The Forgery of Significations

[Joe Betik]

Salam brother Man of Faith,

Thank you for the excellent post. I could not have written any better.

Salam Brother uq,

To me, much of the Q is about personal (spiritual) development, so it is not surprising that most students of the Q are at a loss when specific terms and concepts related to it are mentioned in the Q.

In my earlier post, among others, I mentioned 'alif-lam-ra' could be 'alrra-a' or 'the vision'. You disagreed with my comprehension, and I do respect you stand, though I hope that you arrived at that stand only after meditating with God as 'the reference' (alrrujAAa).

I mention this because in Sufism, there is this term called 'hijab' or 'veil, curtain, blind, shield'. Among their major concerns is to guard against the 'hijab' of knowledge. It means, when we are not careful, knowledge will become a 'hijab' against the truth. 'We are prejudiced' (thalimoon) because we have preconceived ideas due to the volumes of information that we have accumulated in mind.

Now that I have mentioned 'thalim' (prejudice) in Sufism, you may recall that this word is of course mentioned quite frequently in the Q. See here for word usage (http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Zlm).

If we really want to understand the Q as how God wants us to understand, or to discover the truth of the Q according to God), then we must free ourselves from prejudice. I used to say to some friends that we must confess to God of our ignorance. "Be 'an idiot' (balad) when learning with God as the teacher," I suggested.

Lets look at 2:126: And then Ibraheem said, ?Lord, make this idiot calm/peaceful in mind, and provide his followers with some of the fruits/benefits, anyone among them who believes in God and the last day,? He said, ?But whoever disbelieves, I will make his enjoyment brief, then I will drive him to the chastisement of fire. And what a bad development!?

Other translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=126

And we read in 2:225: God will not hold you (pl.) accountable for the blunders in your pledges/assurances, but He will hold you accountable for whatever your minds have gathered, and God is clemently forgiving.

Other translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=225

Or that we read in 2:054: And then Moosa told his people, ?My people, certainly you, you have put your cause in prejudice with your adoption of the calf, therefore ask your Creator to restore His grace upon you, then kill your notions/ideas, that is better for you in the sight of your Creator. Then He restored His grace upon you. Indeed He, He is the compassionate restorer of grace.?

Other translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=54

We cannot grasp the truth of the Q when we have blinkers on.

Blinkers can come in many shapes and forms. We have often been commanded to employ 'Asbabu Alnuzool', classical Arabic, Lane's Lexicon, Han's Wehr's dictionary or books of Hadiths, so and so forth. But all these are human created/written/composed, and as mentioned elsewhere in the discussions, there are issues of reliability, the blinkers that those people wore, Arabic customs and world views, etc. But the hardest of blinkers to distroy is of course our human ego.

We admit of not knowing, yet we are ever ready to pronounce judgements and fit nicely in 10:36. Translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=10&verse=36

Then of course these verses starting from 68:36 (translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=68&verse=36) or verses starting from 37:154 (translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=37&verse=154)

I mentioned all these because I trust that we all must know the correct way/method of learning the truth according to God. This is indeed course Life 101 if we were to strive to be true servants of God.

We have heard from a lot of people, and read a lot of ideas at many places, and the usual question is none other than how do we ascertain the truth. If we fail to master the way/method of learning, then we would end up confused or prejudiced.

But when we have mastered the way/method of learning, we would then be able to ascertain the truth of the matters as we hear or read them. And of course we could be guided to determine the truth of the various understandings/translations of the Q and of course whether there is any issue of 'inventing new meanings' (your concern of course) somewhere.

In the Q we learn that some people could tell the truth just like they could tell about their children. Please read 2:146 here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=146

I do not wish to repeat myself now as the way/method that I have discovered in the Q has been frequently mentioned in this forum (in one of my earlier posts in this discussion, for example).

In the way/method that I have explained earlier, grammar, disctionaries, lexicons, etc., are mere tools for us to grasp the ideas discussed in the Q.

Since the Arabic of the Q is originally in spoken language (uttered by Muhammad the nabiy), some grammar rules cannot be applied in its most strict sense of the way, as some people have encountered. One such example is the presence of the letter 'waw' in many short verses, like in 91:1 here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=91&verse=1. I have asked God this question, before: "God, do You really have this habit of swearing?"

Then it dawned upon me that Arabs are culturally compulsive swearers, but not God. God is very refined in speech, and those elements and events of nature (such as alshshams, alqamar, aldduha, maghrib, mashriq, etc.) are often used as metaphors to illustrate the varying states of revelations experienced by people who seek for them.

