Timeline of classical Arabic works - dictionaries etc

[Wakas]

Famous classical Arabic dictionaries, grammar works and lexicons :: a timeline

#####

The following are approximate dates (CE = common era):

610-632 CE: revelation of Quran
.
.
760: kitab al ayn - khalil ibn ahmad (no extant copy from the time however)
790: al Kitab by Sibawayh (oldest extant Arabic grammar work?)
.
830: beginning of compilation of Hadith works
.
900: Kitab al Dajmharah
.
930: six most famous Traditional Hadith book collections complete
.
1003: Al Sihah
1004: Makayis al Lughah
.
1050: Muhkam by ibn Sidah
.
.
.
.
1290: Lisan al arab (most famous dictionary, based on earlier works) 650+ years after Quran
.
.
1400: al qamus al muhit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1780: Taj al arus
.
1850 Lane's Lexicon

#####


Important points to note:

Most (perhaps all) of the above authors, especially the earliest, considered how The Quran used its words to be the most pure (i.e. correct) and often cited its examples of usage. Those who are Quran minded still aim to do this today.

Arabic is a living language, meaning it is used by people. All languages used by people evolve with time, e.g. certain words die out, new words introduced, word meanings are modified. Some authors, such as Toshihiko Izutsu, discuss how the usage of words became nuanced/modified even during the Quran's revelation. This is nothing unusual and even happens today with English.

All man-made sources are inherently imperfect, including dictionaries/lexicons/grammar works. They will inevitably contain errors, bias, contradict each other, be incomplete etc. They are still an excellent resource to use however, as long as one bears in mind The Quran's criterion.
 

References:
Wikipedia
Toshihiku Izutsu works
The Arabic Language: its role in history
Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Wakas,

As-salam alaykum

Just some additional comments if I respectfully may.

Notwithstanding the fact that languages do indeed develop (dialects, nuances etc.), there are not many languages however, which are underpinned by a 'Religious / Divine Book' such as the Quran which the speakers of the language consider to be ‘holy’ and revealed in their language par excellence and used as a reference point.

For example, the English language today is not underpinned by a central religious authoritative Book 'In English' that is understood to be revealed to an agent of God in English par excellence.

Therefore, irrespective of how dialects develop, a Book such as the Quran which became the central religious Book of authority at a time where 'Arabic' was the lingua franca of the early Islamic world and was transmitted en masse, would have arguably always been held as a the primary comparison point or criterion. This is why (as you intimate) one notes many examples of Arabic words in lexicons taken directly from the Quran. It is noteworthy, that other languages in which Prophet's spoke such as 'Aramaic' have arguably not enjoyed the same mass transmission as has 'Arabic'. Indeed, God does what He wills.

Therefore, if the protection of the 'dhikr' was ensured by the Quran (15:9), this also implies a discernable method to understand its 'kalam' (words). Otherwise the 'message' of the Quran would become meaningless. The Prophet was tasked with a responsibility to convey the message of the Quran in Arabic to his people. His people had a responsibility en masse to pass the message to mankind (22:78) both in Arabic and to convey its meaning to those who did not understand the language.

As I have shared with the respected readers in another post, an understanding of the Arabic language cannot be studied from the Quran alone. The Quran itself is not a dictionary or a grammar book. Even lexicologists expect that the readers of their works already exhibit familiarity with Arabic of some sorts.

"I have supposed the student who will make use of this work to be acquainted with the general rules of grammar. These he must bear in mind when he meets with particular rules mentioned by me" [1] [Edward Lane]

Yes, the Quran can be used as a reference or criterion, but the Quran also expects that the audience is familiar with the language for them to be able to grasp its message. Hence the Quran is prima facie dependant on an understanding of the language via all sources necessary. Otherwise, the Quranic language (and its message) will end up becoming nothing more than Egyptian Hieroglyphics without the Rosetta stone to assist.

It is noteworthy that not only is the Quran understood to be a stable text due to its en masse transmission from source, the language that underpinned it was also arguably transmitted en masse (regardless of various community dialects). There would have always remained a distinct understanding of: 

• Quranic Arabic and
• The Arabic of a people.

This does not necessarily mean that [2] would have radically changed an understanding of [1] above, despite theological bias of certain sects interpreting the Quranic text in a particular way.

Even today, when one begins to learn Arabic, they are generally confronted with a few choices.

• Learn a regional Arabic dialect to assist modern communication and be generally understood e.g. The Egyptian Arabic dialect.
• Learn a literary, academic, formal / journalistic form of Arabic such as Fus'ha.
• Learn classical Arabic of the Quran.

