The 'mother tongue" The long version!

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jan 25, 2018 at 08:35

Gato you wrote:

>Again I agree what you wrote about Egyptian, no more comment needed.

Mission accomplished

>The colloquial Arabic(not only in Egypt but in other countries as well)

Again Egyptian Arabic is really a unique language as I explained to you already not unlike Italian v Latin

>did not developed out of Classical Arabic

Classical Arabic is a language that no one ever spoke

Check Ibn Kathir's tafsir of the most celebrated grammatical mistake in the Qur'an 20:63 or In Hadhan la-Sahiran His way out of this linguistic disaster is: To write it as In Hadhan la-Sahiran and vocalize it as In Hadhayne la-Sahiran The implications here is huge! It really means that there are differences in grammar between Quranic Arabic and so called Classical Arabic after all how could Allah make a mistake in grammar

> but rather out of Arab dialects of Peninsula that conquerrors brought with themselves.

Evidence? BTW and again the importation of Arabs to Egypt was very limited and toady's DNA of Egyptians proves that they are not Arabs!

>obviously these emerging colloquial dialects suffered influence of various substrate languages - Aramaic, Coptic/Egyptian, Berber/Amazigh, Latin/Romance(Tunisia and Spain).

Fine Then why did this not happen in Iran?

>The development and codification of Classical Arabic was a parallel process promoted by grammatists such as Sibawayhi.

The real "grammarian" that shaped our understanding of what the Qur'an is saying and what the Arabic language is all about is no doubt al-Tabari His Tafsir is no doubt Masoretic

> It developped out of need to fix the text of Quran(prior to that only the consonant duct of Qur'an existed pronounced in different ways),

May be but why would we have "many dialects" of Arabic in a small dusty and poor city like Mecca? It does not make sense This is a case of reversing cause for effect. More likely that not it was the conquered (in Egypt Iran the Levant and Mesopotamia) that filled in the gaps (vowels, both short and long as well as even the consonants at times) in the defective Quarnic Rasm et voila Muslims were facing different readings (Ahrf) of the same text (the Qur'an) and al-Tabari comes to the rescue

Check al-Tabari's Tafsir of Surat Yusuf 49 and you will be astonished to read al-Tabari editing the Quranic text not just the vowels but also the consonants of the word يعصرون

This clearly means that:

1. al-Tabari was dealing with a text of the Qur'an that did not have short vowels and was missing al-nuqat and the letter hamza and al-Shadda (double consonants) and he was editing the words of his Allah! And no one had a clue what this Quranic text is really saying

2. It also means that we really don't know what the Qur'an is really saying in the case of Surat Yusuf: 49

3. It also means that the claim by the Islamic historical tradition that the Qur'an initially was transmitted as a vocalized text is untrue What we have here is a written defective text that had to be edited

4. And why would al-Tabari be struggling with the meaning of so many Quranic words eg: Ilaf and Kalala Why was the meaning of let us say Kalala lost by the time al-Tabari was writing his Tafsir unless the Qur'an predates Muhammad or the Qur'an was "revealed" to Muhammad but was not canonized for 200-300 years later and by then the meaning of Kalala was lost

BTW this is why Wansbrough believed that the Qur'an could not have been canonized before the 9th century when al-Tabari was writing his masoretic exegesis

>to teach Arabic language for non-Arabs, to have a unified language fit for administration and public records. It seems that Classical Arabic was heavily biassed towards the more conservative dialects of Eastern Arabic Peninsula. Arab grammatists often made study trips there in order to collect grammatical and lexical material there. Later this material was generalized into a framework of rules using methods much similar to those used in fiqh(eg. analogy - qiyaas)

These are Qisas (stories of fiction) I don't believe them and I regard them as pious fiction

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".