Wow, I've become a pakcik now. I used to be abang P

That's a very good question. How do you understand the Quran without dictionaries? I would ask how do you understand the Quran WITH dictionaries? Just as we rejected the authority of hadith because we don't believe it came from the Prophet, we should question when and where dictionaries came about. Who made them, who are these people who we never met and were they objective?

But to answer your question, I think we need to go to the living Arabic language. People speak Arabic and the language is an organic one. I speak English and Malay and probably consulted their dictionaries for 1% of my vocabulary. Language is a living human experience not found in dead texts. With dead texts, all you get are unverified proposals of meanings. I was just looking through the word 'mukalibeen' (in 5/4) and found that Lane's lexicon had MANY MANY meanings. Yet when I checked a popular resource , the only meaning which came out is 'dog'. Dictionaries get edited when the author cannot fathom certain meanings (like Nadwi's 'Dictionary of the Holy Quran). His own intellectual limitations prevent his objectivity. If it happens now, how can we be sure it didn't happen before?

We need to tap into this organic language and utilise the internal principles of tafseer in the Quran itself. For example, if you ask an Arab what is 'deen' , he is likely to say 'religion'. Religion is a set of rules and ordinances and beliefs. Can we shape the meaning with the Quran? I believe we can, by connecting the word with other words and seeing the chapters in which they appear. Everything in the text is purposeful. There are no passing comments in the Quran. If we utilise this information well, I feel we can arrive at the intended meaning.

The Quran is a map. You can travel the path without a map. I don't call people infidel or spreaders of falsehood or anything. People have a right to their views. I don't believe not using the Quran makes you an infidel at all anyway ) You should submit to the signs in your own life.

Andatino, I think this is a problem with some Quranists - ultra rationalism. They fail to realise the subjective nature of logic and equate their interpretation based on their limited logic as authoritative interpretations. It's exactly the same problem with Traditional Islam. I wrote an essay on it here

http//quranology.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/dictionaries-and-grammar-old-hadith-wine-in-new-bottles/

Over the last 1-2 years, I rethought my approach and now think the Quran is more like a mirror, we attain realisations based on our station in the journey. It's a much more organic reading.

I am a Quranist who believe in some Sufi practices. For a long time, I had some rationalist tendencies but now I realise the Quran lends itself more to a Sufi style reading rather than a bland cut and paste style rationalistic one. Sufism has much to offer Quranism, in my opinion.

A good guy to read is Ibn Arabi, especially his Fusus Al-Hikam. It's partly summarised in Sufi Metaphysics and the Quranic Prophets by Ronald Netter.

The Quran gives us a marvellous tool in zeroing in on the correct meaning and that is its wide vocabulary. For those who say maghfirah is forgiveness, what then is afw (in 9/43 for example)? Those who say it's a synonym would need to ask the question - why did God use two different words to mean the same thing? If he is al-lathif al-kabeer (the subtle, the informing), was He being less al-lathif al-kabeer in either maghfirah or afw? It must be the height of absurdity in claiming Quran as 'furqan' if the furqan (literally a seperator which should separate two different sounds) is dismissed in favour of dictionaries.

How bout islam as a universal principle permeating everything?

Oh I embrace my subjectivity, Rida. It is what makes me human. Indeed I've seen some quranists calling others 'pagans' or 'spreaders of falsehood' when they themselves are fallible readers. To me this is a very big delusion. This is why we set up the Quranists Space. It's a place where you take what you find suitable. No one can tell you what or how much to take.

One thing I notice with some folks here - when you disagree with THEM, they say you disagree with the Quran itself. They say their views are 'quranic' or 'according to the quran' or 'the true view'. These are simply delusions of grandeur. In truth, ALL of us are subjective interpreters of the Quran.

Yes it is, thank you. I'd be happy to. Do I need a bullet proof vest

Nice one! To me the best way to tease out the teachings of the Quran is through philosophical investigation. There are some exquisite jewels of wisdom.

