New Salat Article

[AaRoN]

Isn?t it amazing that I have seen no one who makes such accusation about Taha Hussein produce this ?verse? that Taha Hussein composed?

They don't? Well that is a problem.

you don't have to spoonfeed me you should just make up your mind whether or not you read it

[progod]

Peace,

Aaron. Actually you do want me to spoon-feed you. Whether I read it or not is my own business. I brought it up didn't I, so obviosly I am atleast familiar with it unlike you. And I also have the right to have my memory falter on something that i read so long ago. I do have my mind made up about what I know about Taha Hussein and his verse like the Quran. I know about it and I have read it before. But since you started off with a nasty attitude and ended up with one, I won't be nice and spoon feed you. How about this LOOK IT UP YOURSELF if you want to know what I'm talking about. You can get more bees with honey than with vinegar. I actually was willing to forgive your first infringement of manners and was searching the web for that verse but as of your last posting you can forget it. Look it up yourself if you want to know what I'm talking about. In the end I'd only be doing what you are supposed to be doing anyway by googling and searching for it on the web. Peace and best of luck. Maybe you'll luck up and I'll provide the verse for someone genuinely interested and who knows HOW to ask me to do the work for them.

Godbless,
Anwar

[ayman]

Peace Anwar,

They don't? Well that is a problem. Also I am not appealing to the emotions of the reader, but this is a serious question that I don't think you have asked yourself or answered.

You don?t quote that alleged verse by Taha Hussein either, so it is equally your problem. If you don?t provide evidence and you never even read his work, then all your criticism of Taha Hussein is nothing but emotional prejudice and all this is irrelevant anyway. If you want to be taken seriously then first read his work.

Well, the scientific method is often occluded by subjective reasonings and biases. I also wouldn't say that it is as clear cut as that when it comes to analyzing literatre and history. Actually I find most Arab educated individuals that I've come accross to be very unscientific and rather rely on their titles to compensate for that.

Yes, and as we can see here unscientific people (Arabs or Americans or whatever) always disparage the scientific method.

However, I have read alot of western intellectuals works during college that gave the appearence of being more rational but covered up their unscientific methods with their rational rhetoric, like politicians.

Not understanding what the scientific method is and hence being fooled by those who claim to be ?scientific? doesn?t mean that the scientific method is to blame.

As far as the Arab empirical culture, there is alot of revisionist history going on. I think some of this anti-classical Arabic thought is coming from the fact that Arabic has changed from what it was a thousand years ago as a langauge (although it was accurately recorded) but the Arabs still identify with being Arab are still connected in ideology to the Arab empires and speak langauges still recognizable as being derived from Classical Arabic.

The changes didn?t start happening yesterday. They started happening shortly after the great reading was revealed and as soon as Arabic became the religious lingua franca. It suddenly became a language of prestige instead of a street language that was looked down upon as uncivilized. You on the other hand believe that the changes started to happen more recently, at the perfect time after the language has been conveniently formalized. Unfortunately, things in real life don?t happen so conveniently and perfectly.

So there is a big disconnect. But reading too much into literature becomes a purely subjective endeavor. Have you ever listened to literature scholars analyzing English poems from authors during different eras. Most of what they say is guesswork and without evidence, and it seems like Taha Hussein is up to this same old type of horseplay. Admittedly I'm going off of your description of his ideas. My impression of him is not positive at all cosidering his having invented a verse like the Quran and totally misunderstood the Quran's challenge. That says alot about his powers of insight and honesty to me.

But in the case of Classical Arabic and pre-Islamic poetry we have empirical evidence, including internal evidence from the great reading, that the poems? language is different than that of the great reading.

I hope that is not a serioius commnet. How can you expect poetry from over a thousand years ago to still be regularly recited? Poetry can be read on paper and easily not recited. Have you ever read a book of poetry? Did you recite all of that poetry aloud? So what are you talking about? Maybe you misunderstood me.

Now that you realized that you made a false statement, you added the word ?regularly. Your earlier statement was a typical example of unscientific thinking. In logic, there is a big difference between ?no longer recited? and ?not regularly recited?. Also, when you read poetry on paper (or anything for that matter), you are reciting it in your mind. This is indisputable.

I'll have to ask again, is this a serious comment? You are displaying something common in the general Arab mindset. That is that when one thinks he knows the truth he portends as if he knows the absolute truth and there is not doubt about it. If scientists or professionals want to act like they know the complete truth and defend that in a absolute way they are free to do that. But that is neither truly scientific or professional.

Great, I am glad that you realized this and that in this post you stopped saying ?the truth as I have it?. Since your arguments are not very organized, I will try to divide my response below into 3 main areas to organize things a little bit and make them easier to read while still addressing all of your points

1. Tajweed
2. How language status affects language
3. Jahiliya poetry, Classical Arabic vocabulary and other misunderstandings

[ayman]

1. Tajweed

Furthermore I did not contradict my self at all following this. Let's see. You are not understanding something called tajweed and its development and I will deal with that answering your next comment.

Tajweed and its development are actually detrimental to your case. Tajweed was developed after the great reading was revealed. Tajweed didn?t make the great reading but it is the great reading that made Tajweed possible. In addition, even people who don?t know anything about Tajweed and who see a certain chapter the great reading for the first time and recite it follow the inherent rhyme in the great reading. Your idea that the rhyme is there because of Tajweed as opposed to the reality that Tajweed became possible because of the existing rhyme clearly puts the cart before the horse.

In chapter 55, Tajweed didn?t put the ?an? at the end of ?rahman? as a poetic license to make it rhyme with ?quran?, ?insan?, ?bayan?, ?7usban?, ?yasjudan?, ?myzan?, etc... The same goes for all of the chapters of the great reading. Pick any chapter, from the first to the last one. In chapter 1, Tajweed didn?t put ?im? at the end of ?rahim? to make it rhyme with ?3alamin?, ?rahim?, ?din?,?nasta3in?. ?mostaqim?, ?dhalin?. Similarly, Tajweed didn?t put ?as? at the end of ?nas? in chapter 114 and repeated ?nas?, 3 times and then added the ?as? and the end of ?khanas? to make it rhyme between the prior 3 and next 2 occurrences ?nas?. So the fact that there is a deliberate rhyme in the great reading is an empirically verifiable truth to everyone. Of course, the scientific method is based on empirical verification. Perhaps this is why you disparaged the scientific method above. You know that the scientific method with its emphasis on empirical verification doesn?t bode well for your clearly conjectural arguments about Classical Arabic and how the great reading should sound according to it.

Here again you are wrong. Firstly as I said earlier it would seem that the Classical Arabic poetries were recited with similar rhyme and metere as the Quran.

There is no evidence that Classical Arabic poetries were recited with similar rhyme and meter as the great reading. What you are saying is pure conjecture and therefore it is completely unscientific. On the other hand, and contrary to the great reading, what we see in so-called Jahiliya poetry is that the case endings are an integral part of the rhyme. This is again an empirically verifiable fact that everyone who read so-called Jahiliya poetry can verify for themselves.

With that I am not referring to the Quranic language, but rather tajweed, the art of reciting the Quran. That art involves taking letters out of the Quran in its pronunication to make it conform to rhyme.

In chapter 55, did Tajweed take out any letters from ?rahman?, ?quran?, ?insan?, ?bayan?, ?7usban?, ?yasjudan?, ?myzan?, etc... to make the chapter rhyme? Of course not!

Since pre-Islamic poems are no longer recited (they used to be) but only read with all of their vowels and using no poetic license (as the Quran can be as well),

There you go again with this ?no longer recited? nonsense. When you read a poem, the only way to appreciate it is to recite it in your head. Otherwise, you might as well be spelling it and not reading it.

Can you please bring evidence of such alleged Jahiliya poems that exhibits your conjecture of poetic license like that of the great reading that eliminates the case endings? Of course you can?t, because in contrast to the great reading the case endings are generally an integral part of the rhyme of Jahiliya poems.

the closest thing I can relate to this is the prophetic dua's found in the Hadeeth. When they are recited they are recited with the same tajweed rules as the Quran is recited. So both the Quran and the dua's of the hadeeth are living remnants of the poetic license that was often (but not always) employed in poetry reciting and songs.

If it was ?often? as you conjecture then please bring this abundance of alleged Jahiliya poem that exhibit such poetic license that eliminates the case endings.

So when you talk of Quranic language please do not assume that the way the Quran is recited is really Quranic langauge. It is an ancient artistic form of reciting poetry. The Quranic language is how you find it written with every single vowel. How it is recited is an artistic form of recitation that i am convinced was transferred from the way of reciting ancient Arabic poems onto the Quran to make it more attractive to the Arabs. I however have some doubts on things like qalqalah.

So throughout the great reading in every single chapter, it is purely coincidental that when you take out the case endings, a rhyme emerges and when you put the case endings the rhyme disappears. So what we can verify empirically in a repeatable and systematic manner, you claim is coincidental while what you totally conjecture without presenting any evidence we are supposed to believe.

Furthermore when did I say that a verse in the Quran is a sentence? And how did I ever assume that? I wish I could find a post of mine where I have openly said that in the Quran ideas in the form of sentences flow from one verse into another. I don't even believe that the Quran was revealed in verses like we have them. So where did you get this from? Again whenever a complete stop is made usually indicating a stop in an idea the last vowel is dropped.

There is no complete stop in an idea between ?alrahman? and ?3alama al quran?. ?alrahman? is a single word not a phrase and yet the case ending is dropped.

In addition to that the ta marbootah is pronounced as a haa or an open fathah and long vowels are also not pronounced. I'm saying that this is not Quranic language, but rather the art of pronunciation for ancient poems and songs which still exists in the recitation of the Quran and of hadethic dua's. There are some aspects of this that I believe were developed as the art of singing the Quran and others which I believe were native pronunciations. But we haven't even gotten to that point yet.

Which are native and which are not? If you say that dropping case endings is native then we agree. If you say that it is a poetic license then produce those ?ancient? poems that have the same phenomenon.

Furthermore I am specifically talking about the word that ends a phrase not each and every word.

But this is false. ?alrahman? in chapter 55 is a word not a phrase and yet the case ending is dropped so a ?word? is the lowest common denominator for which case endings are dropped.

In my opinion there are many poetic licenses that eventually became apart of the modern version of the Arabic langauge but this also has do with lingusitic substrates as it pertains to the Arab tribes that assimilated so many non-Arab ethnicities who also spoke similar Afro-Asiatic langauges.

Yet you are not able to produce a single ?ancient? poem that exhibits such poetic licenses.

Firstly I was clarifying to you that not only are case ending vocalizations dropped on words at the ends of phrases, but also the long vowels waw and ya. I pointed that out with ahaanani. So we cannot apply things that happen in Quranic recitation only at the ends of phrases as a matter of modes of poetic license to all words to the whole langauge. That is easy with case endings and ta marbootas for you because that is the common modern way of pronouncing Arabic words. But when we see that final long vowels are also cut making ahaananee ahaanan or al3afu al3af this does not vibe with modern Arabic pronunciation and turns your theory upside down. Again these are poetic licenses, some of which have entered the modern derivatives of Classical Arabic and some of which have not. I also just wanted to point out to you that those medial long vowels as you call them (they are not just medial, suqyahaa is found as suqyaahaa with an alif before the ha and ahlihaa as ahleehaa with a ya befoer the ha) only have to do with grammar as it concerns what the short vowels convey grammatically. When it comes to the Quran some things are more than meets the eye, and you need to understand the background of what you are reading or hearing for it to make good sense.

So what is the background? Is it that non-existent ?ancient? poetry that you can?t produce an example of?

I don't know what you think I'm admitting but it is not what you are saying. There is no 'therefore' in my conclusion. I am saying that there was a demand for poetry was modeled after the Old Arabic poetry to continue such Old Arabic poetic traditions. Not that there was a demand for people to invent poetry and call it Old Arabic poetry.

You admit that there was demand for poetry that was modeled after what people thought was the style of Old Arabic poetry. Then you make a strange argument that this is different than demand for people to invent poetry. You ignore the fact that demand is the father of invention. When there is demand for something, people will always invent ways to provide supply. This is natural.

[ayman]

2. How language status affects language

More assumptions on your part. Since when is it the case that when a langauge becomes official, formal and religious because of the fame of its speakers that it automatically stops being the language on the street and is therefore not the great reading? Just a few years a go those same people who became famous (and who brought fame to their langauge) weren't so famous. So how is it that when speakers of a langauge become famous and therefore their religious book and their politics famous somehow their language changes? How does status change a langauge?

