Ibn Al-Ja'abi

I have read the Bible in its entirety in English once and often am reading sections of it due to my studies. I study various classical languages which were important Biblically, including the languages the Bible was written in. I hope to read the Bible entirely in the languages it was written in soon. And since I live in Canada, Bibles are very easy to get (including in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek, though, unfortunately for me, not in Syriac, Ge'ez, or Coptic).

Salams, This might be perhaps thought of as the Arabic version of "when in Rome": من دخل ظفار حمر Also reported as: من دخل ظفار تحمر "Whoever enters Dhafar must speak Himyari." Dhafar was a city in the central Yemen highlands where the dialect that was spoken was influenced by the pre-Islamic languages of the region (leading to things like variations in grammar and different vocabulary). This proverb has been quoted in Lisan al-Arab among other sources.

Salams, It should be stated that this is not al-Islam.org's own translation, in that they commissioned it, they just digitized it. This (rather poor) translation was done by one Ali Peiravi. I also believe he translated Uyun Akhbar al-Ridha. I can't for the life of my understand why his translations are so bad. It's not even so bad that he doesn't understand the Arabic he's reading, it seems to me that he isn't even using an Arabic text which he's translating, but possibly an existing Persian translation. I also doubt he knows English well and perhaps that's why it reads so poorly. In any case, I don't blame al-Islam.org for the poor and unreadable translation, it's the only one that exists for this book. In any case, I gather that he was looking at an explanation of what Tulaqa' meant in a Farsi note on the text and rendered it like that (I can only guess though). Just one more good reason why you need translators that understand both Arabic and English very well (for example, like the ones who are working on translating books for the Library of Arabic Literature).

Alhamdulillah. InshaAllah under less stress ulcer inducing circumstances next time (and hopefully for no exam where we need to study them).

Not so hard as it seems, should update that @AStruggler and I met up today in an adrenaline fueled study session before our final.

Many of the brothers I've wanted to meet I have met, funny enough they live far away from me. The one brother I would like to meet should theoretically be the easiest to meet, @AStruggler and I go to the same university, study in the same program, have the same circle of friends, and we found out we're both in the same course together this semester and are both probably right now studying for the same final. Despite that, we've never actually met in person. God alone knows how this is.

Salams, It's a well known fact that the best animals are dromedary camels: Also nice are dromedary-Bactrian hybrids. As we all know a close second would be the African lion, specifically the Barbary lion: By the way you guys should watch The Ghost and the Darkness, it's such a great movie (different species of lion in it though).

تبي وأبي! تقول العامّة لا سيّما في الخليج: أنا أبي وأنت تبي يعنون: أنا أريد وأنت تريد وأصل الكلمة: أبغي وتبغي وهي فصيحة قال ﷻ: ﴿قلْ أغيرَ ﷲِ أبـغي ربًّا وهوَ ربُّ كلِّ شَيْءٍ﴾ فأكلت الناس الغين مع مرور الزمن ولهذا لا يزال بعضهم يقول: «أبغَى» بل ولا يزال الأقل يقول: «أبغي» Posted on twitter: https://twitter.com/Tadkik/status/1103683791716040704 Tabī wa ʾabī! People, especially in the Gulf, say: "You tabī and I ʾabī." They mean: "You desire and I desire." The phrase was originally: "ʾabghī and tabghī." And this is eloquent [classical in origin]. God said: "Say: is there other than God whom I should desire as my Lord, while He is the Lord of all things?'" [Q.6:164] People "swallowed" [that is to say, they dropped it in pronunciation] the "ghayn" with the passage of time. As such most people continue to say "ʾabghā". While few have not ceased to say "ʾabghī". A Yemeni friend of mine told me in Yemen they say "ايش تبى" ("ēsh tabā", meaning "what do you want").

I applaud you, that's a very interesting way to explain away this: I supposed I've learned a new thing, as it seems fully understanding something just means you've been able to see broad trends. Thank you for your appraisal. Nope, this is condescension: And I suppose if you want to get out of being called out for your condescension by saying you're being frank, I'll do the same for calling your silly and ridiculous behaviour out and say I'm not being personal, I'm being frank. I can appreciate that your country is going through tough times (as it seems the second thing of worth which you've said in this thread), but you cannot post nonsense like this. Oh yeah, I remember reading in The Cambridge Ancient History series that part about how Latin is the language of Satan (Shaitan, Iblis, and whatever you call him -- but it was all in caps) and how Prophets are actually Satan. Obviously this is how historians talk, I remember watching a seminar where Robert Hoyland just loses his mind as well and goes on tirades about Satanic Romans. I was born in Pakistan, but just because I'm not Arab it doesn't excuse your nonsensical anti-Arab racism. Sorry, you don't have a carte blanche to post nonsense playing armchair psychologist and not be told you're being ridiculous. In any case, perhaps go and actually study whatever you're bragging to people about having had studied. Good luck.