Despite overlaps of the above, the categories are usually well understood to be distinct.

Regards,
Joseph


REFERENCE:

[1] LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Preface xx vii

[Zack]

Hello Br. Joseph and forum-readers,

I am not very familiar with the topic of the language of the Quran, however does the view of  Arthur Jefrey (The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Quran) (I have only skimmed the book) that the Quran has a significant amount of non-Arabic words. In other words, the purpose of the Quran is to be communicative....whatever language that was used in Arabia for particular words, they were the ones the Quran was communicated in. Therefore, besides the majority of 7th century Arabic,  the Quran has significant amounts of Syriac, some Greek, Hebrew, Ethiopian etc, throughout, as those were the languages communicated in Arabia for specific words. Would this be your view?

It could be said that this is no different to any language on the planet. Similarly, Christians are surprised to hear that the New Testament is written in such basic, everyday Greek that could be understood... not some "high language".


Regards
Zack

[Joseph Islam]

Hello Br. Joseph and forum-readers,

I am not very familiar with the topic of the language of the Quran, however does the view of  Arthur Jefrey (The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Quran) (I have only skimmed the book) that the Quran has a significant amount of non-Arabic words. In other words, the purpose of the Quran is to be communicative....whatever language that was used in Arabia for particular words, they were the ones the Quran was communicated in. Therefore, besides the majority of 7th century Arabic,  the Quran has significant amounts of Syriac, some Greek, Hebrew, Ethiopian etc, throughout, as those were the languages communicated in Arabia for specific words. Would this be your view?

It could be said that this is no different to any language on the planet. Similarly, Christians are surprised to hear that the New Testament is written in such basic, everyday Greek that could be understood... not some "high language".


Regards
Zack

Dear Zack,

As-salam alaykum

Yes absolutely this is also my humble view. The Quran simply 'communicated / spoke' in the language of its primary audience with all their peculiarities, nuances, syntax of language etc. It was not concerned with etymological roots, but rather what the words meant to those people at that time.

For example, the mother of Prophet Moses would most likely not have known her son as the Arabic 'Musa' but rather the Hebrew 'Moshe'. [1]

Similarly, Mary would arguably not have known her son as 'Isa' which is an Arabic rendering developed later. Prophet 'Isa' would most likely have been known as 'Yeshua' (Hebrew) / 'Jeshua' (Aramaic) to the Jews of the first century Palestine and his mother Mary.

Therefore, the Quran merely translated the names of these personalities into a rendering that the Arabic audience could understand with names that they were familiar with. Even the name 'Allah' is an Arabic name for God. [2]

However, the notable difference (it would be argued) is that the narrative of the Quran was a 'direct' revelation from a 'Higher Power' inspired directly to a mortal. Hence, it is expected that the use of language would be most eloquent and effective. That certainly does seem to be the case if the Arabic Quran is listened to and understood directly.

This would be different from say a scripture that was not 'direct' in the same sense but testimonies taken down and then translated by later followers of the religion into another language. The 'Greek' Bible would arguably be one such example.

I hope that clarifies, God willing
Joseph
 

REFERENCES:

[1] WHAT IS A MUSLIM NAME? - A MISNOMER
http://quransmessage.com/articles/muslim%20name%20FM3.htm
[2] ALLAH IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE NAME FOR GOD
http://quransmessage.com/articles/allah%20is%20not%20an%20exclusive%20name%20for%20god%20FM3.htm
[3] WHY WAS THE QURAN REVEALED IN ARABIC?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/why%20in%20Arabic%20FM3.htm
[4] IS ARABIC A HOLY OR SUPERIOR LANGUAGE?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/is%20arabic%20a%20holy%20language%20FM3.htm

[Zack]

[/quote]

However, the notable difference (it would be argued) is that the narrative of the Quran was a 'direct' revelation from a 'Higher Power' inspired directly to a mortal. Hence, it is expected that the use of language would be most eloquent and effective. That certainly does seem to be the case if the Arabic Quran is listened to and understood directly.

This would be different from say a scripture that was not 'direct' in the same sense but testimonies taken down and then translated by later followers of the religion into another language. The 'Greek' Bible would arguably be one such example.

I hope that clarifies, God willing
Joseph
 
[/quote]

Hello. Thank you very much for your response. In regards to the above, I assume the direct revelation with the Qur'an was the oral revelation that was recited, which could have formed into a Book been anything between 1-20 years later, we do not know for sure? My point here is not to question the transmission, but the tradition of Islam that the revelation was a pre-existing book instead of oral, which from what I have read is a very late tradition with the concept taken from Logos Christology. Would that be your thinking? In some ways, have both Christianity in viewing Gods revelation in both Islam and Christianity become "Book-centred", when ultimately both were an oral revelation?

