PART 1 OF 4 : [The claim that Muhammad is found in Song of Songs 5:16]
Andy Bannister
Dear Shibli,
Thank you for your four-part reply to my last post. I am sorry that you felt
that the best way to make your point was to attempt to belittle and insult
both myself and others, but then that is of course a choice you are free to
make. I do hope that in all my responses to you I have been firm but fair;
personally, I consider insults to be the last refuge of somebody who has run
out of argument. (I also believe that Jesus taught the important of
respecting and praying for those with whom we dispute).
Anyway, before we get on to the main part of my reply, I thought I ought to
begin by repeating the claim from your first post that started us off on
this long thread. I do this simply for the benefit of the readers of SRI who
may be new to this particular discussion. I also think it is always helpful
to keep the objective in mind, especially in a thread of this complexity.
>>>>> Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16 may be translated as:
>>>>> "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Muhammad. This is my
>>>>> (paternal) uncle, and this is my comrade, O daughters of
>>>>>Jerusalem."
>>>>> This is definitely not erroneous if weighed against any work of
>>>>> scholarship regarding the Hebrew language. There are many,
>>>>> many, serious implications when these outlined words are taken in
>>>>> context as they were understood based upon the Bible's own usage
>>>>> in its other books. This verse may or may not refer to the Prophet
>>>>> Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) of
>>>>> Mecca and Medina who preached Islam in the 7th century AD and
>>>>> led to a quarter of humanity calling themselves "Muslims".
[www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=582171899]
Bold claims indeed! Now the ensuing debate has raged around your comments
that "this is definitely not erroneous if weighed against any work of
scholarship regarding the Hebrew language". I found it highly ironic that on
3 April 2000, in another thread on SRI, you wrote the following:
"Please scan this post of 'qizlbash' and find even one single reference. You
will not find one. It is a painfully lengthy monologue of hot air with not
even a single source cited"
[www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=605845218]
Now given that throughout your last three posts you have made no reference
to any recognised Hebrew grammars or other such scholarly works, I found
your above remarks to 'qizilbash' a little ironic. If one is going to
attempt to rewrite the rules of Hebrew grammar and semantics to find
Muhammad's name in Song of Songs 5:16, it would help your position if you
had some authority to which you could appeal. Alas, this has not been the
case. On the other hand, just for reference, here are the sources which I
referred to in my last post, and which I will refer to again in this post:
"Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [BDB]"
F Brown, S R Driver & C A Briggs
"Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words"
W E Vine, M F Unger & W White
"Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar [GKC]"
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970
"The New Strong's Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible"
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers Inc, 1995
Incidentally, James Dowdeswell (about whom you also made disparaging remarks
in your last post), pointed you to:
"A Practical Grammar For Classical Hebrew"
Professor J. Weingreen
"The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament"
Harold Scanlin
"Biblical Hebrew Step By Step"
Menahem Mansoor
"The Books and the Parchments"
F F Bruce
"The New Bible Dictionary"
"The New Unger's Bible Dictionary"
... and he has never heard from you since. Surely this wasn't simply because
the sources he quoted rather threw your claims out on their ear? I seem to
recall that you were trying to give him Hebrew lessons, in your own
inimitable style, until it turned out he knew rather more than you realised
:-) See www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587226526.
Now if I was to start making crazy claims that I had found, for example, the
name of Bart Simpson in the Qur'an, and the only 'reference' I used was
something like "The Beginner's Guide to Modern Arabic" I think my claims
would be laughed off SRI. Yet the comparison is clear. In your attempt to
find the name of Muhammad in Song of Songs 5:16, the only references you
could come up with were dictionaries. Try a recognised Hebrew grammar (I
would suggest either GKC or BDB. You can purchase both from www.amazon.com).
Anyway, the lengthy introduction over, let us move on to the substance of
your four posts:
>> Before I go any further, I think this is a good time to clear up what the
>> word in Song of Solomon 5:16 actually is. To be fair, *both* Shibli and
>> I have not been very clear in what we have written on this point. The
>> word in question is indeed:
> Here Andy Bannister proceeds to "correct" me by contesting my English
> transliteration of Hebrew words. Unless Andy Bannister can introduce
> any official standard for Hebrew transliteration, this entire point is
> lengthy, unnecessary, and ridiculous.
Shibli, this is a complete cop-out. Nearly every elementary grammar of
Hebrew and most dictionaries contain a system of transliteration. While
there is no absolute standard of transliteration, NO PUBLISHED academic
dictionary or grammar would justify ANY of the multiple ways that you
transliterated the word under discussion.
