P
phelps City Staff
Guest
"Yusuf B Gursey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (ayman) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Yusuf B Gursey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
> > > this is an example of working back from your own dogma,
> > > since it assumes that these were "lies" in the first place.
> >
> > Unless you want to go down the slippery slope of defending lies such
> > that "in one wing of the fly there is cure" and "eating seven dates in
>
> one untruth doesn;t make everything untrue.
>
> > the morning is an antidote to poison", then the fact that these
> > religious hearsay reports contained major lies is indisputable.
> >
> > Keep in mind that those lies are in the canonical traditions, so we
> > are not even talking about all the junk that didn't make it to the
> > canonical collections. Even the authors of the canonical collections
> > admit that they didn't include thousands upon thousands of traditions.
> > The whole so-called "science" of collecting Hadith hearsay was
> > established for ONLY one purpose and that is to differentiate between
> > authentic ("sa7i7") and fabricated ("mawdu3") religious traditions.
> >
>
> I am talking about modern orientalists.
>
> > > and as I remarked less than 200 years passed before their invention.
> >
> > The natural law of supply and demand negates your illogical wishful
>
> you re trying to calculate the unir price of a Hadith?
>
> > thinking. In the Abbasid period, even before 200 years had passed
> > since the revelation of the great reading/"quran" there was a lot of
> > demand for hearsay reports about the prophet. This was especially so
> > after Shafii had made hearsay equal to divine inspiration. Naturally,
> > the increased demand created increased supply. Anybody who wanted to
> > make any point had to bring a Hadith to support it, resulting in the
> > exponential growth in the number of Hadiths.
> >
>
> I am not saying all Hadith is factual.
>
> presence of fabrictated Hadith does not neccesarily negate
> the presence of real secular history.
>
> > Moreover, you have to remember that even today in the information age
> > where information can be easily verified in a few seconds, politicians
> > and religious clerics lie all the time and people believe them. The
> > situation was certainly much worse 1400 years ago when, for example,
> > it would have taken a person living in Persia a trip of a few months
> > in order to verify something in Yathrib.
>
> eventually the word would have gotten out!
>
> you are making a lot of crtiticsm. criticism is easy but what
> are you doing withy the unsuing vaccuum?
>
> you haven't presented a coherent theory about pre-Islamic Arabia,
>
>
> >
> > > the example at hand also is not trivial.
> > >
> > > if C knew that Makka didn't exist he would inform his grandson B
> > > and B would similarly inform A. A could cause trouble for the
> > > authorities and perhaps even join an uprising. or "spill the beans"
> > > to a christian or someone who is behind Byzantine lines. word
> > > would have gotten out.
> >
> > Your statement is again nothing more than nanve wishful thinking. It
> > only took a few years and one generation after Jesus to invent the lie
> > about him being the son of god and very quickly the lie became
> > established (The God be most exalted above what they describe).
>
> being "Son of God" is an otherwordly affair. saying he was "Son of
> God" is more tangible. many did not accept Jesus as such, thus the
> claim was not universal. besides, "son of God" was a jewish
> expression at the time for a pious man, which Jesus might very well
> have been called by, but not literally, so there were counterclaims
> to him being "the Son of God" or him having said so.
>
> >
> > By comparison, three generations is a very long time. Moreover, there
> > were indeed uprisings that people joined and bloody civil wars in the
> > first and second generations so you are inadvertently destroying your
>
> but there were no counterclaims to these points during these civil
> wars.
>
> that muslims sometimes give too much attention to the Black
> Stone has at times been made by other muslims. I have no
> problem with that. it doesn't follow that certain events
> didn't take place or some places didn't have a history.
>
> > own argument. You had mentioned that your respected Black Stone was
>
> it's not "my" stone. military neccessity overcame religious
> scrupples.
>
> > destroyed in just such a scuffle. So one of those wars was even
> > supposed to be in the present day location of what is now called
> > Makkat.
> >
> > As you can see, by the time of the third generation, we would only get
> > history from the point of view of the victor. Hence, war criminals
> > become heroes and propaganda takes the place of the truth.
>
> fine. that's where textual criticsm come sin.
>
> >
> > > to say nothing of the orientation of the Qibla. Cook & Crone
> > > tried to argue all these lines, but were not succesful and at
> > > least Cook seems to be back more in line with the mainstream
> > > view of history.
