New Salat Article

progod

Peace,

Yes you are correct that is based on sajada. I'll do my best to find some contexts where it is mentioned more specifically with the word Salat. But I will say that I think it is logical that when our Salat means prayer and it is directed towards God that it implies worship. As I said also eetaa' uzzakaat is doing what is right/just, so in the contexts where it is mentioned with Salaat it can be connected to Salaat or considered on its own. I'm sure at one time I had enough evidence for this, which is why i bow in some form when I pray. But honestly, when I come accross this evidence I apply it in my life and don't write it down or formulate it to prove it to others because in the end many won't accept what I have to say anyway. There are so many things I have seen in my study of the Quran that I don't decide to write down and bring up here on free-minds, that when the topics come up I'm at a loss for soild evidence to disprove the unquranicness of the many erroneous statements people say here. I'm sure those are just words to many of my enemies and critics here. But they can buzz off, because it is truth. So I apply these discoveries in my life and live and let live. But you'll have to give me some time to more deeply re-discover where and why i came to this conclusion, and the other verses that may have pointed me in this direction. As of this point I could care less about challenges to give concrete evidence. If you'd like to know my reasons for your own edification I'd be happy to dig up the passages and my reasonings and give them to you however. I'm sure you can easily see how any context where we are bowing to God in worship is salat (in its meaning of prayer.)

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace Anwar,

I am all for "live and let live" but when things are discussed, I think it is important to be accurate, as only then can evidence be weighed and the truth determined.

progod

Peace,

You know I didn't even check my website. Go see the article on Prayer there. I need to review it as well. You might fnd your answer there.

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

Peace,

Don't worry. I just checked it. My conclusion is definitely based on the fact that when we pray we are definitely in worship. And I remember being of the opinion that whenever we pay respects (the real meaning of worship) we should bow in some way. So yes, when we worship God we should bow or kneel in someway. To me that can be a head bow, a full kneel or prostration it doesn't really matter. I have not been able to connect this with the specific word Salaat but if the logic is sufficient and prayer is obviously a form of worship, is that necessary? Do you see what I mean? Looking forward to your comments.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

Do you see what I mean?

I understand what you are trying to link and how you are trying to link it, but I dont consider it solid. I have no qualms about what prayer and worship may or may not involve, to kneel or not kneel, as a general point, only that you said bowing/kneeling was part of Mary's "salat", when this is not what is said in AQ. That was my main point, and it was related to my following point to take a word mentioned in close proximity to "salat" and then say it's part of "salat" with no evidence.

As a sidenote, in your explanation, you implied sajada=worship. In terms of AQ's usage, I disagree. That is not it's primary usage, however I do not wish to discuss it, as it has been discussed in detail many many times before.

AlFajr

Peace all,

I was reading the Quran and a couple of verses reminded me of this thread

969 Have you seen the one who deters,
9610 A servant from communing?
9611 Have you seen if he was being guided,
9612 Or he ordered righteousness?
9613 Have you seen if he lied and turned away?
9614 Did he not know that God can see?
9615 Alas, if he does not cease, We will strike the frontal lobe.
9616 A frontal lobe which lies and errs.
9617 So let him call on his supporter.
9618 We will call on the guardians.
9619 So do not obey him, prostrate and come near.

This seems to signify prostrating and coming near is part of "communing". It could be more than a case of proximity. Anyway I hope this helps your discussion.

progod

Peace,

Aalmakto,

It is that word "prostrating" that we are discussing. It can mean to prostrate or to worship (and worship means to pay homage to).

Wakas,

I understand your point. And for the most part I have done my best to connect issues of salat to contexts with just the word salat mentioned. However, we may disagree on this point, because I feel that when we pray to God we are paying homage/respects to God and when paying respects/homage we are to bow or kneel in someway. As for the contexts of the Quran and sajada, I think you know that this word is used in many places only in the meaning of to pay homage/respects. However, I do understand that the word can also mean to prostrate in homage. I believe I may have rejected this last meaning previously. As far as I know I don't know if i had a good reason to. Although I will say that to prostrate and then kneel is a very backwards and almost illogical kind of wording. To kneel is to go from a standing position down or an upright position to a less upright one. So to say 'prostrate in homage and bow down/kneel' is definitely more of an ambiguous wording than 'worship and bow down/kneel.' I'll be giving this some more thought. Thanks Wakas, it might have been time for me to refresh my conclusions on this topic.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace bro aalmakto,

A few points

9610 has the verb form "salla".