Status can change a language quite a bit. Common languages are untaught. They rely on the innate grammar capacity which makes it possible for us to learn language as children just by hearing it and without having it taught to us.

For example, when a language becomes an elite language of prestige, then hypercorrections that serve no real purpose are introduced. The only purpose of such hypercorrections is to make the speaker sound more prestigious or learned. Classical Arabic case endings are precisely such hypercorrections that serve no real purpose. So it is not surprising that they are absent from the real common people language of the great reading as the internal evidence from the great reading clearly demonstrates.

To clarify an example that I gave to you before when Afro-American verncular English or Jamaican English can be used and is perfectly accepted as eloquent expression at let's say the Hip Hop awards or a Jamaican Dancehall or reggae awards, that langauge has reached a position of status among its speakers.

No it hasn?t. In reality, the average African-American looks down on this hip-hop street language and thus you will never catch Barack Obama or any other African-American political leader using this language in congress or even at press conferences.

That is exactly the same as when Arabs showed up in Arab courts (of the proxy empires of the Lakhmids and Ghassanids) to recite their poetry. The parents and grandparents of the Ummayyads before they became rulers of an empire spoke the same language they spoke. And the Quran was written in their langauge. And their fellow Arab tribes spoke their langage.

The Lakhmids kings and religious clergy didn?t speak in Arabic. They spoke Aramaic. The Ghassanids kings and religious clergy didn?t speak in Arabic either. They spoke in Greek. In fact, they continued to speak in Greek even after the Saracens? conquests. For example, Arab Ghassanid elites such as John of Damascus (whose real name was Mansoor) continued to use Greek in their writings well into the 8th century CE.

Aramaic and Greek were the languages of politics and religion (and Hebrew in the case of Jews) of the Lakhmids and the Ghassanids but on the street their subjects spoke a variety of vernacular Arabian dialects. One of those, the one spoken in the Lakhmid provinces is the language of the great reading.

Do you know what changed the langauge on the street (and not in the Halls and literature of the official dynasties)? The fact that the Arab soldiers, businessmen and religious leaders who came to live in the new non-Arab territories of what is now Iraq, Joradan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and north Africa married non-Arab women who did not speak Arabic or who learned to speak it badly. This is the beginning of the street Arabic that is so different from the Quran, the Hadeeth and traditional Arabic literature (Hijazans and Bedouins also went to and fro from their lands to participlate in these Arab empires and were also subjected to the langauge change) . There is no other explanation that has as much evidence as this. It is corroborated by historical circumstance, logic and what the actual early Arabs were saying about the changing of their langauge. Any other conclusion is based off of imagination.

Your theory has several major problems

1. Your theory relies on you imagining that Arab men were sex-crazed and when they saw foreign women they suddenly married them on a grand scale. Unfortunately, such wild theories find appeal in some Arab intellectuals? chauvinistic imaginations. Of course, this theory is bogus and it doesn?t explain, for example, what happened to all the Arab women who were suddenly not able to find husbands.

2. As in the course of any population movement, some intermarriage would occur. However, your theory ignores the fact that such intermarriage never changes the language of the land. This is because the intermarriage is always of a very small scale compared to the whole population and it actually works in the opposite direction. For example, an American moving to Mexico and marrying a Mexican is more likely to have to learn Spanish than his new wife having to learn English.

3. Your theory contends that territories of what is now Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt were non-Arab. Of course, except for Egypt, this is false. But even in Egypt, an Arabian dialect was spoken in the Sinai so there is no doubt that Egyptians had some familiarity with the Arabian dialects.

4. Your theory is confused and contradictory. You admit that the language of the great reading was a street language at the time but then you turn around and say that ?street Arabic? was different than the language of the great reading. On the other hand, the simple and free from contradictions fact is that the street Arabic in the Lakhmid provinces at the time was itself the language of the great reading.

So Old Arabic during the time of Ummayyads and before was the language of the street and the country side of the original Arab tribes.

I agree with this statement. Unfortunately, this contradicts what you said earlier about it not being the language of the street in those very same Umayyad territories.

And when the Arabs came to power and their language got some status it still stayed the same.

No it didn?t. As with any language that acquires a higher status, hypercorrections are introduced that serve no real purpose other than to give the impression that the speaker is more learned. Case endings are precisely such hypercorrections.

If Hip-Hop suddenly became the language of prestige in the US, then George Bush would be compelled to learn it and he might announce a cabinet meeting by saying ?my homies and I are getting together?. This is an example of hypercorrection of Hip-Hop language, because in reality according to the ?rules of grammar? of Hip-Hop he should be saying ?Me and my homies are getting together?. He might also hypercorrect by replacing ?me? with ?I? and say ?I and my homies are getting together?. Now unlike ?me and my homies? or ?my homies and me? which can be exchanged with no problem, ?I and my homies? and ?my homies and I? despite both being grammatical in English, sound awful in Hip Hop just like reading the great reading with the case endings sounds awful in Arabic.

Just like case endings, grammatically ?my homies and I? is a memorized form that serves no real purpose in a street language apart from making the speaker appear more learned. On the other hand, the real Hip-Hop grammar, like that of all street languages, is not memorized or taught. In fact, the ?me and X? form is the default, since it naturally turns up untaught in many dialectal varieties, whereas the ?X and I? form is only found in the taught versions of English. Similarly, the dropping of case endings turns up spontaneously in all Arabic vernacular varieties. So for a street language, which you admit the great reading?s language was, this is the default.

Grammar has a purpose. The purpose is not prestige but the purpose is make language understandable. Thus, expressions that violate grammar are incomprehensible nonsense. Since we can perfectly understand the great reading without case endings, we can conclude that case endings are not grammar but are a memorized form. This memorized form came into being when Classical Arabic ceased to be an untaught street language with an intrinsic grammar and became a taught language of prestige with memorized hypercorrections.

Where is your evidence that the Quranic language is different from these Old Arabic poems and the Quran?

1. The empirically verifiable fact is that the great reading was meant to be recited without case endings while case endings are an integral part of so-called Jahiliya poems. I am not sure what you mean by Old Arabic poems so unless you went to Arabia and dug out some manuscript or inscription of an Old Arabic poem, I assume that this is a fancy name you concocted for alleged Jahilya poems. Perhaps this way you are hedging your bets since the world is increasingly catching up to the fact that Jahiliya poems are later day inventions.

2. The internal evidence from the great reading which is corroborated by epigraphic evidence and which clearly indicates that the language of the great reading was a common street language. This means that it relied on intrinsic grammar. On the other hand, the Classical Arabic language of Jahiliya poetry relies heavily on memorized forms that serve no real purpose other than making the speaker sound learned.

3. The Arabic Tashkil is borrowed wholesale from the Hebrew Niqqud, which was only used in religious texts or texts where prestige played a factor. The Tashkil exhibits the same exact systemic problems as Niqqud and the evidence points to both being invented at a later date after the language was formalized. You are in reality taking a dogmatic view about the Arabic Tashkil that is exactly the same as that of fundamentalist Christians who think that the Hebrew Niqqud is inspired.

As I've pointed out to you the hadeethic dua's that are still recited are done with the same artistic modes of poetic license that are employed when the Quran is sung. Yet if you read them without singing them they are read with all case endings.

Nobody here sings the great reading and yet all of us, even those reading a chapter for the very first time, naturally follow the inherent rhyme in it. So stop making up irrelevant arguments. If you read the great reading with all the case endings then it would be just to appear learned but people would probably laugh at you on the inside because you would sound so awful and pretentious (in other words like a wannabe making hypercorrections) so I hope that you would be wise enough not to do it.

[ayman]

3. Jahiliya poetry, Classical Arabic vocabulary and other misunderstandings

Wow this is modern cynicism at its best. Firstly histories can be true and told in story form. That does not take away from their reality. Have you ever heard of dramas based on real life events?

Dramatic stories based on real life are created after the past events. On the other hand, Jahiliya poetry was allegedly created as part of the event. It is good that at least you admit that Jahiliya poems are dramatic stories.

Have you ever heard of Odes to kings and ancestors?

Have you ever heard a king or an ancestor spontaneously utter poetry at every precisely opportune minute in his live? The problem that you don?t seem to be aware of is that in Jahiliya poetry the author and the hero of the story are supposedly one and the same. So by admitting that Jahiliya poems are like odes to kings and ancestors, you admit that the ?kings and ancestors? didn?t really utter them but they were uttered by later storytellers. It is good that you are becoming more rational since we started this discussion.

The fact that they are told in stories does not make them untrue.

It certainly doesn?t make them true either. The burden of proof is on you and those Arabicists who make the extraordinary claim that the poems? heroes really paused even when no one was listening and spontaneously uttered what you admit are ?stories? at every opportune moment in the story itself and that those ?stories? were not invented by later storytellers, whose job is, well... to invent stories.

The basic premise of Jahilya poetry is that it was uttered by the very poets whose life stories are intertwined in the poem. Since you admit that those are in reality stories about the past and the poets didn?t really say those poems but they were invented by storytellers then this makes this basic premise untrue and one cannot assume that the language in those poems is the language that the supposed ?heroes? spoke.

However, it is expected that Odes and the like are embellished versions of real events. Do you think that the odes of kings mentioned the negative things of that king if it didn't somehow make his character seem grander? Does that mean that those events or that that person didn't exist?

By asking me to prove a negative, you are demonstrating the typical fallacious thinking that permeates and clouds the minds of the majority of Arab-educated intellectuals. They also ask prove that Mohamed didn?t say this or that. You should really be asking the opposite question ?Does that mean that those events or that person existed?? The answer is a resounding NO. So the burden of proof is on you.

No. It just means that the inventor of that poem was an exaggerator (for his own reasons). Does that mean that such poems were invented after the Quran? No. It is true that they can be fictional but it is posible that the fictional aspect of the poem came from before Islamic times as well.

It is great that you admit that they are merely stories and that they can be fictional because the SOLE AUTHORITY for Jahiliya poetry is based on that they were uttered by the very heroes of the poems at the exact time where the story took place. If this basic premise is placed in doubt then one can no longer assume that anything in them is pre-quranic in the same way that one can no longer assume that any of the Hadiths was actually uttered by the prophet.

Who said that because they are pre-Islamic poems that they have to tell the truth? So you are conflating two issues here the first is whether the poems are historically accurate or fiction and the second is whether they were created in pre-Islamic or post-Quranic times. I am dealing with the latter and believe that they are pre-Islamic. The former doesn't concern me at all. And I have no opinion on it.

What you believe is irrelevant. You need to provide evidence for such belief. You have provided no evidence that they are pre-Islamic. You already admitted the obvious fact that they are merely ?stories? uttered by storytellers. So you now have to prove that the storytellers were pre-quranic despite the forces of demand and supply that resulted in the wholesale creation of such stories being post-quranic.

Here you are conflating issues again. I also mentioned that there were dotted manuscripts, and am specifically considering the non-dotted versions, so why are you pointing this out? Secondly the early dotting of scripts were for vowels only.

This is false. The early dotting was not for the Tashkil. The early dotting was for disambiguating the Nabataean script that Arabic was written in. In fact, this is so early that it is also seen in some pre-quranic inscriptions. On the other hand, dotting for Tashkil doesn?t appear until the 9th-10th century CE. The same exact useless dotting was used for Hebrew Niqqud long before Tashkil appeared. So Tashkil simply borrowed the concept from Hebrew when Arabic became an elitist language and hypercorrections were introduced.

Dots were used instead of fatha, kasrah and dammah. I am not referreing to the dots of jeem, khaa, dhal, dhawd, dhaw, zaa, faa or qaf. These were not dotted.

What you are claiming is patently false. There are many early manuscripts, including mundane non-quranic ones (for example PERF 55, where these were dotted and as I said there are even pre-quranic inscriptions where they are dotted.

Furthermore where did you get this "real" Arabic script stuff from? The Musnad script is an Ethiopic script.

Anwar, you can?t just dogmatically attribute everything to an African origin and then expect to be taken seriously in professional circles. The Ethiopic language didn?t even appear until the middle of the 300s CE. On the other hand, Sabaic and the other Arabian dialects used the Musnad script as early as BCE times.

The foreigness of a script has no bearning on it capacity to express a given langauge.

This is false. If what you are saying is true then please show us how the Arabic letter ?3in? or ?7aa? would be shown in the English alphabet without any ?bearing?.

Aramaic from what I know has every single letter that Arabic has, as well as Hebrew.

Anwar, you obviously know as much about Aramaic as you know about Taha Hussein. Aramaic has only 22 letters of the alphabet. On the other hand, Arabic has 28. It is simply inexcusable to make such completely false claims in a normal discussion, let alone a scientific one. Even a simple search for ?Aramaic Alphabet? in Google would have helped you to avoid such plunders. How do you expect any professional to take you seriously?

