kuhbz al-walad? and without the Classical Arabic case endings they wouldn?t have thought that the bread had eaten the child. This is the main difference between a vernacular and a formal rigid language. On the other hand, according to Classical Arabic the speaker has to very carefully think about and very precisely vocalize the case endings. Since context in Classical Arabic is inconsequential and case ending is everything, then if he isn?t extra careful someone might actually think that the bread ate the child. Unlike casual vernaculars, Classical Arabic is a cumbersome idealized theoretical language that no one ever actually spoke in everyday life.

As for your assessment that ?a3jami? can mean barbarian or unclear Arabic and that Araby means having to do with Arab tribes (begging the question what "arab" means in the first place), this is so clearly Abbasid era nationalistic propaganda and people can easily see how the great reading uses those terms so I am not even going to dwell on it.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Of course vocalizations are pronounced. When we open our mouth to talk we are "vocalizing". Which leads us to the first reality, which is that Classical Arabic vocalization of words is different from the real vocalization of the language of the great reading as empirically verifiable by the majority of its passages.

For example, in the language of the great reading we say "al-rahman allam-al-quran".

On the other hand, in Classical Arabic, we should say "al-rahmanu allam-al-qurana".

This is your first incorrect statment. Vocalizations are all non-consonant letters, i.e. vowels, not just speaking in general. Please don't overgeneralize and force your self to say incorrect things. The first pronunciation that you provide fo the Quranic phrase is how Modern Arabs twist the Quran to make it easier for them. There are plenty of other evidences point to this twisting as well. The qalqalah for instance as well their are modern reciters who pronounce na3budu as ni3bidu an obvious dialect derived corruption. I'm sure you recognize it. Like niktib for naktubu.

The natural pleasantly flowing rhyme of the great reading is the closest thing we have to an ancient voice recorder and what we hear from this recorder is that in the real language of the great reading there were no case endings (this is also vastly unlike later Classical Arabic Jahiliya poetry where the case ending is an integral part of the rhyme).

The Quran has had its pronunciation forced to fit into poetry-like rhyme. It was made to always rhyme when it doesn't and made to be sung when it was not meant to be a song. Who said that the Quran has to rhyme? I've seen in the Quranic pronunciation where ahaanee is changed to Ahaanan and akramanee is changed to akraman and much more. Would you ever say huwa ahaanan for huwa ahaanee? You see how that throws your theory out the window? These are corruptions of the pronunciation of the Quran, just accepted ones so that the Quran could be made "more beatiful" to the ears of the people by forcing it to rhyme where it doesn't and making it like song when it was never meant to be sung. Again, who said that the Quran has to rhyme?

The second reality is that as you correctly said, a low status vernacular is exactly what the language of the great reading was. However, this means that it couldn?t have been a ?prestigious? poetry language that gave those who recited it elite status as Classical Arabic literature would have us think.

Again we have a mistake in your thinking. Think of hip hop for instance where Afro-American vernacular, a low status vernacular is used in song and music. Now on the whole scheme of Engilsh it is low status, but not to Afro-americans who appreciate and even praise the rhymes produced in their dialect. So whereas the language might not be prestigious on a worldly scheme it is highly praised on the street level and where this dialect is actually spoken. The same thing goes for Arabic. It was praised by the people who spoke it and used it before the Quran. It then gained international acclaim after the Arabs conquered a whole slew of people and held up the Quran (and their poetries) as the symbol of their language. Hence their Arabic then became prestigious and later Classical.

he third reality is that a vernacular is fluid and has looser standards than a formal language. So it does have an impact on grammar. In a vernacular language, no one makes a big deal or raises an eyebrow when someone says ?wasssssssaaaaap? instead of ?what is up?? or ?what?s up? no more than an average Arab at the time of the great reading would have been scolded for saying to his family ?al-walad akal-al-khubz? instead of ?al-waladu akal-al-khubza?. I am also certain that his family would have known exactly what he meant had he said ?akal-al-kuhbz al-walad? and without the Classical Arabic case endings they wouldn?t have thought that the bread had eaten the child. This is the main difference between a vernacular and a formal rigid language.