You can study the verb form occurrences in PRL. It poses problems for a "prayer" understanding

salla (&#1610 vb.II m.
perf. act. 7531, 8715, 9610
impf. act. 339, plu. neg. 4102, plu. 4102, tusalli (&#1604 neg. 984, yusallee (&#1610 sing. 3343, yusalloona (&#1606 plu. 3356
salli (&#1604 impv. 9103, salloo (&#1575 plu. 3356, 1082
musalleena (&#1606 pcple. act. plu. acc. gen. 7022, 7443, 1074

It does link sjd with "salla", perhaps not in a concrete way, but reasonable. What we can deduce from this usage is that "sjd and come near" (to God) is contrasted to "obey him" (i.e. the person who was deterring). If it was a physical prostration, it obviously does not mean "come near" in a literal sense, as one would be stationary when prostrating. The primary usage of sjd in AQ is 'to acknowledge / give recognition', which also fits the context. I'm not aware of an occurrence in whic sjd clearly means "prostrate" but I am aware of occurrences where it definitely cannot mean to physically "prostrate" (124, 4154, 25.

It should also be read in conjunction with chapter 107.

God_Within

Peace be upon you,

To "sujood" to God is to submit to God, this draws us closer.

Islam is peacefulness, not submission.

progod

Peace,

Yeah, based on the meanings of the CLASSICAL ARABIC words found in the Quran and the wording when it comes to the use of sujood I am going to stick with the position I laid out in my last post in this topic (two posts above). Wakas, you have done a lot of research and have made alot of resources available about these Classical Arabic words I would hope that you would not abondon that because of the naive and simple idea of the Quran somehow being a dictionary of the words it borrowed from the Classical Arabic language. Anyways, to God within I'm not going to comment on your meaning of sujood as I think my position is clear on context guessing and not using Classical Arabic dictionaries to understand the Old Arabic words used in the Quran. (I use Old Arabic and Classical Arabic as synonyms). However as for your definition of Islam, that is only ONE of the definitions of this word. Now you won't find that meaning in any dictionary but you will find it in the connotations of form 4 when the root salima is used. (For those who think that I am somehow contradicting myself here I have always said that dictionary defintiions AND grammatical, formed based connotations are the rules to understand the langauge that the Quran uses. That has been my stance for a very long time now. So if you misunderstood me that was your misunderstanding not my contradiction.)

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

I would hope that you would not abondon that because of the naive and simple idea of the Quran somehow being a dictionary of the words it borrowed from the Classical Arabic language.

I have no idea why I would abandon that based on the above, but erm, ok, thanks for the advice.

I follow a methodology that gives more weight to Quranic usage than to Dictionary usage, you dont, simple.

progod

Wakas,

I follow a methodology that gives more weight to Quranic usage than to Dictionary usage, you dont, simple.

We could continue this on a pm basis if you would like because I don't want this to sound like a challenge or for it to get out of hand because of what may be interpreted as antogonistic comments. But anyway, I would like to know why you follow this methodology and your reasons for it. My first set of questions following this will be clarification for my own edification and then I will follow up with a set of possibly challenging, but respectful, questions.

I will also explain that from my perspective there is really no such thing as Quranic usages versus dictionary usage, as you imply. The Quran uses/chooses from the dictioanary uses so the two will never conflict. (you may find more usages in the dictionary but the usage that fits the Quran's context will always be there as well). In addition to that grammatical connotations which cannot be found in the dictionary but are apart of the usage of Classcical Arabic words is another source for understanding Classical Arabic words in Quranic context or any other context. Honestly, I just don't fully understand your phrasing above because the Quran borrowed the Classical Arabic language and the dictionaries are tools for exposing the usages of this language, which again the Quran borrowed, in their entirety. So I don't see the dichotomy and as such I don't see the reasoning in your above phrasing. Thanks.

Godbless,
Anwar

Wakas

peace,

Giving more weight to one than the other does not imply a dichotomy in my opinion. Perhaps a preference.