It looks more like the Arabs has an imperfect knowledge of the Aramaic script and added to it as they saw fit to make up for their inadequate knowledge of the script. Arabic can be and has been written accurately in Aramaic scripts. The dawd may be the only exception to the letters common to these langauges. The Arabs never had a script that they invented themselves. They borrowed both the Aramaic and the Ethiopian scripts to write their langauges. There is no such thing as a real Arabian script.

As you can verify based on what I said earlier, it doesn?t look like it is the Arabs who had imperfect knowledge but it is at least one modern American.

I am glad you are criticizing Muslim intellectuals. I can assure you that I am not apart of this class of people.

I think that you mean ?part? not ?apart?.

I agree that over the years since I have known you on Free-minds you have progressed a lot beyond the average Muslim intellectual. Even in the course of this discussion, I see progress. For example, it is great that you now acknowledge that Jahiliya poems are merely stories told by later storytellers. This would be unfathomable to most Muslim intellectuals who cling to Jahiliya poetry as if their faith depended on it. This just tells you how weak their faith really is.

I am just hoping you understand the motives of the author you are reading especially considering his conclusons about composing a verse like that found in the Quran. Intentions of an author are very importand and affect the works of that author. Rashad Khalifa's loyalties were clear. He rejected all hadeeth but a few. I also am suspicous of his intentions given that this is clearly hypocritical on his part. So I expect to see alot of hypocrysies in his work.

Since we can?t know the inner motives of people then they are irrelevant in scientific studies. Telling me that I am a follower of Rashad Khalifa because I concluded that Hadiths were not uttered by the prophet but by later religious storytellers is as wrong as you saying that I am a follower of Taha Hussein because I concluded that Jahiliya poems were not uttered by their heroes but by later storytellers. As for Taha Hussein, you would do well by reading his work first before making baseless judgments.

Also I have always had issues with the art of scrutinizing literature and pulling out conclusions about history and motives from such scrutinizing. I have seen alot of liberties taken when it comes to English literature and the Bible for instance (that Jehovist, Yahwist stuff is crap). I believe in honest assessemts" What does it say? Who does it say says it? Are there any evidences to the contrary? Using ones imagination to come up with possiblities by thinking things apart to oblivion is not good scholarship when it comes to scrutinizing the authenticity of a piece of literature. Your last sentence i agree with complety I commented in the same way earlier.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I said is that Taha Hussein fails to see is that whether the poems have a strong personality and the author really existed or not has no bearing on the dating of the poem (i.e. pushing the dating back to pre-quranic times). It simply speaks about the level of skill of the (post-quranic) author of the poem. If you still agree then great.

No when I say end of phrase I mean end of phrase, not end of verse. Go listen to a Quranic recitation again and you'll see what I mean. I am not talking end of verse I am talking end of phrase, end of idea.

So is the word ?alrahman? in 551 a phrase?!!

And as I explained tajweed is form of poetic recitation that employs poetic license. You cannot take that as completely respresentative of Classcial Arabic talk. What is completely representative are all the vowelling that you find on that paper. Why? Because if the people didn't speak like this where would they get the idea to put things in the langauge that don't exist?

They would get it from the Hebrew religious texts which employed the SAME EXACT useless Tashkeel but they call it Niqqud. Did you really think that Tashkil was invented by Arabs? Well sorry to bust your Arab nationalistic bubble.

Poetic license is for rhyme and style. We see how taking case endings off can improve rhyme in certain cases but where would the Arabs get the idea to add things to the language that never existed in that language in the first place?

Hebrew Niqqud.

And make it a matter of integral grammatical function. There is a difference betwee sukootun and sukootan that has nothing to do with aesthetics, but meaning.

There is a difference between sukoot and sukootan with a final Alif. On the other hand, making ?sukoot? as ?sukootun? doesn?t add any meaning that can?t already be figured out from ?sukoot? and ?sukootan? in the context.

The bedouins were relatively isolated because they were not in stable or valued towns along trade routes or any of the like. So their wandering in the deserts would have naturally made them more isolated than their city dwelling counterparts to foreign influences. Again this isolation is relative and depends on the eras that we are dealing with.

They were nomadic. So unlike city dwellers they covered large swaths of land and came into contact with more diverse populations and their language is going to reflect this diversity.

Of course they were not completely isolated. That is not what I am saying. And that relative isolation is also what allowed foreign words to enter into the language, as they were in contact with their city dwelling counterparts. Also there are trends of bedouinization and citification that people were subject to over the ages everywhere, even in Arabia.

Most Arabic words have in fact their origin in a different language. So Classical Arabic dictionaries trying to attribute almost each and every single word meaning to an Arab origin is a clear example of the Arab nationalistic bias that ails Classical Arabic studies. For example, Lisan Al-3arab falsely classifying ?allat? (5319) under LTT and claiming that it was called so because of an Arab man mixing dough (ltt) at her idol when the Nabataean origin and classification under ALH is readily obvious is moronic and dishonest Arab nationalism at its best. We are talking here about the most authoritative Classical Arabic dictionary suffering from such dishonesty and moronic bias. Fortunately, with an intelligent reading of Classical Arabic dictionaries one can easily separate the real meanings from the ones that were invented to promote Arab nationalism. So your claim that all meanings in Classical Arabic dictionaries, whether for ?salat? or any other word are 100% valid is simply false wishful thinking not grounded in reality.

Also araby and a'rab do have everything to do with ethnicity and tribes. I can prove that by the fact that arab and a'raab follow no adjective pattern from araba. There is only aruba which means to be a true Arab are to be a good speaker of Arabic. fa3al often relates to maf3ul, or even 3araab. But this does not exist in the case of arab. The root meanings of to be clear or to express oneself (form 4 and 2) have to do with the linguistic basis of the ethnicity, and how naturally they though that those who spoke their own langauge spoke clearly and those who did not speak their language did not speak clearly.

This is simply false and thus you can?t produce examples despite them being abundant. Take for example, ?alansar? in 9100 and 9117 or ?alawthan? in 2230 or ?alasbat? in 2136, 2140, 384 and 4163. They all have the same exact form and derivations as ?ala?rab?. So something having to do with idols/?alawthan? is ?something wathany?, something having to do with ?alansar? is ?something nasary? and something having to do with ?alasbat? is ?something sabaty?, etc... Therefore, something having to do with ?ala?rab? is ?something ?araby?. Certainly ?ala?rab? doesn?t mean ?people who speak more clearly? or ?people from a certain genealogy? but the term is clearly used in the great reading to mean people from the wilderness in contrast to city people or civilized people. Of course, it is not surprising that you completely ignore this empirically verifiable meaning of ?ala?rab? in your false arguments.

In fact, even in Lisan Al3arab, the meaning for the verb ?a?rab? is given as ?speaking in a rude or boorish way? and ?i?rab during sex? means ?dirty talking during sex?. Those meanings cannot be reconciled with genealogy or with speaking clearly but is completely reconciled with having something to do with vulgar people from the wilderness.

You are confusing language and linguistic quality with theme and format.

You are being deliberately vague again. Provide examples.

This is not what I admitted or implied in any way. I hope you understand what I was saying now.

Please see my question about the word ?alrahman? above and perhaps you will finally see the fact that when you don?t understand what you are saying, you can?t expect others to understand you.

Whatever. I have a problem with this because it is a total distortion of the truth. And that is why it irks me so much. It is so wrong and so wrong reasoned out that I can't believe you can say such things out of your mouth. I am all for alternative understandings, but I draw the line a badly reasoned conjectures.

Hopefully, you can finally see which side of the line you are really on.

What? It is obvious that Samia has no clue what Classical Arabic really is. If she was quick to adjust it was only fill the void of knowledge she had with some false concept that would justify that void. You also fall into this category, unfortunately.

Anwar, from what I have seen so far, all your knowledge of Classical Arabic (other than the progress that you made in the course of our discussion) is merely theoretical standard issue. Nothing you have said is beyond what is taught at secondary education level in any Arab government educational program. If you disagree then please list even one point that you made about Classical Arabic which is beyond that level.

Yes your idea of low functional load I know very well.

Yes now you do and you would not have learned this if you kept sticking to standard Arab governmental Classical Arabic secondary education.

But your reasons for why they didn't exist in the past is (to steal your expression) the straw man.

You don?t know what a straw man is, do you? A straw man is when you make up a conveniently weak argument that the opponent didn?t make and then refute that made up argument instead of the one really made by the opponent.

It takes alot of bad guess work to contradict every known form of Old Arabic literature to try to make Old Arabic somehow closer to modern Arabic by saying that case endings did not exist and were invented by the Abbasids.

What Old Arabic literature? It takes a lot of imagination to claim that Classical Arabic literature is Old Arabic. So unless you went to Arabia and unknowingly to the rest of the world dug out some Old or Proto-Arabic literature then please stop using this Old Arabic term so haphazardly.

All your reasons are based on exceptions (that have their reasons) and trying to apply them to the whole language. This is wrong, and completly bad science.

They are not exception. There is not a single instance in the great reading where the meaning cannot be figured out without case endings. So the fact that case endings are useless is not an exception and indeed it applies to the whole language.

Whether Classical Arabic is a close approximation ot the great reading or not is really not the issue. This is not a matter of different opinion, and how I should just take it easy. This is a matter of you're using horribly bad logic and science, and extreme reasoning to base your conclusions on.

What are you talking about? Whether Classical Arabic is a close approximation of the language of the great reading or an exact one is THE issue. What else is the issue? You never spoke Classical Arabic in your life and neither did anyone else. So there is no issue of learning Classical Arabic for communication.

And because of this I am convinced that you have an alterior motive that allows you to employ such horrible logic and science, and such extreme reasoning to come to your conclusions (and I'm convinced it is based on Modern Nationalistic Pan-Arab, revisionist ideas). There is nothing logical, and absolutely nothing historical that can lead anyone to believe that the same Arabic we find in the pre-islamic poems, the hadeeth and the Quran (in their written forms) is not the same Arabic, i.e. Classical Arabic. Any variation can be logically explained through the poetic licenses of tajweed that are applied to hadeethic dua's and the Quran when recited aloud as poetry or song. And the only reason we do not hear the pre-islamic poems with these licenses is because they are no longer recited by the people, although some do contain these licenses. It is also counter logical to assume that the Abbasids during their period of rule added to the grammar of the langauge as everything in Abbasid literature is identical to the 2 above mentioned sources. In song and poetry poetic licenses are used and in other literature, it is not. The only evidence that you have provided is conjecture; grammatical conjecture and the conjecturing of conspiracy theories. And in my mind this is unacceptable. I have very little tolerance for conjecture.

It is not surprising that everything in Abbasid literature is IDENTICAL to Hadiths and pre-Islamic poems because this is EXACTLY what one would expect if those Hadiths and poems were developed DURING the Abbasid era. So your observation actually confirms that they are post-Quranic. On the other hand, the language of the great reading is different as evidenced by the following obvious facts

1. The great reading was meant to be recited without case endings.
2. You admit that the language of the great reading was a vernacular. Case endings are useless memorized forms of hypercorrections that would not have been part of the intrinsic grammar of an untaught vernacular language. This is why they are spontaneously non-existent in ALL vernacular Arabic varieties.
3. The great reading contains what would be glaring grammatical errors.
4. Unlike Hadith and Jahiliya poetry, the vocabulary of the language of the great reading reflects earlier non-religious and non-Arab-Nationalistic usage (like ?a3rab? being used in contrast to city dwellers and not having anything to do with Arab nationalistic genealogy and Allat as the name of the Nabataean deity The Goddess as opposed to having anything to do with some Arab mixing dough, etc.).

Peace,

Ayman

[savage_carrot]

This is an excellent discussion )

[TheNabi]

Me thinks Hebrew has only 22 letters as well.

