News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

What Kind of Arabic Is Used In the Great Reading?

Started by Supernaut, December 09, 2008, 11:29:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Supernaut

According experts on Arabic, the language of the great reading is Classical Arabic which is "sacred" and different from the various Arabic dialects spoken across the Middle East and North Africa, but I vaguely recall reading on this forum that the Arabic of the great reading isn't really Classical Arabic. What kind of Arabic is the great reading written in and if the Arabic of it is indeed different from the informal Arabic that is commonly spoken by Arabs in Saudi at least, how can the great reading be a timeless scripture? Shakespeare lived around 400 years ago, which is less than one-third the number of years ago the great reading was revealed, but it's still kind of hard to understand the English of Shakespeare's plays so how is it that the great reading can still be easy to understand as per 54:17? Languages change over time and I can't think of a reason why Arabic wouldn't.

bkanwar2

Indeed, your questions are valid.  The language of great reading is different from current spoken language of Arab world.  Hence even natives have to resort to translations written some 200 hundred years after prophet.  This was the time when language was being lost and even native commoners were having hard time to understand the message, what to talk about converts.  The only translations that were cannonized were done under patronage of corrupt ruleres.  These became main stream under blessings of power elites and a new phenomenon unknown to people of prophet's time,  Islamic clergy, so called Ullamas of Islam.  Simultaneously work of preservation of linguistic aspect of total language was also done by people.  Today, the only way message could be understood is by following this linguistic trail and not by learning spoken language of today.  Thanks for very pertinent questions.  With regards.

Badar
Be aware, knowledge is not static.  My knowledge of Classic Arabic is evolving too.  Hence my understanding of the message continues to evolve.  I think, learn, unlearn, relearn and then believe; not believe and claim to know it all.

Supernaut

Quote from: bkanwar2 on December 09, 2008, 11:54:15 AMIndeed, your questions are valid.  The language of great reading is different from current spoken language of Arab world.  Hence even natives have to resort to translations written some 200 hundred years after prophet.

Arabic translations of the great reading? Could you name a few? Do they still exist?

Quote from: bkanwar2 on December 09, 2008, 11:54:15 AMThese became main stream under blessings of power elites and a new phenomenon unknown to people of prophet's time,  Islamic clergy, so called Ullamas of Islam.  Simultaneously work of preservation of linguistic aspect of total language was also done by people.  Today, the only way message could be understood is by following this linguistic trail and not by learning spoken language of today.

So the language of the great reading survives today as a religious language? That makes the message of the great reading open to a lot of abuse and misinterpretation. I can't help thinking that it's time the god revealed a scripture in English, Hindi, Chinese or Portuguese and maybe a scripture in some other language a few thousand years from now and so on.

Quote from: bkanwar2 on December 09, 2008, 11:54:15 AMThanks for very pertinent questions.  With regards.

Badar

You're welcome and thank you for your answers :)

bkanwar2

Quote from: Supernaut on December 09, 2008, 12:46:59 PM
Arabic translations of the great reading? Could you name a few? Do they still exist?

Mother of all these translations where every translator stops is done by "Super Imam Tabri". Yes, still available.

Quote from: Supernaut on December 09, 2008, 12:46:59 PM
So the language of the great reading survives today as a religious language? That makes the message of the great reading open to a lot of abuse and misinterpretation. I can't help thinking that it's time the god revealed a scripture in English, Hindi, Chinese or Portuguese and maybe a scripture in some other language a few thousand years from now and so on.

You're welcome and thank you for your answers :)

Is not there a lot of misinterpretation and personal interpretation arround.  God does not need to send new scripture as human race is come off both tecnologically and intellectually to a place that they are capable of learning the preserved message by learning the preserved language, provided they are willing to overcome their egos and acknowledge their deficiency in linguistic understanding.  As well willing to stop blind following of people of past.  The language by the way is very simple, I can wouch for it, by personal experience.  So are there any takers now to learn and understand message of their creator or everybody will continue to wait for A Saviour?

Badar
Be aware, knowledge is not static.  My knowledge of Classic Arabic is evolving too.  Hence my understanding of the message continues to evolve.  I think, learn, unlearn, relearn and then believe; not believe and claim to know it all.