About the condemnation of homosexuality, I have a different take on the story of Luth. My presentation may be found here https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwkIoETBwxQ&list=PLLJbENTfuMiixmSgzX7XNQ3tSbRtaaOkM

If we use sources of peoples work, be it dictionaries or their studies or whatever does that not mean we use their authority? If we agree with them how does it not have any authority?

If we have APPLY the fihm in our lives and we find in it great benefit, then I believe that is God's truth. It's when these things are forced and other interpretations said to be 'forgeries' , then that becomes authoritarian.

People give authority to dictionaries, their desires, studies and others things.

Interesting phraseology - 'dictionaries, their desires, studies..'. How do you know dictionaries were not tainted by desire? I personally think they are.

Why one is seen above or better than the other is all down to personal reasoning.

At the end, everything is an interpretation.

Absolutely. We cannot escape our human condition although some folks try to impose authority on others.

Huruf, it's no different from people saying their views are 'according to the Quran' or 'Quranic' or 'objective' and the views of others are 'interpretations'.

Man of Faith
I think the issue is not about 100% reliance but recognising that language is taught and learnt (and yes through experiences we personalise language). Some people distort meaning etc etc

'Distort' is only true if we accept orthodoxy in language which I most certainly do not. It's funny, in the British system of education, at one point colloquial English was frowned upon, especially ebonics. We couldnt say things like 'he fine'. We had to say 'he IS fine'. Now some people think that's racist and that we should accept ebonics.

Officialisation of language is nothing but an exercise in power and control. We have no need to conform to any of it. As long as communication reaches its effective level, what else do we need to worry about? Same with Quran, as long as the message reaches and we are able to apply it effectively, who cares whether it conforms to some dead text?

If I went to an arabic speaking country and spoke in arabic I could get around and they would understand me. my language of arabic was taught and learnt, i didn't just wake up with it. if I started inventing new meanings to words with no basis other than my own desires or as you mention wishful thinking or to suit my agenda, people wouldn't understand me, it wouldn't make sense, I wouldn't progress. so in some way or form I may use aids to help me get by e.g. dictionaries or someone else's knowledge

Now you're dealing with the LIVING language. It's no longer dead texts which have no personal verification. If you go to a fruit shop , asked for a tuffah and got an orange, you'd know something was wrong. Even if all your dictionaries said 'tuffah' means apple, the fact that you get an orange when you ask for it shows it's ineffective.

With 'salah = prayers', who the heck's gonna tell you anything? It's your PERSONAL experience. You can't check with the ancient Arabs or the Prophet. It's literally trial and error.

abdalquran

Well, are we at liberty to invent meanings for words? can I really turn a banana to orange and that?ll be ok? I don?t think we can invent baseless meanings. Let me rephrase that. anyone can create any meaning, it doesn?t mean it is accurate.

I'm not asking you to learn alchemy to change fruit. I'm rather saying that signifiers and signifieds got messed about so people can think they can connect with Allah by mere rituals. I don't think it's difficult at all. All you need is officialdom to tell you 'salah is prayers'. This is far more accomodating to ruling regime that the salah programme of the Q.

I mentioned above about Islam and IslamISM. It's become normative language now despite our objections. Was this some accident. I think it would be very naive to think so.

You're right anyone can invent any meaning but it doesn't have to be accurate. But once again, that is NOT the issue. The issue is this WHO measures accuracy? Is it some dead guy whose agenda I don't know? Is it some idiot who wants authority but cant string two sentences together like Islamofascist authors? Why should I trust anyone's judgement?! It's just like Sunnism all over again.

You seemed to implicate that dictionaries have no use. As you call it dead fields of experiences. As far as I see things, Quran was revealed in Arabic, so knowledge of Arabic can help one understand the Quran.