> >
> > The issue of so-called Qibla (it should really be "qibla") opens
> > another can of worms for the traditional dogma so it is better that I
> > address it in a separate thread.
> >
> > > > The indisputable fact is that vocalization marks is a long after the
> > > > fact "invention" and hence it is not part of the original text.
Hence,
> > > > it should not be blindly accepted.
> > >
> > > at the very least, your proposals shouldn't be either.
> >
> > I never asked anyone to accept my proposals blindly. You, on the other
> > hand, desire that people accept the "tashkeel" blindly.
>
> merely that if one is to emend the text, one must give some
> authority to one's emendments. otherwise there will be no
> end to these to fit whatever one fancies. I also maintain
> that the voweling was done according to an oral tradition
> that ought to be, and by many orientalists is, taken seriously.
>
> >
> > > there is no declentional endings to be put. at any rate, the ambiguity
> > > in this case results from the fact that the verbal usage of
> > > "annoying" and its adjectivial usage is not marked in English.
> >
> > Yet despite such major ambiguity, by your own admission, people
> > routinely understand such English sentences from the context and
>
> English does represent vowels in its orthographies vowels.
>
> English does not have declention, so it has a more fixed word order.
>
> > without any "tashkeel". Why do you deny then that people can
> > understand the early manuscripts of the great reading from the context
>
> early Qur'an's are not a good example, because we assume the
> current voweling, which we know.
>
> > and without any "tashkeel"?
> >
>
> it's possible to read early arabic texts because classical arabic
> was kept up by oral and written tradition (otherwise one could
> merely reconstruct), but there are ambiguities that coudl have
> been resolved
>
> > > the ambiguity is removed because Classical Arabic does have
> > > declention.
> > >
> > > colloquial arabic does not have declention (except in pronouns,
> > > and the adverbial accusative in survivals from classical arabic),
> > > nor does english (except in certain pronouns, and people frequently
> > > make mistakes in this). but classical arabic, turkish, russian, greek
> > > (ancient and modern), Latin and many other lanuage do, in many it is
> > > more a prominant feature than in classical arabic.
> >
> > What we know FOR SURE is that the "tashkeel" was added over 200 years
> > after the fact. Therefore, someone had to interpret the passage in a
> > certain way first and then added the "tashkeel" accordingly.
> >
>
> there was also an oral tradition.
>
> only various readings, mostly differing only in details were accpeted.
>
> > > the earliest muslims relied on oral tradition, which did have
> > > declention.
> >
> > How can you know what any word in the great reading exactly sounded
> > like 1400 years ago? Do you have vintage cassette tapes or vinyl
> > records dated to over 1400 years ago?
>
> one knows the *phonemes* the of the language, there are various
> sounds whose contrast produces a difference in meaning. exactly how
> they sounded is of secondary importance. for example /jamal/ "(male)
> camel" and /jama:l/ "beauty" tells us that there is difference
> between the vowel /a/ and /a:/. the nature of the difference is
> secondary to understanding the text. or that /tark/ "leaving behind"
> and /turk/ "Turk(s)" show a difference between /a/ and /u/ and
> so on.
>
> >
> > In the Saudi Arabia, Arabic speakers pronounce the "kaf" at the end of
>
> In Iraq and the Gulf /k/ with front vowels leads to *ch* as
> in *ch*ila:b for kila:b ("dogs"). thus one says that *ch* is an
> allophone of /k/ in Iraqi arabic. once you know that, you will
> think you can understand Iraqi arabic (but there is catch, see below)
>
> > words like the "shin". In Egypt, Arabic speakers pronounce the "qaf"
> > like "alif". Arabic speakers sometimes pronounce the "g" as "j". How
> > do you know for sure how individual letters exactly sounded 1400 years
> > ago, let alone their "tashkeel"?
>
> during the early islamic era philologists described how the
> sounds were produced and their variants. so for arabic, we
> have a good idea how they sounded like, fine tuned with
> modern linguistic methods and textual criticism.
>
> what you say reflects the difficulty in reconstructing classical
> arabic if there was no tradition of reciting it or the medieval
> philologists had not studied it. fortunately we have both as
> sources.
>
> modern arabic colloquials are more easily understood amongst
> each other because one knows the ancestral phonemic system.