Anyways, I would genuinely love to discuss if I felt I would be able to give it the attention/time it deserves. Sadly, I dont think I would be able to.

progod

Peace,

Alright, I guess I'll have to accept. Again pm is always an option if you ever do get some sufficient time and want to keep it between us. Anyway thanks for the honest response. Hopefully we'll discuss it one day and one day come to a consensus.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

Thank you for your help. I was hoping that you would present some new non-traditional arguments but unfortunately you pretty much sang the traditional chorus

Like fallacious minded traditionalists you keep asking for negative proof that fictionalized Jahiliya poems are not true.
In one way you have defended Jahiliya poetry more dogmatically than the average traditionalist because you proclaimed that the way the great reading was preserved is similar to how Jahiliya poetry was preserved. Only the most irrational traditionalist would dare to make such claim about Jahiliya poetry.
Like traditionalists, in reality you have more faith in Classical Arabic than you do in the great reading. You don?t realize that the god could have easily made the great reading rhyme with all of the vocalization case endings. The god doesn?t need to be inconsistent or ?9 out of 10? to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading. So for anyone who has more faith in the great reading than in Classical Arabic, this fact alone is completely sufficient as evidence that the language of the great reading couldn?t have had any vocalization case endings. Moreover, it is an indisputable fact that those case endings have very low functional load and thus are grammatically useless. They are nothing more than hypercorrections made by later scholars who drew on Jewish scholarship and who (much like you) never spoke Classical Arabic in their lives but wanted to appear more learned than the average street language speaker by imitating Biblical Hebrew case endings.
Like traditionalists you are desperately trying to find excuses for the many glaring errors in Classical Arabic dictionaries as if their authors were not humans who can make errors (and no, there is no attribution to a scholar for the meaning or classification of Allat in Lisan Al-3arab as you conjecture).
You claim that the Abbasid spoke Classical Arabic, when in fact we can only find Classical Arabic in formalized writings but not in any early mundane inscriptions or manuscripts such as business documents, etc. In fact, we often see dotting in those mundane documents used for disambiguating the Nabataean Aramaic Alphabet but never for case endings.
Like traditionalists you claim that CA grammatical errors in the great reading are not errors but then you conveniently fail to quote any Classical Arabic rule according to which these are not errors. For example, you never provide any reference to a Classical Arabic grammar rule by Sibaweh or any CA grammarian where it is prescribed that ?sabirin? instead of ?sabirun? should be used in 2177 or ?sabi?un? instead of ?sabi?in? should be used in 569 or ?moqimin? instead of ?moqimun? should be used in 4162. Instead, you make up your own excuses for those clear errors.
The only new argument that you make is a laughable one about words of the form Fa3aLY as relating to the form AF3AL being non-existent in the Arabic language, which even the most ignorant traditionalist wouldn?t dare to make. This is because there are too many examples to list such as AWThAN/WaThaNY, A3RAB/3aRaBY, ANSAR/NaSaRY, ASBAT/SaBaTY, ANBAT/NaBaTY, etc. Of course, you make this argument to distance the word A3RAB from 3aRaBY (and its clear meaning of having to do with A3RAB). Traditionalists have tried to detach the meaning but they never say why and in fact Lisan Al-3arab claims that 3aRaBY has nothing to do with A3RAB and no reason is given other than the insinuation that A3RAB are portrayed in an unfavorable light in the great reading (and of course this doesn?t bode well for Lisan Al-3arab extreme Arab nationalistic bias).

At this junction, I think that given all the objections that you presented, the facts and arguments that I provided are solid and can stand up well to any traditional arguments brought against them.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace Anwar,

Peace Ayman,

Thank you for your help. I was hoping that you would present some new non-traditional arguments but unfortunately you pretty much sang the traditional chorus

Sure. Nicely put but wrongly assessed. Traditional arguments don't have to be wrong. And maybe that is your crux, you think that if it's traditional it must be wrong and that is a biased predjudice that doesn't stand the test of truth. I can tell by this email that you know that i'm right but just have to say something to save face. Sure. Have it your way. Consider your face saved. I wasn't having this discussion for pride's sake.

1
. Like fallacious minded traditionalists you keep asking for negative proof that fictionalized Jahiliya poems are not true.

Just wonderful. Blame it on the traditionalists and try to make me guilty by association. Let those who have eyes see. You are the one claiming that these poems (but more importantly their grammar) is fictionalized. I told you I don't believe they are fictionalized but I am not against that possibility if it had some evidence. Scepticism doesn't count as evidence. In the end this was not even the issue. The issue is whether or not these poems (and their possible fictionalization) were before the Quran or after it. The only thing you proved is that you are a skeptic of anything traditional or that traditionalists accept. That is not scholarship, traditional or untraditional.

In one way you have defended Jahiliya poetry more dogmatically than the average traditionalist because you proclaimed that the way the great reading was preserved is similar to how Jahiliya poetry was preserved. Only the most irrational traditionalist would dare to make such claim about Jahiliya poetry.