Sorry but that's nothing more than a superficial slogan to me. Quran was revealed in Arabic - so what? Does it means Arabs understood in full? According to Sunnatullah, the people of shu3aib didnt understand MOST of what was told to them...by THEIR OWN CONFESSION, no less (11/91).

So how do I know Arabic lexicology understood the Quran? Superficial slogans dont prove substance, sorry. We need to test things for ourselves. Dictionaries are being manipulated by unethical individuals even NOW. What about then at the HEIGHT of Sunnism?

Maybe in a particular issue you may find things that do not make sense, I still wouldn?t totally disregard their work, after all every human is fallible
.

I don't disregard their work at all. I do use their work if it helps my reading I disregard their AUTHORITY though.

Besides accepting the Quran because of your perception of the world. if you accept the Quran as a revelation from God and that it is kept intact as it was revealed. Then you inadvertently accept sources from history. Not all of history is false.

Have you actually read Islamic history? Have a read of 3ulum al-quran works and you will find the Quran is FAR from historically authentic. There are missing ayat, suras with 200 verses which only have 60 odd verses now, different qira'at, sab3a al-ahruf, naskh al-mansukh all sorts of crap. You can believe this stuff if you want to. I don't.

Quran to me is existential. It is being revealed now.

It is true, we learn language you said it yourself, mentioning those two. No doubt we personalise language through our experience. it would be interesting to know how much of a % is personalised and how much is taught

Depends on the identity matrix of the said individual. Some people read more, others write more.

You mention examples and state there is no agreement of meaning. You point out based on dictionaries that there can be numerous understanding to a word. Why is that a problem? Do we need agreement? Because if agreement is the issue I highly doubt the Quranist community will get that.

Sigh....once again, I am NOT concerned with disagreement. I like disagreement. I don't attack and harass people when they present views differing to mine. Rather, I am engaging with Uq because of his authoritarian statement. He calls 'forging' and 'inventing' meanings, tagging a negative emotional response to these words. Pretending default which is ludicrous.

For me, Quranist Islam can ONLY flourish with diversity of thought. Sadly, this is being suppressed by some unethical individuals but they wont be able to fight the tide of free thought. It happened for the Christian reformists and it will happen for Islamic reformists. The Catholics tried to control language as well. Didn't work. Free interpretation won in the end.

That?s fine. I think the issue is when our readings are not personal but involve others. How will it function.

Now THAT is a good question. For me, each person should read and apply on his own. Some people may lead others, some people may follow but everyone should participate in the general good. It's a very organic process. I don't think it's ever meant to be top down at all.

Do you believe that there are people who read the Quran in a skewed manner? Based on desires and wishes, misinterpreting etc? i think this is what Uq's point is, but i dunno i might be wrong.

I do think some people are wrong yes but I don't believe it's my right to say they're forging meanings. At best I can engage them in discussion and share my views. The idea is to encourage people to think for themselves, not think of ourselves as some superior individuals stopping people spreading falsehood when we ourselves can't even think straight.

Well how one views authority or veracity can be different. You may find it ineffective another person finds it effective, I wouldn?t necessarily mean it is an authority

As long as they're happy, no problem with me. It's when they tell us 'hey..thats a forged meaning' is when I'd like to see just how well they can defend their texts. Throw some deconstructive arguments and you'll find everything falls apart.

However to someone else they may feel that it (dictionaries) resonates more with Quranic concepts they have studied. while you may not give authority to that meaning from the dictionary you agree with ibn Sina. So you find meaning elsewhere. You didn?t really create the meaning. either way other sources are used.

Oh that's absolutely fine, that's just democratic reading. The end goal is still effectiveness.

You would need to ask Uq if he accepts dictionaries over hadith and why. Personally if a hadith is in confluence with the Quran, I don?t see why it cannot be accepted though a lot of the hadith corpus does not relate to tafsir, i see it's main function for rites and practises to traditionalist islam.

