Author Topic: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!  (Read 8282 times)

progod

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1751
GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« on: July 13, 2006, 04:50:57 PM »
God bless all,

This is a ground breaking finding that the Arabic speakers here who went to Quranic school will benefit from the most. I'm going to take us all back to Quranic school for a second and re-introduce something called Tajweez. Tajweez is the pronunciation of the Quran in recitation, having its origins in the way that the Old Arabs pronounced the words when they spoke them. An example of tajweez is the noon running into the the raa so that min-rabbihim sounds like mirrabihim or mirabbihim. It is the 'ba' running into the noon or the meem to make 'an-biyaa' pronounced as 'ambiyaa,' anbaa' as amba', sababun batilun being pronounced as sababum-baatilun, or qunbilah as qumbilah(this is bomb in Arabic.)

Speaking of qumbilah this is going to blow your minds. Tajweez was an intricate part of the the Old Arabic language and used all the time. The old Arabs understood mirabbihim as min-rabbihim and vice versa. All languages have these kind of dual functions for pronunciations. In English we say 'piddy' and 'pity' and we understand them both. "Most" of us say the second to clarify the first. And we have tons of other words that we do this to. Spanish is the same and all languages are the same with this.  Spelling it 'pity' is just a standard way of spelling this word, and if you go to old scripts that are not standardized or when people write in colloquial speech you find things written the way they sound instead of standardized ways to spell them.

The Arabic script was not standardized until recently, that is in the 1900's. And that is why you can find alot of different spellings from different Quranic scripts as well as non-Quranic scripts, but they still all follow the rules of the way the Old Arabs pronounced things. Do you guys remember the basit debate on Submission.org (they couldn't figure out why it was spelled with a sawd instead of a seen). Tajweez indicates that it be pronounced like sawd because of the taw acting on it, so it being written like this was only the written manifestation of this tajweez.

Look at the word izdilaaf and izdihaar they are really iz-tilaaf and iz-tihaar, but the dal has an effect on the 't' according to tajweez and therefore you get the first pronunciations. This is the same with the sun letters. You say ashamsu instead of al-shamsi, but if you say both its understood. That is all part of the the grander concept of tajweez.

Quranic texts, that is the scripts and the way that things are spelled, are NOT standardized. You find 'al-aikah' in the Quran spelled with a 'hamza' on a 'ya' in the Quran, which is forbidden according to modern standardized texts. Why all these differences? Arabic is a phonetic alphabet so you don't need standardized ways of spelling. It is supposed to represent the way that it is said. Which is why when it comes to tajweez you will see different texts differ when it comes to interchangeable things. Arabic text in its early stages was a very poor and deficient text. As it developed new things were added, and sometimes spellings and diacritical marks were put there to help the reader understand the origin of the word. This was good so that non-Arabs and even Arabs could guide their recitals of the Quran. Shaddahs served the function of two things. If this is complicated remember that the Quranic texts were only for the educated and those were few, even up until recently. The shaddas indicated where a word could be equally pronunced with tajweez or not. Sometimes you find this shaddah and sometimes you don't.

Some people believe that the Quran was preserved through writing. But the Arabic text was such a crappy text in its early days that the Quran couldn't have fully been preserved by writing. In very early texts you can't even distinguish the ra from the z or the taw from the dhaw or the seen from the sheen. The dots slowly came later, which is why you will find them in some early texts, scattered about. And even these texts don't use them efficiently to represent all the differences between pronunciation. It was only later on that all the vowel markings and dots were put in place so that someone who hadn't already memorized the Quran could read from these texts. The Quran was preserved mainly through the use of memorizers and schools for memorizers of this book, the texts were a very loose outline so that these readers wouln't go ahead and insert crazy things into the their recitations and then say that that is what they were taught. Even the Quran admits that people tried to distort the Quran. However, even up until this day in the same Quran you will find different conventions for writting. Sometimes the shaddah is there to indicate tajweez and sometimes it is not as well as the other convetions for pronouncing all the sounds. Its ridiculous for people to say that the Quran didn't have vowels or that Arabic doesn't have vowels because even if they write just bsmllh they always say bIsmIllAhI and all the vowels are there when you say this Arabic phrase and any other Arabic word.  They also have high functional load becaue there is a big diffierence between saying bismillahi and busmalliha. Literacy in Arabic has just traditionally been based off the reader already knowing the language and being a proficient guesser. 