Here again you are a product of modern popular thinking, and not true scholarship. Proper English is '"what is up'' or "what's up" but what would seem to someone as unrigid or loose grammar because of differences in pronunciation is actuallly a lack of knowledge. Afro-American dialects work off of the contractions of most English phrases. Take the more archaic e'ry for every ain't for am not, etc. etc. Then because it has distinct subsrates (including Iberian dialects and different African languages) it applies different rules (not loose rules) to pronunciation. Consonant clusters are often simpified, take for instance busin' for busting, what's up became whas up. And it's and I'm take the place of it and I. So you will hear 'iss' for it's and then instead of 'it is' 'iss is' and instead of I am both I'm am and I'm is pronounced Ahm is and Ahm am. This is why I said you have to know languages to really understand this. When I talk to a regular Afro-American on the street they also think that they are just using loose grammar or bad grammar. If in Afro-American vernacular you can say something in proper English or dialect that doesn't mean that the dialect does not have rules or that it has loose rules. This is called diglossia where two languages or dialects are equally understood and used. For instance the use of be in afro-American English has very rigid rules. You can't say 'I be here' for I am here. That is just wrong, and is bad grammar. And there is a difference between 'I a be here' (which can sound just like I be here) and I be here (which is the habitual use). The issue here is that you have been taught that dialect versions of Classical/Proper langauges don't have grammar and that is wrong. Because of their low status they are usually undermined to make you think that they don't have grammar or that they have loose grammar but that is wrong. Every language has rigid grammar, they are just different grammars. It is not a matter of loose or rigid. So you cannot speculate on how the people back then didn't use case endings when it is obvious in all literature that they did. And it's being taken out when reciting the Quran is a corruption of the book to make it rhyme because in many places it obviously does not rhyme and was not meant to.

Unlike casual vernaculars, Classical Arabic is a cumbersome idealized theoretical language that no one ever actually spoke in everyday life.

Again what you are doing here is like comparing Elizabethan English to Modern English. It is cumbersome for you because you speak Modern Arabic just like I speak Modern English and Elizabethan English is cumbersome for me. It is amazing how despite the volumes of books with examples of the way people spoke back then you assume that all that is made up and somehow they all spoke like you do today. That is the most assumptious, presumptious fabrication I have ever come across and speaks to what I said about the Arabic culture today as a whole. You are not the only one I've heard this from. And it only comes out of the mouths of Arabs who are not well educated in Old Arabic literature and linguistics (the study of all langauges and their trends) and have not seen enough to make logical assumptions about the difference between their everyday language that they still call Arabic and the Arabic that Old Arabs used. Despite all of the evidence out there that people did speak with case endings you just take the few writings that don't write ANY vowels (not even the ones between the consonants) and assume that because you see f&l in an inscripton that they said it like you say it, fA&Al and not fA&AlA, when the truth is that NO vowel is written. I have explained over and over again why in the evolution of Arabic after the Quran the case endings were dropped, and conjugations changed. All you need to do is do a comparative study of Hebrew and Aramaic conjugations and realize that the majority of the people outside of the Arabian peninsula in the Middle East were speakers of Hebraic and Aramaic dialects (in Yemen Himyaritic dialects). If you knew anything about the evolution of Latin or Greek a great big bell in your head would ring.

As it concerns who is an Arab. The first Arabs were the original tribes within Arabia Felix that called themselves that. You know, the ancestors of Qahtan and Adnaan, the tribes of Mudar and the like. But because being Arab is a tribal affilation and not a racial one anyone brought into the tribes through intermarriage or acceptance becomes an Arab. that is why there are white Arabs to the north (from Caucasiod Mothers and Arab fathers from the south) and black Arabs (from the Old original Arabs (consider the Mahra and the black Arab tibes mentioned by Al-Jahiz) and from mixtures between Arabs from the peninsula and non-Arab mothers in Black Africa). And most are just a mixture of all the influences that came into the Pensinsula at any give time and were absorbed by these tribes. As well as the mixtures that went on outside of the Peninsula. The problem here is that Arabic patriarchism and the status involved with being Arab in the past totally shadowed out and erased the ethnicity of those non-Arab mothers. The only ones who have found themselves out of the mix are many sudanese Arabs, as European colonialism convinced the lighter Arabs that they are a Caucasian race, and they believed it trying to be as vain and stuck up as their conquerors.

Furthermore it is easy to see how the Quran uses those terms if you know Arabic and how it works and if you understand history. I don't see why this is Abbasid propaganda and I don't see your proof for this statement either. The habash (Black and Mixed Ethiopians) and the A'jam had been entering that peninsula for along time and fighting there. If you consider that the Habash spoke a langauge very similar to Arabic (both are Afro-Asiatic languages in the so called 'semtic' family) and the A'jam spoke a totally separate langauge (indo-european), it is obvious that if a habash learned Arabic it would flow better than an A'jam (like if A spaniard learned romanian or french). And there are more reasons for why the Persians would have been called A'jam. The banoo ghassan for instance had influence reaching down into the hijaz. They were proxies of Rome (Byzantine) and enemies of the banoo lakhm who were proxies of Persia. Thus creating a situation where the ideas of the banoo ghassan would be more prevalent in the Hijaaz (and also the aramaic scripts seeing that the banoo ghassaan were christian at the time).