Joe

[progod]

I ask for some patience on my dealing with the above issues. I just also wanted to point out that I was referring to all Aramaic/Hebrew versions of the alphabet. If you go to http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataean_alphabet and http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet you'll see that every sound except for the dawd and the ghain can be accounted for, although some of the letters have dual pronunciations. I'll be looking for more variant dialects to see if even these letters can be accounted for. I will also be looking for Arabic texts that were written in Aramaic/Hebrew texts. I also wanted to point out this quote
The ancient South Arabian alphabet (also known as musnad &#1583 branched from the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet in about the 9th century BC. It was used for writing the Yemeni Old South Arabic dialects of the Sabaean, Qatabanian, Hadrami (aram&#299, Minaean, Himyarite, and proto-Ge'ez (or proto-Ethiosemitic) in D`mt. The earliest inscriptions in the alphabet date to the 9th century BC in Akkele Guzay, Eritrea
And more so Akkele Guzay is one of the most ancient regions of Eritrea, with an inscriptional record going back to at least the 9th century BC, in Epigraphic South Arabian, the earliest example of the script in the world. It was part of the Kingdom of D'mt that would evolve into the Kingdom of Aksum.[1 The Aksumite Empire or Axumite Empire (sometimes called the Kingdom of Aksum or Axum), (Ge'ez &#4637, was an important trading nation in northeastern Africa, growing from the proto-Aksumite period ca. 4th century BC to achieve prominence by the 1st century AD. It is also the alleged resting place of the Ark of the Covenant and the home of the Queen of Sheba. Located in northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, Aksum was deeply involved in the trade network between India and the Mediterranean.

That is all taken from wikipedia. Aksum was also known as Abyssinia. And in the 3rd century they controlled Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yemen and southern Saudi Arabia. It is not to hard to figure out that this is where the Musnad script came from. I'll search for other indications of the Ethiopic origin of the Musnad script, if this is not enough. I will also answer the above posts. it will take time so I ask for patience. Thank you.

Godbless,
Anwar

[ayman]

Peace Anwar,

I ask for some patience on my dealing with the above issues. I just also wanted to point out that I was referring to all Aramaic/Hebrew versions of the alphabet. If you go to http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataean_alphabet and http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet you'll see that every sound except for the dawd and the ghain can be accounted for, although some of the letters have dual pronunciations. I'll be looking for more variant dialects to see if even these letters can be accounted for. I will also be looking for Arabic texts that were written in Aramaic/Hebrew texts.

There are 22 letters in the Aramaic Alphabet to the Arabic 28. So something has to give. But even this 22 was effectively reduced still further since one letter, Semkath, was not used and the forms of several others had become indistinguishable in the initial and medial positions.

I also wanted to point out this quote
That is all taken from wikipedia. Aksum was also known as Abyssinia. And in the 3rd century they controlled Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yemen and southern Saudi Arabia. It is not to hard to figure out that this is where the Musnad script came from. I'll search for other indications of the Ethiopic origin of the Musnad script, if this is not enough. I will also answer the above posts. it will take time so I ask for patience. Thank you.

Thanks for the quote and for planning to make a good effort to further research this. I think that everyone can benefit from your research. One thing to think about is terminology. The term Ethiopic is too broad and thus you may need to research it more closely. The term is mostly used to describe the liturgical language and script of the Ethiopian church. This script appeared in the 4th century CE during the reign of king Ezana who declared the Christian religion as the State religion. Interestingly, as a liturgical script and in contrast to the Ge'ez script, the Ethiopic script added vocalization marks. Sounds familiar? It would be interesting if during your research you could look for patterns that may indicate parallels between the development of the 4th century CE Ethiopic as an after the fact religious language and the development of Classical Arabic.

Peace,

Ayman

[Joe_Betik]

salaam,

please consider this;

1. 'salat' is 'relationship'.
2. 'aqeemoo lssalat' is 'correct your (pl.) relationship.
3. 'aqeemoo lssalat wa-atoo lzzakat' is 'correct the relationship with clear conscience.'
4. 'inna alssalat lwusta' is 'verily relationship is the core.'
   etc. etc.

have a check for root 'w-s-l' and 's-l-w' in hans wehr and lane's lexicon.

and btw, as always, do not be too quick to conclude in the positive or negative. just consider, for God shall hold you responsible for what you have concluded in mind.

peace
joe

[progod]

Peace Ayman,

You don?t quote that alleged verse by Taha Hussein either, so it is equally your problem. If you don?t provide evidence and you never even read his work, then all your criticism of Taha Hussein is nothing but emotional prejudice and all this is irrelevant anyway. If you want to be taken seriously then first read his work.

Again, I was the one who admitted that I haven't read his work. I will take it upon myself to find his verse like the Quran. However, to have this discussion I dont have to have read his work. I can easily discuss the logic of the
ideas that you put forth as his, and whether they are factual and are well-reasoned or fallacious.

Yes, and as we can see here unscientific people (Arabs or Americans or whatever) always disparage the scientific method.

I'm not going to discuss my opinions about what I believe to be the general linguistic and otherwise miseducation in the Arab cultures and the other ideas which I think contribute to unscientificness in discussions like these. I dont want to sound condemning of all Arabs. Because despite the fact that the majority of Arabs I've come accross fit into this category I have met a few who were true gems of knowledge and who understood all these ideas I've been trying to help you and others understand. Among all people we will find the majority to be very ignorant and stubbornly so on certain topics that affect their self-image and history.

Not understanding what the scientific method is and hence being fooled by those who claim to be ?scientific? doesn?t mean that the scientific method is to blame.

Again you fail to understand that the sceintific method is only as good as the persons who employ it or who are honest about it. In the real scientific community the scientific method is not always followed nor is it absolutely adhered to when scientists are trying to gain fame or companies are funding research to make money. And sometimes it is just not as simple as that. Of course the scientific method is not to blame but don't be too simplistic in thinking that what we know as the scientific method is always the answer nor be too idealistic in thinking that everyone who claims to have followed this method is always telling the whole truth. (but this is not relevant to our conversation)

The changes didn?t start happening yesterday. They started happening shortly after the great reading was revealed and as soon as Arabic became the religious lingua franca. It suddenly became a language of prestige instead of a street language that was looked down upon as uncivilized. You on the other hand believe that the changes started to happen more recently, at the perfect time after the language has been conveniently formalized. Unfortunately, things in real life don?t happen so conveniently and perfectly.

I don't know where you got this idea that I think the changes started happening yesterday. There are ony two changes in Arabic that have happened. (1)The first is when the language became a langauge of prestige and through scholarship it was frozen in time. That means that it represented the langauge of the past generations and the scholars and learned did everything in their power to keep it true. That was done because in the streets, in the markets and in the new Arab territories where Arabic was gaining popularity it was changing and creolizing because of the many non-Arabs who were trying to use it. That creolization became the street language and the original Arabic still spoken by learned individuals and those Arabs who maintained their grandfathers and great grandfathers speech. That language, having been originally colloquial became the educated, written language. (2)The second change came in the early 20th century when Classical Arabic (the now educated, written language for centuries) was reduced in order to simplify it and modernize it. That simplified, modernized langauge is MSA. So there were two evolutions in Arabic the first was creolization of CA which took place a thousand years ago (whereas CA was classifed, taught and used through literature and educated discussion). The second is simplification and modernization of CA which took place recently. This is where all of the so called grammatical errors in the Quran and hadeeth come into play because they are being put into an MSA grammatical context. All of these so called errors are correct in true CA.

But in the case of Classical Arabic and pre-Islamic poetry we have empirical evidence, including internal evidence from the great reading, that the poems? language is different than that of the great reading.

This is not true. You have evidence that the style and format of Islamic poems is different than the Quran's style and format. What i mean by that is when you compare a sonnet to prose or a hiaku the formats and styles are completely different but the grammar and language is the same. That is the difference between pre-Islamic poetry and the Quran, no more no less. And that is not an indication that these are different classes of Arabic.

Now that you realized that you made a false statement, you added the word ?regularly. Your earlier statement was a typical example of unscientific thinking. In logic, there is a big difference between ?no longer recited? and ?not regularly recited?. Also, when you read poetry on paper (or anything for that matter), you are reciting it in your mind. This is indisputable
.

Yes I made a false statement in saying that they are no longer recited because there are still a few people who specialize in these poems and recite them. But besides these few these poems ARE no longer recited. I chose to be more specific instead of generalizing. Secondly why can't you understand that Arabic developed styles of reciting poetry and certain pronunciations when reciting them. It is not different than how now in English no one uses thou and thine except in poetry, or o'er and e'er for over and ever. I'm sure there are other examples of English pronunciation that we only use in poetry. I will be on the look out for them. But you are not reciting poetry when your read it in your mind you are just reading it. Just as when you read the Quran you read all the case endings or when you read a duah you read all the case endings but when your recite you use the poetic norms of reciting. This is not specific to just Classical Arabic.

Great, I am glad that you realized this and that in this post you stopped saying ?the truth as I have it?. Since your arguments are not very organized, I will try to divide my response below into 3 main areas to organize things a little bit and make them easier to read while still addressing all of your points

1. Tajweed
2. How language status affects language
3. Jahiliya poetry, Classical Arabic vocabulary and other misunderstandings

I'm glad we've outlined thse three topics. Also keep your offensive words to yourself and stop throwing out the word scientific and professional. You interpet them in your subjective way and I'd rather just stick to the subjects.

Tajweed and its development are actually detrimental to your case. Tajweed was developed after the great reading was revealed. Tajweed didn?t make the great reading but it is the great reading that made Tajweed possible. In addition, even people who don?t know anything about Tajweed and who see a certain chapter the great reading for the first time and recite it follow the inherent rhyme in the great reading. Your idea that the rhyme is there because of Tajweed as opposed to the reality that Tajweed became possible because of the existing rhyme clearly puts the cart before the horse.

Everything you have said is not true. My case is in the dua's and the pre-Islamic poems. I've heard how dua's follow the same rules when recited. There is a section on recital of prose and poems in Wright's book that you would do good reading. Secondly people don't just recite the Quran without having learned it first, or without following modern Arabic or even dialect styles (which leave out case endings almost wholesale) if they've never heard the Quran recited, which is too rare to even seriously consider. We don't live in a vaccum. There is no thoroughly consistent inherent rhyme in the Quran. The Quran has been denatured on the most part to create that rhyme. No one recites the Quran without already having a knowledge of schools and styles of Quranic recitation. No one. You are putting the cart before the horse here.

In chapter 55, Tajweed didn?t put the ?an? at the end of ?rahman? as a poetic license to make it rhyme with ?quran?, ?insan?, ?bayan?, ?7usban?, ?yasjudan?, ?myzan?, etc... The same goes for all of the chapters of the great reading. Pick any chapter, from the first to the last one. In chapter 1, Tajweed didn?t put ?im? at the end of ?rahim? to make it rhyme with ?3alamin?, ?rahim?, ?din?,?nasta3in?. ?mostaqim?, ?dhalin?. Similarly, Tajweed didn?t put ?as? at the end of ?nas? in chapter 114 and repeated ?nas?, 3 times and then added the ?as? and the end of ?khanas? to make it rhyme between the prior 3 and next 2 occurrences ?nas?. So the fact that there is a deliberate rhyme in the great reading is an empirically verifiable truth to everyone. Of course, the scientific method is based on empirical verification. Perhaps this is why you disparaged the scientific method above. You know that the scientific method with its emphasis on empirical verification doesn?t bode well for your clearly conjectural arguments about Classical Arabic and how the great reading should sound according to
it.

This is what i'm talking about. You state your opinion of something based on half of the evidence and then you say this is empirical verification. When you read those words let me tell you what you really see al-rahmanU, al-qur'anU, al-insaanA, al-bayanA, husbanIN, yasjudanI, mizanA, and the same thing goes for the rest of the Quran. Tajweed, which is poetic pronuncation, took the ending vowels off to make all those words rhyme more poetically than what they really are. And this is common in all forms of Arabic poetry. What you propose is no scientific method. It is you taking half of the evidence and imposing your ideas on the Quran and then calling that empirical verification. Please.

There is no evidence that Classical Arabic poetries were recited with similar rhyme and meter as the great reading. What you are saying is pure conjecture and therefore it is completely unscientific. On the other hand, and contrary to the great reading, what we see in so-called Jahiliya poetry is that the case endings are an integral part of the rhyme. This is again an empirically verifiable fact that everyone who read so-called Jahiliya poetry can verify for themselves.

Again, you are reading classical Arabic poetry and not reciting it. I'll do some more research into my grammar book and give you some decisive quotes and I'll look for some pre-islamic poetry reciters. You should do the same. Because when I read the Quran I see all the case endings there and I read them all. But when a reciter recites the Quran he follows a school of recitation that takes many (not all) of those case endings off for rhyme. To prove that, go to those same verses you quote above and listen to a reciter. He will recite every case edning on every word but the one he stops on for rhyme. So you get in 555 ash-shamsU wal-qamarU despite the fact that bi-husbaanIN is shortned to bi-husbaan. You DON't get ash-shams wal-qamar. The same goes for the next verse with an-najMU wash-shajarU. So what empirical evidence are you speaking of? You are telling half-truths. The cutting of the case endings where the reciter ends is specifically used to MAKE these verses rhyme more. You can see that when a reciter recites something and pauses (leaving out the case ending), then he recites it again so that it connects with the rest of the passage and he pronounces every case ending until he comes to a new stop dictated by his school and style of poetic recitation of the book.