'The vision' (alrra-a) I mentioned earlier is also one of the many ways/methods that God employs to communicate with those people, and it is very possible for anyone of you to go through this experience especially when you are really very close to God.

So when the correct way/method of learning is turned into 'habit/routine' (dar, pl. diyar), then studying the Q will be the most valuable experience of our lives. In fact the experiences of past 'anbiya' mentioned in the Q could possibly be ours too, thus turning the Q into our sacred book of guidance.

As I have once mentioned in this forum, the Q should not be the one and only guide in our lives, as the Q essentially provides us with the guides to receive our personal guidance in our own languages. We will need guidance from God on the truth of what people say and write, on what would be our best vocation, on finding the best spouse, on what to do in the face of difficulties, etc. The most important lesson is, we don't get stuck on the Q, but God.

And these aspects of functionality only make the Q timeless and borderless.

Apologies for the lenghty post, and it is alright by me if anyone of you were to disagree or dismiss this post without first consulting God. I had suggested that you refer to God for whatever I have posted simply because I wanted you guys to get the truth from God Himself for only He holds the truth. And it is only for your own good/benefit.

Apply the correct methods and you will get the correct results.

Cheers!
Mohammed Noh

[abdalquran]

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

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

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

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

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

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

abdalquran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[huruf]

What I do not agree with in this debate is the assumption that some people "forge" meanings and other sdo not.

The history of interpetation of Qur'an, and probably of any other opiniuonable question is the forging of meanings. All the time.

Some people who accuse others of forging meanings assume that there is some stand point which is objective, devoid of ego (ego es a very popular indictement when one does not agree with others), but that is not the case. No hyman mind is ever empty of preconceptions. We ALL "forge" meanings on our preconceptions. Not everybody has the same preconceptions. Some people manage to get rid of some many preconceptions, others attach to them as if they were their mothers, and would feel lost  without them, but no interpretation is ever rid of preconceptions. Soaccusing some people of "forging" while assuming that others do not "forge" is pure undiluted delusion.

That is why I agree with people who deconstruct. Excesses can be commited on that count, just as on any other count. All commit excesses, not just those who deconstruct, or can commit them. But, if we do not dare deconstruct whe will be forever subjected to the dictatorship of the "consecrated" forging, official forging.

I may not go along with every deconstructive conclusion, but I think there is a point in the attempt. It helps bring light for whoever is a sincere searcher, and there is no reason to presume insincerity in anybody, although there is reason to presume preconceptions in absolutely everybody. But we don't care when those preconceptions happen to coincide with our own preconceptions.

Salaam

[abdalquran]

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

[SarahY]

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

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

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

At the end, everything is an interpretation.

[abdalquran]

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

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

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

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

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

At the end, everything is an interpretation.

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

[uq]

Peace all,

I apologise for the overly late reply.

I wanted to present a well-structured and cohesive argument, but this takes time, and I?ve been busy with work and other personal matters.

I also apologise in advance for the length of the following post, but there are several subjects implicated by the topic at hand that must be addressed.

Eight points follow.

1.     Use. Meaning is use. As stated in the first post of this thread, both the meanings of words (lexicon) and the way in which words are used in a sentence (syntax), are entirely dependent on how the people of that language have come to use their lexicon and syntax. Where a new use of a word arises, or a new mode of sentence formation, such uses and modes must be brought into common currency in order that they may constitute a part of that language. If, on the other hand, such uses and modes do not become popular, then the intended meaning will only be understood by the people who originated said uses and modes. In communication, we will only receive someone?s intended meaning if we confine ourselves to the rules of the language that they are using in their communication. For instance, why are you, the reader, using the vocabulary and the grammar of Modern British English to understand this text that you are reading now? Why do you not feel the need to invent new meanings for the words that I am using now? Why do you not feel the need to rearrange my sentences in order to understand the sentences better? Of course, there are some readers whose experience with English is such that they might take to the use of dictionaries, or grammars. But for all others, the one answer to all my questions is easy: meaning is use. So, how do new uses and modes enter a language? This follows on to the next point: mutability.