Uthman's text and the official texts from where we get our Quran today was the finalization and fixation of an outline that included all recitals up until that time, obviously from well-known Quranic memorizers who had formed in that day a special class of people like the griots of West Africa, but more organized as in the early days of Islam schools were formed and these people were higly trained and constantly compared their recitals to each others and to their teachers. This is not rumor, like the hadeeth. The early Quranic reciters had their schools their teachers and general texts (though not completely accurate because they lacked dots and vowels) to ensure that their recitations were correct. We now have about 7 readings of the Quran now all written with vowels and dots as it was only later on that these vowels and dots came into wide-usage. There were probably more than just Uthman's text around, despite those Hadeeths that say that he burned all of the other texts of the Quran. Why? Because there are differences between these Qurans in terms of alifs, waws and fas that don't need vowel markings to be distinguished. 

With all that said lets get back to tajweez. Have you ever noticed that when the Quran is recited the Quran reciters will often say 'mubaaraka' for 'mubaarakan' and that the 'a' is equal to the 'an' sound when the word is an adverb? 'Anaa ji'tu maashiyan' and 'anaa ji'tu maashiya' are the same thing. For those who don't know, all this means is 'I came walking/by foot.' This is the difference between 'al-shams' and 'ashamsi' min rabbihi and mirabbihi. Have you also noticed that in the Quran they make 'stop' marks, also called 'wasful-waqf' These stop marks are from the oral recitations (The real means by which the Quran has been preserved) and they represent how each school understands a certain passage. It's like a period mark in English. When you talk there are no period marks and you have to pause for a second for someone to understand that your idea has ended and you have begun another one. This is especially need in Arabic which encourages run-on sentences. So they certain schools standardized these stops to dictacte the readers or listeners understanding. Also in Classical  Arabic when the word is not feminine an alif is put there to indicate 'an' or 'a.' In most texts they put the the tanween there but sometimes, in the same text they don't.

These stops mentioned above depend on the understanding of Islamic schools that dictate to us how to understand the passages of the Quran. Not only are the verse numbers in the Quran an addition to the Quran (for referencing only, not for understanding as is mistakenly thought) the stops are also an addition and these traditional schools have no authority when it comes to how we can logically understand the Quran with our own minds. Unless we can logically agree with them on our own also. If we choose not to stop where they stop that is our right and if that passage makes sense without the stop then we can disagree with this opinion on where the idea begins and ends. These schools even differ with each other on where to stop.

So where is the groundbreaking Quranic finding? Look at 2:126 in the Arabic under the word 'rabbi'(my lord) and look at 2:40 and 41 at the words farhabooni (fear me) and fattaqooni(be cautious of me). In both these passages what, in Arabic and even in other places in the Quran, is written as 'ya' here is written as a kasrah. Telling us that the sound 'i' is equivalent to the long sound 'ya' in Classical Arabic and can be written either way.

With all this knowledge lets go to:

3:96, 2:185 and 48:24

The phrases under scrutiny are:

shahru-ramadaana
bibatni makkata
lalladhee bibakkata

Understanding that Arabic is based on how something is said, understanding the rules of tajweez and understanding that the kasrah and the ya for 'first person 'me' ' can be teh same, can help us look at these phrases differently without breaking Classical Arabic rules or having to claim that the grammarians are wrong.

So with the following I detract the opinon that I have held for over a year here that the grammarians forgot an important aspect of grammar. It was never the grammarians that kept us from being able to discover it, it was the common, traditional understanding of these verses, the standardization of Arabic spelling and its affect on the way we view texts that were before this standardization. (For those of us who have scrutinized the Arabic)

According to tajweez and the the phenomeon of idghaam (assimilation), Shahru-ramadaana can equal shahrun + ramadaanan This validates the understanding of 'a month during a time of constant or intense heat' And a shaddah could be inserted over the the ra to show this understanding. The traditional understanding is also still valid, although it may not be more logical, and is certainly not more universal.

bi-batni makkata following the same rule shown above can equal  bi + batnin + makkatan This validates the claim of makkah being used here mainly to indicate destruction, being more liek 'Being in deep or being surrounded(in the middle), by desctruction' The traditional understanding however is also still valid, and its logic depends on whether one would like to accept the histories to be found in the hadeeth or not. However, I wouldn't encourage conspiracy theories.

lalladhee bibakkata through the rule shown through 2:126, and 2:40-41 can be 'lalladhee + bee + bakkatan' being "The one that is for Me, being cut above the rest!" The previous passage can start its quote at 'sadaqa allahu fa'.  . . that is 'God told truth in saying  . . .'