This seems long-winded and rather confusing and you yourself acknowledged you lost your own point about halfway into your post. Due to that it's a bit hard to seriously try to respond to anything, especially since you present your points in a confrontational manner with overall little substance and a lack of understanding of history and language. It might be worth saying how Arab and Amazigh relations (I suppose if you're going to quote your nationalist acquaintance you might as well use the term that "Berbers" prefer to be called) is the result of centuries of Arabization of North Africa and how the Muslim religion played less of a role than Muslims viewing Arabic as a prestige language and using it for administrativ and educational purposes as well as pushing to centralize government in their new territories by controlling and suppressing local groups, like the Amazigh. Over centuries they were Arabized, but that's hardly an Islamic decree, just a byproduct of the Arab conquests and something already happening in the Arabian peninsula. But obviously a nuanced analysis is too silly, it's just Islam that has Arab nationalism embedded into it! And perhaps one might say how languages with grammatical genders tend to, you know, assign genders to words, and that it isn't necessarily logical or even based on anything on anything about the thing itself because there's nothing inherently feminine about hands, towns, Egypt, or collective nouns. It might also be worth mentioning that words carry a signification of their own beyond how a certain group uses them, and how al-Ilah's contraction to Allah was likely being used by various groups, both monotheist and polytheist, and that it itself does just mean God, and that if I say the noun يغوث "he helps", I am not secretly saying the name of the pre-Islamic Arabian God whose worship was equated with the practices of ancient times. But obviously understanding how languages work is ridiculous, it's obviously a misogynistic linguistic plan devised by ancient speakers of Semitic languages designed to undermine women. Really I should be blaming Haywood and Nahmad for teaching me to presume Arabic words to be masculine in post cases unless I see otherwise, they planted the seeds of this linguistic misogyny in my mind. I suppose the only thing you mentioned here that's a real problem is the suppression of Amazigh people and their cultures (I thought it was by nationalist governments suppressing ethnic groups but thanks for pointing out to me it's really a misogynist nationalist ploy). I suppose what could be expected from someone deluded enough to think he's mastered theology in three months. Anyways, enjoy trying to find your point again so you can comeback to be condescending to the members of this forum with a new unhinged and insane post, having seen your posts I know there's something crazier in you than this.

Salams, I've recently been reading a rather interesting book called Arab Dress a Short History: From the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times in which there is also a discussion about the history and nature of turbans during the early Islamic period. The author argues that the turbans of the very early Islamic period would've often been a much simpler type than the ones you've shown made of a cloth simply wound around the head. The simple nature of the early turbans is evidenced by reports such as one where Abdullah b. Atik uses his turban to bandage his broken leg during an assassination. There are also traditions of it being wound around what is a generic cap called qalansuwa (the word itself is rather interesting, I'd imagine it is a native Arabic root but there is a similar Aramaic word קוֹלַס (Qōlwas -- refer to a dictionary entry on it) meaning a military helmet or turban which itself might have come from a Greek word κόρυς, korüs, meaning helmet). This style seems to be particularly popular in ahadith though God knows if such traditions are anachronistic or not, nevertheless summing up the traditions about turbans and the Prophet Ibn al-Qayyim is says, "وكان يلبسها يعني العمامة ويلبس تحتها القلنسوة، وكان يلبس القلنسوة بغير عمامة ويلبس العمامة بغير قلنسوة انتهى" (he would wear it, that is to say, the turban, and wear under it a cap, he would also wear a cap without a turban, and wear a turban without a cap). For a more detailed analysis of the history of Muslim clothing, you can refer to the excellent work I mentioned earlier, EI2's (Encyclopedia of Islam 2) articles on "Libas" (v.5) and on the "Tulband" (v.10). I don't think it's just the Shias though who've stopped wearing turbans, the major Shii centers of the Arab Muslim world (Iraq and Hasa' really) seemed to have stopped wearing them anyways prior to the conversion of local populations to tashayyu. Many rural and bedouin Arabs started wearing the shmagh and 3iggal and I doubt the turban was a popular item of clothing anyways among those populations. According to various early reports and testimonies, both Muslim and non-Muslim, the Bedouin would appear to be naked to settled people, at most wearing an izar and rida' which they would drape over their shoulders and sometimes just a headband over their hair, or maybe even a cap, but no elaborate headdresses, this scantily clad style of clothing even continued in Southern Arabia till rather recently even though northern Bedouin would be adorned in robes. The pictures you posted depict a much later style as the qalansuwah were a tight fitting caps more akin to a kufi than those qalansuwah which seem to reflect a much later style, perhaps something from the later Umawi or Abbasid period, if not much later, additionally the way they're tightly wrapped seems to be a later practice rather than something which might have been done in the Prophet's own lifetime. If you really want to you can just use a shmagh/kafiyyah/ghutra and tie a turban with it, having the back part perhaps stick it to make a tahannuk. What seem to be somewhat more historic dresses aren't the Saudi/Khaliji/Iraqi style of thawbs, rather the Sudanese and Egyptian style of thawbs and their turbans (which till now remain a very common item of clothing among the rural people and older generations) -- though a kafiyah/shmagh style headdress seems to be attested early on as well. والله أعلم wassalam