In chapter 55, did Tajweed take out any letters from ?rahman?, ?quran?, ?insan?, ?bayan?, ?7usban?, ?yasjudan?, ?myzan?, etc... to make the chapter rhyme? Of course not!

The answer to this is a resounding YES. And it is seen in the fact that the case endings are recited except for when a reciter pauses. (and it is no wonder that he pauses at every place that will rhyme well with the next word his recitation school has dictated that he pause at).

There you go again with this ?no longer recited? nonsense. When you read a poem, the only way to appreciate it is to recite it in your head. Otherwise, you might as well be spelling it and not reading it.

Here you fail to understand the difference between to recite and to read. To read is to read for meaning not style and to recite is to read for aesthetic style. Have you every seen Afro-American poetry recitals? Poets recite their poems with melodic highs and lows and lengthen and shorten their words to create an audio affect and to create an aesthetic style. That is what tajweed is. But when they hang up their poems to be read on walls, no one is reading it like that in their own heads unless they are trying to recreate the audio affect that the poet wanted to create. Reading is soley for the message and recital is for the affect and the message. As a matter of fact if you don't recite (to yourself or others) alot of those poems with that same affect you don't always get the rhyme. I used to make poems like this, and I noted that if I didn't shorten a word, lengthen it or speed up or slow down at the right time it didn't rhyme well. I'm sure that is what is happening to you when you read pre-islamic poems not knowing how they would be recited aloud.

Can you please bring evidence of such alleged Jahiliya poems that exhibits your conjecture of poetic license like that of the great reading that eliminates the case endings? Of course you can?t, because in contrast to the great reading the case endings are generally an integral part of the rhyme of Jahiliya poems.

I'll equally dare you here. Can you please show me a Quranic verse where there are case endings except where there is a natural rhyme? Without a traditional reciter's recital you are without an argument. I'll do my best to find a Jahilliyah poem reciter. But my argument still stands. No Quranic TEXT conveys the rhyme you suggest, so how do you expect a Jahiliyyah poetic TEXT to do the same?

So throughout the great reading in every single chapter, it is purely coincidental that when you take out the case endings, a rhyme emerges and when you put the case endings the rhyme disappears. So what we can verify empirically in a repeatable and systematic manner, you claim is coincidental while what you totally conjecture without presenting any evidence we are supposed to believe.

Now that is not totally true. Let's go to 55 again. al-qur'aanA, al-insaanA and al-bayaanA rhyme. So does husbaanin and yasjudaani and al-anaami and al-akmaami. So please don't exaggerate. I'm sure you can find plenty of these on your own. You understand that verses are not orignally apart of the Quran so why do you not understand that the wuqoof's were put there on the most part to create rhyme? How many times have you heard a reciter stop on an incomplete idea only to start again and stop again on a word that rhymes with that one or vice versa. This was done to CREATE rhyme despite the fact that that is not the natural flow of the sentence.

There is no complete stop in an idea between ?alrahman? and ?3alama al quran?. ?alrahman? is a single word not a phrase and yet the case ending is dropped.

Let me state that stops are made for idea completion and for rhyme. As I put above. Secondly words can be phrases. For instance 'a boy' is a phrase. These are callled incomplete phrases but they are phrases nonetheless.

Yet you are not able to produce a single ?ancient? poem that exhibits such poetic licenses.

Nor are you able to produce any text with cases endings that excludes them where there is a "natural" rhyme as you call it. Nor are you able to produce any reciter that exlcudes case endings except for at these stops. So if you are using recital as your empirical proof why is every case ending pronounced except for at stops which ususally all rhyme with each other? Why willl reciters stop in mid setence (to not prounounce a case ending in order rhyme with a previous stop) instead of following the full sentence through to its natural end?

So what is the background? Is it that non-existent ?ancient? poetry that you can?t produce an example of?

First of all the opinion that ancient poetry is not existent is just that your opinion. This is not a fact. Secondly in the case of ahaanan for ahaanani (and not even you can say that this is natural), the background is in Classical Arabic styles of recital, i.e. tajweed. As far as abnormalities in the text, this has to do with the development of the Arabic script.

You admit that there was demand for poetry that was modeled after what people thought was the style of Old Arabic poetry. Then you make a strange argument that this is different than demand for people to invent poetry. You ignore the fact that demand is the father of invention. When there is demand for something, people will always invent ways to provide supply. This is natural.

There is a BIG difference between demand for poetry MODELED AFTER Old Arabic poetry and a demand for REAL Old Arabic poetry. Don't you see that? People can demand poetry like Shakespeare's but that is clearly different than there being a demand for SHAKESPEARE'S ACTUAL POETRY. The second demand would produce faslisfied examples of such poetry. But a demand for poetry MODELED AFTER his peotry would produce just that, poetry LIKE his poetry, and that is it. Don't you see the difference?

Godbless,
Anwar

A response to you next post will follow this one.

[progod]

Peace Ayman,

Status can change a language quite a bit. Common languages are untaught. They rely on the innate grammar capacity which makes it possible for us to learn language as children just by hearing it and without having it taught to us.

Again this is not true. What do you mean by common languages? Standard English is the common language for instance for Euro-Americans who grow up in the Midwestern States. Or for those Spaniards who grow up in Castilian territory (madrid for instance) they don't have to be taught standard spanish. Or those Italians who grow up in northern territories, etc. etc. Standard langauges are ususally the dialect of a few within that language group. But no language has to be taught to us technically if our parents and those around us speak that language. The problem is that in our diverse world variant dialects often exist side by side with standard dialects. So those who speak variant dialects usually have to be taught the standard one.

For example, when a language becomes an elite language of prestige, then hypercorrections that serve no real purpose are introduced. The only purpose of such hypercorrections is to make the speaker sound more prestigious or learned. Classical Arabic case endings are precisely such hypercorrections that serve no real purpose. So it is not surprising that they are absent from the real common people language of the great reading as the internal evidence from the great reading clearly demonstrates.

Let me say that the Quran must have alot of hypercorrections because according to the internal evidence (which in your case is just the style of reciters) of the Quran EVERY CASE ENDING IS PRONOUNCED except where the reciter pauses usually to rhyme with a previous pause. Case endings are CLEARLY PRESENT both in the Quranic text and Quranic recitation. So why are you telling half-truths?

No it hasn?t. In reality, the average African-American looks down on this hip-hop street language and thus you will never catch Barack Obama or any other African-American political leader using this language in congress or even at press conferences.

To this I give you a resounding NO, and it is obvious you are speaking about what you don't know here. The average African American DOES speak this hip-hop street language (the langauge came before hip-hop), or some dialect almost identical to it (there are old school and new school styles). Only very educated African-Americans don't speak this and look down on it. Even still, they use very weak versions of it at home and among family and friends. But again you can't assume the African-American dialect (given America's history) to have any prestige outside of the Afro-American community. Furthermore you can't expect educated Afro-Americans who have to emulate Euro-Americans (or find themselves in majority Euro-American contexts) to successfully keep this language. Educated Afro-Americans actually get the most flack as a whole in the Afro-American community for assimilating and abondoning their language (which definitely has a great deal of UNOFFICIAL prestige) behind.

The Lakhmids kings and religious clergy didn?t speak in Arabic. They spoke Aramaic. The Ghassanids kings and religious clergy didn?t speak in Arabic either. They spoke in Greek. In fact, they continued to speak in Greek even after the Saracens? conquests. For example, Arab Ghassanid elites such as John of Damascus (whose real name was Mansoor) continued to use Greek in their writings well into the 8th century CE.

Actually they did speak Arabic, all of them. They ALSO spoke Aramaic and Greek. Don't you see that these people were polyglots. They spoke the official languages of Greek and Aramaic (and probably sometimes Persian) of the empires they vice-ruled with the Persians and the Byzantines, but they also spoke their own Arabic langauges in their own homes. It's no different than Hispanics in the U.S. Go to Miami. Important Cubans speak English AND spanish. The Lakhmids and Ghassanids are like Mexicans in L.A. or Cubans in Miami. But imagine that they had even more political clout. Lower class Mexicans in LA might mainly speak spanish in their house-holds and speak broken English, but the important policiticians are fluent in both. The same goes for the Cubans in Miami. This would naturally be the case of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids, who vice-ruled for the Byzantines and the Persians. And it is natural that they wouldn't write (on the most part) in Arabic because these are not the official languages. Look at John of Damascus. That was his official name but at home what did they call him? MansoorUN. That is Arabic so you can be sure that is what they spoke to him at home as well. Their influence actually went all the way down to Yathrib. So give this some real thought Ayman.

Aramaic and Greek were the languages of politics and religion (and Hebrew in the case of Jews) of the Lakhmids and the Ghassanids but on the street their subjects spoke a variety of vernacular Arabian dialects. One of those, the one spoken in the Lakhmid provinces is the language of the great reading.

Okay I won't say you contradicted yourself here. I'll just say you decided to be more specific. But there is no proof that they spoke distinct varieties of vernaculars. The proof is that they spoke Classical Arabic. That was the vernacular of all Arabs in the whole peninsula besides the Southern Arabic speakers. Nor is there any proof that the Quran is in some Lakhmid dialect. Where did you get his from?

Your theory has several major problems

1. Your theory relies on you imagining that Arab men were sex-crazed and when they saw foreign women they suddenly married them on a grand scale. Unfortunately, such wild theories find appeal in some Arab intellectuals? chauvinistic imaginations. Of course, this theory is bogus and it doesn?t explain, for example, what happened to all the Arab women who were suddenly not able to find husbands.

Wow. Sex crazed? What man wouldn't like to have more than one woman if left to his own devices? Most men are naturally sex-crazed, not just Arab men. Secondly, have you never heard of mut'ah? That actually happened. Imagine lonely men on military campaigns. It is not hard to see why they might have gotten married on grand scales, especially since they came from societies where polygamy was acceptable. And what do you mean suddenly not able to find husbands? Again these people did and actually still do believe in polygamy.
And they are not alone in the world.

2. As in the course of any population movement, some intermarriage would occur. However, your theory ignores the fact that such intermarriage never changes the language of the land. This is because the intermarriage is always of a very small scale compared to the whole population and it actually works in the opposite direction. For example, an American moving to Mexico and marrying a Mexican is more likely to have to learn Spanish than his new wife having to learn English.

That is true for now because in Mexico the official language is Spanish. But if Americans take over Mexico, marry Mexicans move there in masse and then establish English as the superior language Mexicans will have to learn English.
Actually that is what happend in the American southwest, Florida and Louisiana which were all Spanish territories. The native populations there mixed in somewhat (Anglos don't like to intermix) and had to learn English. It was slow but they did it. Actually that is what happened in all of Latin America. Spaniard and Portuguese men went their in masse, mixed with African and Native American populations and guess what you get now? Spanish speaking Mulatos, Mesitzo & Zumbas, Quadroons, Octaroons (considered blancos) and Negros all speaking Spanish. In the US alot of us even call them that, Spanish. Hmmm? That is exactly what happened with the Arabs.

3. Your theory contends that territories of what is now Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt were non-Arab. Of course, except for Egypt, this is false. But even in Egypt, an Arabian dialect was spoken in the Sinai so there is no doubt that Egyptians had some familiarity with the Arabian dialects.

You know what? The Lakhmids and the ghasaanids were vice rulers and ONE ethnicity in the areas of Jordan, Lower Iraq and parts of syria. But they were not the only ethnicity there. In Iraq everything North of Al-Hillah was not controlled by the Arab Lakhmids. And Aramaic was spoke thoughout the area, and still has some strongholds. upper Syria and Lebanon were not vice-ruled by the Ghassanids, and in Syria there were Greco-Roman and Arameans there. Now I'm really not sure how far into the Sinai the Arabs went so I won't comment on that. However just because Arab tribes might have been in the Sinai doesn't mean that the Copts or other populations there knew anything about Arabic, as it was not an enforced or official language. It was when the Muslim Arabs conquered all these areas completely that Arabic was imposed with natural and ruling force as the language to be adopted. There are even Persian and Turkish dialects of Arabic. So I gave you the proof, it is up to you to accept it.

4. Your theory is confused and contradictory. You admit that the language of the great reading was a street language at the time but then you turn around and say that ?street Arabic? was different than the language of the great reading. On the other hand, the simple and free from contradictions fact is that the street Arabic in the Lakhmid provinces at the time was itself the language of the great reading.