With all that said, I officially retract my statement or implication of forgotten grammar. Understanding grammar, tawjeez, that spelling wasn't standardized in Arabic texts until the past 100 years, and that the Quran doesn't fall into the category of books that use conventional standardized spelling, which can be seen from one Quranic text to another, gives support to the ideas that Mecca was never made a place of importance in the Quran, and where the word is mentioned it has other meaning. It also give support to the idea that bakkah is not the other name for Mecca and has meaning in Arabic that grammatically fits towards understanding it as 'a cut above the rest' or 'in distinction' and that Ramadan has alternative Arabic meaning and can grammatically mean 'season of constant or intense heat'.  All these understandings can all be justified using valid grammatical principles and are therefore sound understandings.

As for Layth, Ahmed Baghat and Ayman I hate to sound to critical but I have to say 'Shame on you.' You guys, if you went to religious schools, were more exposed to this and you chose to reject Cl. Arabic grammar altogether, putting yourself on shaky ground knowledge-wise, rather than challenge what they taught you with better scholarship. And showing them that they have not been fully following the scholarship that they claim to be lords over.

Godbless again,
Anwar


 
 







The Quranists Must Rise!

http://www.quranists.com

progod

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1751
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2006, 06:58:51 PM »
God bless,

I'm sorry but I can only refer you to grammar books. Sibaweiyeh talks about idghaam. Otherwise you can look at the way the Quran is written itself and also check out tajweez books to get a better grip of what i am saying. The examples that I gave are obvious if you know Cl. Arabic and alittle about its orthography, as well as Quranic recitation. The book that I always point to being "A Grammar of the Arabic language" has its first chapter dedicated to Orthogrophy which explains alot as to why the Quran is written with all that strange diacriticals you see in it. As well it goes into the pronunciation of the adverb tense, an or a. Do you not know about any of the rules of Quranic recitation or Cl. Arabic pronunication. I am surrounded by knowledgeable Arabic teachers everyday and already know that this is correct, from my own experience and form theirs. Some of them would be less likely to want to agree because this goes against tradition, even though this makes perfect sense. As far as I know I am the only one who has espoused this idea, so referencing you to people who support me would be kind of dificult. For me this was putting the pieces together. Tajweez is pretty wrapped up in traditional Islam so most here probably would ignore it or want to reject it, like they try to reject case endings, dictionaries and Classical Arabic grammar as a whole.

Godbless,
Anwar
The Quranists Must Rise!

http://www.quranists.com

AhmedBahgat

  • Guest
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2006, 04:24:50 AM »
LOL Anwar

Don't know why you say shame on me?

possibly because I dismissed discussing Quran matters with you?

well, this is my freewill bro like the one you have, and because you were rude with me, I just thought that I don't need that, I'm happy with my non sense and I left you happy with your sense, so why you want to invlove me in your crap?

far out man

thanks anyway

Salam

warner

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 847
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2006, 06:38:55 AM »
Peace Ahmed

Forgiving is part of submission.  Brother, please be kind and respond to Anwars
article because people like me without knowledge in Arabic can not understand
his viewseasily. If his artilce has something to offer or flawed we like to know
since we are dying for knowledge.





AhmedBahgat

  • Guest
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2006, 06:46:54 AM »
Peace Ahmed

Forgiving is part of submission.  Brother, please be kind and respond to Anwars
article because people like me without knowledge in Arabic can not understand
his viewseasily. If his artilce has something to offer or flawed we like to know
since we are dying for knowledge.