Right, right. The only thing i did was show that you have no real evidence to claim what you claim. Like I said, if these poems are fiction that doesn't really matter much to me. What really matters is if the grammar that they use is fiction. In the end the grammar of pre-Islamic poems and the Quran are the same. And every piece of real, written evidence points to that. I know you would like to accuse me of shirk by trying to compare the method of preservation of the Quran with the pre-Islamic poems, but this is a very extremist point of view on your part. The issue here is that what I said was true and all real evidence points to this fact (that the Quran and pre-Islamic poems were mainly preserved in an oral fashion through schools of narrators). You've got to be able to tell the forest from the trees. Please brother, open your eyes and see. How can I be an irrational traditionalist when everything that I said can be backed up and none of your claims have anything to back them up except your suspicious and conjecture and that of Taha Hussein (as it seems)? Not everything that is traditional is wrong.

Like traditionalists, in reality you have more faith in Classical Arabic than you do in the great reading. You don?t realize that the god could have easily made the great reading rhyme with all of the vocalization case endings. The god doesn?t need to be inconsistent or ?9 out of 10? to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading. So for anyone who has more faith in the great reading than in Classical Arabic, this fact alone is completely sufficient as evidence that the language of the great reading couldn?t have had any vocalization case endings. Moreover, it is an indisputable fact that those case endings have very low functional load and thus are grammatically useless. They are nothing more than hypercorrections made by later scholars who drew on Jewish scholarship and who (much like you) never spoke Classical Arabic in their lives but wanted to appear more learned than the average street language speaker by imitating Biblical Hebrew case endings.

I've got a feeling that you've really got something against traditionalists and traditions. Are your feelings kind of like this? voodoo
But anyway, why do you have to bring up faith in a language and compare it to the Quran? As if they are opposing things? The Quran (or the great reading as you call it) uses this language. If I read a book in English or Spanish should my faith in those languages have anything to do with my faith in what that book has to say? Does that even make sense?

The god doesn?t need to be inconsistent or ?9 out of 10? to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.

confused I don't get it? What does that have to do with anything? You said that the Quran doesn't use case endings and used Quranic recitation to try to prove that. And I showed you that even in the recitation of the Quran (where they don't not always read the text faithfully for rhyme and style) they pronounce case endings 9 times out of 10. That is all. So I really don't understand what this comment means, or has to do with anything. And I don't understand how you can say "So for anyone who has more faith in the great reading than in Classical Arabic, this fact alone is completely sufficient as evidence that the language of the great reading couldn?t have had any vocalization case endings." Why are you trying to pit faith the language that a book is written in with the content of that book?
You seem to be just parroting what you said before without responding to the real issues. You never gave any good reasons for how Arabic hypercorrected by borrowing case endings from a language that doesn't have case endings. Niether Hebrew or Aramaic have case endings. All they had were dots that represent vocal sounds, you know like a, e, i, o u in English. That is it. No case endings in (Biblical) Hebrew or Aramaic.

Like traditionalists you are desperately trying to find excuses for the many glaring errors in Classical Arabic dictionaries as if their authors were not humans who can make errors (and no, there is no attribution to a scholar for the meaning or classification of Allat in Lisan Al-3arab as you conjecture).

Well, I looked in Lisan Al-Arab, and if it's the quot about the mixture of wheat, barely and dates in front of the idol and it being named after that that you mentioned, that is someone's quote. A certain Mujaahid said that. Maybe your Lisan Al-Arab doesn't have that in there . . . . maybe. And another meaning for it being the name of a rock it says is a story connected to a certain rock someone was making that mixture on top of, but the authencitiy of this story is doubted.

This is great. sun I hope I am not the only one who sees what you have resorted to. No glaring errors in Classical Arabic dictionaries just glaring errors in your understanding which you will not admit to.

You claim that the Abbasid spoke Classical Arabic, when in fact we can only find Classical Arabic in formalized writings but not in any early mundane inscriptions or manuscripts such as business documents, etc. In fact, we often see dotting in those mundane documents used for disambiguating the Nabataean Aramaic Alphabet but never for case endings.

Wrong again. Those inscriptions are in Classical Arabic. You see some dotting to distinguish consonants. Again the Arabic script had to evolve. Some scripts used some dots erratically and not in any consistent way. But the development of the script has nothing to do with what was actually said. Colored dots were used to distinguish vowels. How many times must this be repeated to you? You don't write the vowels in rAjUl but the vowels are still spoken, how about qiblah and qublah (this is a modern Arabic example)? No written vowels but they ARE pronounced and changing vowels changes the meaning. Please don't equate the deficient phases of a script or it's deficiency as a whole with what is actually said. An efficient script system for Arabic took time (and innovation) to evolve.