Let me remind our readers once more of the multiple ways in which you tried
to transliterate the singular ("machmad") and the plural ("machamaddim") of
the word in question in Song of Songs 5:16. You variously used:
MACHAMADIM
MACHAMMADIM
MACHAMADD
MACHAMAD
and in this, your most recent post, you added another:
MUCHAMMADIM
Now the reason I pointed out these mistakes is not simply some quibble over
transliteration methods, but that *no* transliteration method would allow
the horrendous mistakes I have quoted above. Let me go further and explain
why each of these is wrong:
1. In the case of "MACHAMADIM", no system of transliteration would justify
not doubling the "D" before the plural ending "IM".
2. In the case of "MACHAMADD", no system of transliteration would justify
doubling a final "D" with no daggesh forte or transliterating a silent shewa
with "A".
3. In the case of "machamad" no system of transliteration would justify
transliterating silent shewa with "A".
4. In the case of your "MACHAMMADIM", no system of transliteration would
justify doubling a "M" without a daggesh forte.
5. In the case of your "MUCHAMMADIM", no system of transliteration would
justify the "U", nor doubling a "M" without a daggesh forte.
As I have already said, what is most ironic is that you contradict not only
the transliteration systems used by the authorative dictionaries and
grammars, but you also contradict *YOURSELF* from one page to the next.
Perhaps you could share with me and SRI:
i. Which of your three versions of the plural "machamaddim" you are
*actually* advocating (you used machamadim, muchammadim and machammadim).
These three not only contradict *each other*, but all the authoritative
dictionaries and grammars! Could you please decide whether you are
advocating 'machamadim' or 'machammadim' or 'muchammadim' and then stick
with it.
ii. Which of your two versions of the singular "machmad" you are *actually*
advocating (you used machamadd and machamad). These two not only contradict
*each other*, but all the authoritative dictionaries and grammars! Could you
please decide whether you are advocating 'machamadd' or 'machamad' and then
stick with it.
> It is very, very simple and Andy should not try and cloud his
> extremely serious and fatal error with a smoke screen of English
> transliteration "corrections".
What *does* seem to be "very, very simple" is your insistence upon defending
the mistakes you have made to the hilt. It is very easy to make mistakes of
transliteration; however, if you have to try and bluster and shout to defend
them, all that shows is insecurity. What I found particularly ironic was
that as I have shown above, you used two different (wrong) transliterations
for the singular and three different (equally wrong) for the plural. Thus
not only did your method of transliteration disagree with every known and
accepted method, but they disagreed *with each other*.
The point I was making is that all five of your transliterations above are
wrong according to the consensus of all modern systems of Hebrew
transliteration. Since you are making the claim that your transliteration is
accurate, it is up to you to produce a modern, accepted authority on Hebrew
transliteration that would justify your claim. I believe you will find none,
and to accuse me of throwing up smoke-screens is a mere cop-out.
> 1. From the beginning I was discussing the word "MACHAMADIM"
> found in Shir Hashirim 5:16
What I find fascinating, Shibli, are the sheer number of inconsistencies
that constantly crop up in your posts; you are not merely content to
contradict the accepted authorities on Biblical Hebrew such as GKC and BDB,
but you often contradict *yourself* from one paragraph to the next! And here
we have another example of vintage Shibli; your claim that the word you are
discussing is:
> spelled "mem, cheth, mem, daleth, mem" is the plural form of the root
> "mem, cheth, mem, daleth" with the addition of the succeeding "yod-
> mem" pluralization ("yod" being a vocative vowel mark and not a
> consonant).
So let me try and get this straight; in the above paragraph you are claiming
that the word you believe to be "Muhammad" in Song of Songs 5:16 is the
Hebrew word MXMDYM (machamaddim) which is the plural of MXMD (machmad). I am
glad that you made this crystal clear, because just a few lines down your
post you wrote:
> Incorrect, the word "MACHMAD" is not what is used in Shir Hashirim
> 5:16. Andy should not try and betray the reader into thinking the word
> in 5:16 is "MACHMAD". This is a tactic used to draw attention to the
> 20+ other verses that use the word "MACHMAD" in reference to
> benign objects. The word is NOT "MACHMAD" it is
> MACHAMADIM" and, thus, very unique and dissimilar to all the other
> references dubiosuly cited to say that this word can not be a person's
> name
Oh dear, you appear to have contradicted yourself here. Do you not see the
problem? On the one hand, you categorically state (whilst criticising me),
that:
1. Song of Songs 5:16 contains "machamaddim" which is the plural of
"machmad"
And yet, on the other hand, you also categorically state (whilst criticising
me), that:
2. Song of Songs 5:16 contains "machamaddim" which is unique and is
therefore not the plural of "machmad".