>
> this breaks down in words of foreign origin. for example,
> Iraqi *ch*a"la"bi: has nothing to do with dogs (it is written
> with ji:m in texts), nor does it have anything to do with
> jalla:b "trader". it means "urban bigwig" (I enjoy translating
> it like that). the word comes from Turkish (well, it has an
> interesting history beyond that, originally and currently it
> is used as a title for men in Sufi orders, partciularly the
> Mevlevi, but for a while it meant "urban gentleman") and
> hence al-Chalabi (the guy one reads about in the newspapers).
>
> >
> > Moreover, we are able to easily read Arabic manuscripts that were not
> > part of any alleged oral tradition and that didn't have any
> > "tashkeel". You yourself have referenced such manuscripts, for
> > example:
> >
> > > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/enlp1.html
> >
> > How come you never warned me that this manuscript is unreadable
> > because it didn't have "tashkeel"?
>
>
> it's readable thanks to a grand tradition of preserving classical
> arabic.
>
> >
> > > vowel signs were put in order to prevent divergence
> > > in reading and hence, in meaning.
> >
> > "Reading" is not synonymous with "meaning" and this is a fact. Meaning
>
> exactly what I am saying.
>
> > is simply the interpretation given to the reading. Hence, you and I
> > can read the same exact passage, look at the context and then give it
> > a different interpretation (i.e. different meanings). In fact, this
>
> which you do with abandon. I am just discussing the prima facia meaning.
>
> > happens all the time, with or without the vocalization marks. If what
>
> you seem to deny an oral tradition behind the Qur'anic text, which
> most oreintalists don't.
>
>
> > you say is true, i.e. that meaning is synonymous with reading, then
> > everybody would have adopted the meaning proposed by early
>
>
> interpretation is another matter. I am talking about the basic
> gramamtical understanding.
>
> > interpreters such as Ibn Kathir and there wouldn't have been anymore
> > effort to interpret the great reading after Ibn Kathir.
> >
> > You say that vocalization marks were put in order not to divert from a
> > certain interpretation of the meaning. You also claim that meaning
> > (i.e. interpretation) is synonymous with reading. Therefore, if one
>
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (ayman) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Yusuf B Gursey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
> > > this is an example of working back from your own dogma,
> > > since it assumes that these were "lies" in the first place.
> >
> > Unless you want to go down the slippery slope of defending lies such
> > that "in one wing of the fly there is cure" and "eating seven dates in
>
> one untruth doesn;t make everything untrue.
>
> > the morning is an antidote to poison", then the fact that these
> > religious hearsay reports contained major lies is indisputable.
> >
> > Keep in mind that those lies are in the canonical traditions, so we
> > are not even talking about all the junk that didn't make it to the
> > canonical collections. Even the authors of the canonical collections
> > admit that they didn't include thousands upon thousands of traditions.
> > The whole so-called "science" of collecting Hadith hearsay was
> > established for ONLY one purpose and that is to differentiate between
> > authentic ("sa7i7") and fabricated ("mawdu3") religious traditions.
> >
>
> I am talking about modern orientalists.
>
> > > and as I remarked less than 200 years passed before their invention.
> >
> > The natural law of supply and demand negates your illogical wishful
>
> you re trying to calculate the unir price of a Hadith?
>
> > thinking. In the Abbasid period, even before 200 years had passed
> > since the revelation of the great reading/"quran" there was a lot of
> > demand for hearsay reports about the prophet. This was especially so
> > after Shafii had made hearsay equal to divine inspiration. Naturally,
> > the increased demand created increased supply. Anybody who wanted to
> > make any point had to bring a Hadith to support it, resulting in the
> > exponential growth in the number of Hadiths.
> >
>
> I am not saying all Hadith is factual.
>
> presence of fabrictated Hadith does not neccesarily negate
> the presence of real secular history.
>
> > Moreover, you have to remember that even today in the information age
> > where information can be easily verified in a few seconds, politicians
> > and religious clerics lie all the time and people believe them. The
> > situation was certainly much worse 1400 years ago when, for example,
> > it would have taken a person living in Persia a trip of a few months
> > in order to verify something in Yathrib.
>
> eventually the word would have gotten out!
>
> you are making a lot of crtiticsm. criticism is easy but what
> are you doing withy the unsuing vaccuum?