Like traditionalists you claim that CA grammatical errors in the great reading are not errors but then you conveniently fail to quote any Classical Arabic rule according to which these are not errors. For example, you never provide any reference to a Classical Arabic grammar rule by Sibaweh or any CA grammarian where it is prescribed that ?sabirin? instead of ?sabirun? should be used in 2177 or ?sabi?un? instead of ?sabi?in? should be used in 569 or ?moqimin? instead of ?moqimun? should be used in 4162. Instead, you make up your own excuses for those clear errors.

I don't make up my own rules and I did point you to a book that can solve that for you. Wright's Classical Arabic grammar. Look up the use of nasb and it will all become clear. Stop taking these mistakes that only stump novices as evidence of anything. I'm sure if you read through Sibawayah and the like it would become clear to you.

The only new argument that you make is a laughable one about words of the form Fa3aLY as relating to the form AF3AL being non-existent in the Arabic language, which even the most ignorant traditionalist wouldn?t dare to make. This is because there are too many examples to list such as AWThAN/WaThaNY, A3RAB/3aRaBY, ANSAR/NaSaRY, ASBAT/SaBaTY, ANBAT/NaBaTY, etc. Of course, you make this argument to distance the word A3RAB from 3aRaBY (and its clear meaning of having to do with A3RAB). Traditionalists have tried to detach the meaning but they never say why and in fact Lisan Al-3arab claims that 3aRaBY has nothing to do with A3RAB and no reason is given other than the insinuation that A3RAB are portrayed in an unfavorable light in the great reading (and of course this doesn?t bode well for Lisan Al-3arab extreme Arab nationalistic bias).

Stop the traditionalist rantings. Again I point to grammar, some traditionalists haven't looked in the grammar books either. That is their problem too. They put down the grammar book (if they ever pick it up) where their dogma starts to loose ground because of sound grammar (all the while exlaiming how educated they are). And the modern Arabs who don't understand Classical grammar won't pick up the books because they think they're pretentious and they feel stupid when they read them. This is a very vicioius circle of ignorance that goes from the top down. Main culprit? Ego and arrogance.

At this junction, I think that given all the objections that you presented, the facts and arguments that I provided are solid and can stand up well to any traditional arguments brought against them.

I really just want to laugh here. But really this is very, very sad. You have eyes Ayman, see! Humble yourself, see the truth of the nomenclature and history of this language you are attatched to, study what the scholars study and be able to tell them where they are not following the very truth they claim to follow. Your deficiencies and the deficiencies of the scholars is based on arrogance and a resistance to humble scholarship.

Peace,

God bless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

I am just going to address one point which perhaps wasn't clear to you. I think that I have made myself clear otherwise.

You never gave any good reasons for how Arabic hypercorrected by borrowing case endings from a language that doesn't have case endings. Niether Hebrew or Aramaic have case endings. All they had were dots that represent vocal sounds, you know like a, e, i, o u in English. That is it. No case endings in (Biblical) Hebrew or Aramaic.

I never said anything about Aramaic. By trying to put Hebrew and Aramaic in the same basket, it shows that you don't know how differently those languages developed. Also, when I am talking about Hebrew, I am not talking about modern Hebrew. I am talking about Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which Classical Arabic was modeled after. As in CA poetry and unlike the great reading, case endings were part of the ancient Hebrew poems metrical blue print. Poetic Biblical Hebrew has the nominative "u", genitive "i" and accusative "a" that CA borrowed.

Case endings were regarded as orthodoxy and interestingly, in the 7th century CE we see increasing Jewish scholarship that eventually led to the Medieval Hebrew (which has revived the old Hebrew case endings). The increased Jewish interest in Poetic Biblical Hebrew and in Niqqud around the 7th century is not a coincidence. In my opinion, the Jewish scholars considered the great reading to be poetry and thus wanted to revive their own religious poetic tradition, of which case endings were an intimate part of the meter. I would say that the development of Medieval Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew on one hand and Classical Arabic on the other are not separate but are two parallel occurrences that fed off one another.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace Ayman,

You have been clear, but clearly wrong. Here is the answer to your last post.