I think I've explained myself enough. Take it or leave it. Either way you lose.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

This is your first incorrect statment. Vocalizations are all non-consonant letters, i.e. vowels, not just speaking in general. Please don't overgeneralize and force your self to say incorrect things.

This is probably the most bizarre thing I ever heard. Why would anyone claim that consonant letters are not vocalized? The fact is that anyone who speaks knows that consonant letters are certainly vocalized. Not only this but we know for sure that the vocalization for several of the Arabic consonants is uncertain and varies greatly. For example, in Arabic the letter Geem is vocalized either as J or G. The same is true for the letter Qaf which is vocalized as Q or G or even A. The letter Kaf is pronounced as K or Ch. In fact, in pre and early post-Quranic Greek manuscripts we see Arabic words often transliterated with the letter Kaaf as a Ch. So Kabir (great) should actually be vocalized as Chabir. This is reality and you can ignore it if you want but you can?t change it.

The first pronunciation that you provide fo the Quranic phrase is how Modern Arabs twist the Quran to make it easier for them. There are plenty of other evidences point to this twisting as well. The qalqalah for instance as well their are modern reciters who pronounce na3budu as ni3bidu an obvious dialect derived corruption. I'm sure you recognize it. Like niktib for naktubu.

Given the inconsequential functional load of case endings in the passage, the vocalization that I provided would have been easier and far more practical even for ancient Arabs. There is no reason to believe that ancient Arabs were more interested than modern Arabs in inconsequential things and unnecessary complications in their everyday language.

The Quran has had its pronunciation forced to fit into poetry-like rhyme. It was made to always rhyme when it doesn't and made to be sung when it was not meant to be a song. Who said that the Quran has to rhyme? I've seen in the Quranic pronunciation where ahaanee is changed to Ahaanan and akramanee is changed to akraman and much more. Would you ever say huwa ahaanan for huwa ahaanee? You see how that throws your theory out the window? These are corruptions of the pronunciation of the Quran, just accepted ones so that the Quran could be made "more beatiful" to the ears of the people by forcing it to rhyme where it doesn't and making it like song when it was never meant to be sung. Again, who said that the Quran has to rhyme?

Maybe the only type of rhyme you know is the mechanical and monotonous rhyme of Jahiliya poetry and this is why you don?t appreciate the inherent natural rhyme of the great reading. The rhyme that everyone instinctively recognizes in the great reading is different. It is not mechanical and pretentious like that of Jahiliya poetry. It is a natural pleasant rhythmical flow. It has nothing to do with singing. No one on this forum sings the great reading when they read it. Yet we all intuitively appreciate and read along with that flowing rhyme even when we read a passage for the first time. This self-evident inherent property in the great reading completely disappears when you vocalize with Classical Arabic case endings. Unlike the Abbasid era theoretical Classical Arabic, this is an empirically and easily verifiable fact that we can all practically experience. This simple fact alone is enough to 100% confirm for everyone that the language of the great reading is not Classical Arabic. Again, this is reality and you can ignore it if you want and instead live in your theoretical world of Classical Arabic but you can?t change it.

Again we have a mistake in your thinking. Think of hip hop for instance where Afro-American vernacular, a low status vernacular is used in song and music. Now on the whole scheme of Engilsh it is low status, but not to Afro-americans who appreciate and even praise the rhymes produced in their dialect. So whereas the language might not be prestigious on a worldly scheme it is highly praised on the street level and where this dialect is actually spoken. The same thing goes for Arabic. It was praised by the people who spoke it and used it before the Quran. It then gained international acclaim after the Arabs conquered a whole slew of people and held up the Quran (and their poetries) as the symbol of their language. Hence their Arabic then became prestigious and later Classical.

In the case of Jahiliya poetry we are not talking about ?street level? prestige. We are talking about political and religious prestige to the extreme. Allegedly hanging Jahiliya poems on the most revered religious shrine and gaining through it access and favor with Ghassanid royalty and such would be the equivalent in America today of hanging Hip Hop poetry on the Supreme Court and giving Hip Hop artists the Noble prize in literature.

Here again you are a product of modern popular thinking, and not true scholarship. Proper English is '"what is up'' or "what's up" but what would seem to someone as unrigid or loose grammar because of differences in pronunciation is actuallly a lack of knowledge. Afro-American dialects work off of the contractions of most English phrases. Take the more archaic e'ry for every ain't for am not, etc. etc. Then because it has distinct subsrates (including Iberian dialects and different African languages) it applies different rules (not loose rules) to pronunciation. Consonant clusters are often simpified, take for instance busin' for busting, what's up became whas up. ...