But hadith creates normative language. It is actually in arabiyoon mubeen if you take it to mean clear Arabic. It's the CLEAREST Arabic there is. Ask a 100 Arabs what salah is, if one says something other than prayers, that would be RARE. All hadith lexicology connects directly to Uq's easier assertions. salah is prayer, nisa is women, zina is adultery.

And that's how languages evolve. It's an empirical process but lingocentrists have this rose-tinted view of the past where everything was objective.

Man of Faith, Good thinking there.

Let me ask this question. Islam is a world religion of which less than 0.1% of its adherents are terrorist fundie types. Why then are THEY are called 'IslamISTS' and their ideology 'IslamISM'?!

Language is NEVER an objective entity. They just want us to think so so we can swallow their crap. It worked.

Who knows what the muqata?at are? Does you?re understand give proof/evidence of their meaning?

Once again you don't seem to understand the point. The point is AUTHORITY. Uq wants authority of interpretation. For this reason he said

Brothers and sisters, we are not at liberty to invent meanings for words.

What he really meant was 'my guy has the authority. You people have no authority to interpret. However, he failed in the FIRST ayat itself, alif laam meem. He doesn't know what that is. No one does, not even emeritus professors at world class insitutions.

I'm happy with my understanding of the muqata'at. They work for me and if they don't work for you, that's none of my beeswax. However, this thread is about authority and not veracity of interpretation.

you misquoted 12/3, it?s 12/2 and lets use the rest of the verse The Quran appeals to our logic and reason, we can?t just base things on feelings. Dictionaries are not the be all end all but to think they do not help or are totally useless, I disagree.

It is indeed 12/2, sorry. Can you point out where I said 'dictionaries do not help or are totally useless'. I must be having blackout episodes where I type stuff I don't even remember.

how do you render the word ?arabiya? as faultless? According to what? Have I missed something? Is not the Quran written in Arabic or am I just imagining things? What?s 14/4 about?

I see faultless as not containing crookedness which is the meaning of 'ghayri dhi 3iwaj' in 38/29. I don't like to peg the Quran to any language. At the moment it's most effective when read in the linguistic system known as 'Arabic'. That may change in the future, I don't know.

so according to your understandings of language conventions, it is illogical for you to accept arabiya as Arabic. That doesn?t make sense to me. ?Arabic offers you nothing for ta3aqul? really? why learn Arabic then? Why waste your time when studying Quran?

You have taken my statement out of context. I am speaking about the unsystematicness of Arabic. Ta3aqul requires deductive thinking. One cannot do that with an unsystematic language. Take the significance of ism nakirah and ma3rifah. There are dozens of opinions on what they mean. So if THESE people cannot agree, why should I accept their authority. Personally I find none of their opinions make sense. So why would I be stuck to them.

Yes obviously, the fact that you accept the Quran as it is, is in itself relying on sources from history.

False. This is actually my first principle of tafseer - foundedness. I encountered the Quran and I accept the Quran because it fits my perception of the world. Had I relied on Islamic history, much of the Quran would be in doubt.

And what do you think language is? Language is a taught process, language is learning from another experience. Why do you think the Quran is the criterion for everything?

Again not true. Wittgenstein and Heidegger believe that while we learn language we also personalise language through our fields of experience. You may inherit a word but the semantic field in your mind connected will be wholly different from someone else, not even your parents. Londoners in the 90ies probably picked up the word 'wicked' from their parents but in 2000s, 'wicked' had shifted its semantic to something positive.

I believe the Quran is a criteria because it fits my field of experience. If I read to read it in a Traditionalist way, it would be of little relevance. This is why I don't use dictionaries either. They are DEAD fields of experience. Worst still are dictionaries TRANSLATED from dictionaries. DEAD squared.

If you have any knowledge of Arabic you got it from somewhere, do you deny that?

Not at all. I just question these people's grasp of the world of Quran. If you think you can read a philosopher by consulting the Oxford standard dictionary, you'd be in for a big surprise. Same like Quran with standard Arabic dictionaries.