Arnold Yasin

Peace,

Do not mix up 'translations' with 'explanations/tafsir, and also there were many major Qur'an commentaries written (Ibn Qutaibah for example) 150 years before Tabari. When you read Tabari, he constantly refers to earlier Qur'an commentators alongside his own ideas, so he certainly wasn't the developer of Sunni Tafsir, he was more a summarizer of an already developed line of thought.

In Theology Thalabi is more seen as the developer of Sunni Tafsir then Tabari, but as Tabari summarizes many previous Tafsirs alongside his own ideas, it is the most populair as it represented the whole Sunni Tafsir development in 1 comprehensive volume.

See for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Classical-Tafsir-Tradition-Commentary/dp/9004127771/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228899759&sr=1-2

Bkanwar, it is true that the royalty heavily influenced which doctrine would prevail, but the situation of doctrine and dogma development is far more complex then your exclusive statement.

Also Modern Arabic is very wide and flexible and reflects the Qur'anic Arabic more closely then Classical Arabic. What the problem here is that modern Arabs do not see the multiple meanings of the Qur'anic language, but follow dogma. Sunni and Shia dogma has fixed the meanings of the Qur'an for them, and they ignore real meanings of words, even though they use the real meanings of Arabic words in their every day language! That is the problem with Arabic language today. For them there is normal used Arabic, one that reflects the Qur'anic Arabic on many points, and religious language that was developed in the Middle ages.

The Arabic of the Qur'an represents the streetlanguage of Arabia. It was a language used by everyone, and was thus also very flexible with meaning and grammar and the way how it assimilated words from other languages they came in contact with.

For example Sirat from Sirat Almustaqeem in Surah 1 comes from the Latin Stratta from where we in English got the word street. As the Romans build very efficient and well protected roads, the word Sirat does not only refer to a straight path, but one that takes you directly to your goal, is safe, and was made to protect the empire and trade. Thus Sirat alMustaqeem is the Straight Path of the actions of those that stand up(mustaqeem=qama=to stand up) to that protect others (meaning of Amina/Mumin), develops equal wealth and progress.

The Arabic language was not an elite language, this is also the reason why when the Persians were conquered. They had to record the Arabic language to understand it. This is why the Persians were the first to create books on Arabic grammar and meaning.

As Persian elite and their language started to influence Islamic rule, it also influenced Arabic meanings and words. The Persian theology was assimilated into Islam and history and has created the Sunni theology of today. Shia theology was more a development were Islam was assimilated into Persian Theology.

"HAR Gibb made an acute observation, when he said that the issue at stake was whether the new Islamic society was to become a re-embodiment of the old Perso-Aramaean culture into the Arabic and Islamic elements would be absorbed, or a culture in which the Perso-Aramaean contributions would be subordianted to the Arab tradition and the Islamic values. In the case of Persia there was no question, but that the former view should previal, while in the Arabic-speaking parts of the caliphate it would seem the later triumphed." (The Heritage of Persia by prof. Richard N. Frye 2004 reprint p. 277-279)

Also Christian and Jewish theology and their definitions were assimilated into Islamic theology. Christian, Jewish and Persian doctrines influenced Qur'an interpretation and thus also how words were understood. This is how Classical Arabic was developed, and thus this is not the Qur'anic Arabic language. Classical Arabic has many different definitions and is far more rigid in grammar.

In this way the original Arabic language was corrupted and Islam became a super-religion, a summary of all major religions into 1, instead of a universal way of life.

This is the case today. The simple flexible Arabic street language of the 6th century had been replaced by a more official version where many important definitions were changed to suit certain dogma's. This is the created religious language used to keep people prisoner in dogma.