Salams, If you mean the various masahif, then yes. Evidence seems to show that in the early period there were a variety of reading traditions and codices which gave way to one codex which over time replaced the others, and the number of readings being reduced to 14 which fit the consonantal text of this codex. Though these didn't contradict each other, and as the previous examples indicate, agreed with the meaning of each other despite consonantal differences possibly accommodating various dialects. والله أعلم wassalam

Salams Uthman definitely did produce a standardized mushaf which entered circulation among the Muslims eventually replacing the other masahif, and we do know that they were different in some respects to Uthman's mushaf. For example, it's quite notable that Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf didn't include the mu'awadhatayn and possibly al-Fatiha as well, though there are other reports about how he read verses in it differently, like إرشدنا instead of إهدنا الصراط المستقيم which is perhaps a more substantial difference than having differences in grammar. In the previous example it's not just a difference in dotting of the letters changing the person or changing the verbal stem but fundamentally still having the same rasm or consonantal text, but the actual writing would have been completely different. (irshadna is not written the same ihdina as you can tell). Similarly the Sanaa palimpsest has differences between the lower and upper writing, as far as the examples in this thread are concerned this isn't substantial in changing the meaning (even rashada and hada can be understood as synonyms of each other), but that there were differences in the lower and upper text seems obvious. The Kuwaiti encyclopedia Mu'jam al-Qira'aat al-Qur'aniyyah is a great resource for comparing the different Qira'aat, both mashhur and shadh, and also different masahif to the standard Hafs 'an 'Asim reading which has become the most famous. What type of Quranic work the lower text is would probably be a better question to ask than is it, the standard view has been that it was a non-Uthmanic codex, as I mentioned above, Asma Hilali seems to think its actually the product of a Qur'an reading circle. She's cited evidence like the note not to reading the basmala at the beginning of Surah al-Tawba as evidence for this. I do personally find this point a good argument, though would need to read her book to see all of her arguments to prove her conclusion and to see how this argument is defended. wassalam

Salams, I thought it might be interesting to have some pre-Classical Arabic (though I gather it was likely adapted somewhat to standard Classical Arabic over its transmission) from the Era of Ignorance/Jahiliyyah. This is supposed to be the proclamation of obedience/talbiyah of Banu ʿAkk which they recited when setting out as pilgrims. In front of them would be two black slaves leading the procession saying: "we are the crows of ʿAkk". Banu ʿAkk would respond after them: "ʿAkk is subservient to you, (they are) your Yemeni slaves, (we go forth) in order that we might make pilgrimage again!" Some lexical notes I've found on this verse: غرابا عك has غراب in the dual and according to the editor, the "aghrubah" (أغربة), or crows, of the Arabs meant the black people among them. Thus here it means the black members of ʿAkk. This was noted by the editor of K. al-Asnam. ʿAkk were an Arab (or Arabized) tribe from Yemen (as عبادك اليمانية would imply) that lived in the southern end of Tihama near Wadi Zabid. عانية comes from the word عنو which also appears in the Qur'an (Q.20:111) and according to Lanes Lexicon and Hans Wehr means "to be humble", "submissive", "subservient", "servile". God alone knows how true this is though. For those interested, if you search on Youtube نحن غرابا عك you'll find the opening scene from the Egyptian film Hijrat al-Rasul (هجرة الرسول) where you have Kuffar in Mecca reciting this talbiyah, although in Mecca rather than on their way to Mecca. Ref. to Hisham b. Sa'ib al-Kalbi, Kitab al-Asnam. e.d. Ahmad Zaki Basha. (Cairo: 1995).