So which do you actually believe? Given that you are predisposed towards
flippant remarks like ...
> This was my intial stance which proved correct from the beginning,
> throughout Andy's painful Hebrew lessons, and ultimately now.
... it might be a good idea to work out what you actually believe before you
write it. As an aside, my Hebrew lessons have not proved at all painful, but
wonderfully enlightening. I knew that the claim that Muhammad's name was in
Song of Songs 5:16 was built on very dodgy exegesis, but it has been an
insight to see the torturous abuse that both Scripture and language must be
put to in order to try to support that conclusion.
> 2. Andy Bannister first stated the word was "MACHMAD" spelled
> "mem, cheth, mem, daleth". After being corrected by me he still
> vehemently insisted typing in ALL CAPS that it was "MACHMAD" and
> not "MACHAMADIM".
Shibli, I can understand that you feel the need to belittle and insult in
order to try to bolster up your position, but I would appreciate it if you
did not seek to misrepresent and misquote me. Firstly, it is ill-mannered,
and secondly , misquoting someone is a foolish thing to do, particularly on
UseNet, as the evidence is there for all to see.
Now you will see in my reply to your first post (my reply appeared on SRI on
11-Feb-2000), that I said:
"... we should transcribe MACHAMADDIM as the Hebrew has a daghesh in the D
of the mHmd root ..."
[www.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=584432312]
You NEVER corrected me in this discussion on the issue of the plural of the
word. Throughout all my posts to you I have explained that the word in
question is "machmad" in the singular and "machamaddim" in the plural.
Incidentally, just for reference, here are some earlier posts of mine where
I point out that the plural of "machmad" is "machamaddim":
www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=581741902
(dated 5-Feb-2000)
www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=580628246
(dated 2-Feb-2000)
These were examples of posts *before* I began debating you, and in which I
wrote about the plural and singular form of the word. Hence unless you are
trying to claim you taught me by telepathy or some other such psychic power,
then you are very much mistaken.
What I believe you have done (either mistakenly or deliberately) is pick up
on a comment made by "The Armin" in his post here:
www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586368251
Now "The Armin" and I debated on Song of Songs 5:16 about a year ago, and
indeed I foolishly argued that the word was machmad not machamaddim (I
believe I used all capitals). My mistake was not referring to a copy of the
Hebrew Scriptures and thus not realising the word had the YOD-MEM (YM)
plural ending. I acknowledged this on SRI here:
www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=587359460
(dated 19-Feb-2000)
> Presumably, some Jew or Christian source told him he was
> wrong so he humbly recanted and accepted he was incorrect.
The danger in making assumptions like that above is that they often turn out
to be wrong. I discovered that the word was "machamaddim" late last year
when I got a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures for my PC, and was able to check
what Song of Songs 5:16 actually said.
For you to claim that when I began debating you I was trying to claim the
word was not plural is either a great oversight on your part, or an attempt
to bluff and distract the attention away from the holes in your arguments.
Kindly do not misrepresent me in future.
> He then accepted that the word was indeed "MACHAMADIM"
Wrong, again. I explained that the word was "MACHAMADDIM" in my first reply
to you dated 11-Feb-2000. Please try and be accurate.
> with a silly insistence that the "daleth" sound being doubled makes the
> word significantly different from "MUHAMMADIM"
My arguments that the word is significantly different to "Muhammad" stem
>from the fact that many Muslims seem to think the word "machamaddim" means
Muhammad simply because they *look* a little similar. As I explained later
in my post this is as stupid as saying that the French for fish ("poisson")
must mean the same as the English word "poison", because *they look* the
same.
Oh, and by the way, trying to compare MACHAMADDIM and MUHAMMAD is crazy, as
you are comparing Hebrew with English. As I pointed out in my first post, it
is far better to compare Hebrew with Hebrew:
Hebrew for "Muhammad" = MWXMD
Hebrew in SoS 5:16 = MXMDYM
Fairly different, I would suggest!
> Thus, this entire insistence on some mythical standard of English
> transliteration of Hebrew words which does not exist is rendered
> useless and insipid.