2.     Mutability. The mutability of language is the process by which languages evolve; it is a most natural feature of all languages. It is the very process by which they gain, or lose, their lexicon and their syntax. Mutability implies that words are gradually used in slightly different ways with the passage of time, or that sentences are formed in slightly different ways with the passage of time. These small changes eventually accumulate, over time, to the extent that the new use is very distinct from the original use. Examples of the mutability of language:

          i)     An example in syntax (a.k.a. syntactic change): The form of questions used by Modern English, are thought to have evolved from Middle English by the repositioning of words in a sentence, and by placing a tonal emphasis on the rearranged words. So, the following two sentences ?John does like to read.? and ?Does John like to read.? were both used as statements, not exclusively as questions. Then, over time, the latter statement quite probably gained a trend whereby it was used mostly in contexts of interrogation. Thus, it eventually became a full-on question used mostly for asking questions: ?Does John like to read??
          ii)     An example in lexicon signification (a.k.a. semantic drift): The word gay originally meant happy, it gradually acquired sexual connotations to both men and women of any sexual orientation before being applied to homosexuals.
          iii)     An example in lexicon sounds (a.k.a. phonetic mutation): The participle suffix ?ing in English is usually abbreviated into ?in? with many words, as runnin? from running, eatin? from eating, readin? from reading. This is not simply a modern vernacular phenomenon, but has been recorded in the English language since the 17th century.
          iv)     An example in lexicon presence (a.k.a. language contact): This is a relatively straightforward procedure whereby a language adopts a new word from a foreign language in order to accommodate for an item, invention, or idea with which the speakers of that language have not previously come into contact. Or, it could be because that the language is deficient and requires foreign supplementation. In many cases, a word will pass through several languages before reaching any given language; therefore, its degree of mutation from its original form is naturally greater. English is peppered with loanwords from many different sources such as Latin, French, German, Greek, Arabic, Hindi etc. Classical Arabic has a notable number of words of foreign origin, being mostly Persian, Latin and Aramaic in origin, and some of which are found in the Quran. Examples of English and Arabic loanwords:?
                    a)     ṣirāṭ meaning path in Arabic, borrowed from the Latin stratum meaning road
                    b)     qisṭās meaning scales in Arabic, borrowed probably from the pre-Classical Latin cognate of the Ancient Greek ζυγόσταθμος meaning balance
                    c)     battery in English, borrowed from the Middle French batterie
                    d)     admiral in English, borrowed from the Arabic ?amīr al-raḥl or possibly ?amīr al-baḥr, meaning commander of the fleet or of the sea
                    e)     banal meaning relating to feudal service in Medieval Latin, which then passed into French with the meaning of commonplace, and later used in English to mean trite
                    f)     jungle in English, borrowed from the Hindi jangāl meaning wilderness
                    g)     bandanna in English, borrowed from the Hindi bandhna meaning to tie a scarf around the head
                    h)     blitz in English, borrowed from the German blitzkrieg meaning a swift and intensive military attack
                    i)     iceberg in English, borrowed from the German eisberg
                    j)     amphibious in English, derived from the Greek root form ἀμφιβι- meaning living a double life

If a word, a meaning of a word, sound of a word, or syntactical function of a word is not borne of use, then it is forged. Thus, the next point: forgery.

3.     Forgery. Forgery is neither rooted in mutability, nor in use; forgery is outright invention. The products of forgery are not recognized by native speakers of a language because they are not accustomed to it. As such, as far as native speakers are concerned, forgery is both unrecognized and nonsensical. Examples in forgery:
         
          i)     I decide for whatever reason that woman should refer to a female of any species, not only human beings; therefore, it can be applied to a female elephant, a female dog, a female spider, etc.
          ii)     I decide for whatever reason that car should refer to any mode of transport, not only automobiles; therefore, it can be applied to planes, trains, horses, camels etc.
          iii)     I decide for whatever reason that water should refer to any drinkable liquid; therefore, it can be applied to milk, wine, juice, etc.
          iv)     I decide for whatever reason that questions should no longer be introduced by the interrogative verb do; therefore, instead of ?Do you enjoy reading?? I decide it should be ?Enjoy reading you??

Forgery is outright invention, it is unrecognized and nonsensical, and as such, is invalid. How do we distinguish what is historically real from what is historically not? Thus, the next point: authenticity.