Peace bro

forgiving those who started the pepetration is really optional, it is not a must, it has nothing to do with submission to Allah but it does have all the things to do with submitting to the pepetrators, this guy alonge with Ayman and  others targeted me when I joined and I really don't forgive easy, I carry no hard feelings to them though, one I decided to avoid totally like Anwar the other is more decent to have a discussion with, while the fact of the matter I see Anwar more knowledgable in Arabic than Ayman, "my opinion", but my decision regarding him was final, however when he mentiones my name I guess I have every right to respond so i was not really rude to him, I just needed to know why he said "shame on me"

for his article, while it caught my eyes and felt reasonable as I started to read it then all the non sense started to come, however I'm happy to tell you on a PM why I see his groundbreaking discovery a blunder

I will leave it to brother Layth and brother Ayman if they wish to respond to him, I believe they shared the shame with me

cheers bro

progod

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1751
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2006, 05:24:14 PM »

A&foo wa awsfahoo yaa Ahmed,

I would like to see why this is a blunder as well. Please do respond. I never set out to attack you. I'm not going to lie, I found you very aggressive and as is often here disagreed with your soundness of some of your opinions. But believe me I never targeted you. If my comments were harsh, honestly I was responding to what I interpreted as a very aggressive attitude. Despite that, do forgive. I would really like to know why you think what I've said is a blunder. If you choose not to speak with me then please tell the person that you write to to forward me your comments so that I can consider them. Thanks.

Godbless,
Anwar
The Quranists Must Rise!

http://www.quranists.com

AhmedBahgat

  • Guest
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2006, 05:36:24 PM »
Quote from: progod

A&foo wa awsfahoo yaa Ahmed,

Thanks and I accept your appology

now we can have a decent discussion

Quote from: progod
I would like to see why this is a blunder as well. Please do respond.

I may have been prematuraly judged the whole thing as a blunder "i read it very quick though" however I will read it later thoroughly and see if I have things to say inshaalllah

Quote from: progod
I never set out to attack you. I'm not going to lie,

well, I felt you are trying to defame my arabic experience regarding the mistake I did about the possible letter numbers regarding roots

Quote from: progod
I found you very aggressive

I agree that I'm, however my aggression only in duscussions when I feel I have a string point, I welcome the others to do the same with me but only when we dicuss the Quran not for no reason they become aggressors towards me

Quote from: progod
and as is often here disagreed with your soundness of some of your opinions.

well, in fact I agree with many things you say so the issue of diagreement is not the reason for my attituse towards you, it was the cheap move to defame my arabic because a silly mistake that In hahve done and I was the one who admitted it because I'm here not to fool others nor to show off my self pride

Quote from: progod
But believe me I never targeted you. If my comments were harsh, honestly I was responding to what I interpreted as a very aggressive attitude.

cool, but why being harsh if I already admitted my mistake in the root numbers? that is where I saw the conflict

Quote from: progod
Despite that, do forgive.

Cool, no worries and you also forgive me if I have been rude to you

Quote from: progod
I would really like to know why you think what I've said is a blunder.

I will respond but I retreat my statement to classify the whole thing as a blunder for now, give some time to read it throughly

Quote from: progod
If you choose not to speak with me then please tell the person that you write to to forward me your comments so that I can consider them. Thanks.
Godbless,
Anwar

I will reply inshaallah

Cheers

warner

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 847
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2006, 05:51:46 PM »
Peace be upon you Ahmed

I will realy appreciate if you could pm me with any info on this or any other
subject any time.

Thank you, for being helpful always.

Also before this reply I was glad to see Anwars apology and I am glad you accepted it.

God bless you both.

AhmedBahgat

  • Guest
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2006, 10:37:33 PM »
Quote from: progod
God bless all,

Peace Anwar

Quote from: progod
This is a ground breaking finding that the Arabic speakers here who went to Quranic school will benefit from the most.

Cool, but I have to say that I didn?t go ever to a Quranic school, I only went to an Arabic school, in Arabic schools all over the Arab world they teach the same thing called Lugha Arabia Fusha, i.e. All Arab nations understand the Lugha Arabia Fusha and they can dialogue together using it, if the common Arabic used ?sort of the public/street one?, then you will see many Arabs can?t understand the common Arabic of another Arabic country, for example I hardly understand the common Iraqi Arabic, and I struggle a bit with the Moroccan Arabic as well some common Lebanese words sound foreign to me, however the easiest of the common Arabic styles is the Egyptian Arabic, i.e. you will see most Arabs understand the common Egyptian Arabic, I just wanted to clear this point out of the way. 

Quote from: progod
I'm going to take us all back to Quranic school for a second and re-introduce something called Tajweez.