As I have said above, Shibli, we can resolve this point if you would care to
let us know what system of transliteration you are following that allows:
- The insertion or removal of a daggesh forte at whim
- The transliteration of a silent shewa.
Otherwise, I am afraid I must stick with the more traditional approach, and
use transliteration systems recognised by authoritative grammars, such as
BDB and Gesenius (GKC).
> Indeed, let the reader decide and I encourage all of our esteemed readers
> to provide objective feedback on this.
Indeed. I would however point out that to be 'objective' in this instance
would mean to read Song of Songs (the whole book), ideally in Hebrew, and
see what verse 5:16 means in the context in which it was written. One does
not even need to read Hebrew to see the context of the passage. But given
your last few postings, I am quite surprised to see you now recommending
objectivity as a virtue :-)
> MACHMAD (MXMD in Hebrew, reading from right to left: daleth, mem,
> cheth, mem); which means "lovely or desirable"
>
>However, where the word "machmad" occurs in Song of Solomon 5:16 it is
>actually *plural*. Thus the word becomes:
>
>MACH+a+MAD+d+IM (or MXMDYM in Hebrew, where Y = yodh)
The reason I pointed out the above was to aid those trying to follow this
debate who are not knowledgable in Hebrew, nor who have access to the likes
of the BDB or GKC (present company excepted). Maybe you want to keep the
good readers of SRI in the dark as to the workings of Hebrew grammar, so as
to appear that you know more than you actually do?
> etc..etc...etc.. As mentioned before I told him this a very long time
> ago.
As anyone can check by referring to the UseNet posts I have pointed you to
above, what you have said above is *completely false*. Whether your
accusations are very intentional lies to mislead the SRI readership or
simply sloppy mistakes is not for me to judge upon. You have to ask yourself
before God whether your own conscience is clear in this. I believe that *not
checking the facts* in an academic debate is very serious; in future, kindly
check what I have actually said, rather than misquote me and publically
spread misinformation.
In my first post to you in this thread, I used the word "machamaddim" for
the plural; it is *I* who have constantly had to correct your
transliteration, point out the existence of Hebrew words that you claimed
didn't exist, explain how plurals work, etc. etc. Yes, I have made some
mistakes, but then I have always owned up to them. I believe that a) trying
to defend obvious mistakes and b) misrepresenting what your opponent has
said only makes one look extremely foolish.
>> Hence to recap, the singular form of the word in question is MACHMAD
>> and the plural form is MACHAMADDIM.
> Incorrect, the word "MACHMAD" is not what is used in Shir Hashirim
> 5:16. Andy should not try and betray the reader into thinking the word
> in 5:16 is "MACHMAD".
As I pointed out above, but will repeat here, isn't this just such a
wonderful contradiction? Shibli, you have the gall to try and correct me for
observing that the word in question in Song of Songs 5:16 is:
PLURAL : machamaddim
SINGULAR : machmad
Yet if one scrolls your post back up just a couple of screens or so and we
see that you were saying:
> 1. From the beginning I was discussing the word "MACHAMADIM"
> found in Shir Hashirim 5:16 spelled "mem, cheth, mem, daleth, mem" is the
> PLURAL FORM OF THE ROOT "mem, cheth, mem, daleth" with the
> addition of the succeeding "yod-mem" pluralization ("yod" being a
> vocative vowel mark and not a consonant).
(I have helpfully put the pertinent bits in capitals for you)
So it would seem THAT we agree after all at this point; I also claim that
the word in Song of Songs 5:16 is "machamaddim" which is the plural of
"machmad". These words are of course related (like cat and cats, mouse and
mice etc.) Given your little paragraph above, I see that you now agree with
me. Excellent.
> This is a tactic used to draw attention to the 20+ other verses that use
> the word "MACHMAD" in reference to benign objects.
Actually the word "machmad" appears in the Hebrew Bible 13 times, not 20
times. A simple concordance with a word count (such as Strong's) would have
told you this figure. Of course in not one of those cases does "machmad"
equal "Muhammad"; the reason why you objected to the many verses where
"machmad" is used about, in your words, "benign objects" is that it shows
the fallacy of your whole argument. How you can even seriously begin to
claim that the singular form of the word can mean "altogether lovely /
desirable" yet the plural mean Muhammad's name is entirely beyond me. Does
"mouse" mean something radically different to "mice"? Is the children's song
"Three Blind Mice" actually a prediction about some future prophet? No, of
course not. If you want to know what a plural means, look at the singular!