On your point above about the difference between revelations, I think a key point is in the book of Hebrews in the NT "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets and at many times and in various ways, but in these last days (last days of the Jewish priest/sacrificial system) God has spoken to us by Christ." Gods revealing his word was in unique ways. For the Bible as well as the Quran, Jesus had a unique connection to "the word" (QS 3:45 / John 1:14), where Gods word was intimately connected to Jesus, and where his words were not his own. (John 7:16)

Wasalam
Zack

[Wakas]

w/salaam Joseph, all,

This is a good point:

Notwithstanding the fact that languages do indeed develop (dialects, nuances etc.), there are not many languages however, which are underpinned by a 'Religious / Divine Book' such as the Quran which the speakers of the language consider to be ‘holy’ and revealed in their language par excellence and used as a reference point.

We should be mindful that for this reason ordinary words in Quran became "religious-ified" (for lack of a better term) by later speakers of that language. This likely happened to many words, with perhaps the most obvious example being the word "muslim" which is nowadays seen as a title / proper noun, not an ordinary descriptive word that existed pre-Quran.

As readers of Quran, we should be careful not to read the text with the later developed religious-ified word meanings in mind, but consider what they would have meant pre-Quran also.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Zack,

As-salam alaykum

Hello. Thank you very much for your response. In regards to the above, I assume the direct revelation with the Qur'an was the oral revelation that was recited, which could have formed into a Book been anything between 1-20 years later, we do not know for sure?

This would most likely be the traditional perspective based on Islamic secondary sources. However, the testimony of the Quran which is Islam's earliest historical document would argue otherwise and present a different view of its ‘compilation’. [1]

From a Quran's perspective, the Quran was revealed through inspiration and was recited and recorded by scribes in the moment during the time of the prophet. The concept of the Quran being 'compiled later' after the death of the prophet is alien to the Quran.

On your point above about the difference between revelations, I think a key point is in the book of Hebrews in the NT "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets and at many times and in various ways, but in these last days (last days of the Jewish priest/sacrificial system) God has spoken to us by Christ." Gods revealing his word was in unique ways. For the Bible as well as the Quran, Jesus had a unique connection to "the word" (QS 3:45 / John 1:14), where Gods word was intimately connected to Jesus, and where his words were not his own. (John 7:16)

In the main, I do not disagree with this.

Kind regards,
Joseph


REFERENCE:

[1] THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm

[Zack]

In regards to the above, I assume the direct revelation with the Qur'an was the oral revelation that was recited, which could have formed into a Book been anything between 1-20 years later, we do not know for sure? My point here is not to question the transmission, but the tradition of Islam that the revelation was a pre-existing book instead of oral, which from what I have read is a very late tradition with the concept taken from Logos Christology. Would that be your thinking? In some ways, have both Christianity in viewing Gods revelation in both Islam and Christianity become "Book-centred", when ultimately both were an oral revelation?
[/quote]

Hello Br. Joseph,

I think you slightly misunderstood my point above. I was not questioning that the Qur'an as a written book was compiled during the life of Muhammad. That is why I said the transmission from oral to text could have been anywhere between 1-20 years... from the time of the revelation to the time of final compilation before Prophet Muhammad passed away. The point is that as in Christianity, from what I understand traditional Islam is "book-centered", in the case of Islam believing an eternal written Kitab with God. I assume this is not your view? Even if transmission from oral to a final text was a 2 year process, the revelation of the Quran was still oral, and for strategic retention of that revelation, it was decided by Muhammad to put it into a text format.

As I mentioned in another post, the Christian writer James Dunn explains that people in the 20th / 21st century have very little appreciation for the reliability of oral transmission in the pre-printing press era. I think there is no problem with the reliability of the Quran revelation being recited by the followers of Muhammad for a 1-20 (or maybe even a 1-10 year period) year period before it being organised into a single text. This was the nature of the world during that period.

Zack

[Joseph Islam]

Dear brother Zack,

As-salam alaykum

Thank you for the clarification.

Please see my responses to your comments in blue italics.

The point is that as in Christianity, from what I understand traditional Islam is "book-centered", in the case of Islam believing an eternal written Kitab with God. I assume this is not your view?

Yes, this is not entirely my view. However, I do believe that 'The Mother of the Book' (Umm-ul-Kitab) is the master source which is within God's presence. It is the original source and foundation from which all scriptures and revelations from God emanate including the Quran. [1] However, this may not be its only function as for example, it may also consist of decrees (57:22). However, this does not mean that this a ‘physical Book’ but quite possibly a knowledge-base of some kind which has been presented in the form of a ‘Book’ similitude.