I guess you mean Tajweed?

Quote from: progod
Tajweez is the pronunciation of the Quran in recitation,

The statement above is not entirely accurate, it should be as follow:

Tajweed is the PROPER pronunciation of the Quran in recitation

Quote from: progod
having its origins in the way that the Old Arabs pronounced the words when they spoke them.

Not really the above applies to the old Arabs alone, rather All Arabs, now and them, in fact Tajweed is the proper pronunciation to anything that can be read, it was just used a lot with the Quran. The word itself does not exist in the Quran, in fact Allah hardly stressed the requirement to read it properly RATHER to hear it properly, and properly means to understand the message given not to dispute its grammar, letters and points, this act of disputing should not be done by any believer from the first place.

Quote from: progod
An example of tajweez is the noon running into the the raa so that min-rabbihim sounds like mirrabihim or mirabbihim.

Sorry Anwar, I have never heard of such regarding ?min-rabbihim? in fact it can?t be said as ?mirrabihim or mirabbihim?, never heard of it and it makes no sense, the ?NUN? must br pronounced for a proper pronouciation (Tajweed) IT CAN?T BE  OMMITTED IN PRONOUNCIATION

Quote from: progod
It is the 'ba' running into the noon or the meem to make 'an-biyaa' pronounced as 'ambiyaa,'

Bro, this is total non sense, Anbia can?t be pronounced Ambia, this is ridiculous mate because again if heard in such way it makes no sense because the word does not exist in Arabic

Quote from: progod

anbaa' as amba',

As above

Quote from: progod
sababun batilun being pronounced as sababum-baatilun,

LOL mate, thanks for the laugh, if I hear someone saying this ?sababum-baatilun?, I will tell him/her ?WTF?, if they insist then I will tell them to ?speak Arabic or bugger off idiots?

Quote from: progod
or qunbilah as qumbilah(this is bomb in Arabic.)

Again the word Qumbilah, does not exist in Arabic, but if I hear in such way I would respond do you mean ?Qunbilah??

Well possibly you hear Qumbliha from the kids who just started to talk or the farmers who don?t know how to read or write their own Arabic language (there are plenty BTW), or someone with half his/her body paralysed, but I agree with that one that you can hear Qunbilah as Qumbilah, but if it happens then it means one thig only ?Qunbilah? and the one who said just having a problem

Quote from: progod
Speaking of qumbilah this is going to blow your minds.

Damn did you just started the Qunbilah Timer?

Quote from: progod
Tajweez was an intricate part of the the Old Arabic language and used all the time.

Sorry?, where you got the above from?

Tajweed is noting but properly pronouncing the words of any thing you read in Arabic, it was used mostely with the Quran as a matter of respect to Allah words that it should be read with care not like reading the newspaper, however to work as a news reader in Arabic TV YOU MUST HAVE EXCLEENT TAJWEED SKILLS, so Tajweed in not explicit to the Quran.

Quote from: progod
The old Arabs understood mirabbihim as min-rabbihim and vice versa.

That was total BS bro, sorry

Firstly the old Arabs were far better in the Lugha Arabi Fusha than we are now, in fact this is how they spoke in their daily life ?USING THE LUGHA ARABIA FUSHA? therefore if mirabbihim won?t make any sense to Arabs who are living now then there is no question that it wouldn?t make any sense for the more solid in the Lugha the old Arabs

In fact to use Tajweed with ?min-rabbihim? IT HAS TO BE PRONOUNCED ?min-rabbihim?, if it is pronounced mirabbihim then sorry this is not Tajweed rather utter BS

Quote from: progod
All languages have these kind of dual functions for pronunciations.

Sorry, do you mean can pronounce words in English different by using totally different letters to what it suppose to be?


Quote from: progod
In English we say 'piddy' and 'pity' and we understand them both.

Not sure what are you doing bro, are you comparing street/public/common language with what it suppose to be?

Fine it is just the flawed humans who pronounce words differently, some even do it deliberately trying to be different, but the fact of the matter stays, if you write piddy in a sentence I guess many will struggle to know what the hell was that

Quote from: progod
"Most" of us say the second to clarify the first.