Why not try this experiment. Ask an Arabic scholar the differences between

1. Allahu ghafurun raheem
2. Allahul ghafurul raheem
3. Allahu KAANAA ghafurun raheem.

For all their immense scholarship...no agreement exist.

Today the meaning of banana as orange is not possible and if you were to teach people that they would say you have misunderstood. If you want you can experiment with people and see how many people would agree that it is orange. If you are saying that language can develop and change, yes it can but you wouldn?t be able to convince the whole world banana is orange. If you were to start a trend on changing word meanings maybe you?d gather a group.

I'm not bothered, really. I'm happy with my reading. My objective in this thread is to test the veracity of Uq's original 'forgery claim'. My reading is my subjective opinion. I have never once claimed it is 'quranic' or 'objective' or 'according to the quran'.

I think it is truly a blessing of Allah swt to have understanding of the Quran, those people who know are blessed.

Same here.

In the process of learning some people use resources. So it might be English translation, looking up words in Arabic, or reading Arabic and cross referencing verses, referring to dictionaries for early sources of understanding or even modern/current understandings, reading from chapters to chapter etc. some people use a combination. So people have their learning method and it may differ to others, they have their reasoning for disagreeing with you and you with them. Ultimately God will judge us.

Sure, happy with that. Not happy with statements like 'Brothers and sisters, we are not at liberty to invent meanings for words.', that's all.

How do you know a person who uses a language source i.e. dictionaries does not consider all of the above? besides using other sources will have other underlying issues or spheres which we may foresee.

This is not my first conversation on the issue. I see people peddling the idea that there are 'early dictionaries' all the time. Lingocentrists by definition don't care about these things and that's the business. My objective is to deconstruct pretences of authority. These are thought experiments which I hope to document later.

Why do we need to understand what people thought? It doesn?t change the fact that these are sources of language. The living language of Arabic can differ from place to place and today's living language does have links to dictionaries.

Well if you're going to accept their authority, I think it would be prudent to do so. I also test the concepts of living speakers, hence discovering the vast differences even between Arabic language scholars.

Once again, the point is NOT veracity but AUTHORITY. If I find a meaning ineffective, I wouldn't care himself told me about it. The point is that I must make it effective in MY life.

Why rely on ibn sina?s concept, a guy we never met from over 800 years ago? Same principles apply. Anyway in any case, language is an experience gained from knowledge and/or other peoples experiences. Another thing, ordinary Arabic actually I don?t know what you mean by that however modern standard Arabic was basically derived from the Quran.

Because I believe Ibn Sina's understanding resonates more with the Quranic concept of being. Arabic writers of today also hit upon such ideas. Dr Shahrour for example writes on being and becoming in his 'inzal wal tanzeel' but if you translated it in ordinary Arabic, it would be meaningless and insignificant. Why would I give authority things which I don't believe in?

Of course people can accept translated meanings of the Quran and many people do. The whole point in reading and studying the Quran is to do what God wants us to do, to be guided and to be closer to God. some people do not have that desire some people have that desire but do not believe it is in their position to do so, i.e. it's for the scholars.

That's their choice but once again, this is NOT the subject matter. At no point did I say burn any dictionaries. I am simply asserting my right to reject any and all of its meanings. I do the same with hadith although it has to be said, hadithic meanings are even more irrelevant. However, hadith and dictionaries are the same insofar as they propose meanings relevant to the Quran. Why accept one but not the other?

1. SarahY addresses this point well. Assuming all inherited lexicons have been fabricated to an extent that renders them beyond valid use, how else is one to understand the Arabic text of the Quran, with particular regard to syntactical and lexical rules?

Why do we have to think with Aristotelian logic? Either we have to kneel and bow to them OR we have to reject them completely? Who constructed this artificial logic?