I never said anything about Aramaic. By trying to put Hebrew and Aramaic in the same basket, it shows that you don't know how differently those languages developed. Also, when I am talking about Hebrew, I am not talking about modern Hebrew. I am talking about Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which Classical Arabic was modeled after. As in CA poetry and unlike the great reading, case endings were part of the ancient Hebrew poems metrical blue print. Poetic Biblical Hebrew has the nominative "u", genitive "i" and accusative "a" that CA borrowed.

Oh My God! Why are you grasping at straws now? I never said these were the same langauges, but these two would be the languages Arabic would have borrowed anything from. In fact it did mix with these languages giving us the basis of the Arabic dialects of today. One classic example is that in the Sham (Levant) dialect, 'who' is 'meen' and not the Arabic 'man'. And in Hebrew guess what it is . . . 'meen.' As for Hebrew case endings, I'll give you an example of what you are talking about

Vocabulary. There are several Hebrew words which occur most frequently and in some cases exclusively in poetry. In the following list the corresponding prose word is put in parenthesis millah, "word" (= dabhar); enosh, "man" (= 'ish); orach, "way" (= derekh); chazah, "to see" (= ra'ah); the prepositions ele, "to," adhe, "unto," ale, "upon," and minni, "from," instead of the shorter forms el, adh, al, and min. The pronoun zu, rare in prose, has in poetry the double function of a demonstrative and a relative pronoun in both genders. The negative bal, is used for lo'. For the inseparable prepositions b, k, l ("in," "as," "to&quot the separate forms bemo, kemo and lemo are employed.

(2) Grammar. (a) Accidence The pronominal suffixes have peculiar forms in poetry. For -m, -am, -em ("their," "them&quot we find the longer forms -mo, -amo, -emo. For the plural ending of nouns -n (-in) takes the place of -m (-im), as in Aramaic (see Job 42; 1211), and frequently obsolete case endings are preserved, but their functions are wholly lost. Thus, we have the old nominative ending -o in Psalms 5010, etc., the old genitive ending -i in Isaiah 121, and the accusative -ah in Psalms 33. (b) Syntax The article, relative pronoun, accusative singular 'eth and also the "waw-consecutive" are frequently omitted for the sake of the rhythm. There are several examples of the last in Psalms 11210. The construct state which by rule immediately precedes nouns has often a preposition after it. The jussive sometimes takes the place of the indicative, and the plural of nouns occurs for the singular.

And here are the reasons for that
Hebrew has lost some of the original vowels still retained in classical Arabic, that loss has not assumed such proportions as in the case of Aramaic. This is due chiefly to the retention in Hebrew of the pretonic "a" vowel (see Shewa). Of case-endings, entirely lost in Aramaic, Hebrew has preserved some remnants, although these have become meaningless.

Classical Arabic has most faithfully preserved the Proto-Semitic system of case endings of nouns and adjectives and mood endings of the verb and the Proto-Semitic sound system though in its syntax and use of tenses it is more removed from Proto-Semitic than is Biblical Hebrew.

You can do a simple search on google for this information. Key words Poetic Hebrew Case endings.
Search the pages for 'case' or 'case-endings' or 'case endings.'

So the following is your invented story. And obviously an unfounded falsehood of yours

Case endings were regarded as orthodoxy and interestingly, in the 7th century CE we see increasing Jewish scholarship that eventually led to the Medieval Hebrew (which has revived the old Hebrew case endings). The increased Jewish interest in Poetic Biblical Hebrew and in Niqqud around the 7th century is not a coincidence. In my opinion, the Jewish scholars considered the great reading to be poetry and thus wanted to revive their own religious poetic tradition, of which case endings were an intimate part of the meter. I would say that the development of Medieval Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew on one hand and Classical Arabic on the other are not separate but are two parallel occurrences that fed off one another.