Well, I?m not in those ?most? then, it seems according to you that I?m with the minority, however it still feels good to be with those minority who pronounce words with excellent Tajweed

Quote from: progod
And we have tons of other words that we do this to. Spanish is the same and all languages are the same with this.  Spelling it 'pity' is just a standard way of spelling this word, and if you go to old scripts that are not standardized or when people write in colloquial speech you find things written the way they sound instead of standardized ways to spell them.

Bro, let?s not care about English, French Spanish or any other language but Arabic because it is the language of the Quran which you are disputing, therefore using other words from other language to prove you point is the weakest link because languages are not the same really, not even close to each other

Quote from: progod
The Arabic script was not standardized until recently, that is in the 1900's.

Which Arabic script exactly?

Quote from: progod
And that is why you can find alot of different spellings from different Quranic scripts

Total non sense and lauaghable comment because the Quran we have in hand is the Quran that existed 1400 years ago when Uthman compiled it not a Quran that was compiled in 1900?s, that was total rubbish bro.

Quote from: progod
as well as non-Quranic scripts,

I really careless about the non Quranic scripts, we are discussing the Quranic script bro

Quote from: progod
but they still all follow the rules of the way the Old Arabs pronounced things.

now you made it rules, that was funny bro, and you made the old Arabs the makers of those rules in your fantasy world of ?the world languages?

again the old Arabs can?t pronounce ?min-rabbihim? as ?mirabbihim?, they will sound idiots indeed, however how can you prove this to us that an old Arab who lived some 1400 years ago used to say mirabbihim instead of min-rabbihim, that is one hell of a task to prove bro

Quote from: progod
Do you guys remember the basit debate on Submission.org (they couldn't figure out why it was spelled with a sawd instead of a seen).

Oh come on, the ?sad? and ?seen? sound the same but ?min-rabbihim? as ?mirabbihim, so I may accept that the sad and seen dilemma was a typo when the Quran was put down, all in all the word with a sad or a seen will sound the exact same2

Quote from: progod
Tajweez indicates that it be pronounced like sawd because of the taw acting on it, so it being written like this was only the written manifestation of this tajweez.

Well I accept that the Sad is pronounced a bit heavily than the Seen so if I hear it from someone with excellent Tajweed I?m sure any fluent Arab speaker will recognise that it must be a Sad

Quote from: progod
Look at the word izdilaaf and izdihaar they are really iz-tilaaf and iz-tihaar, but the dal has an effect on the 't' according to tajweez and therefore you get the first pronunciations.

Are these words from the Quran or what bro? if yes the please repost them for me in Arabic an a refrence to the verses, if not quran words then at elast put them in Arabic so I can make sense of it, honestly I could not figure out what are these Arabic words you wrote in English letters

Quote from: progod
This is the same with the sun letters. You say ashamsu instead of al-shamsi, but if you say both its understood. That is all part of the the grander concept of tajweez.

Now I got you cornered Mate, there is nothing in Arabic called  ?sun letters?, this is utter BS, what is there is called ?Al Lam Al Shamsia? ?The Sum Lam?, and ?Al Lam Al Qamariah? ?The Moon Lam?, and as you can see both relate to one letter ?Lam?, not ?letters? as you are conjecturing that is for a starter, now what you also failed to mention is the ?Al Lam Qamariah? ?The Moon Lam?, let me explain botn to you and also tell you why this rule exist:

1) Arabic words with ?Al?, ?Al The Murafah?, i.e. ?The?, can be hard to pronounce so a rule has been created based on pronunciation ease, they divided the words into two categories when ?Al? is added to them:

2) The first category will follow the pronunciation of the Arabic word ?Al Qamar?, i.e. ?The Moon?, the Lam in the ?Al? is called ?Lam Qamariah?, i.e. the Lam MUST BE PRNOUNCED and can?t be omitted when saying these words with Lam Qamariah   

3) The second category will follow the pronunciation of the Arabic word ?Al Shams?, i.e. ?The Sun?, the Lam in the ?Al? is called ?Lam Shamsiah?, i.e. the Lam MAY NOT BE PRNOUNCED and can be omitted when saying these words with Lam Shamsiah, this is an option though that is solely based on pronunciation and not grammar for example if I hear the two words ?A Shams? or ?Al Shams?, I will recognise both as ?The sun?, however the one who will say it as ?Al Shams? will be the who lacks Tajweed

This Lam Shamsia and Qamaraia thingy is only made to make pronunciation of words with ?Al? easier, i.e. if the first letter in the word is a bit heavy like the ?Sheen? for example than it is more proper to omit the Lam in pronunciation to make it easier HOWEVER if the words are written down then the both LAM Shamsiah/Qamariah  must be written down and can?t be omitted or it will be  fatal mistake in the writings

Now the above has noting to do with the imaginary example you told us about earlier ?min-rabihhim? and ?mirabbihim?