No, you are confused. What I am saying is that (1) prior to the expansion of the Muslim Arabs into Ghassanid, Lakhmid and non-Arab territories Classical Arabic was their colloquial langauge. They used it in their homes and in the deserts. In the purely Arab territories of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids where there weren't Greco-Romans, Arameans and others, as well as down towards the Himyarite borders the langauge on the streets was Classical Arabic (the himyarites spoke himyarite, This is a southern Arabic dialect distinct from Classical Arabic although related. I believe it still exists in the form of Mehra)

(2) When the Arabs took over the northern Ghassanid and the Lakhmid territories and Arabic was now the official langauge it was codified, classified and preserved by the educated and high classes. But on the streets it was now coming out of the mouths of those who spoke it as a second langauge and who didn't go to schools to learn it. So they started to corrupt it and that became the Arabic vernaculars of today.

I agree with this statement. Unfortunately, this contradicts what you said earlier about it not being the language of the street in those very same Umayyad territories.

You are not understanding that in the streets of non-Arab territories (everywhere Greek and Aramaic was spoken and were the official languages) it Classical Arabic was quickly corrupted. But in the deserts and back in purely Arab territories it was still the street langauge. This would change as later Arabicized non-Arabs would bring their corrupted Arabics deep into the peninsula.

No it didn?t. As with any language that acquires a higher status, hypercorrections are introduced that serve no real purpose other than to give the impression that the speaker is more learned. Case endings are precisely such hypercorrections.

Again this is a theory that you provide no proof for. Furthermore hypercorrections are more complicated then what you are purporting them to be.

If Hip-Hop suddenly became the language of prestige in the US, then George Bush would be compelled to learn it and he might announce a cabinet meeting by saying ?my homies and I are getting together?. This is an example of hypercorrection of Hip-Hop language, because in reality according to the ?rules of grammar? of Hip-Hop he should be saying ?Me and my homies are getting together?. He might also hypercorrect by replacing ?me? with ?I? and say ?I and my homies are getting together?. Now unlike ?me and my homies? or ?my homies and me? which can be exchanged with no problem, ?I and my homies? and ?my homies and I? despite both being grammatical in English, sound awful in Hip Hop just like reading the great reading with the case endings sounds awful in Arabic.

What does this have to do with anything? D
OK first of all 'me and my' is pretty common in all American speech. So this doesn't count. I'll give you a real hypercorrection. yeah I'm am for yeah I am. that is an accurate hypercorrection. in normal AAVE (that is what is really called) it is would be yeah I'm is or even Yeah I is. But usually Afro-Americans switching between dialects will say this (i'm guilty of it) bringing AAVE dialect grammar into standard English. But here is why it doesn't work in your case. This type of hypercorrection is usually a middle ground between two distinct and real dialects. Where are the two distinct dialects that somehow cause Arabic to be prounounced with case endings? What native grammar or non-native grammar are Arabs bringing into Arabic? And did it result in the addition of case endings, very specific and tied into the grammar of the language that the book uses? You tried to blame Hebrew Niqqud for this earlier but Hebrew doesn't even have case endings! It is the lack of case endings in Aramaic dialects, Greek and Coptic that cause it to dissapear in spoken Arabics.

Just like case endings, grammatically ?my homies and I? is a memorized form that serves no real purpose in a street language apart from making the speaker appear more learned. On the other hand, the real Hip-Hop grammar, like that of all street languages, is not memorized or taught. In fact, the ?me and X? form is the default, since it naturally turns up untaught in many dialectal varieties, whereas the ?X and I? form is only found in the taught versions of English. Similarly, the dropping of case endings turns up spontaneously in all Arabic vernacular varieties. So for a street language, which you admit the great reading?s language was, this is the default
.

Not at all. X and I is a dialectical form which has been favoured as the standard. It does exist naturally in some cases but in most cases X and me won out on the street and X and I in literature and amongst the educated. Take for instance aks verses ask. These were both interchangeable forms in the 15, 16 and 17th centuries. But ask won out even though axe still exists in some local dialects and is more natural for those dialects. I think the end of this quote demonstrates what I have been telling you for a very long time. You are using modern versions of Arabic to judge Old Arabic and you just can't do that. Modern Greek and Modern forms of Latin also dropped all their case endings. Are we going to assume that the original case endings of Latin and greek are really inventions? Not at all.

Grammar has a purpose. The purpose is not prestige but the purpose is make language understandable. Thus, expressions that violate grammar are incomprehensible nonsense. Since we can perfectly understand the great reading without case endings, we can conclude that case endings are not grammar but are a memorized form. This memorized form came into being when Classical Arabic ceased to be an untaught street language with an intrinsic grammar and became a taught language of prestige with memorized hypercorrections.

This is again not fully true. Grammar does have a purpose. And so do the case endings. Case endings have their purpose in every language that has them. They are to leave no doubt as to the tense, mood, subject or objects of what is being spoken about. Modern Arabics work completely on sentence order. But Old Arabic was not as restricted to sentence order because of these case endings. The same thing goes for Classical Latin as opposed to Vulgar latin and the modern Latin langauges.

1. The empirically verifiable fact is that the great reading was meant to be recited without case endings while case endings are an integral part of so-called Jahiliya poems. I am not sure what you mean by Old Arabic poems so unless you went to Arabia and dug out some manuscript or inscription of an Old Arabic poem, I assume that this is a fancy name you concocted for alleged Jahilya poems. Perhaps this way you are hedging your bets since the world is increasingly catching up to the fact that Jahiliya poems are later day inventions.

THis is not empirically verifiable, because as I show you the only words not prounounced with case endings are the ones where the reciter makes a stop usually for rhyme or to end an idea. yes Old Arabic poems are Pre-Islamic poems. And if the world is catching up to that idea then the world is digging itself further into ignorance. But that doesn't suprise me.

2. The internal evidence from the great reading which is corroborated by epigraphic evidence and which clearly indicates that the language of the great reading was a common street language. This means that it relied on intrinsic grammar. On the other hand, the Classical Arabic language of Jahiliya poetry relies heavily on memorized forms that serve no real purpose other than making the speaker sound learned.

These are your opinions which are obviously from your experience with Classical Arabic. Firstly we all memorize our langauges and their grammar and then once we know them through and through we use them intrinsically. You are creating dichotomies that really don't exist and that just explain your relationship as a speaker of Modern Arabic with Classical Arabic. Case endings have intrinsic meaning as I explained before leaving very little doubt as to the mood, tense, object and subject and allow more flexibilty in sentence order. Modern Arabics are very different in this aspect and a historical review which I've already given you explains why.

3. The Arabic Tashkil is borrowed wholesale from the Hebrew Niqqud, which was only used in religious texts or texts where prestige played a factor. The Tashkil exhibits the same exact systemic problems as Niqqud and the evidence points to both being invented at a later date after the language was formalized. You are in reality taking a dogmatic view about the Arabic Tashkil that is exactly the same as that of fundamentalist Christians who think that the Hebrew Niqqud is inspired.

I really don't like it when you confuse text with speech and all vowels with just case endings. The tashkil did descend from then niqqud. But why can't you understand that this is a writing convention. It is also the reason why you can distinguish the difference between a ra, z, dawd, sawd, dha, taw, seen, sheen etc. in the text. Obviosly these letters were always distinguishable in speech. There is a difference between the development of a text and the language that that text is suppose to represent. Obviously spoken Arabic always made a distinction between, dawd and sawd, seen and sheen and ra and za etc but the text took time to reflect that. So your comparison is innaccurate. Futhermore everything we humans do is inspired in someway. But I don't think that the Arabic text or the Classical Arabic language is more divine than any other langauge. So your comparison is inappropriate.

Nobody here sings the great reading and yet all of us, even those reading a chapter for the very first time, naturally follow the inherent rhyme in it. So stop making up irrelevant arguments. If you read the great reading with all the case endings then it would be just to appear learned but people would probably laugh at you on the inside because you would sound so awful and pretentious (in other words like a wannabe making hypercorrections) so I hope that you would be wise enough not to do it.

But you do sing it. And like I said you don't follow any natural rhyme, you imitate those who came before you who sung the Quran as well. Again you are imposing your socio-linguistic modern view of Classical Arabic and its relation to the versions of Arabic spoken today into reality. Maybe people who speak with case endings today just appear to be learned or stuck up, but people who did it in ancient times only spoke their language. It's the same deal if someone tries to speak in Eilzabetan English today. Furthermore even Quranic reciters pronounce 99 percent of the case endings in the Quran. Only straying from this when they pause. If you count all the case endings they do pronounce as opposed to the ones they don't you would see this.

Godbless,
Anwar.

I'll respond to your next post in the next posting. I'll need some time. This is very time consuming.

[progod]

Peace,

I just wanna say briefly that what we were discussing as hypercorrections aren't really that. I think the example got the point across, but a hypercorrection is like saying inter for inner (becasue the t after n in American English is usually dropped so you add one where it doesn't go). This is also done in dominican spanish for instance. Because s's are usually not pronounced they will add s's where they don't go in an effort to sound proper. And dominican Spanish is not considered a prestigious language nor are the American dialects that hypercorrect with pronouncing t's in inn, in or ind clusters to compensate for silent t's in int clusters. Yeah, I'll try to find a correct defnintion for hypercorrection, so that alteast we aren't talking about the wrong thing.

Godbless,
Anwar

[progod]

Peace, Ayman,

Dramatic stories based on real life are created after the past events. On the other hand, Jahiliya poetry was allegedly created as part of the event. It is good that at least you admit that Jahiliya poems are dramatic stories.

But let me say that Pre-Islamic poems are not alone in this matter. We have many stories of kings and queens and wars and the like that were handed down through poetic stories. For instance the Trojan horse and alot of the greek wars were recorded like that. I don't see why Pre-Islamic poetry needs to be discriminated against. Again it could be pre-Islamically fabricated or just pre-islamically exaggerated. I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt unless I have some real evidence to think that these stores are fabricated. But I will never rule out that possiblity. But again let's not confuse their pre-islamic authorship with whether the stories conveyed in them are historically accurate.

Have you ever heard a king or an ancestor spontaneously utter poetry at every precisely opportune minute in his live? The problem that you don?t seem to be aware of is that in Jahiliya poetry the author and the hero of the story are supposedly one and the same. So by admitting that Jahiliya poems are like odes to kings and ancestors, you admit that the ?kings and ancestors? didn?t really utter them but they were uttered by later storytellers. It is good that you are becoming more rational since we started this discussion.

I have always had these ideas in mind. You are the one who assumed the ideas that I believed about the pre-islamic poems. So please don't tell me I'm becoming more rational, it is just that your assumptions about the way I think are being exploded as you find out more about what I really believe, in the course of this discussion. As for the rest of this story I think what i said earlier explains this. Ths is common in Greek history and many other ancient histories, i.e. they are poeticized and then passed on to other reciters through the centuries until it is written down at some point (but even still the stories may continue to be memorized and recited orally). It is like the griot tradition of West Africa. This is how the Quran was mainly preserved as well. But here's the catch The more people you have reciting the same thing the more reliable it is and the fewer the people the less reliable. This is the basis of the Quran's 4 witness rule for speech that can fall in the category of rumor/hearsay. If there is a text side by side that is also better (but this also relies upon the efficiency of the writing system used. The early Arabic writing system was not very reliable).

It certainly doesn?t make them true either. The burden of proof is on you and those Arabicists who make the extraordinary claim that the poems? heroes really paused even when no one was listening and spontaneously uttered what you admit are ?stories? at every opportune moment in the story itself and that those ?stories? were not invented by later storytellers, whose job is, well... to invent stories.

Believe me, I understand this. But I'm not arguing in absolutes or opposites. The burden of proof is not on me or those Arabicists because we understand the phenomon of poeticized histories and biographies by the local masters of langauge of those times. So the fact that it has been peoticized does not make it untrue again. These are intentional interpretations of the real events in order to convey the story in a poeticized form. But there's no evidence pointing away from the authenticity of the story, or the fact that it was originally composed during those times. Again this phenomonena is well known in the Greek literary tradition. So it is not a suprise or a historical outrage to those who are learned. The burden of proof is actually yours because the poeticism of these stories can be logically explained within the context of the historical authenticity of these stories. A grain of salt is automatically assumed considering how these stories are originally composed. But unless there is obvious contradicting evidence, to doubt the authenticity of these stories is overly-suspicious assumption.

The basic premise of Jahilya poetry is that it was uttered by the very poets whose life stories are intertwined in the poem. Since you admit that those are in reality stories about the past and the poets didn?t really say those poems but they were invented by storytellers then this makes this basic premise untrue and one cannot assume that the language in those poems is the language that the supposed ?heroes? spoke.