> The word is NOT "MACHMAD" it is "MACHAMADIM" and, thus, very
> unique and dissimilar to all the other references dubiosuly cited to
> say that this word can not be a person's name.
You are once again contradicting what you wrote earlier in your post:
> 1. From the beginning I was discussing the word "MACHAMADIM"
> found in Shir Hashirim 5:16 spelled "mem, cheth, mem, daleth, mem" which
> is the plural form of the root "mem, cheth, mem, daleth" with the
> addition of the succeeding "yod-mem" pluralization ("yod" being a vocative
> vowel mark and not a consonant).
Now your admission here clears it all up, because you are in agreement with
what I have been saying all along. And that the word in Song of Songs 5:16
is:
MACHAMADDIM
... which is the plural of the word ...
MACHMAD
As I explained in my last post, the singular becomes the plural by:
MACH+a+MAD+d+IM (or MXMDYM in Hebrew, where Y = yod)
The "d" (Hebrew letter 'daleth') is doubled because of the daggesh forte
(dot in the middle of it, for laymen), and then "im" (Hebrew YM = 'yod' +
'mem') is added to make the plural. The extra "a" (Hebrew 'pattah') is
gained after the "ch" (Hebrew letter cheyth) in order to make it easier to
pronounce the word. In Hebrew, the stress is placed on the last syllable,
and machmaddim would be almost unpronounceable. Hence it becomes
ma-cha-mad-DIM, capitals signifying the emphasis.
Now, since we are both agreed that MACHMAD is the singular and MACHAMADDIM
the plural, your claim that the word in Song of Songs 5:16 is unique is
irrelevant. The word MACHMAD occurs 13 times in the Hebrew Bible, twelve
times in the singular and once in the plural. This 12/1 ratio has no bearing
on your argument, because in both singular and plural MACHMAD (MACHAMADDIM)
means the same thing. It behaves the same way as mouse/mice, cat/cats etc or
indeed any other word in any language that adopts a plural form. The
instrinsic meaning in Hebrew does not change simply by turning it into a
plural! To argue as such would be grammatical nonsense.
Now since we are both agreed that MACHAMADDIM is the plural of MACHMAD, my
original exercise, whereby I posted the other twelve occurences of the word
to see if Muhammad fits the context, still stands, despite your attempts to
rubbish it. Since you are suggesting that machamaddim = Muhammad with a
"royal plural", the following must therefore apply:
Claim : Muhammad + "royal plural" = MACHAMADDIM
Therefore you must also claim that:
Claim: MACHMAD (singular) = Muhammad (with no royal plural).
In fact you did claim this in your first post on this thread, when you
wrote:
"The fact that this 'MACHAMAD' evidently may well be the Prophet Muhammad
has already been thoroughly outlined and established"
[www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=582171899]
Therefore, my approach of looking at the 13 places where machmad (singular)
or machamaddim (plural) is used to see if Muhammad fits is *still* valid and
the argument does still stand. Here is that list of verses once again:
1 Kings 20:6 Yet I will send my servants unto thee to morrow about this
time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and
it shall be, that whatsoever is MUHAMMAD in thine eyes, they shall put it
in their hand, and take it away.
2 Chronicles 36:19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall
of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all
the MUHAMMAD vessels thereof.
Isaiah 64:11 Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised
thee, is burned up with fire: and all our MUHAMMAD things are laid waste.
Lamentations 1:10 The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her
MUHAMMAD things: for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her
sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy
congregation.
Lamentations 1:11 All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given
their MUHAMMAD things for meat to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and
consider; for I am become vile.
Lamentations 2:4 He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his
right hand as an adversary, and slew all that were MUHAMMAD to the eye in
the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.
Ezekiel 24:16 Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the MUHAMMAD of
thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither
shall thy tears run down.
Ezekiel 24:21 Speak unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellency of your strength, the
MUHAMMAD of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and
your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword.
Ezekiel 24:25 Also, thou son of man, shall it not be in the day when I take
>from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the MUHAMMAD of their
eyes, and that whereupon they set their minds, their sons and their
daughters,
Hosea 9:6 For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather
them up, Memphis shall bury them: the MUHAMMAD places for their silver,
nettles shall possess them: thorns shall be in their tabernacles.
Hosea 9:16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no
fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the MUHAMMAD fruit
of their womb.