4.     Authenticity. Having established use as the definer of signifiers (words) and of syntax (rules of composition), we now address the issue of authenticity. By ?authenticity? I mean ?the degree of truthfulness of semantic sources, both lexical and syntactic.? Extant texts thus far discovered that are concomitant or proximate to the Quran are scant. This makes it extremely difficult for us, independently of the Quran, to determine, by means of textual corpora, the mode of use of 6th century Arabic. It is unfortunate that the earliest Arabic lexicons do not predate the latter half of the 8th century, for this would certainly have done much to record the mutations in the language. Notwithstanding this, we are fortunate to have the Quran, and its still-extant manuscripts, that serve as their own semantic corpus to a large extent; for this we should be ever-grateful to God for His act of preservation. Further, the Quran being the sole central source of early Islam, it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that it would have done much to fixate the shift of the language up to the point of the literary explosion that is recorded in history by circa the late 7th century. And perhaps in this respect, it would be quite apt to distinguish the Arabic proximate to the time of revelation (circa 550 to 650 CE) from the Arabic of the time after the Islamic expansion (circa 700 CE onwards). In my view, there will be, inevitably, some very mute, but nonetheless notable, differences in use between these two stages of Arabic. As such, I tend to call the prior ?Peninsular Arabic,? and the latter ?Early Classical Arabic.? I use the unqualified term ?Classical Arabic? to refer to the characteristics that were common to all the stages of Arabic from circa 500 CE to the Medieval Ages. It must be noted that all this is only pertinent to written Arabic, not to spoken Arabic. For the spoken language undergoes a much more rapid mutation than its written counterpart. So how do we empirically determine authenticity? Thus, the next point: method.

5.     Method. Perhaps, for the sake of demonstration, I should elucidate the standard linguistic composition and compilation of corpora. A corpus is a massive collection of texts which are gathered together, either digitally or physically, to determine the signification of words and the rules of grammar of any written language from any point in its evolutionary history. Here is an example of what the signifier ?pursue? will look like in a corpus:

??The district judge saw fit to not                         pursue              the case to appeal??

??The school?s mantra resonated:                        ?Pursue              your dreams!???

?? So he then                                                      pursued            his desires??

??Andrew                                                            pursued            the thief until??

??if it wasn?t that they                                          pursued            the other group, they would have??

??they gave chase and                                          pursued            the aggressing party??

??On the savannah, the cheetah is always in          pursuit              of vulnerable prey??

This list will go on for as long as it will take to determine the signification of ?pursue? and its derivatives, independently of having a definition of it to begin with. This same technique can be used to determine the lexicon and syntax of Peninsular Arabic using the texts, not least the Quran, which were proximate to the Quran?s revelation (550 to 650 CE). Then, the same technique can be used to determine the lexicon and syntax of Early Classical Arabic. From this point, a comparative analysis can be performed to determine the extent of linguistic shift in the language. There will undoubtedly be variations in the two, however, the extent of these variations will allow us to empirically quantify the extent of said variations, and in turn, will allow us to determine the degree of truthfulness of later semantic sources, both lexical and syntactic, i.e., their authenticity. Such an empirical method will, for the objective pursuer of truth, resolutely settle the issue of historical bias with regards to unauthentic semantic sources, both lexical and syntactic. A collation of such a vast body of text ? in seeking to gain access and classify known extant manuscripts and portfolios spread all over the world ? would probably take decades to compose, and would need a healthy sum to fund the research. I would personally embark on such an endeavour; would that time and resources show me liberality! If the results of this method are rejected, it would show an utter contempt for the respect of empirical evidence in the objective pursuit of truth.

6.     Systematicness. Classical Arabic, arguably, has a level of systematicness and derivativeness which cannot be matched by any living language, not even when compared to Semitic sister-languages.

Classical Arabic has?

          i)     all its verbs derived from either a triliteral root, or a quadriliteral one,
          ii)     only ten (common) forms for the prior, and only four for the latter; with each having?
                    a)     set rules of conjugation,
                    b)     set rules of inflection, and
                    c)     most importantly of all, set rules of meaning ? which, although, I grant are not universally steadfast, the majority conform to said rules ? as:
                              α)     fa?ala = to do
                              β)     fa??ala = to do something iteratively, repetitively, or intensively
                              γ)     fā?ala = to attempt to do something
                              δ)     ?af ?ala = to cause [someone/something] to do [something]
                              ε)     tafa??ala = to do something to one?s self or by one's own accord
                              ζ)     tafā?ala = to do something with someone else
                              η)     infa?ala = to occur to have happened in and of itself (this verb form has no subject, a ?doer?, it is almost always passive)
                              θ)     ifta?ala = to do something to one?s self (this form doesn?t have a steadfast rule, but most of its verbs are of the said order)
                              ι)     if?alla = to change colour or quality
                              κ)     istaf?ala = to request [someone] to do something
          iii)     a verbal noun for all its verbs,
          iv)     a participle, both active and passive, for all its verbs,
          v)     a fixed number of forms for its nouns, both singular and plural,
          vi)     a level of phonetic systematicness that is so characteristic of Semitic languages,
          vii)     only three moods for its verbs,
          viii)     fixed imperative forms for all forms of its verbs, and
          ix)     both syntactical and lexical commonalities with pre-Medieval Hebrew, Amharic, Aramaic, and Syriac; commonalities that serve as great measures of proof for the ascertainment of the usage of Peninsular Arabic and its later counterpart.