"The arabic prose works were translated into Persian since the people were too lazy to read arabic, as one translator expressed it. There was no revolt against either Islam or Arabic in the new Persian literary renaissance since a new Islamic Persian culture was being created. The Zoroasterian elements in the poetry represented the mode of the time and should not be considered as expressions of true Zoroasterian belief. Nostalgia for the part existed....New Persian was now a language side by side with Arabic, and Islam had outgrown its Arabic background. It had become a multi-national, multi-lingual universal culture and faith and Iran played the leading role in this transformation. In a sense Islam had to change before the Persians accepted it, but one might also say that just as Greek civilisation served as a vehicle for Christianity, so did Iranian civilisation for Islam." (The Heritage of Persia by prof. Richard N. Frye 2004 reprint page 289)

"The role of Persians in the history of Arabic literature, especially philology and grammar, is too well known to be catalogued. The early writers of Arabic grammars, usch as Sibawaih, were Persians. [...] Even if the words vizier 'minister'and divan 'bureau' were not Persian in origin the instutitions at least under the 'Abbasids were Sasanian in inspiritation. Where else would the caliphs find models for the protocol and the ceremonial of their courts? After all the Arabs conquere only some provinces of the Byzantine empire, but they conquered all of the Sasanian empire with all of its imperial traditions. The association of state and religion implicit in Islam found an imperial model in the Persians books of Andars or 'counsel' derived from Sasanian originals. The list of Sasanian influences on all phases of Islamic culture and civilisation would be too long to include here. [...]

There was a literary movement in the time of the 'Abbasids which was called the Shu'ubiyya, or the nationalist school. There are several views about the Shu'ubiyya, either that it was only active among the literati with small importance for the masses, or that it was of profound social significance, a struggle to determine the destinies of Islamic culture as a whole. I believe the problem has been approached with a misleading emphasis, as though the philo-Persian literati were trying to wreck the structure of Islam when they introduced Persian ideas and instutions into Islamic culture, or Persian words into Arabic. By the time of the 'Abbasids the question at stake was not Islam or Iran, but rather a Persianised, international Islam or a narrow Arab Islam. The philo-Persians were reading the signs of the time; they were the wave of the future, while narrow Arab interests were provincials and in a sense reactionary against the real destiny or genius of Islam. HAR Gibb made an acute observation, when he said that the issue at stake was whether the new Islamic society was to become a re-embodiment of the old Perso-Aramaean culture into the Arabic and Islamic elements would be absorbed, or a culture in which the Perso-Aramaean contributions would be subordianted to the Arab tradition and the Islamic values. In the case of Persia there was no question, but that the former view should previal, while in the Arabic-speaking parts of the caliphate it would seem the later triumphed." (The Heritage of Persia by prof. Richard N. Frye 2004 reprint p. 277-279)

Recommended books:

http://www.amazon.com/Arabic-Language-Kees-Versteegh/dp/0748614362/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228899890&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Heritage-Persia-Pre-Islamic-History-Civilizations/dp/B001072OKQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228899920&sr=1-2

bkanwar2

Thanks Bro, Arnold for detailed answer.  I have read the Versteeg's book but need to look at other referances.  Thanks again.

Badar
Be aware, knowledge is not static.  My knowledge of Classic Arabic is evolving too.  Hence my understanding of the message continues to evolve.  I think, learn, unlearn, relearn and then believe; not believe and claim to know it all.

ayman

Peace Supernaut,

Quote from: Supernaut on December 09, 2008, 11:29:19 AMAccording experts on Arabic, the language of the great reading is Classical Arabic which is "sacred" and different from the various Arabic dialects spoken across the Middle East and North Africa, but I vaguely recall reading on this forum that the Arabic of the great reading isn't really Classical Arabic.

You might have read it here and the ensuing discussions on the following thread:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596565.msg165988#msg165988

Threre are about five pages of discussion back and forth between Anwar and me and you might want to go over them to see arguments on both sides (he claims that the great reading is in CA).

Quote from: Supernaut on December 09, 2008, 11:29:19 AMWhat kind of Arabic is the great reading written in and if the Arabic of it is indeed different from the informal Arabic that is commonly spoken by Arabs in Saudi at least, how can the great reading be a timeless scripture?

Scripture is not timeless. Humans are not timeless and scripture is inherently a message targeted to humans. The truth in the scripture is timeless. The scripture is in the everyday spoken language of the people of the messenger. The people of the messenger were not people of the book (of the writing) but were common people who were illiterate in the language of the existing religious writings. The everyday spoken language of the people of the messenger was an oral vernacular. The advent of the great reading is what transformed this oral vernacular into a written language. Any written document goes through interpretation or "internal translation" in our mind even if we can understand the original language. Thus, even when most native Arabic speakers hear the word "quran" they don't understand it despite fully knowing its meaning. On the other hand, you understand it and thus translate it into the "(intense/great) reading".