The truth is that

Old Arabic (i.e. Classical Arabic) which started to die off after the era of the hadeeth and be completely replaced by a creole version of Arabic (influenced by Aramaic dialects (Hebraic and non-Hebraic) and other local languages and dialects of the region) always had case endings, just like we find them in the Quran, pre-islamic poetry and the hadeeths. (We also find them as remnants in many Arabic dialect words. Especially in adverbs.)
The truth is that the case endings found in Biblical Hebrew (and ancient hebrew poetry) are not case endings at all. They are REMNANTS of case endings, that are traced to the Proto-Semitic origins of Hebrew. Otherwise they would be a normal part of the Biblical language and they are not. They are interesting anomalies. So those cases are not used grammatically in any way, they have just remained on the ends of CERTAIN words, which as you see are only used in certain passages. Much like Washington comes from Washing-town, but no one understands that ton as town anymore nor is its use limited to the original meaning of town. That does not count as a case ending (although its etymology is obvious by studying Classical Arabic and comparing it with other semitic langauges). Thes are just remnants of case endings like any source on case endings in Biblical Hebrew will openly admit.
The truth is that your conjectures are just that. It is well known that Hebrew died out as a spoken language and could only be read by scholars. Aramaic then replaced it. The Isrealites began to use a Hebrew influenced Aramaic dialect. After the advent of the Islamic empires the Jews who found themselves under Arab rule started to study Classical Arabic and because of the similiarities between Old Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew they were able to piece Biblical Hebrew back together. The result was Mishnaic Hebrew, a variety of Hebrew with heavy Aramaic syntax. I'm sure the urges of some Medieval Hebrew scholars to add consistent case-endings to post-Quranic Hebrew speech was a result of seeing the consistency of Old Arabic case endings and seeing that the few words that had case remnants on them in Biblical Hebrew hearkened back to a Classical Arabic usage of case-endings. After all Classical Arabic is considered to be the most conservative of the languages that derived from Proto-Semitic.

Please let this falsehood go and realize that the once colloquially spoken Classical Arabic (case endings and all) evolved (I like the word corrupted but this word is pretty negatively charged) into simpler (not easier) case-less Arabic dialects (the result of admixture with Hebrew, Aramaic and other languags) and the Classical-like Modern Standard Arabic which came to life in Modern times as a media language ommitted uses such as the energetic and other grammatical forms, as well as full fluid use of all Old Arabic forms with their innate connotations. In addition to that it actually added some more rigid rules of grammar to distinguish itself from Arabic dialects and simplify its use for native dialect speakers. (For instance use of only singular verbal forms to lead in verbal sentences despite pluralnes of subject and this is reason for all of the alleged "grammatica mistakes.&quot. MSA can be spoken with or without case endings. It also relies more on word placement, i.e. it is more analytical than synthetic.

These are the facts and your conjectures are only conjectures. Yes you have been clear, perfectly clear about your conjectures. What you have not been clear about is the fact that you are conjecturing, and your readers deserve for your to tell them what you have been defending are your biased, unfounded theories and conjecutures only.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

The truth is that

Old Arabic (i.e. Classical Arabic) which started to die off after the era of the hadeeth and be completely replaced by a creole version of Arabic (influenced by Aramaic dialects (Hebraic and non-Hebraic) and other local languages and dialects of the region) always had case endings, just like we find them in the Quran,

This is not truth. This is complete falsehood. We don't find vocalization case endings in the great reading. We can perfectly understand the great reading without them so as you said about Hebrew "they are not used grammatically in any way". So this is the exact same situation with Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which is not surprising because as I said, CA is modeled after it (since PBH is the older and the pre-existing religious language).

Moreover, in the case of the language of the great reading its inherent rhyme makes it an emprically verifiable truth that case endings were not part of the vocalization. On the other hand, the case endings were part of the rhyme and vocalization of Poetic Biblical Hebrew. So while in both cases they were not used grammatically, in Poetic Biblical Hebrew they were at least used aesthetically.

You keep throwing around the word "grammar" and how important it is but you don't even understand the basics of what grammar means. Grammar's purpose is not showing off or aesthetics. Ungrammatical speech is ununderstandble gibberish. Since we can perfectly understand the great reading without the vocalization case endings then it is an empirically verifiable fact that they are not grammar. If you disagree then please show even one passage of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings and everyone will see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

If you want to talk about truth then there are two possibilities

If one doesn't believe in the divine origin of the great reading then one can say that it may have had vocalization case endings except when they interferred with the rhyme (or "9 out of 10" as you say). This assumes that the supposed human author of the great reading wasn't intelligent enough to make the inherent rhyme with the case endings.
If one believes in a divine origin of the great reading then one must conclude that there were no vocalization case endings whatsoever since the god doesn't need to be inconsistent to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.

Again either way this all has to do aethestics and has nothing to do with grammar because either in 1 or 2 vocalization case endings have no grammatical function.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Ayman,

This is not truth. This is complete falsehood. We don't find vocalization case endings in the great reading. We can perfectly understand the great reading without them so as you said about Hebrew "they are not used grammatically in any way". So this is the exact same situation with Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which is not surprising because as I said, CA is modeled after it (since PBH is the older and the pre-existing religious language).