It has form-fixed nouns derived from verbs that denote?

          i)     where a verb takes place, all of which are based on the form maf?al or maf?il,
          ii)     what time a verb takes place, all of which are based on the form maf?al or maf?il,
          iii)     the mode in which a verb takes place, all of which are based on the form fi?lah, and
          iv)     the instrument with which a verb is accomplished, all of which are based on the form mif?al.

It has form-fixed nouns derived from other nouns that denote?

          i)     substantive definiteness, indefiniteness, and genericalness,
          ii)     paucity (defined as 3 to 10 items),
          iii)     plurality (defined as more than 10),
          iv)     quiddity,
          v)     relativity,
          vi)     diminutiveness, and
          vii)     many other classes of nouns such as those that denote?
                    a)     diseases, all of which are based on the form fu?āl ( زُكام  : ( فُعَال zukām, a cold;  سُعال su?āl, a cough;  صُداع ṣudā?, a headache;  حُمام ḥumām, a fever; طُحال ṭuḥāl, a disease of the spleen; كُباد kubād, a disease of the liver; سُهاد suhād, insomnia.
                    b)     vessels, all of which are based on the form mif?al ( مِحْلَب : ( مِفْعَل miḥlab, a vessel for containing milk (a milk-pan); مِئْبَر mi?bar, a container for holding needles;  مِبْوَل mibwal, a urinal;  مِبْزَق mibzaq, a vessel to spit into.
                    c)     fragmentation, all of which are based on the form fu?ālah ( بُرادة : ( فُعَالَة  burādah, shavings; كُنَاسة kunāsah, sweepings; قُصاصة quṣāṣah, parings; قُمامة qumāmah, litter.
                    d)     places where something abounds, all of which are based on the form maf ?alah ( مَأْسَدَة  : ( مَفْعَلة ma?sadah, a place abounding in lions; مَذْأَبَة madh?abah, a place abounding in wolves; مَرْمَنَة marmanah, a place where pomegranates grow abundantly; مَعْنَبَة ma?nabah, a place where grapes grow abundantly.
                    e)     devices and implements, which are named after the act that they used for, and all of which are based on the form fa??ālah ( طَرَّادة  :  ( فَعَّالة ṭarrādah, a spear (from ṭarada meaning to drive away); سَيَّارة sayyārah, a caravan (from sāra meaning to journey); طَرَّاحة ṭarrāḥah, a mattress (from ṭaraḥa meaning to lay on the ground); دَبَّابة dabbābah, a battering ram (from dabba meaning to crawl the earth). In Modern Arabic, this feature has been utilised to refer to modern inventions, as: طَيَّارة ṭayyārah, aeroplane (from ṭāra meaning to fly); بَرَّادة barrādah, refrigerator (from barrada meaning to make [something] cold); دَفَّاية daffāyah, heater (from daffa?a meaning to make [something] hot).

It has form-fixed adjectives derived from verbs that denote?

          i)     permanence of a quality, all of which are based on the form fa?īl ( رَحِيم :  ( فَعِيل merciful; كَبِير big; صَغِير small.
          ii)     repetitiveness of a quality, all of which are based on the form fa??āl ( كَذَّاب : ( فَعَّال often-lying (a liar); سَأَّال often-begging (a persistent beggar); أَكَّال often-eating (a greedy person).
          iii)     intensiveness of a quality, all of which are based on the form fa?ūl ( كَذُوب : ( فَعُول excessively lying (addicted to lying); سَؤُول excessively persistent (importunate); أَكُول excessively greedy (a glutton).