AhmedBahgat

  • Guest
Re: GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2006, 10:38:24 PM »
Quote from: progod

 You find 'al-aikah' in the Quran spelled with a 'hamza' on a 'ya' in the Quran, which is forbidden according to modern standardized texts.

Actually it is not ever forbidden, can you please show me a compelling evidence of your claim and I mean compelling please, but what I can say that the hamza is one of the most confusing letters in Arabic, even  many write the word Quran differently because of that hamza, so the later Arabic professionals were trying to avoid that confusion in writing, this however can?t cause any confusion in pronunciation of the words with a hamza as a letter, therefore there is nothing forbidding how to put the hamza in words as long as the word sounds the same

Now if Allah put the hamza on a Ya, why you think the modern Arabic is more right than Allah?

Quote from: progod
Why all these differences?

Well, you only said a couple, so I may ask how you say ?ALL THESE DIFFERENCES??, as well the pronunciation should stay the same, the example of min-rabbihim you brought up is utter non sense because if we pronounce it as mirabihhim then  we are saying totally foreign word that does not exist, the only letter ommition in Arabic is the Lam in ?Al? and yet is optional however in writing, the Lam can?t be omitted otherwise it will be a fatal mistake, for example:

The word ASHMAS means to have a sun bath and when written, it will be ?Alif Sheen Mim Seen?

The word ?Al Shams? can be optionally pronounced as ?Ashams? by omitting the lam because the ?Sheen? is a heavy letter in pronunciation but if we write it as pronounced, the word will be the same letters as the word above ?Alif Sheen Mim Seen? hence a total confusion will arise

Quote from: progod
Arabic is a phonetic alphabet so you don't need standardized ways of spelling.

UTTER BS

Quote from: progod
It is supposed to represent the way that it is said.

THAT IS WHAT EVERY LANGUAGE  FOR, what is new exactly?

Quote from: progod
Which is why when it comes to tajweez you will see different texts differ when it comes to interchangeable things.

Tajweed is only for proper pronunciation and has nothing to do with writing the words

Quote from: progod
Arabic text in its early stages was a very poor and deficient text.

Well, you may first tell us when was that early stages:

Is it 1000 years ago

Is it 2000 years ago

Is it 3000 years ago

Is it 4000 years ago

Is it 5000 years ago

?
?
?
etc.. down to the first day of creation

Now I have to say, your statement was flawed from the first place, because when you say this: Arabic text in its early stages was a very poor and deficient text. , I say, what is new exactly?

Damn bro, this is what you bloody expect with any language in its early stages, now you need to tell us when was the early stages of the Arabic language, I would like to also know when was the early stages of the Chinese language then after you do that I hope that you explain to me how poor they were, possibly you will find answers in your fantasy world of ?World Languages?

Quote from: progod
As it developed new things were added, and sometimes spellings and diacritical marks were put there to help the reader understand the origin of the word. This was good so that non-Arabs and even Arabs could guide their recitals of the Quran.

Would that be before Uthman time or after Uthman time?


Quote from: progod
Shaddahs served the function of two things.

LOL, that was a flawed definition to the Shaddah bro

The Shaddahs serve the function of stressing the same letter under them

Quote from: progod
If this is complicated

Not really, it was sort of Tom and Jerry argument

Quote from: progod
remember that the Quranic texts were only for the educated and those were few

really a few, wow how many you reckon?

Quote from: progod
, even up until recently. The shaddas indicated where a word could be equally pronunced with tajweez or not. Sometimes you find this shaddah and sometimes you don't.

Shaddah is not part of the Tajweed really, the Shaddah belongs to something called Tashkil, and  to be a good Arabic reader you need to be fully aware of the Tashkil even if it does not exist, i.e. someone with high Tajweed skills will be able to read the Quran or anything in Arabic without Tashkil at all and will pronounce the words properly.