013.039
“God eliminates what He wills and confirms what He pleases: with Him is the Mother of the Book (Arabic: Umm ul-Kitab)”

Furthermore, the Quran does appear to recognise that the 'Injeel' was not necessarily a 'revelation' akin to the Quran but most likely, a set of 'teachings' based on the wisdom imparted by Prophet Jesus. This would have comprised canonical as well as some non-canonical literature being known and read at the time of the Arabian prophet's ministry by the Christian community. [2]

Even if transmission from oral to a final text was a 2 year process, the revelation of the Quran was still oral, and for strategic retention of that revelation, it was decided by Muhammad to put it into a text format.

The initial revelation was undoubtedly oral. Words were inspired to a human messenger who then communicated it orally. God did not reveal the Quran as a Book or on tablets as was the case of the law given to Prophet Moses (7:145; 7:150). However, even with the law given to Moses, the law would have been subsequently taken down in a written form (on parchments or some written material - qaratisa - 6:91).

The written compilation of the Quran would have only been secondary but as argued in the article I shared, worked in tandem with the oral transmission to stabilise the transmission of the revelation.

080.013-16
"(It is) in sheets / pages held (greatly) in honour (Arabic: fi suhufin mukarrama), Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy (Arabic: marfu'atin mutahhara), (Written) by the hands of scribes.(Arabic: bi'aydi safara), honourable and pious and just (Arabic: kiramin barara)"

However yes, it is the oral transmission (agreed to by the masses) which is the primary transmission of most significance.

As I mentioned in another post, the Christian writer James Dunn explains that people in the 20th / 21st century have very little appreciation for the reliability of oral transmission in the pre-printing press era.

I do not disagree with this. However, human memory has always had an innate capacity. In antiquity it can be argued that greater reliance could have been placed on oral transmission but even today, many still exercise their faculty to memorise vast amounts of knowledge. The Quran is one example, but can easily be applied to other disciplines of knowledge. However, the tradition of 'memorisation' is arguably just as prevalent in the Muslims world today (if not more) as it would have been when the Quran was revealed. Even today, many that would be considered generally illiterate, have the capacity to memorise the whole Quran, and arguably many do.

Having a greater propensity to memorise knowledge also does not mean that what is being transmitted is credible. The same fundamentals of 'closeness to source', the existence of 'multiple narrators' et al, will still be of paramount consideration. A transmission is only as good as the integrity of the source. For example, no matter how well something is transmitted let us say, 250 years after the death of the prophet, it will still suffer from aberrations if the source is corrupted by folk in the preceding period.

An astute academic is only too aware how certain knowledge undergoes ‘theological accretions’ over the passage of time. This can grossly affect the integrity of what is transmitted from person to person unless of course, the text is transmitted 'verbatim' from source (or very close) en masse.  The Quran can be argued as fitting that category.

I think there is no problem with the reliability of the Quran revelation being recited by the followers of Muhammad for a 1-20 (or maybe even a 1-10 year period) year period before it being organised into a single text. This was the nature of the world during that period.

Once again, I do not disagree with you. However, I do think that the Quran is slightly different in that it claims to be a direct revelation in the 'voice of God' and was transmitted en masse from the source messenger. The Quran seems to imply that the transmission was taken down in written form in tandem to the revelation or at least, fairly close.

This would be akin to a revelation that was transmitted from 'Jesus' directly in his language and taken verbatim by scribes and not later by Greek speaking Christian compilers that relied on the secondary testimony of disciples in the name of what Jesus said and done.

I do not know of any comparable Book that claims to be a direct revelation in the voice of God inspired in a prophet and from whom the revelation was transmitted both orally and in written form en masse and which became an integral source of religion.

However, this does not discredit the Bible in any manner whatsoever. The Biblical record is arguably close to the source of Jesus's ministry and has multiple testimonies even if we consider the synoptic Gospels may be a little different to the testimony taken down in the name of John’s Gospel. 

On a side note, for a believer, the Quran’s testimony actually seems to protect the integrity of the Bible and separates it from ‘theology’ which is often read into it.

I hope that helps, God willing
Joseph


REFERENCES:

[1] MOTHER OF THE BOOK (UMM-UL-KITAB)
http://quransmessage.com/articles/mother%20of%20book%20FM3.htm
[2] WHAT IS THE INJEEL?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/injeel%20FM3.htm

[Anwar]

Wakas,

You missed Mu'jam al-faadh Al-Qur'aan. I'm sure there are some others that are not yet on our radar.