It has an unusually systematic phonetics-based etymology; examples:

          i)     qaṣafa = to strike off          :           qaṭafa = to pick off
          ii)     faṣama = to break             :           qaṣama = to break into 2 parts
          iii)     faṣala = to separate          :           waṣala = to join
          iv)     laṣiqa = to stick                :           laziqa = to slip
          v)     madda = to expand           :           ḥadda = to restrict
          vi)     laṭama = to slap                :           lakama = to punch
          vii)     nahasa = to bite with the incicors: naha?a = to bite with the molars
          viii)     qadda = to cut vertically   :           qaṭṭa = to cut horizontally
          ix)     kusūf = solar eclipse          :           khusūf = lunar eclipse
          x)     dā? = disease                     :           dawā? = medicine

It has an unusually systematic signification-based etymology; examples:

          i)     ranīn = whining                   :           hanīn = quiet whining
                 ḥanīn = loud whining            :           ?anīn = excessive whining (as heard when one is in severe pain)
          ii)     nāma = to sleep                  :           ġafā = to nap
                   raqada = to sleep at length  :           sabata = to sleep interruptedly
                   qāla = to take a siesta         :           ġarra = to sleep insufficiently
          iii)     jā?a = to be hungry             :           saġaba = to be very hungry
                   ġaratha = to be extremely hungry:   ṭawā = to starve
          iv)     ?ata?a = to be thirsty          :           ẓami?a = to be very thirsty
                   ṣadā = to be extremely thirsty:        jīda = to experience life-threatening thirst
          v)     ḥabba = to love                   :           hawā = to be in love
                   kalifa = to love with infatuation :      ?a?iqa = to love violently
          vi)     kariha = to hate                 :           qalā = to detest
                   maqata = to loathe              :           baġaḍa = to utterly abhor
          vii)     ṣāta = to issue sound         :           ṣāḥa = to issue a loud sound
                   ḍawḍā? = clamour in general:        waġā = the clamour of battle
          viii)     hamasa = to speak quietly :           ṣarakha = to scream
                   waswasa = to whisper       :           jamjama = to mumble
                   dandana = to hum             :           ġamġama = to shout a battle cry
          ix)     nafar = 3 to 7 people         :           rahṭ = from 7 to 10 people
                   sarbah = from 20 to 30 people:    ?uṣbah = up to 40 people
                   fawj = a wave of people    :           zumrah = a massive congregation of people
          x)     ?a?b = a nation (ancient lineage that is common to all tribes)
                   qabīlah = a tribe (relations by ancient generations)
                   ?imārah = subsection of a tribe (relations by 20 or more generations prior)
                   baṭn = subsection of a ?imārah (relations by 8, 9 or 10 generations prior)
                   fakhdh = subsection of a baṭn (relations by the great grandfather or the great great grandfather)
                   faṣīlah = subsection of a fakhdh (grandparents and their siblings)
                   ?a?īrah = extended family including closest friends                   
                   ?itrah = extended family (uncles and cousins)
                   ?usrah = immediate family (parents, children, partner and siblings)

I hope the entirety of this sixth point does something to ablate the unfounded charge levelled against the Classical Arabic tongue, being that it is a chaotic and untidy language with no order or systematicness. Comparatively, many Indo-European languages are left foaming at the mouth, not least English, for want of such gracious regularity.

7.     Anomaly. Is the issue of the paradigmatic shift in linguistic usage and the issue of the corruption of meanings confined only to Classical Arabic? Or, is it that this proposition applies to all languages? If the prior, how anomalous the proposition! If the latter, should we no longer understand any text composed in the recorded history of mankind within the framework and within the pre-set rules of the language in which it was composed in order to receive the intended signification of its author(s)? but instead, forge meanings for that text as accord our personal proclivities? Thus, if this latter case was true, we should no longer understand the works of Dickens, Wordsworth, Bronte, Milton, and Shakespeare within the context of the rules of the English language proximate to the time respective of each author; this is not at all feasible, in my view.

8.     Divine Rhetoric. To flout syntax is to miss out on some real semantic gems in the Quran. The blinding specificity of God?s use of the Classical Arabic language truly marks the Quran as a literary marvel in the entire history of Arabic literature, and, I would argue, in the recorded history of mankind. All this is lost if one does away with the confinement of one?s understanding of the Quranic text to the rules which it employs to relate said specificity.


?We sent not a [single] messenger, except in the tongue of his kinsmen to be clear with them. God then misguides whomever He wills, and he guides whomever he wills. He is the mighty, the judicious.? [14:4]

[Joe Betik]

Salam Uq,

Apologies for the very late reply, and lengthy post.

Anyway, it is very interesting that you decided to quote 14:4. More translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=14&verse=4.

Using the translation that you have provided, the first part of the verse says that, "We sent not a [single] messenger, except in the tongue of his kinsmen to be clear with them."

So it implies that God will always send a messenger (to a person or group of people) who will always speak in the language/tongue that the person or the group of people must understand.

