Peace brother Matinbhagat,
Thank you for your informative post.
Quote from: matinbhagatI noticed you mentioned arabic is full of inconsistencies and quoted the nafaqa as an example of spending and also of hypocrisy. However, nafaq means keeping open, hence a hypocrite instead of being on any side, keeps open the possibility to jump to any one side which has the upper hand? Makes sense?
Another key question, if arabic is full of inconsistences then how and why would Allah send us a message which we cannot understand? Unless of course you mean the arabic inconsistencies do not affect the quran per se?
All human languages are full of inconsistencies. Arabic is merely a human language and it didn't descend from the sky. This is actually one of the amazing things about the great reading. It uses an inconsistent vernacular human language to deliver a consistent and powerful message.
There are many examples other than NFQ. Of course, one can always try hard to connect meanings but this can be done with any two vaguely related words. Take for example HGG, on one hand it means "argue" and on the other hand it means "feast" (from Hebrew). In fact, many words in the great reading are not Arabic at all but have their origin in other Semitic or even non-Semitic languages like Persian and Greek.
Quote from: matinbhagatI am very interested in this and read a number of your thought provoking articles. Like you I have been actively in search of archaeological information of pre-quranic arabia. I came across a couple of interesting links and thought it may be worth discussing it with you and whoever else here who are interested.
These 3 inscriptions were found in madinah/yahtrib saudi arabia and appears to have names of muhammad ,abu bakr and umar. dated to around 4 AH. This then puts muhammad probably in this area as opposed to the lakhamid province?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid1.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid2.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid3.html
No serious researcher dates those inscriptions to 4AH. They are similar and probably even newer than the following inscription dated to 84AH (early 8th century CE):
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/makkah4.htmlQuote from: matinbhagat
Also,
http://staff.aub.edu.lb/~webbultn/v7n9/article31.htm
The article is about authenticity of pre-islamic poetry and them being found on inscriptions in yemen at very early period. Please refer to it and see the arguments laid out, not sure if I can access the article.
"The professor devoted his talk to the defense of the authenticity of pre-Islamic poetry, which has been brought into question a number of times, particularly by Taha Husayn and some Orientalists. His lecture brought to light new discoveries of pre-Islamic poetry that were discovered in inscription form in Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula. These include examples of the Mu'allaqat (a canonical set of the most famous pre-Islamic poems), which were inscribed on rocks during the first century after Hijra (the seventh century AD)."
I can?t see the article in the link and it just refers to the lecture.
If you look at all the actual the pre-Islamic (Capital I) inscriptions on the Islamic Awareness web site, you will find that they bear no resemblance in style or language to so-called pre-Islamic poetry.
Quote from: matinbhagatP.S. I am very concerned about the implications/assertions of the inconsistencies of the arabic language as it is necessary for us to learn the message of Allah.
Brother, the fact is that many people, including some who studied Arabic all their lifes and some who think that Arabic is a sacred and consistent language, don?t understand the message. Ironically, one of the reasons why most often don?t understand the message is that we elevate the language above the message and turn it into some sort of sacred language. Take for instance the word ?allah?, which you used but left untranslated. Most Arabic speakers treat it as a sacred Arabic word that shouldn?t be translated and thus don?t even know that it actually has the definite article and it means ?the god?. So they end up using it in ungrammatical sentences that are actually ridiculous in Arabic. For example, they will pray and say ?ya allah? when in Arabic it is ungrammatical and ridiculous just like saying ?ya alragul? (o the man). In Arabic you should add the device ?ayuha? (you) before definite words. So we say ?ya ayuha alragul? (Literally: O you the man). However, in Arabic ?ayuha? is not a respectful way to address someone. So in the great reading we find the word ?allahum? used instead to convey the same meaning only in the case of the god. So ironically here we see inconsistency in language but the message is consistent and powerful.
Peace and best regards,
Ayman
