The Forgery of Significations

[abdalquran]

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?

[uq]

My confessed ignorance of the purpose of the Initials does not negate my certain knowledge of the Arabic language.

Thus, the Quran is perfectly understood without knowing what the Initials represent.

I use the words "invention" and "forgery" very intentionally for the following reason.

"Meaning is use." You will find this statement to be an axiom. The only way words acquire meanings is by their repetitive use. That is the very reason why you and I are communicating without having to invent meanings for the words that we are using in this discussion; because they already have well-established meanings. Hence, meaning is use.

Thus, if I was to use any word in a new way that no-one has used before, then I have effectively forged or invented a meaning. So, naturally, you would not receive my intended meaning.

A dictionary is a compilation of meanings.

And it behoves us to put them to use in the objective pursuit of Quranic truth.

[Wakas]

peace all,


The original post was about "words". The purpose of a dictionary is to do with "words".

Definition of "dictionary":
a book, optical disc, mobile device, or online lexical resource (such as Dictionary.com ) containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc.

Are "alif lam meem" etc words? Yes/No/Unsure.

If one's answer is "no" then they would appear not to fall under the remit of a dictionary/lexicon, making Farouk's argument invalid. Thus, in order to utilise them in any argument in this situation, the following has to apply:

1) They are proven to be or are accepted by the other party (i.e. uq) as words.


Side note:
(Personally, I consider the work done by bro Ayman on the alleged initials to make sense. It's been discussed here a few times.)

[abdalquran]

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?

[Joe Betik]

Peace Mohammed Noh,

Yes.

Undoubtedly the prophet Muhammad would have recognized the Initials as letters belonging to his language, but did he know what function they fulfilled? That's open to debate.

Salam uq,

I do not know what to make of your reply to me. You said that "Muhammad would have recognized the Initials as letters belonging to his language" yet you said that the "function they fulfilled" is debatable.

So now let me ask you, what purpose could be served by including those set of letters in the Q by God, if their functionality is questionable?

I hope you really understood the drift in that reply of yours to me.

Then you wrote this:

My confessed ignorance of the purpose of the Initials does not negate my certain knowledge of the Arabic language.

Thus, the Quran is perfectly understood without knowing what the Initials represent.

By this short remarks of yours, you have technically rendered God's inclusion of the sets of letters wasteful. Subhan allah.

And then there is this post by brother Wakas:

peace all,

Are "alif lam meem" etc words? Yes/No/Unsure.

I trust that most Q scholars are unsure about these sets of letters. Some even said that "only God knows the meaning of these letters."

But there is no stopping people from studying them, and some has shared with us their own understandings. One such person is brother Ayman as noted by brother Wakas.

Let me give an example. In Chapter 19, we come across "kaf-ha-ya-Ain-sad." But if we turn these letters into words, we should get something like this: ka hiya AAassa (kaf ha-ya Ain-sad), which means something like this: "As if it is hard/difficult!"

And the opening of Chapter 19 is a reminder on how easy it is for us to seek recourse from God - simply ask God.

People looked up to Zakariya for guidance, and so Zakariya asked God for someone to replace him and continue in his role. Maryam went through some very difficult situations, and she asked for God's help and support.

Another example is: alif-lam-ra. Is it a word? Lets look at this letter 'ra'. What is the entry for the letter 'ra' in Lane's Lexicon?

You will get this in Lane: 'Ra' is an imperative of 'ra-a', which means 'vision.'

So, from 'alif-lam-ra' we could get something like this: alrra (alrra-a), which means 'the vision'.

All these sets of letters in the Q, have their intrinsic meanings, even that singular letter 'noon' or two letters 'ha-mim' and the three letters 'alif-lam-mim'.

And these sets of letters have meanings that are very close and personal to anyone who appoints God as the teacher, the reference, the friend, the confidant, the supporter, etc., because one will go through a process of becoming; from being distant to being close to God, from being misguided to being correctly guided, from an instigator to a peacemaker, etc.

But these are just some of my personal comprehensions that I share with you guys so that perhaps you may want to consider to ponder. And as always, eventhough these are the truth to me, they may not necessarily be the truth to anyone of you. So, just consider to ponder over them is all I ask.

And since people like I have come up with some meanings for some of these sets of letters in the Q, does it necessarily mean that we 'invent' the meanings? I would say no. Not even when the word 'hajj' is traditionally understood to mean 'pilgrimage in Mecca' but in my personal comprehension means 'deliberation'. I do not invent the different meaning.