>
> you haven't presented a coherent theory about pre-Islamic Arabia,
>
>
> >
> > > the example at hand also is not trivial.
> > >
> > > if C knew that Makka didn't exist he would inform his grandson B
> > > and B would similarly inform A. A could cause trouble for the
> > > authorities and perhaps even join an uprising. or "spill the beans"
> > > to a christian or someone who is behind Byzantine lines. word
> > > would have gotten out.
> >
> > Your statement is again nothing more than nanve wishful thinking. It
> > only took a few years and one generation after Jesus to invent the lie
> > about him being the son of god and very quickly the lie became
> > established (The God be most exalted above what they describe).
>
> being "Son of God" is an otherwordly affair. saying he was "Son of
> God" is more tangible. many did not accept Jesus as such, thus the
> claim was not universal. besides, "son of God" was a jewish
> expression at the time for a pious man, which Jesus might very well
> have been called by, but not literally, so there were counterclaims
> to him being "the Son of God" or him having said so.
>
> >
> > By comparison, three generations is a very long time. Moreover, there
> > were indeed uprisings that people joined and bloody civil wars in the
> > first and second generations so you are inadvertently destroying your
>
> but there were no counterclaims to these points during these civil
> wars.
>
> that muslims sometimes give too much attention to the Black
> Stone has at times been made by other muslims. I have no
> problem with that. it doesn't follow that certain events
> didn't take place or some places didn't have a history.
>
> > own argument. You had mentioned that your respected Black Stone was
>
> it's not "my" stone. military neccessity overcame religious
> scrupples.
>
> > destroyed in just such a scuffle. So one of those wars was even
> > supposed to be in the present day location of what is now called
> > Makkat.
> >
> > As you can see, by the time of the third generation, we would only get
> > history from the point of view of the victor. Hence, war criminals
> > become heroes and propaganda takes the place of the truth.
>
> fine. that's where textual criticsm come sin.
>
> >
> > > to say nothing of the orientation of the Qibla. Cook & Crone
> > > tried to argue all these lines, but were not succesful and at
> > > least Cook seems to be back more in line with the mainstream
> > > view of history.
> >
> > The issue of so-called Qibla (it should really be "qibla") opens
> > another can of worms for the traditional dogma so it is better that I
> > address it in a separate thread.
> >
> > > > The indisputable fact is that vocalization marks is a long after the
> > > > fact "invention" and hence it is not part of the original text.
Hence,
> > > > it should not be blindly accepted.
> > >
> > > at the very least, your proposals shouldn't be either.
> >
> > I never asked anyone to accept my proposals blindly. You, on the other
> > hand, desire that people accept the "tashkeel" blindly.
>
> merely that if one is to emend the text, one must give some
> authority to one's emendments. otherwise there will be no
> end to these to fit whatever one fancies. I also maintain
> that the voweling was done according to an oral tradition
> that ought to be, and by many orientalists is, taken seriously.
>
> >
> > > there is no declentional endings to be put. at any rate, the ambiguity
> > > in this case results from the fact that the verbal usage of
> > > "annoying" and its adjectivial usage is not marked in English.
> >
> > Yet despite such major ambiguity, by your own admission, people
> > routinely understand such English sentences from the context and
>
> English does represent vowels in its orthographies vowels.
>
> English does not have declention, so it has a more fixed word order.
>
> > without any "tashkeel". Why do you deny then that people can
> > understand the early manuscripts of the great reading from the context
>
> early Qur'an's are not a good example, because we assume the
> current voweling, which we know.
>
> > and without any "tashkeel"?
> >
>
> it's possible to read early arabic texts because classical arabic
> was kept up by oral and written tradition (otherwise one could
> merely reconstruct), but there are ambiguities that coudl have
> been resolved
>
> > > the ambiguity is removed because Classical Arabic does have
> > > declention.
> > >
> > > colloquial arabic does not have declention (except in pronouns,
> > > and the adverbial accusative in survivals from classical arabic),
> > > nor does english (except in certain pronouns, and people frequently
> > > make mistakes in this). but classical arabic, turkish, russian, greek
> > > (ancient and modern), Latin and many other lanuage do, in many it is
> > > more a prominant feature than in classical arabic.