More lies and conjecture. What Quran are you reading or listening to? We all know that the Quran is in most texts written with its vowels and is always recited with its vowels (except for single words preceding a pause). We find these case endings almost always in the text and 9 out of 10 times in recitation (again only ommited before a pause). So why are you lying? Secondly how can Classical Arabic case endings be modeled off of a langauge that does not use case endings? As I explained to you, what you call case endings in Biblical Hebrew are not really case endings, they are what scholars have ASSUMED to be remnants of a case system used before Hebrew. I agree with their assumption, however as I said these are NOT case endings. And out of the 10's of thousands of words they are only found in a handful of words in the books. Not to mention that the reason why we know they are remnants of a Pre-Hebraic case system is because of Classical Arabic. Not the other way around.

Again, case endings in Hebrew are really not case ednings. They are in no way apart of the langauge. This is an assumption made based on studies of Classical Arabic.

Moreover, in the case of the language of the great reading its inherent rhyme makes it an emprically verifiable truth that case endings were not part of the vocalization. On the other hand, the case endings were part of the rhyme and vocalization of Poetic Biblical Hebrew. So while in both cases they were not used grammatically, in Poetic Biblical Hebrew they were at least used aesthetically.

More verifiable lies. Stop this Ayman. Where is the empirical truth? The only truth is that all recitations employ case endings and 9 of 10 Quranic texts write using the vowel system. Stop making up this inherent rhyme thing. People MAKE the Quran rhyme. And sometimes the Quran rhymes MORE with case endings than without. This is your erroneous conjecture. Use your eyes and see. Who are you to talk about the rhyme of Poetic Biblical Hebrew? The most you can get from the literature out there on what you call "case endings'' in Biblical Hebrew is that they were not really case endings, but archaic forms of a few words which resemble the case system used in Arabic. Stop these lies, brother. Stop, please.

You keep throwing around the word "grammar" and how important it is but you don't even understand the basics of what grammar means. Grammar's purpose is not showing off or aesthetics. Ungrammatical speech is ununderstandble gibberish. Since we can perfectly understand the great reading without the vocalization case endings then it is an empirically verifiable fact that they are not grammar. If you disagree then please show even one passage of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings and everyone will see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

You are the one who assumes that case endings are just for aesthetics. Case endings have grammatical meaning, also remember that style is also apart of langaug (although case endings are not stylistically employed). However case endings have grammatical meanings, whether you want to accept them or not. This empirical evidence that you claim is inexistent. Case endings are the nuances of Classical Arabic which have been lost in modern Arabic. In addition to that if you take the case endings off of the Quranic words in many places and you WILL misunderstand, and it will not be as clear. Take the adverbial form. if I said al-walad darab ar-rajul (note the vowel in between the consonants and how they are not case endings), you would say that is perefectly 'the boy hit the man' But this can also be 'the man hit the boy.' Now the only way to clear this confusion up would be to say alli (alladhee) daraba al-rajul huwa al-walad. But if you say ar-rajulu daraba al-walada or ar-rajula daraba al-waladu there will never be any confusion. And this is a simple example of what could become a compound problem without the case system that is native to Classical Arabic but not Modern Arabic which relies more on prhasing and word placement to clarify meaning.

If you want to talk about truth then there are two possibilities

If one doesn't believe in the divine origin of the great reading then one can say that it may have had vocalization case endings except when they interferred with the rhyme (or "9 out of 10" as you say). This assumes that the supposed human author of the great reading wasn't intelligent enough to make the inherent rhyme with the case endings.

For the last time who in the world said that the quran has to rhyme and that that gives it its validity? Also please go through and read surah ar-rahman with all the case endings and see how most of it DOES RHYME, and quite beautifully at that.

If one believes in a divine origin of the great reading then one must conclude that there were no vocalization case endings whatsoever since the god doesn't need to be inconsistent to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.

Wow, what an extreme ultimatum! And what an erroneous one! And what does 'the god doesn't need to be inconsistent to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.' mean anyway? First thing is first, GOD IS NEVER INCONSISTENT. Second thing what does consistency have to do with rhyming? Who told you that the Quran is a poetic book of rhymes? If it does rhyme at times, great, that sounds good. We can then say that that particular verse had an intersting or evoking rhythm. As for when it doesn't rhyme . . . who cares?

Again either way this all has to do aethestics and has nothing to do with grammar because either in 1 or 2 vocalization case endings have no grammatical function.

Your assumptions again. You say this like you are so right when all the facts are against you. This delusion has got to stop. Come to your senses, Ayman. Please.

Godbless,
Anwar