I operate along the principle of utility. If it fits my reading, I will accept it and if it doesn't, I won't. 'Salah' as prayers for example fits very poorly the Quranic usage of salah, in my reading. So even though Ibn Mandhoor lists prayer-related entries in his definition, I should reject them. After all, Allah is not gonna judge me for being Arabically correct but for the best deeds.

Another thing is synonyms. To me suggesting the Quran uses synonyms is nothing but lazy reading. Just because we can't figure out why Allah uses different terms, we just lump it all in blanket terms. So what is salah? du'a, ruku3 , sajda etc even though EACH of these terms have their own semantic fields. Then we say aya like 4/34 refer to husbands and wives even though ba3l and imraa are used elsewhere. So why would God use one set of terms and another there? Was He having a creative moment? This is the kind of nonsensical readings which happen when we ignore the text.

2. Lexicons and grammars are derived from corpora. As I?m sure you will acknowledge, bodies of corpora can hardly be disregarded in linguistic analysis, and they are harder still to fabricate. This is why I can safely promote ? with very little fear of corruption ? the use of classical lexicons and grammars as reliable sources to become well-acquainted with Classical Arabic.

You can safely promote 'corpora' because they agree with Traditionalist type views. That's the only reason.

As for the facticity of corpora, once again you have completely ignored the historicity and historiography of Arabic. Have you even considered the socio-political millieu of lexicography? Why is it was necessary to begin with? Why the so-called early dictionaries are irrecoverable and thus only retroactively projected (except to wikipedia scholars)?

3. If one is not bound to the pre-set rules of the Classical Arabic tongue, then one can easily descend into seeing a reflection of one?s ego on every page of the Quran. That is to say, the Quran means whatever I want it to mean. Thus, if I am partial to the ideas of the Christian trinity, I can translate 1121 as ?Say, He is God, three.? ( &#1583 I will then base this argument on the presumption that ?? used to mean ?three?, that is before some twist in history conspired to supress its true meaning. There is no end to this rationale. In your view, is this defensible?

I'd rather fall into the trap of following my own ego than some dead guy's. At least with my own ego, I can introspect and maybe get out of it. How in the world would I discern Ibn Mandhoor's ego? I can't even be sure if he was a Muslim let alone Sunni or Shia (both sides claim him).

As for the 'ahad' means 'thalatha' thing, you couldn't have picked a worse example. The oneness of Allah is the underpinning theme in the Quran. If you propose 'ahad' actually means 'three' it would have to contradict possibly the entire Quranic philosophy so good luck with that.

With nisa and zina, it's much , much easier. These terms are far more isolated in terms of the semantic positioning.

4. The inheritance of language differs dramatically from the inheritance of the narration of historical events. The narration of events can be readily fabricated, yet the language in which those fabrications are narrated is harder to invent, primarily because the fabricator wants his audience to receive his intended meaning, and to understand the fabrication. Again, languages are not forged, they naturally evolve.

Sorry but this is nonsense. I can see linguistic manipulation NOW even. Resources used by Quranists have been manipulated so that its authors can impress a certain meaning EVEN THOUGH it's parent lexicon lists other meanings. Why on earth would I assume that this sneaky manoeuvre couldn't have happened before?

As for languages 'naturally evolving', can you please then justify sticking to medieval sources? Are you saying languages stopped evolving then? If languages are pegged to the human experience, did the varieties of human experience stop at that point? If they didn't, would Allah have pre-figured this and thus not allowed this to happen? Why didn't mention the qawamees and nahw at all, despite explicating tafseer methodology in the text itself? These are all questions we must engage with if we are to honestly accept dictionairies and lexicons. Otherwise we'd be nothing but wikipedia scholars.

You make some good points. If one was to do away with the inherited language references, I think it is especially necessary to justify the replacement rules as those which supersede it. Not only is this, in my view, indefensible by default, but also paradoxically unattainable.

