Joseph,
I found your following statement excellent and the epitome of logic and sound rational capacity:
"The question of the authenticity of the Ahadith corpus IS NOT founded on the unreliability of the CLASSICAL ARABIC LANGUAGE in which it is transmitted. Rather, it is founded on questionable content (matn) and transmission. The mere fact that the veracity of a particular hadith can be ‘questioned’ is PROOF that the ancient Arabic language in which the Ahadith is transmitted is accepted as RELIABLE.
One cannot reject a particular hadith if the language that underpins it, remains questionable.
Therefore, the rejection of a particular hadith only LEGITIMISES the general knowledge of the classical Arabic language in which the Hadith was transmitted.
Subsequently, the reliability of the Ahadith corpus and lexicons as a source to understand classical Arabic language has never been in doubt.
Lexicographers may advance different shades of meanings and discuss words but to INVENT NEW MEANINGS for Arabic words which were never understood by ANYONE remotely familiar with Arabic is a baseless assertion and surpasses the thresholds of incredulity."
There is one circumstance where meanings are invented and that is in the theological sphere, and it is quite common. However, the lexicons are VERY good at identifying them as belonging to certain limited groups or being associated with certain Imams' statements and citing those statements, where the twisting becomes evident. For instance, zakaah as charity, taqwaa as righteousness, jizyah as a tax on Christians and Jews and even Islam as submission to God are all post-Quranic theological meanings associated with certain Imams or groups who gave them these meanings as derivatives of their original meanings. A good example of this is how most Christians understand the term 'rapture' to mean the return of Jesus (saas) despite its original meaning of 'joy' and the context of the verses where it is mentioned actually being about the rapture or joy associated with the return of the Messiah (saas).
Zakaah originally means goodness, purity and growth; the idea behind the new meaning is that charity (saduqah) purifies. This idea is found within the Quran. Taqwaa originally means protection or prudence; the idea behind the new meaning is that righteous deeds protect one from God's wrath. Jizyah originally means a sort of compensation; the original idea in the Quran was paying damages for the wars Christians and Jews launched and caused against the Muslims. Later on, the new meaning came to encompass compensation for living under the protection of Muslims. The Arab Muslims considered charging the non-Arab Muslims living under their rule the jizyah for living under Arab protection.
Islam originally means making peace, submission in general and becoming safe or saved in general. Its new meaning of submission to God's will is a Shafi'i interpretation based on its meaning of submission and the contextual implications to be found often in the Quran associated with the idea of 'submission.' Islam as a nickname for all who have allegiance to the Quran as God's message and Muhammad as God's messenger (saas) may have its origins in 'becoming safe/saved' with implications of having believed in God's messenger and being safe from Hell, just as many Christians use it today. I have not seen evidence of this however. It could just be based on the followers of the religion misinterpreting Al-Islam as a name for their new religion when the Quran says that he chose for us Al-Islam, instead of understanding its innate Classical Arabic meanings within the context of that phrase. The original sense would be peace-making or making things sound and whole being the way God has chosen for us, or submission (the context implying to God) being the religion that God has chosen for us. Most Muslims still misunderstand the Qur'an's usage of the terms Islam and Muslim. It seems that either the followers of Muhammad (saas) were anxious to give themselves a new proper title or their opponents and by-standers were anxious to give them a title. Islam and Muslim took, in complete disregard to its original linguistic usage. Nevertheless the explanations trying to connect it to its original usage with flowery and imaginative embellishments have been abundant.
This is idea of theological definitions based on theological interpretations is the only exception that I make concerning the soundness of Classical Arabic linguistic sources as valid secondary sources to be used in our understanding of the Quran, in addition to meanings only associated with other post-Quranic events. A good example of this is the Al-Aqsaa Mosque being built after the death of the prophet Muhammad (saas) and not being the Most distant pace of worship (Al-Masjidul-Aqsaa) mentioned in the Quran.
It is actually ironic that when some Quranists fabricate meanings based on their selective validation of the established meanings of Classical Arabic words to be found in the Quran (they don't challenge the meanings basic prepositions, conjunctions or words whose meanings they find of no importance to their theological agendas) they are in essence guilty of what they accuse earlier Muslims of. That is, distorting the language in order to inhibit a proper understanding of the Quran.
I oppose all theological interpretations being accepted as valid definitions of words and believe that the Quran needs to be read with the established meanings of its words that the pre-islamic Arabs who were alive and well just prior to Muhammad's messengership could have understood. Nothing more and nothing less.
I hope that was clear. Forgive any spelling or grammatical errors.
Salam
Show Posts