As it concerns the language of the poems being in the original language of the acutal heroes well that is naturally going to be a matter of the narrators understanding of the story in its original language (as the language changes over time, or as they intentionally poeticize it). That is on the same level of the targums which are translations of Hebrew into Aramaic by those who knew Hebrew (we don't know how much Hebrew they really understood) and converted it to Aramaic. But this is an issue of language change and I don't think there is any evidence of real langauge change in Old Arabic (yes I mean Classical Arabic) from the 3rd century until the 6th and and 7th and as it progressed into a literary and educated langauge in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries (again we know that in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries Classical Arabic as a street, desert, home and market language began to phase out and be replaced with mixed Arabo-Aramean/Greco-Roman creole with influences from Berber, Coptic, Himyarite, Chadic and Nubic in their respective territories (even Greek and Romance dialects in the southern European territories which were later reconquered by Europeans.) But also if the hero's langauge is Classical Arabic and then it is poeticized in Classical Arabic that does not change the fact they the hero still spoke Classical Arabic. Poeticization does not change the identity or grammar of a language it just tells the story though the poetic styles of that language. It is still said language. There are very minimal differences from poem to regular talk that warrant any real attention or speculation to doubt the fidelity of the langauge used in poems to regular speech.

By asking me to prove a negative, you are demonstrating the typical fallacious thinking that permeates and clouds the minds of the majority of Arab-educated intellectuals. They also ask prove that Mohamed didn?t say this or that. You should really be asking the opposite question ?Does that mean that those events or that person existed?? The answer is a resounding NO. So the burden of proof is on you.

No, my friend. Innocent until proven guilty. Overwhelming doubt and suspicion can "prove" anything. Now you can actually prove that Muhammad didn't say this or that through the actual Quran, as well as through pointing to the weakness of Isnad. In the end the Quran gives us the answer to why we should or should not accept rumor and hearsay. Because that hearsay/rumor COULD be true. Just because it is hearsay or rumor does not mean that it is not true. You are starting from the guilty until proven innocent stance and that is prone to excessive suspicion and unjust judgements. But this idea may be our fundamental difference and I will try to find some Quranic passages that convey the correctness and justice in this approach.

It is great that you admit that they are merely stories and that they can be fictional because the SOLE AUTHORITY for Jahiliya poetry is based on that they were uttered by the very heroes of the poems at the exact time where the story took place. If this basic premise is placed in doubt then one can no longer assume that anything in them is pre-quranic in the same way that one can no longer assume that any of the Hadiths was actually uttered by the prophet.

This is a big jump in logic on your part. And you even accused Taha Hussein of making this same assumption. To doubt their historical accuracy and then to claim that they are automatically (because of that) post-Quranic is a totally unjust and assumptious decison. Again I have seen nothing to really cause doubt as to the Pre-Islamicness of the poems (again whether they are true to the events of those times or not is another story. And I would assume them to be true because I have not come accross anything that really says otherwise). And nothing you have said has been real evidence to its contrary. As it concerns the hadeeth, you will not find me so ANTI-Hadeeth. I don't follow them and I consider them rumor but there is still a possiblity that some of them (the ones that don't contradict each other and the Quran) might be true. But the case is much stronger against the Hadeeth. First you have the contridictory Hadeeth and the ones that say that there should even be Hadeeth. Plus we know that alot of them were fabricated, we know that isnaad does not really authenticate content and we know that there were no schools or classes of people dedicated to learning and memorizing the same events during the prophet's time. Additionally, Quranically we know that the last prophet (God bless him) had nothing to add to the Quran, that he did not explain the Quran, that he only followed the Quran and that for a rumor or hearsay to be considered valid it must have 4 witnesses to a narrator or narration. That means 4 different lines of isnaad for each and every saying or for each narrator 4 witnesses to even be considered as possibly authentic, and I have not come across a hadeeth that even stands up to that test.

What you believe is irrelevant. You need to provide evidence for such belief. You have provided no evidence that they are pre-Islamic. You already admitted the obvious fact that they are merely ?stories? uttered by storytellers. So you now have to prove that the storytellers were pre-quranic despite the forces of demand and supply that resulted in the wholesale creation of such stories being post-quranic.

Honestly you have supplied no evidence your self. Your two main arguments are

1. The stories might have been fabricated during Pre-Islamic times which makes them unhistorical. And in that case it is even more possible that they were fabricated in Post-Quranic times.

There is obviosly no real logic to this statement. Just one great big unfounded assumption.

2. Because there was a demand for poems MODELED AFTER Pre-Islamic poems (and not even REAL pre-islamic poems) people invented poems and claimed that they were really pre-islamic.

This is another logically inconsistent argument. Becuase if there is a demand for shakespearean-like poetry, who is going to write a poem and claim that it is shakespeare? That was not the demand. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that if there is a demand for pies made with artificial strawberries that people are going to provide pies with real strawberries. But the market will meet the actual demand and the demand is for artificial strawberries not real strawberries. And in this case the demand was for poetry modeled after the pre-islamic style, not real pre-islamic poetry. (see A literary history of the Arabs)

This is false. The early dotting was not for the Tashkil. The early dotting was for disambiguating the Nabataean script that Arabic was written in. In fact, this is so early that it is also seen in some pre-quranic inscriptions. On the other hand, dotting for Tashkil doesn?t appear until the 9th-10th century CE. The same exact useless dotting was used for Hebrew Niqqud long before Tashkil appeared. So Tashkil simply borrowed the concept from Hebrew when Arabic became an elitist language and hypercorrections were introduced.

I read up on this and there are a few texts that use dots to distinguish Arabic sounds by dotting the evolved nabatean letters. But it was not widespread. (I'll be looking into if this was pre-Quranic) There are still many texts well into the Islamic era that do not distinguish between ra, za, fa, qaf, dhal, dal, taw, dhaw, seen sheen, sawd, dawd, or ta and thaa. And you can see this in early texts and scripts as well, Even early Quranic scripts. Dots were then also introduced for vowel purposes. I've seen texts that use dots for vowels and not letters and texts that use no dots, niether to distinguish the differences between the above Arabic letters or for vowels. As I have said for a long time the Arabic texts back then and well into the mideival times were a work in progress with different writing conventions used alongside each other and even within the same text.

What you are claiming is patently false. There are many early manuscripts, including mundane non-quranic ones (for example PERF 55, where these were dotted and as I said there are even pre-quranic inscriptions where they are dotted
.

I explained myself above. There are also many early manuscripts that are not dotted.

http//www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/Quran_Kufe_script.jpg
Here the dots are vowels only.

http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Kufic_Quran_7th_Cent.jpg
Here we have no dots at all not even for letter diffierentiation.

Anwar, you can?t just dogmatically attribute everything to an African origin and then expect to be taken seriously in professional circles. The Ethiopic language didn?t even appear until the middle of the 300s CE. On the other hand, Sabaic and the other Arabian dialects used the Musnad script as early as BCE times.

And that is not what i was doing. Please stick to the topic. I already put forth information on the earliest occurence of the south Arabic text in Abysinnian territory during the reign of D'mt. He's the problem historically Euro-centric historians and ethnologiest have tried to mislable Arabs as Caucasian (denying their mulatoe origins) (despite the obvious native Black Arabs and other Black natives like the Mahra) in order to claim credit for the ancient developments in the areas. They have refused to recognize the original Ethiopian substrate of Arabia, and also refused to recognize the true origins of this script. And they try to say that people from the Arab peninsula came to Africa and left their civilizations there earlier than they did in their own lands. Obviously this is false and racist but it is mainstream. There are a few historians who challnege this. A Peter R. Schmidt I believe is one of them. The fact that the script evolved and continued to be used in Ethiopia is no accident. And the fact that vowel signs were added to the text later as in Arabic only represents the elitist origins of the the texts. Ancient Egyptian was the first to do this and that is the origin behind the practice in Middle Eastern lands. The Egyptians actually came from the Ethiopian area (they claimed to have originated in the land of Punt to the south of Modern Egypt.) So this is not Afro-centrism, it is truth. And you have unfortunately been brainwashed to think something else that is not true to what your origins really are.

I think that you mean ?part? not ?apart?.

I agree that over the years since I have known you on Free-minds you have progressed a lot beyond the average Muslim intellectual. Even in the course of this discussion, I see progress. For example, it is great that you now acknowledge that Jahiliya poems are merely stories told by later storytellers. This would be unfathomable to most Muslim intellectuals who cling to Jahiliya poetry as if their faith depended on it. This just tells you how weak their faith really is.

Yes that is what i meant. And you can keep the rest of your patriarchal descending words to yourself. Maybe it is you that has progressed as you are actually starting to understand some of the things that I have been saying for so long. I will not be so arrogant as to pretend to judge your intellecutal progression since I have been in contact with yor on free-minds. My ideas about Jahiliyah poetry are slightly different but very similar to the traditonal ideas but my reasons are not dogmtic but logical and as objective as God has allowed me to be. But I did not admit what you say I admit. Please don't put words into my mouth and understand what I am really saying here. I admitted the possiblity but still believe in the improbablity of what you claim that I admit.

Since we can?t know the inner motives of people then they are irrelevant in scientific studies. Telling me that I am a follower of Rashad Khalifa because I concluded that Hadiths were not uttered by the prophet but by later religious storytellers is as wrong as you saying that I am a follower of Taha Hussein because I concluded that Jahiliya poems were not uttered by their heroes but by later storytellers. As for Taha Hussein, you would do well by reading his work first before making baseless judgments.

I never sid that you were a follower of Khalifa. Please don't invent things. Now I did think that you were a follower of some of Hussien's ideas in a blind way (because of your overly suspicious and revisionist attitudes) but I never thought you were one of his followers and you obviously criticized some of his beliefs although you turned around and espoused them later. Lastly we are talking about ideas here not people, although I will admit that I am doubtful of the genuiness and solidity of his ideas because the intentions that his actions (as I know of them) express. You can say that is unscientific or unprofessional if you want but I am dealing with logic here not some fancied definition of scientific and professional

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I said is that Taha Hussein fails to see is that whether the poems have a strong personality and the author really existed or not has no bearing on the dating of the poem (i.e. pushing the dating back to pre-quranic times). It simply speaks about the level of skill of the (post-quranic) author of the poem. If you still agree then great.

Exactly. You criticize him so I don't think you are a follower of his, like I said before.

So is the word ?alrahman? in 551 a phrase?!!

Yes, an incomplete one. Words with their definite or indefinite articles are automatically types of phrases.

They would get it from the Hebrew religious texts which employed the SAME EXACT useless Tashkeel but they call it Niqqud. Did you really think that Tashkil was invented by Arabs? Well sorry to bust your Arab nationalistic bubble.

The idea of using dots to distinguish anything is obviously a borrowing of Hebrew/Armaic niqqud. Look at the word niqqood. it is a close cognate to naqt (dotting) and a possible plural form of it (based off of fa'l) is nuqoot (as well as the more common nuqat and niqaat).

There is a difference between sukoot and sukootan with a final Alif. On the other hand, making ?sukoot? as ?sukootun? doesn?t add any meaning that can?t already be figured out from ?sukoot? and ?sukootan? in the context.

Please don't take this from a modern Arabic point of view. sukootun can mean 'there is a sukoot, a sukoot, or any sukoot" The dammah tanween has its place in Old Arabic. It is obvious that the case endings have fallen out of use in modern ARabic and sentence structure and context are relied on more. But you are comparing apples with oranges. You can't try to make assumptions about Ancient Greek, English, Latin or Arabic based on Modern Greek, English, Latins and Arabic. It just doesn't work like that. Everything needs to be studied within its own context, even if it does share a common name.

They were nomadic. So unlike city dwellers they covered large swaths of land and came into contact with more diverse populations and their language is going to reflect this diversity.

True and not true. That is only true if they were in borderland regions with other linguistic influences and ethnicities. But if they were in plain Arabic speaking territory then this would not be true. Whereas city areas on caravan routes would be in more constant contact with foreigners and foreign influences.

Godbless,
anwar

[progod]

Peace,

SECOND PART

Most Arabic words have in fact their origin in a different language. So Classical Arabic dictionaries trying to attribute almost each and every single word meaning to an Arab origin is a clear example of the Arab nationalistic bias that ails Classical Arabic studies. For example, Lisan Al-3arab falsely classifying ?allat? (5319) under LTT and claiming that it was called so because of an Arab man mixing dough (ltt) at her idol when the Nabataean origin and classification under ALH is readily obvious is moronic and dishonest Arab nationalism at its best. We are talking here about the most authoritative Classical Arabic dictionary suffering from such dishonesty and moronic bias. Fortunately, with an intelligent reading of Classical Arabic dictionaries one can easily separate the real meanings from the ones that were invented to promote Arab nationalism. So your claim that all meanings in Classical Arabic dictionaries, whether for ?salat? or any other word are 100% valid is simply false wishful thinking not grounded in reality.