And are those new ones the wrong meanings? Only one who holds the truth from God can judge, and definitely that's not me. But if you want to learn about the truth, my simple suggestion is (apologies for repeating myself), ask God personally. You can do it when you care to read this post again without prejudice. Be calm, and ask God before having a second reading, for example, "God, You are my teacher and I want to learn. Is this the truth?"

And you could always check with the dictionaries and cross check with the word's usage in the Q. God is coherent.

This is  , but perhaps I should also put a note here that in all my years of studying and discussing the lessons of the Q, I am now almost sure that the Q is not for any Tom, Dick and Harry. The Q is only for those who wanted to be true servants of God, thus willing to sacrifice their priceless possession and love, i.e. the mind.

It is not that God is against the mind that He created for us. No. He created the mind for us to think, to have common sense or to subscribe simple logic.

In the first revelation (Chapter 96) we learn that God created man to be dependant on Him, but do we always have God in the equations of the things we think and do? Isn't it common sense that since God created man to be dependant on Him, man should reciprocate by depending on God for everything. Isn't it common sense too when we learn that God teaches man what he knew not, we should reciprocate by learning with God as the teacher?

And a servant of God is one who appreciates/values the relationship/connection between himself/herself and God. As in any relationship, communication is key, thus he/she must talk to God, though one should never have this idea that God will surely speak to him/her. In the Q we learn that God is the ever-listener whenever we talk to Him. We also learn that He answers all of our prayers/du-a, no matter how oblivious we are of God's answers.

A servant of God also does whatever is commanded without questions, lest they become like the 'banee isra-eel' in the hadith of the heifer in Chapter 2.

But most people, even in this forum are careless or oblivious of the very basics of becoming true servants of God. They became servants of their very own minds, instead. They turned arrogant because they have ideas/notions (baneen) or good grasp of the Arabic language. Indeed, they have turned into the very proofs for the truth of the many hadith in the Q, because they are careless about the God who revealed the Q they claimed to study.

My apology, but I write this because I fear for some of you. "God knows best," is the perfect attitude, and therefore when we accept that we are not beholders of the truth, then we should never make dubious remarks on God, on the Q or on others. We must have respect for God, and of course for ourselves for having that attitude of "God knows best".

Indeed when we hold the truth, it will surely lead us to become humble peacemakers, but if we hold the false, it will definitely lead us to become arrogant instigators. We come across these terms in the Q that we study, and as such, this is how we should measure ourselves, I suggest.

May God guide us all correctly.

Cheers!
Mohammed Noh

[abdalquran]

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.

[Wakas]

To me, the muqata'at or letters are God's way of denying anyone the right or authority to interpret.

Every recipient of Quran, i.e. humankind, has the right/authority to interpret it. As granted by God, in Quran. This is something rather basic.
Either you do not know the meanings of the words you are using or are incapable of wording a valid argument.

[SarahY]

Salams all

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

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

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?

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. 

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. 

abdalquran you said:

" 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."

can you explain that?

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)?

Salam

[abdalquran]

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.

[uq]

Thank you all for your valued input and for your participation in this thread.

Peace Wakas,

I think you make a fair point. Do we define the Initials as words, or as letters? If the prior is true, then we should expect to see lexical entries for them. If the latter, then we shouldn?t understand them as forming sentences.

Peace Abdalquran,

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to reply with four points:

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?

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.

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 112:1 as: ?Say, He is God, three.? (سبحان الله أن يكون له ولد) I will then base this argument on the presumption that ?أحد? 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?

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.

Peace Mohammed/Joe,

Thank you for your detailed post. I appreciate its content and I fully acknowledge your sincerity.

You are right, we must seek knowledge from God with an open heart.

As for the Muqaṭṭa?āt, perhaps I will not agree with your understanding of them, but I will not challenge it for two reasons. The first, even though I have my own theories about the Muqaṭṭa?āt, I am in no better position than you to establish with certainty what they represent. The second, apart from the abjad, there are no rules in the Classical Arabic language that govern a list of orthographically joined letters that are phonetically disjointed.

Again I will stress, the issue at hand is not my ignorance and dubiousness of the purpose of the Muqaṭṭa?āt, but the denial of our near-certain knowledge of the Classical Arabic tongue.

Peace SarahY,

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.