Unattainable? As opposed to language rules you assume was already there when the Q came down? How do you think grammar came about? Did God drop a book from the sky called 'kitab an-nahw ar-rasmi min Allah' ? Grammar did not come BEFORE language. It was developed from what is COHERENT in conventional language. How does measure coherence? Subjectively, if anything. That's why 'idha dhakkarta rabbaka fil qurani wahdah' means 'your lord alone in the quran' ...due to some grammar 'rule'. The guy who formulated couldn't concieve of 'quran alone' so he just invented a 'rule' to make it impossible.

No thanks. I'll stick to my personal experience of language.

Salams all

I dunno why there is a huge focus on the muqattaat.

In this thread you mean? Because the second some guy says we need to consult Arabic language resources for meanings of the Q, we just ask them what the muqata'at are. I have personally asked seven Arabic language scholars (including one translator) and no one knows what they are! So much for that...

Uq?s thoughts are genuine and it doesn?t mean he has the answers to everything.

But it should. This is exactly what he said.

In human history, dictionaries are a relatively modern invention, which list the entire set of words that constitute any given language. They are particularly useful to foreign students of a given language if they haven?t had any first-hand experience with the people of that language. Indeed, their use, along with the rules of grammar, is a prerequisite for the correct understanding of that language.

Ok, so all you need to do is get a dictionary and a grammar book then check What's alif laam meem and how does it relate to 'dhalikal kitaab laa raiba fihi'. Should be as simple as that...only it's not.

Uq points out the Quran describes itself as an ?Arabic Quran.? To think dictionaries are useless is like saying you have no use of the Arabic language in any form, which is nonsense. Because if you do not get it from dictionaries you inherit the meaning from something else. Is there no truth in dictionaries? How does one study each word of Quran with no or little knowledge of Arabic?

Firstly, the Quran calls itself 'quranan arabiya' but it's interesting how few people quote the rest of the aya (la3allakum ta3qiloon - 12/3). Maybe they think it's a passing comment, lol.

How do you do ta3aqul if you rely on Arabic? Like any other language, it's a democratic entity and thus terribly unsystematic. Just ask any Arabic scholar what the ism nakirah and ma3rifah symbolise and you will literally get DOZENS of answers. It's even worse with prepositions and don't even get me started on elliptical language. Dictionaries reflect this mess.

Arabiya in 12/2 therefore cannot be 'Arabic'. I see it as the quality of being 'faultless'. Quran uses faultless language so we can systematically think about it. Arabic itself offers nothing for ta3aqul. It is notoriously ambiguous in meaning.

Am I saying dictionaries are a source of absolute truth? No. they are a source of knowledge and language is a learned behaviour/experience. If we do not learn from our forefathers we learn from other sources. Even if we learn from family we still use sources to extend our knowledge. So sure, we?re a few centuries after the revelation so obviously we have to rely on sources from history.

Obviously? I dunno about 'obviously', sorry. All I know is the Quran contrasts itself to conjecture (10/36-37). Therefore, any literature no matter how it claims to be the early period of Islam (and they ARE claims, there's no historical verification for them at all) are conjectural. They are simply people's attempts to record language. There is no way we will understand what they REALLY thought. We can only have a superficial analysis at best.

That is not to say we cannot get signs from other means but to think that we can just say ?ok a banana is not a banana and you are wrong for calling it banana, it is an orange? That?s preposterous.

Maybe to you. To me anything is possible because control of language means control of philosophy and in the world of Islam, control of Islamic discourse means control of Islamic discourse. You wanna check history? Maybe check the ENTIRE history. Ask why did Ibn Mandhoor create Lisan al-Arab when he did and what this has to do with Sunnism. It's no different from Quranist discourse today where individuals and groups attack those who don't conform to dictionary meanings. Uq for example was quite worried about salah as prayers. I wonder what he would say if the common meaning for salah WASN'T prayers.

To back to your orange example. If some influential person said 'oranges are life saving fruit, eat 5 a day' 500 years ago, I think every fruit seller in the world would wanna convince people he was referring to their fruit. Language influences and there is much profit to be had.