Quote from: progod
Some people believe that the Quran was preserved through writing.

Some, or many?

Quote from: progod
But the Arabic text was such a crappy text in its early days that the Quran couldn't have fully been preserved by writing.

Good, now you need to tell us when was the early days of the crappy Arabic:

Is it 1000 years ago

Is it 2000 years ago

Is it 3000 years ago

Is it 4000 years ago

Is it 5000 years ago

?
?
?
etc.. down to the first day of creation

Quote from: progod
In very early texts you can't even distinguish the ra from the z or the taw from the dhaw or the seen from the sheen. The dots slowly came later,

Now let me ask you, did they come before Uthman or after Uthman? Then you need to provide compelling evidences

Quote from: progod
which is why you will find them in some early texts, scattered about. And even these texts don't use them efficiently to represent all the differences between pronunciation.

now we need you to show us many of these texts for us to believe you, cheers

Quote from: progod
It was only later on that all the vowel markings and dots were put in place so that someone who hadn't already memorized the Quran could read from these texts.

Later when exactly? and by whom?

Quote from: progod
The Quran was preserved mainly through the use of memorizers and schools for memorizers of this book, the texts were a very loose outline so that these readers wouln't go ahead and insert crazy things into the their recitations and then say that that is what they were taught

I agree with that however, that was up to Uthman time, from then the Quran is preserved by writing, but I accept minor differences in very few words because that never changed the meaning nor the context

Quote from: progod
Even the Quran admits that people tried to distort the Quran.

But did it say they succeeded?

What is your point by that?

Quote from: progod
However, even up until this day in the same Quran you will find different conventions for writting. Sometimes the shaddah is there to indicate tajweez and sometimes it is not as well as the other convetions for pronouncing all the sounds.

As  I said someone with good Tajweed skills doesn?t need the Tashkil at all, why you are mixing the Tashkil with the Tajweed?

Quote from: progod

Its ridiculous for people to say that the Quran didn't have vowels or that Arabic doesn't have vowels because even if they write just bsmllh they always say bIsmIllAhI and all the vowels are there when you say this Arabic phrase and any other Arabic word.  They also have high functional load becaue there is a big diffierence between saying bismillahi and busmalliha. Literacy in Arabic has just traditionally been based off the reader already knowing the language and being a proficient guesser.

I don't know what you are talking about when you try to simulate the Arabic words with English letters, but I agree with you said here : Literacy in Arabic has just traditionally been based off the reader already knowing the language and being a proficient guesser, however the role of the writer s is far more important than the reader as far as I'm concerned, so if the writer did a bad job the reader will do a bad job.

Quote from: progod
Uthman's text and the official texts from where we get our Quran today was the finalization and fixation of an outline that included all recitals up until that time, obviously from well-known Quranic memorizers who had formed in that day a special class of people like the griots of West Africa, but more organized as in the early days of Islam schools were formed and these people were higly trained and constantly compared their recitals to each others and to their teachers. This is not rumor, like the hadeeth. The early Quranic reciters had their schools their teachers and general texts (though not completely accurate because they lacked dots and vowels) to ensure that their recitations were correct.

Bro while I agree with the above, I?m still puzzled how you can verify the above?, I think you only believe that it was the case as you explained it

Now the early quranic reciters recited it as they heared it from Mohammad, and Mohammad recited it as he heard it from Jebril, and Jebril deliverd it as he recieved it from Allah, now are you suggesting that Allah lacked the dots and vowels?

Mate you argument does not make sense to me

Quote from: progod
We now have about 7 readings of the Quran now all written with vowels and dots as it was only later on that these vowels and dots came into wide-usage.

Well, I chose to follow the one which is Uthman, but I?m sure the others will be almost the same meaning and contexts, unless they talk about totally something else

Quote from: progod
There were probably more than just Uthman's text around, despite those Hadeeths that say that he burned all of the other texts of the Quran. Why? Because there are differences between these Qurans in terms of alifs, waws and fas that don't need vowel markings to be distinguished.

The fas  and waws don?t need vowel markings to be distinguished, now that is new

Are you saying, we can?t say Fa, Fi, Fu, F and Wa, Wi, Wu, W?


Is that an old days rule or new days rule?, please in either case state when was that became a rule anf by whom