The Q is a compilation of the revelations received by Muhammad the nabiyy, and since he was an Arab, the Q is understandably in Arabic. Muhammad did not compose, write nor compile the Q, but some people after him decided to compile the revelations he received into a book. That's the Q that we now have.

If say, you were an Eskimo, has God sent you or your group of people a messenger who spoke in the language that you or your group of people understand?

And if there was nothing that you know of regarding this matter, does it mean that God has never sent a messenger to you or your group of people?

And consequently therefore, the first part of verse 14:4 is a lie. Is it?

Now, the second part of the verse is even more interesting: "God then misguides whomever He wills, and he guides whomever he wills. He is the mighty, the judicious.?

Since this part is related to the first (note the presence of 'then' in this second part of the verse), and lets say that there has never been a messenger sent to you or your group of people, then there is no possibility that God will guide nor misguide you or your people? And God is judicious, remember?

So of course we must take note of 2:143 (some translations here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=143). We read in this verse that (Arberry), "but God would never leave your faith to waste."

When we have the full faith in God that He is compassionate, merciful, judicious and wise, and that as our Lord (rabb), "He teaches man what he knew not" (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=96&verse=5), and that we appoint Him as our teacher, reference, friend, helper and supporter in our daily lives, are we still fearful that God will misguide us?

But really, who are the misguided? Or the people that God will surely misguide? Do we not learn about this in the Q?

Are they not the 'thalimeen'? But what is 'thalim'? Browse here (http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Zlm) for some ideas.

Here is from Hans Wehr: "unjust, unfair, iniquitious, tyrannical, oppressing; tyrant, oppressor; offender, transgressor, sinner."

Here is from Lane: "Acting wrongfully, unjustly, injuriously, or tyrannically : and wronging ; or treating, or using, wrongfully, etc."

And to further assist you, here is the verb entry by Hans Wehr: "to do wrong or evil; to wrong, treat unjustly, ill-treat, oppress, beset, harm, suppress, tyrannize (s.o.), commit outrage (upon s.o.); to act the tyrant, act tyrannically (toward or against s.o.)."

The word that could generally represent all the meanings entered by Hans Wehr and Lane for the term 'thalim' is 'prejudice' (http://thesaurus.com/browse/prejudice).

The messages brought by past 'anbiya' and messengers always contained 'different or strange' ideas from those already known by the people. The idea of the singularity or omnipotence of God is very strange to past communities, even in the 6th & 7th Century. In fact the idea that majority ideas are always wrong is still a strange idea, even to many of us now.

But to those who have full faith in God and the last day in this earth, they treat every different or strange ideas that downed upon them with open-mindedness (without prejudice) and immediately they ask God for further clarifications. God knows, so we don't, and thus it is only proper for us to only seek for God's counsel.

Books and dictionaries are study tools that assists, but the final word must come from God when we have full faith in God.

The theory is that God is the teacher. We learn about this in the Q.

The practice is simply to appoint God as our teacher. The way of learning with God as our teacher dictates that we must first empty the cup - rid the mind of all ideas or attain zero mind. We do this in meditations. Automatically all past learnings, ideas and theories will degenerate into mere information (that could be correct or incorrect according to God) that we are very much detached from. The concept is detachment from attachment.

To be detached from our 'mind' (ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) is a very difficult exercise indeed. We have spent many years learning, or much money was spent for them, and some have even be identified by them. All these demand a very strong faith in God and equally strong will to be successful is studying with God as our teacher.

As our teacher, God will always be the reference, or the first and only reference. We used to first employ uncle Google, or asked around for ideas. God has always been the number 5, if not 20. Yet we dare say that God is "al-awwal"!

If we acknowledge that God is "al-awwal", then we must appoint God as the number 1, or the first in reference, and better still in everything that we need to know or do. We should take the lessons of Ibraheem, Yaaqub, Zakariya, Maryam and Moosa (just to name a few). The Q also mentions that we should put God as the first in our mind on waking up from sleep (you will not read about this in popular translations).

Or that we must immediately seek for God's guidance whenever invited to a meeting or a date. Or that we must make our meditations the approach to God whenever we need to attain God's guidance.

These are very different or strange ideas to you. Are they wrong? Are they correct? But who is to tell you other than God?

And I must only speak for myself here. I don't create new meanings, nor forged them out of prejudice or fancy, no matter how different or strange they seemed to you.

As I have frequently wrote, get God to tell you the truth.

Your lengthy post is excellent, but these are mere tools for language studies. But the Q is not an ordinary book. It was never revealed by any man, neither composed by any man. The Q is from God. And again I repeat, the final word on the true meaning of the Q must come from only God.