Even in your argument you acknowledge that in vernaculars things are simplified and not made more complex and strict. This is especially the case for elements that do not serve much practical function. Those are the first elements to go away in a vernacular. It is an empirically verifiable reality that case endings have an insignificant functional load so it is highly unlikely that they would have been part of what you already admitted to be the real vernacular language of the great reading.

The discussion that we are having about vocalization marks is not new or even exclusive to Arabic. Christians had similar discussions about the vocalization marks of Hebrew texts of the Old Testament. You are taking a dogmatic view similar to that of fundamentalist Christians that the Hebrew Niqqud (vocalization marks) are inspired when in reality we know that they were invented around 500CE while the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was inspired in a different millennium. It is not surprising that like the Arabic Tashkil, the Hebrew Niqqud is completely useless and is never used in practice. It is also not surprising that in both cases as we see here in this discussion and elsewhere dogmatic ideas about the language prevent people from coming to grips with reality.

The rest of your post is equally detached from reality. Like your blind acceptance of supposed Arab (whatever that means) genealogy from Abbasid era nationalistic sources. Or your claim that the Roman proxies Ghassanids used Aramaic scripts because they were Christians when in reality we know from the epigraphic record that the Romans and the Ghassanids used Greek as their political and religious language. Thus, they even wrote Arabic using the Greek script. On the other hand, the Aramaic script was used to write Arabic in the Lakhmid areas which fell outside this Roman Trinitarian influence. Thus, Aramaic was the language of religion and politics of groups such as the Nestorians which the Trinitarians viewed as heretic and which took refuge in the Lakhmid provinces. As I said, the rest of your post is equally detached from reality and my response is already too long so I will not go into further pointing out of what everyone can easily verify for themselves. I will however address one more point despite it being self-evident because you specifically asked me to clarify

Furthermore it is easy to see how the Quran uses those terms if you know Arabic and how it works and if you understand history. I don't see why this is Abbasid propaganda and I don't see your proof for this statement either.

Your prejudiced view that ?a3jami? can mean barbarian or unclear Arabic is completely negated by 16103 which indicates that the language of religious writings is ?a3jami?, i.e. foreign. A language of religious writing can hardly be regarded as ?barbaric? or ?unclear?. In fact, you even contradict what you said about the real language of the great reading being a street language since it is actually street languages that are regarded as not civilized or ?barbaric?. This is also confirmed by the epigraphic record showing that the language of religion in the 6th-7th century CE was Greek in the Ghassanids provinces and Aramaic in the Lakhmids provinces. So this is reality.

As for ?3arab?, it has to do with virgin, wild, untouched, crude, and unrefined. When used to describe a group of people it becomes ?a3rab? just like in the case of sabat and asbat, nabat and anbat (Nabateans), etc. In line with ?3arab?, the term ?a3rab? means people from the wilderness (in contrast to city dwellers) and this is how it is used in the great reading. It has nothing to do with genealogy. Similarly, when describing a language, the term ?3araby? implies a wild language, i.e. a street language (as you admit) and not a formal or an unfamiliar foreign one.

So I would translate 16103 as follows

And we know that they say that it is a human who teaches him. The language of the one who they falsely attribute to is foreign and this is an obvious wild language (i.e., in modern terminology a ?street language?).

Peace,

Ayman

khurram

Peace be upon you brothers and sisters,

Solaa, just as the title of this section states, means Link. The birds flying in a column is the RESULT of them knowing thier Link(solaa) with the God. The God has developed a SYSTEm(deen) for all creation. Only those who establish thier Link , thier connection/link with the God, follow that system. They follow it closely. "Each knows its solaa", yes, the birds know thier position with the God as servants because they know thier connection with the God. And the instructive example is the birds getting up at dawn EVERY MORNING, not hitting the alarm clock, not doing ritual prayer, but singing song. Now when we think that solomon was taught the speech of birds, we realize that the birds are symbols of spirituality. That is why they are used in example of Abraham and the four birds. The Birds give us the best of examples in this matter!! o))

Solaa is reciting of the REading(Qur'an) at dawn and dusk. We must realize that the restricted house(bayt) is a Psychology. The best psychology. Al day we are bombarded with so many differnt psychologies. The psychology of sex, violence, etc. The God tells us that we should establish the Link with Him at dawn and dusk to keep us from evil deeds. The Mind is where everything starts. Thought forms actions. If you watch violence all the time, it rubs off. If you read the Words of the God everyday, it rubs off o) We are fighting a battle. I can FEEL IT when I don't establish solaa for days or weeks. I can feel myself slip back....but this is not proof so I will get back to the topic.

PEACE Kyle,

I agree with you on the fact that solaa is Reciting the Quran...

How else did a generation of gentile Arabs learn the Quran by heart?