Do you use any form of arabic literature to understand any classical arabic? if so, how is it fair to label other Quranists as lingocentric or taking other sources as authority? and if you do not use any form of arabic literature to understand any classical arabic, how do you understand the Quran (classical arabic)?

LingoCENTRIC means relying upon the claimed sources of language as authoritative and not considering philosophy of language. What is language, how does it evolve, how does it relate to socio-cultural conditions? These are all not in their sphere of concern.

I prefer to rely on the living language of Arabic. Dictionaries are dead texts. Who knows what Ibn Mandhoor understood or worse still, Lanes who tried to recover perceptions long dead 500 years later. It's insane to think we can understand exactly what Lanes thought, let alone what Lanes thought the classical guys thought. Then that raises the issue of censorship. Even TODAY we got people censoring dictionaries because of meanings they don't understand. If these people use such evil tactics in this age of information, what about some guy we never met 800 years ago?

Another thing you may want to consider is SUBJECT MATTER of the Q. The Q deals with most theological and metaphysical concepts and the sources lingocentrists use are of common language dictionaries. Language is not just ONE thing. It's a set of overlapping semantic fields. The semantic field related to the Q is VERY FAR REMOVED from ordinary Arabic. Take the word kawn/yakoon. In ordinary Arabic it would translate to a simple 'is' but I don't believe it is the case with the Q at all. Why would I trust some lexicographer's take on it then? He may not have understood the idea at all. I'd much rather rely on say for example, Ibn Sina's concept of huwiyyah in 'qul huwallahu ahad'. For lingocentrists, 'huwa' is simply 'he is'.

And lets not oversell, Arabic either. People who read TRANSLATIONS of the Quran can come to accept it. What makes you think Arabic is crucial? Concepts can be transmitted in any language. It all depends on the resonance of the idea inside the person. No dictionary can transmit that as we've seen from our most prolific dictionary users.

Salam Abang Noh,

To me, the muqata'at or letters are God's way of denying anyone the right or authority to interpret. This is one area of the Q where you can see a VAST variety of opinions on the topic. So for people like Uq and other lingocentric quranists (quranists who give authority to so-called linguistic resources), they are automatically denied the authority of interpretation.

Anyone can experiment with meanings of the muqa'taat. Uq says 'we are not at liberty to invent NEW meanings' but for this, he (nor even authority of Arabic language) can provide a definitive one.

Uq, if you don't know what the muqata'at represent, how can the Quran be PERFECTLY understood? Unless you're saying they're some people's interpolation into the text? How do you understand 2/2 for example?

I'm not one given to hyperbole but I gotta say that I CANNOT AGREE MORE with you. Meaning IS established by commonality of use. And this is the PRECISE reason why I don't trust ANY dictionary. If the majority of ppl follow conjecture (10/36), why on earth would I trust THEIR use of language? Of course they would want to ratify THEIR meaning. Moreover, the Quran has made it an 3ibrah the followers of a messenger would not understand MOST of what he says (11/91). So why on earth would I what the majority thinks? I don't with hadith but stick the word 'dictionary'on the label and suddenly it becomes authoritative? ..oh PLEASE!

THANK YOU for answering the dictionary question. Most ppl don't have the guts to engage with this question because it expose their authoritarian pretensions. Dictionaries are indeed compilations of meanings. ..by WHOM exactly? Have you studied the historiography of Arabic?

Forgive me, I haven't understood, is the argument that due to our ignorance of the purpose of the Initials, we are at liberty to invent meanings for them? and indeed, for the entire text of the Quran?

Oh the purpose of the letters is guidance for mankind, like the Quran itself (2/185). Since you don't know the meanings, your initial position fails here. As for 'invent' meanings, the choice of this word is very tendentious. You failed to appreciate the VAST range of meanings which are available.

Let me ask you, how is a dictionary made?