> >
> > What we know FOR SURE is that the "tashkeel" was added over 200 years
> > after the fact. Therefore, someone had to interpret the passage in a
> > certain way first and then added the "tashkeel" accordingly.
> >
>
> there was also an oral tradition.
>
> only various readings, mostly differing only in details were accpeted.
>
> > > the earliest muslims relied on oral tradition, which did have
> > > declention.
> >
> > How can you know what any word in the great reading exactly sounded
> > like 1400 years ago? Do you have vintage cassette tapes or vinyl
> > records dated to over 1400 years ago?
>
> one knows the *phonemes* the of the language, there are various
> sounds whose contrast produces a difference in meaning. exactly how
> they sounded is of secondary importance. for example /jamal/ "(male)
> camel" and /jama:l/ "beauty" tells us that there is difference
> between the vowel /a/ and /a:/. the nature of the difference is
> secondary to understanding the text. or that /tark/ "leaving behind"
> and /turk/ "Turk(s)" show a difference between /a/ and /u/ and
> so on.
>
> >
> > In the Saudi Arabia, Arabic speakers pronounce the "kaf" at the end of
>
> In Iraq and the Gulf /k/ with front vowels leads to *ch* as
> in *ch*ila:b for kila:b ("dogs"). thus one says that *ch* is an
> allophone of /k/ in Iraqi arabic. once you know that, you will
> think you can understand Iraqi arabic (but there is catch, see below)
>
> > words like the "shin". In Egypt, Arabic speakers pronounce the "qaf"
> > like "alif". Arabic speakers sometimes pronounce the "g" as "j". How
> > do you know for sure how individual letters exactly sounded 1400 years
> > ago, let alone their "tashkeel"?
>
> during the early islamic era philologists described how the
> sounds were produced and their variants. so for arabic, we
> have a good idea how they sounded like, fine tuned with
> modern linguistic methods and textual criticism.
>
> what you say reflects the difficulty in reconstructing classical
> arabic if there was no tradition of reciting it or the medieval
> philologists had not studied it. fortunately we have both as
> sources.
>
> modern arabic colloquials are more easily understood amongst
> each other because one knows the ancestral phonemic system.
>
> this breaks down in words of foreign origin. for example,
> Iraqi *ch*a"la"bi: has nothing to do with dogs (it is written
> with ji:m in texts), nor does it have anything to do with
> jalla:b "trader". it means "urban bigwig" (I enjoy translating
> it like that). the word comes from Turkish (well, it has an
> interesting history beyond that, originally and currently it
> is used as a title for men in Sufi orders, partciularly the
> Mevlevi, but for a while it meant "urban gentleman") and
> hence al-Chalabi (the guy one reads about in the newspapers).
>
> >
> > Moreover, we are able to easily read Arabic manuscripts that were not
> > part of any alleged oral tradition and that didn't have any
> > "tashkeel". You yourself have referenced such manuscripts, for
> > example:
> >
> > > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/enlp1.html
> >
> > How come you never warned me that this manuscript is unreadable
> > because it didn't have "tashkeel"?
>
>
> it's readable thanks to a grand tradition of preserving classical
> arabic.
>
> >
> > > vowel signs were put in order to prevent divergence
> > > in reading and hence, in meaning.
> >
> > "Reading" is not synonymous with "meaning" and this is a fact. Meaning
>
> exactly what I am saying.
>
> > is simply the interpretation given to the reading. Hence, you and I
> > can read the same exact passage, look at the context and then give it
> > a different interpretation (i.e. different meanings). In fact, this
>
> which you do with abandon. I am just discussing the prima facia meaning.
>
> > happens all the time, with or without the vocalization marks. If what
>
> you seem to deny an oral tradition behind the Qur'anic text, which
> most oreintalists don't.
>
>
> > you say is true, i.e. that meaning is synonymous with reading, then
> > everybody would have adopted the meaning proposed by early
>
>
> interpretation is another matter. I am talking about the basic
> gramamtical understanding.
>
> > interpreters such as Ibn Kathir and there wouldn't have been anymore
> > effort to interpret the great reading after Ibn Kathir.
> >
> > You say that vocalization marks were put in order not to divert from a
> > certain interpretation of the meaning. You also claim that meaning
> > (i.e. interpretation) is synonymous with reading. Therefore, if one
>