It is obvious that some words don't have Arab origins. But I would not accuse Lisaan al-Arab of this as it only relates it back to word usage and form usage within the Arabic language. Lisan al-Arab does relate some words duly back to foreign origins. That mentality is more of a modern one than an ancient one. Tafsirs and lisan al-arab are full of words relating back to foreign origins. Modern Arabs however are resistant to the inclusion of foreign words into MSA so they invent Arabic words based on Arabic pattern for modern phenomena. You are confusing Classical Arabic Academic trends with MSA trends. I disagree with your assessment of allat. It is obviously a local notion with the origin of the word. It does not follow the lam, ta ta form and is just a guess at the word. But that is not lisaan-al-arabs fault. I'm sure if you look a little closer you will see how that meaning is attributed to a certain scholar. And that is where you have assessed my mentality wrong. I believe in examining all Classical Arabic dictionary meanings. But some meanings are obviously the opinion of some Islamic scholars and don't make sense within the context of Arabic grammar. Such meanings obviously must be left behind. But you are blaming the dictionary instead of the source that was clearly listed for you.

This is simply false and thus you can?t produce examples despite them being abundant. Take for example, ?alansar? in 9100 and 9117 or ?alawthan? in 2230 or ?alasbat? in 2136, 2140, 384 and 4163. They all have the same exact form and derivations as ?ala?rab?. So something having to do with idols/?alawthan? is ?something wathany?, something having to do with ?alansar? is ?something nasary? and something having to do with ?alasbat? is ?something sabaty?, etc... Therefore, something having to do with ?ala?rab? is ?something ?araby?. Certainly ?ala?rab? doesn?t mean ?people who speak more clearly? or ?people from a certain genealogy? but the term is clearly used in the great reading to mean people from the wilderness in contrast to city people or civilized people. Of course, it is not surprising that you completely ignore this empirically verifiable meaning of ?ala?rab? in your false arguments.

You show a complete lack of knowledge of Arabic form and you are obviosly having linguistic interference with your Modern Arabic vernacular language. al-asbaatu comes from sabt (NOT sabat), ansaar from nasr (NOT nasar). There are no such things as sabaty or nasary in the known language. This is a modern pronunciation of yours with originations in the poetic style of qalqalah. Where Waqt becomes waqit or waqat. You are in clear error here. Now, the form fa'l differs from the form fa'al. For instance sakr is different from sakar, and sabr is NOT sabar. These two forms convey different meanings but share a pluralized form af'aal. fa'al usually conveys a meaning of maf'ool or fa'aal (fa'aal can be an informational noun or something that embodies the root fa'ala). Whereas fa'l usually conveys the meaning of an information noun or faa'il, the active participle. But sometimes they are nouns with no root meaning being of foreign origin, especially if they are proper nouns. For instance e tair for Tyre (Misr doesn't follow any root meaning either, nor does nooh) and as I see it 'arab for the Arab originated outside of, or before an there was, an Arabic context.

In fact, even in Lisan Al3arab, the meaning for the verb ?a?rab? is given as ?speaking in a rude or boorish way? and ?i?rab during sex? means ?dirty talking during sex?. Those meanings cannot be reconciled with genealogy or with speaking clearly but is completely reconciled with having something to do with vulgar people from the wilderness.

Your concept of classical versus vulgar is imaginative and unfounded. Classical langauges also have explicit words and concepts like these. And as in the case of Classical Arabic a vulgar (colloquial) language became a respected, archaic and taught (i.e.Classical) language through a process of gaining status that involved Arab/Islamic military, religious and cultural conquests as well as academic classification of the Old/Classical Arab language. But it never changed grammatically as a langauge as it moved into the realms of education, status and the classics.

Anwar, from what I have seen so far, all your knowledge of Classical Arabic (other than the progress that you made in the course of our discussion) is merely theoretical standard issue. Nothing you have said is beyond what is taught at secondary education level in any Arab government educational program. If you disagree then please list even one point that you made about Classical Arabic which is beyond that level.

At least what you have understood. But if that is so maybe you need to go back to the basics. You say it is theoretical, but all Arabic texts pre 1900 fit into this "theoritical standard" context. Whereas what you have conjectured up is not even consistent with real texts or even the Quranic text or recitation which you have biasedly tried to use as evidence for your theory. In the end what you are proposing is the theory and what I have been saying all along is to be found in every piece of non-Modern Arabic literature dating all the way back to pre-Islamic days, including and most especially the Quran, in all its forms.

Yes now you do and you would not have learned this if you kept sticking to standard Arab governmental Classical Arabic secondary education.

You should rather say "standard governmental Mondern Standard Arabic secondary education". Because what they are teaching is close to but not really Classical Arabic.

What Old Arabic literature? It takes a lot of imagination to claim that Classical Arabic literature is Old Arabic. So unless you went to Arabia and unknowingly to the rest of the world dug out some Old or Proto-Arabic literature then please stop using this Old Arabic term so haphazardly.

I'm using the term appropriately not haphazardly. If I wanted to talk about Proto-Arabic literature then i would. But Proto-Arabic is not Old Arabic. Old Arabic is Classical Arabic. And Modern Arabics are dialects and MSA.

They are not exception. There is not a single instance in the great reading where the meaning cannot be figured out without case endings. So the fact that case endings are useless is not an exception and indeed it applies to the whole language.

This is not true. Not including case endings can change meanings. Again you are comparing apples to oranges. If I say yaqool instead of yaqoolu that is subjective as opposed to present/present progressive. And there is a difference even between laa ilaaha illa allahu and laa ilaahun illa allaahu. or illa allahu and illa allaha. The point here is that in modern Arabic alot of this is not included and you base meanings more off of intonation and simpler forms. But Classical Arabic is specific leaving no doubt and that is why Classical Arabic is the language of the Quran and not Modern Arabics. Classical Arabic is the perfection of specificity and internal forms and patterns of meaning allowing for interpetation while at the same time allowing for as little doubt as possible through subtlties of case. But if you don't know or understand this, it just seems overly complicated. That is Classical Arabic, and Modern Arabics have evolved away from that.

What are you talking about? Whether Classical Arabic is a close approximation of the language of the great reading or an exact one is THE issue. What else is the issue? You never spoke Classical Arabic in your life and neither did anyone else. So there is no issue of learning Classical Arabic for communication.

They certainly did speak it in the past and all evidence points to that. If you deny this you are unduely conjecturing falsehood. But it is not spoken any more generally (although some news casters on Al-jazeerah do use every case ending and the Quran is still recited like this as well as Umayyad an Abbasid literature, plus Hadeeths, dua's and whoever recites pre-islamic poetry). It can be used for communication but its specificness for those who are not used to langauges that are of this class and calibre seems redundant. Old Arabic is a sythetic language and that was the tendency for Latin, Greek and other ancient langauges. Modern Arabic is more analytic (cnoveying subtle meanings through combination of vocabulary) and that seems to be the tendency of most modern languages. So don't feel bad if you see such subtlies as redundancy. They are not, but you are looking at it from the lense of an analytical language.

It is not surprising that everything in Abbasid literature is IDENTICAL to Hadiths and pre-Islamic poems because this is EXACTLY what one would expect if those Hadiths and poems were developed DURING the Abbasid era. So your observation actually confirms that they are post-Quranic.

It is not suprising at all, as the Ummayads and the Abbasids were still connnected to the then living tradition of Classical Arabic.

On the other hand, the language of the great reading is different as evidenced by the following obvious facts

1. The great reading was meant to be recited without case endings.

How is this a fact when Quranic recitation to this day proves the opposite? For every 10 words recited 9 are recited with case endings and the ones that aren't are poetic pauses for rhyme.

2
. You admit that the language of the great reading was a vernacular. Case endings are useless memorized forms of hypercorrections that would not have been part of the intrinsic grammar of an untaught vernacular language. This is why they are spontaneously non-existent in ALL vernacular Arabic varieties.

This is your incorrect conjectured asssesment. Case endings have their obvious grammatical place, all language forms are memorized first then use intrinsically but as case endings have no place in modern Arabics of course trying to insert them without understanding their full grammatical intention would seem useless. And they obviouly do not fall into the category of hypercorrections and cannot even be traced to Hebrew niqqood because Hebrew does not have case endings. Classical Arabic WAS a vernacular language, just as Classical, Latin, Greek and Old English. Because they fell out of use as vernaculars does not mean they were somehow different than how we know and learn them today when they were still spoken vernaculars. And the reason why cases are non-existent in all MODERN verncular Arabics is because vernacular Arabics are the result of creolization between Classical Arabic and non-case, analytical languages like vulgar Greco-greek, Aramean, berber, Coptic,Chadic, Nubic and Himyaritic languages. Creolization on its own usually reduces resulting languages to an analytic category.

3. The great reading contains what would be glaring grammatical errors.

Only according to the modern MSA are these glaring grammatical errors.

4. Unlike Hadith and Jahiliya poetry, the vocabulary of the language of the great reading reflects earlier non-religious and non-Arab-Nationalistic usage (like ?a3rab? being used in contrast to city dwellers and not having anything to do with Arab nationalistic genealogy and Allat as the name of the Nabataean deity The Goddess as opposed to having anything to do with some Arab mixing dough, etc.).

This idea is based on a lack of consideration of Arabic forms and meanings. It is well known that city dwelling Arabs considered desert dwelling Arabs to be more culturally genuine to Arabs roots of pastoralism and free range movement. So that is how &arab in its plural form also took on A meaning of desert/nomad Arabs. But it can also refer to all of the Arab tribes. The same thing happened with the word for Persian and how it began to communicate poor communication and barbarism, obvious results of Persian immigration to the area and their difficulty with the langauge and local xenophobia. As far as the explanation of allaat, this I am sure is sourced to a scholar's opinion. Just like Islam as submssion to God is sourced as a scholars opinion in Lisaan al-Arab. The dictionary is not to be blamed for this baseless (but obviously generally accepted) opinion nor is the meaning to attributed to the actual dictionary.

Godbless,
Anwar

[Wakas]

peace,

Which verse(s) are you referencing for the example with Mary?

Are you working along the lines of since 'B' is mentioned in the same verse/context as 'A' then that means 'B' is done during 'A'? Or is it simply one of the possibilities?

I'm still waiting Anwar.

[Yosemite]

Whatever position you are in, whatever the way you are facing, God always sees us.

And you can do the prayer as true as you can, if the prayer isnt sincere, then what is the use of it

That's why i avoid public places like mosques, i feel like i pray just because everyone prays. That's bad.

[progod]

Wakas,

Sorry I forgot about you.

343 O Mary! Remain thou truly devout unto thy Sustainer, worship (asjudi), and bow down (arka'i) with those who bow down."

I also beleve that zakaat meaning betterment or what is right/just aa'too az-zakaata can mean do what is right (give yourself (for III) to what is right).

So in the below and in other passages that say the same

243 and be establish prayer, do what is right and bow down (along) with all who bow down.
Waaqeemoo alssalata waatoo alzzakata wairkaAAoo maAAa alrrakiAAeena

555 yuqeemoona alssalata wayutoona alzzakata wahum rakiAAoona

912 alrrakiAAoona alssajidoona (these go together)

4829 Thou canst see them bowing down, worshipping seeking favour with God and goodly acceptance

Godbless,
Anwar

sajada means to worship generally and to prostrate in worship (reverence) as thas was the custom of showing reverence then. I don't think prostration is necessary but it is totally acceptable.

[Wakas]

peace Anwar,

Thanks for clarifying.

So, from the verses you referenced Mary is not linked to "bowing" in "salat" but as part of "sajada" which you translate as "worship" from the possibilities. In my opinion this is not what I call solid evidence for your statement below

Now the Quran does associate raka&a (which is to bow or kneel) with Salat in particualr Mary's salat.

And in the other verses you referenced, you cant make a direct link to "bowing" in "salat" but make this link based on "sajada" being "worship" and presumably its proximity to the word "salat" in some contexts. Is this correct?

Also, I dont think you answered my second question. I will clarify it you imply that bowing is part of prayer (I will assume you mean "salat" by prayer) due to its proximity in context (or do you have some other evidence?) so my point was do you also consider other things mentioned in close proximity to "salat" as part of "salat", e.g. "atawoo az-zakat"? If not, what is your criteria for what you think is part of it and what is not or do you have no criteria?