Quote from: Supernaut on December 09, 2008, 11:29:19 AMShakespeare lived around 400 years ago, which is less than one-third the number of years ago the great reading was revealed, but it's still kind of hard to understand the English of Shakespeare's plays so how is it that the great reading can still be easy to understand as per 54:17? Languages change over time and I can't think of a reason why Arabic wouldn't.

I don't think that the great reading was fully understood even at the time of the messenger. It is easy to understand once one takes the right approach. Remember that the great reading has guidance only for those who are already forethoughtful ("mutaqin").

Peace,

Ayman
الإسلام من القرآن
www.quran4peace.org
[url="https://www.facebook.com/Quran4Peace"]https://www.facebook.com/Quran4Peace[/url]
English: [url="http://www.quran4peace.org/en_index.html"]http://www.quran4peace.org/en_index.html[/url]

Mr Deen

Quote from: ayman on December 11, 2008, 02:25:06 PM
Peace Supernaut,

You might have read it here and the ensuing discussions on the following thread:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596565.msg165988#msg165988

Threre are about five pages of discussion back and forth between Anwar and me and you might want to go over them to see arguments on both sides (he claims that the great reading is in CA).

Scripture is not timeless. Humans are not timeless and scripture is inherently a message targeted to humans. The truth in the scripture is timeless. The scripture is in the everyday spoken language of the people of the messenger. The people of the messenger were not people of the book (of the writing) but were common people who were illiterate in the language of the existing religious writings. The everyday spoken language of the people of the messenger was an oral vernacular. The advent of the great reading is what transformed this oral vernacular into a written language. Any written document goes through interpretation or "internal translation" in our mind even if we can understand the original language. Thus, even when most native Arabic speakers hear the word "quran" they don't understand it despite fully knowing its meaning. On the other hand, you understand it and thus translate it into the "(intense/great) reading".

I don't think that the great reading was fully understood even at the time of the messenger. It is easy to understand once one takes the right approach. Remember that the great reading has guidance only for those who are already forethoughtful ("mutaqin").

Peace,

Ayman

First of all, it is not "the reading" but "the recitation".
The quran is for all people, fully detailed, in all times. "We have cited in this Quran every kind of example, but the
human being is the most argumentative creature." 18:54

5:69 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
These are also addressed, and part of the people of Mohammeds time. They are also adressed, your statement about "people of the book" is wrong.

"Behold, We have sent it down in all clarity, in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason." [12:2]
So that you may understand it yes. However as we also know,

"As to those who reject Faith it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing and on their eyes is a veil great is the penalty they incur." [Al-Qur?an 2:6-7]



It does seem to be that people of satanic ways, are often advocates of fixed ideals/idols, non-thinking, that reduces to behaviour that signs of wanting sex, either as a male or female spirit. "Always willing".

While religious texts, state, be not lustful, and advocate, progression, growth, and letting one evolve, think, reflect. Appreciate. Be intelligent, not go against oneself.

And ofcourse experience something so much higher; Peaceful interaction, and the worship of God.

Peace.

ayman

Peace Mr D,

Quote from: Mr Deen on December 11, 2008, 02:48:17 PMFirst of all, it is not "the reading" but "the recitation".

Reading aloud is recitation. But you can also read it silently. Reading is the closer meaning. Reading means reading (either aloud or silently) out of a written document. Remember that the god ordered us to read and that he taught us by the PEN.

Your assumption is based on the false traditional belief that the great reading was not written down until the time of Uthman and that it was recited from memory. The word "qaraa" surely means "to read" not "to recite". In fact, if one reads between the lines of the traditional pious fiction of Hadiths, one can see that it was always implicitly understood that the great reading has has always been read from a written document from the very beginning. For example, the stories tell of Mohamed upon receiving Chapter 96 being instructed by Gabriel "iqraa" to which he replied ?I can?t iqraa? three times. Surely, even those traditional stories don?t suggest that Mohamed was a mute and couldn?t speak/recite.