May God guide us all correctly.

Cheers!
mohammed noh

[Earthdom]

Peace all.

I'm very dissapointed because I am lag of this discussion cause I'm rarely online in that time.

I have heard the arguments that zinā does not mean fornication, and that nisā? does not mean women, and that salāh does not mean prayer. These arguments, in my view, are invalid. I will say the following about these arguments:

You're true uq, translating the Quran too literally or only use harfiyah tarjamah will be very misslead indeed.

I mean even we reject hadith or some tafsir kitabs as source for fiqh, aqidah, fatwa, but atleast we can still use them to found some Islamic terminologies.

The easy example is the meaning of word "junub" in 5:6.
Junub in literal meaning is "far" like in QS 28:11, in that ayat the word "junub" translated in to "far".

But it's imposibble if we translate the word "junub" as "far" in 5:6.
So the conclusion is we may translate the Quran literally but dont forget about tafsiriyah translation.

To be detached from our 'mind' (ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) is a very difficult exercise indeed. We have spent many years learning, or much money was spent for them, and some have even be identified by them. All these demand a very strong faith in God and equally strong will to be successful is studying with God as our teacher.

As our teacher, God will always be the reference, or the first and only reference. We used to first employ uncle Google, or asked around for ideas. God has always been the number 5, if not 20. Yet we dare say that God is "al-awwal"!

Yes Abang Muhammad Nuh, Allah is our only guru in "Islamedeena" ( 2:68, 2:187, 2:219)

But the Allah's explanation is  ayah in the Quran itself, not the translation.
Translation science is human problems and we must use our intellegence from Allah to learn it.

Translation is one of the way to understanding Allah's explanation of Islam (the Quran)

Salaam

[Joe Betik]

Salam Earthdom,

I beg to disagree with your views here:

But the Allah's explanation is  ayah in the Quran itself, not the translation.
Translation science is human problems and we must use our intellegence from Allah to learn it.

Since the passing of Muhammad the nabiy, later on the rasool, in the 3rd decade of the 7th C, we have yet to find a translation (in our case should be in English or Malay) of the Q that could appease our hearts. And those translations were done by masters, no less, of the the languages involved. But why?

Why are we having differences in understanding even the basic theories and practices taught in the Q? Is it a case of one having a more refined grasp of the Arabic language than the others? And therefore we should leave the translation of the Q to this person?

And the more than a billion people who professed to be true Muslims have found it hard to denounce religious massacres simply they follow the translator's idea that 'oqtul' rigidly means 'kill' as in putting to death by shedding the blood.

Lets look at 2:191 here: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191. Did you really presume that the compassionate and merciful God has commanded massacre in this verse? Even when i 2:191 (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191) God has issued a warning that we should not transgress the limit? So what kind of God do we presume He is then?

Lets look at Hans Wehr's entry: "to kill, slay, murder, assasinate (s.o.); to mitigate, alleviate (sth., e.g. the cold, hunger, etc.); to mix, dilute (sth. with, e.g., wine with water); to know, master (sth., e,g, skill)."

And when there was a command from God, "... faoqtuloo anfusakum thalikum khayrun lakum AAinda bari-ikum ..." (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=54) Did God ask us to kick the bucket, then? Or is it better for us to be dead?

As in my earlier post in this thread, our biggest enemy is prejudice (thalim). When prejudiced we only subscribed to  some sets of notions or ideas.

So to me, the thing to kill is the notions.

In 2:24 it should read, "... then kill your notions, that is better for you in the sight of your Creator ..."

"What notions?" you may ask. It is that idea of adopting the calf mentioned earlier in the verse.

And for 2:191, to me it is, "And kill their notions wherever you find them, and express your views against them because they have expressed their views against you. But the temptation is greater on the kill. But don?t strive against them on the forbidden occasion of reverence, unless they strive against you on it, so if they strive against you, kill their notions. Like that is the retribution for disbelievers."

"... But the temptation is greater on the kill. ..." "How about this?" you may also ask. It means, while in deliberations, we are quite often tempted to kill. Kill here implies killing the persona or simply to character assasinate. This we come across quite often here in FM.

The Q is more often addressing issues very close to our hearts than the person next or opposite to us, because the Q is a guide on us becoming. The oblivious will become arrogant while the mindful will become humble.

But still, you may choose to continue subscribing the ideas contained in your post. I have no problem whatsoever about it. We all enjoy the freedom of choice. You have yours, and i have mine.

May God guide us all correctly.

Cheers!
mohammed noh