Quote from: Mr Deen on December 11, 2008, 02:48:17 PMThe quran is for all people, fully detailed, in all times. "We have cited in this Quran every kind of example, but the
human being is the most argumentative creature." 18:54

"All people and all times" are very big words. Hmm... some people never read the great reading. Also, how about people from before the time the great reading was revealed?

Quote from: Mr Deen on December 11, 2008, 02:48:17 PM5:69 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
These are also addressed, and part of the people of Mohammeds time. They are also adressed, your statement about "people of the book" is wrong.

Where did I say that peope of the book are not addressed?

I merely said that the language of the great reading is the oral language of the people of the messenger. Most of the people of the book living in Arabia also spoke this language. You don't seem to know the difference between a written language and an oral vernacular. For example, in the middle ages in England the spoken language was English but the written language of prestige and religion was Latin. So everyone spoke English but only "the people of the book/writing" understood Latin. The situation was largely the same in Arabian towns where everyone spoke Arabic but writing was done in Aramaic or Greek.

Quote from: Mr Deen on December 11, 2008, 02:48:17 PM"Behold, We have sent it down in all clarity, in the Arabic tongue, so that you might encompass it with your reason." [12:2]
So that you may understand it yes. However as we also know,

"As to those who reject Faith it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing and on their eyes is a veil great is the penalty they incur." [Al-Qur?an 2:6-7]

Exactly, in "a tongue", in an oral vernacular language.

Peace,

Ayman
الإسلام من القرآن
www.quran4peace.org
[url="https://www.facebook.com/Quran4Peace"]https://www.facebook.com/Quran4Peace[/url]
English: [url="http://www.quran4peace.org/en_index.html"]http://www.quran4peace.org/en_index.html[/url]

Mr Deen

Quote from: ayman on December 11, 2008, 03:10:01 PM
Peace Mr D,

Reading aloud is recitation. But you can also read it silently. Reading is the closer meaning. Reading means reading (either aloud or silently) out of a written document. Remember that the god ordered us to read and that he taught us by the PEN.

Your assumption is based on the false traditional belief that the great reading was not written down until the time of Uthman and that it was recited from memory. The word "qaraa" surely means "to read" not "to recite". In fact, if one reads between the lines of the traditional pious fiction of Hadiths, one can see that it was always implicitly understood that the great reading has has always been read from a written document from the very beginning. For example, the stories tell of Mohamed upon receiving Chapter 96 being instructed by Gabriel "iqraa" to which he replied ?I can?t iqraa? three times. Surely, even those traditional stories don?t suggest that Mohamed was a mute and couldn?t speak/recite.

"All people and all times" are very big words. Hmm... some people never read the great reading. Also, how about people from before the time the great reading was revealed?

Where did I say that peope of the book are not addressed?

I merely said that the language of the great reading is the oral language of the people of the messenger. Most of the people of the book living in Arabia also spoke this language. You don't seem to know the difference between a written language and an oral vernacular. For example, in the middle ages in England the spoken language was English but the written language of prestige and religion was Latin. So everyone spoke English but only "the people of the book/writing" understood Latin. The situation was largely the same in Arabian towns where everyone spoke Arabic but writing was done in Aramaic or Greek.

Exactly, in "a tongue", in an oral vernacular language.

Peace,

Ayman

"Recite, in the name of your Lord."

I don't see the use of arguing this.

I am not basing any assumptions on anything, you are assuming wrongfully that I do though.

I am a hadith rejecter, you do not need to speak about hadiths to me.
I find the hadith you refer, offensive. If one can't read, physical abuse, will not change that. I find it to be yet another satanic hadith.
I do also not believe hadith about the Prophet Mohammed not being able to read or write. It would seem quite obvious, as the verse almost reads "write this down, and recite it".

You argumentation about spoken versus written language is useless, I will refer [12:2] again.

And yes, all people. All messengers brought the same message. "We do not consider them being at odds".
It does seem to be that people of satanic ways, are often advocates of fixed ideals/idols, non-thinking, that reduces to behaviour that signs of wanting sex, either as a male or female spirit. "Always willing".

While religious texts, state, be not lustful, and advocate, progression, growth, and letting one evolve, think, reflect. Appreciate. Be intelligent, not go against oneself.

And ofcourse experience something so much higher; Peaceful interaction, and the worship of God.

Peace.