Joel 3:5 Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into
your temples my goodly MUHAMMAD things
Now it does not take an expert in Hebrew to verify that "Muhammad" does not
fit any of the occurences of "machmad" in the Hebrew Bible that I have
listed above. Hence if "machmad" does not equal "Muhammad", then to claim
that the plural "machmaddim" = Muhammad + "royal plural" is, I am afraid,
fallacious and built on no foundations whatsoever.
>> b) As I have explained above, two words looking similar does not prove
>> they are cognates, let alone the +same word+. The fun I had with
>> 'poisson' and 'poison' demonstrates the foolishness this can result in.
> "Poisson" is French for "fish", whereas, "poison" is English for a
> toxic substance.
Well done. The point was that the claim that machmad/machamaddim = Muhammad
is as ludicrous and makes as much linguistic sense as somebody worrying that
poisson = poison and refusing to order cod and chips in Paris.
> "MACHAMADIM" means "Praise worthy" and "MUHAMMADIM"
> means "Praise worthy".
Wrong on two counts. Firstly, I was concerned about your willingness to add
an "IM" on to the end of Muhammad, something that never occurs in the Qur'an
or the Hadith. Given that this is a problem you struggled with later on in
your post, to try and subtly slip in a plural ending here shows utter
contempt for reasoned debate. Rules of grammar cannot, contrary to what you
seem to believe, be made up as you go along!
Secondly, "machamaddim" does not mean "praiseworthy", but means "desire,
desirable, or pleasant thing." Check Strong's, check BDB, check a proper
source. If these are not available to you, utilise the list of thirteen
Bible verses I gave you in my first post where "machmad" or "machamaddim"
appears. Substitute the correct definition and see if it makes sense.
Substitute your invented definition, "praiseworthy", and see if that makes
sense. I would particular point you to verses like Ezekiel 24:25 which
should read "the desire of their eyes" (rather than "the praiseworthy of
their eyes") as just one example.
> With each of his responses the scholarship decays.
The difference between my posts and yours, Shibli, is that I have pointed
you to recognised grammatical authorities to back up what I say. GKC and BDB
are world-renowned and recognised, scholarly sources, used by serious
students of Hebrew to check what the grammar should be. It is not
permissible to make up rules of grammar as you go; it leads to a quagmire of
nonsense!
>>> I challenge one and all to open up the phone book (its not that hard)
>>> and dial the local Synagogue and ask them to read Shir Hashirim
>>> 5:16 on the phone to you. You will then hear that the word is
>>> "MACHAMADIM" and not "MACHMAD" as this author states.
>> If you are saying that whatever the local Rabbi reads down the telephone
>> to you is to be taken as being *accurate*, then try this; after you have
>> heard the word, ask the Rabbi if it means "Muhammad". Given that you
>> are happy to take his pronunciation as correct, I can only assume you
>> would also accept his *definition* as well, otherwise you would be guilty
>> of a double-standard of mind boggling proportions.
My point in replying your challenge, Shibli, was this. That it is a
double-standard of staggering proportions if you are seriously suggesting
that:
a) any bits of the local Rabbi's conversation that agree with your argument
are to be agreed with, and prove what you say is true
b) any bits of the local Rabbi's conversation that disagree with your
argument are to be utterly ignored, and prove that he doesn't know what he's
talking about.
Thankfully, to alleviate any confusion, you now go on to prove this is
*exactly* what you are saying .
> Now let me present a parallel that actually makes sense.
> Andy, call your local Rabbi and ask him what Yeshua means (a form of
> Jesus' name in Hebrew). He may say it means "God's Salvation" (which
> is not what it means at all but this is another subject).
We will come to what Jesus' name actually means later in the post, but thank
you for proving my point for me. Your statement "he may say ... but that is
not what it means at all" is almost arrogant. I cannot seriously believe
you are advocating the position "whatever the Rabbi says is only right if it
agrees with Shibli". I thought I had seen most extremes in my fourteen
months on SRI, but apparently not.
> Now before you hang up the phone ask him if Jesus is the only way to
> salvation.
> To quote you:
>> Given that you are happy to take his pronounciation as correct, I can
>> only assume you would also accept his explanation, otherwise one
>> would be guilty of a double-standard of mind boggling proportions.
The problem that you have, Shibli, is that I am not the one appealing to a
Rabbi as a source, yet suggesting you ignore anything he says that disagrees
with me. Of course the Rabbi (unless he was Messianic) would disagree with
my beliefs about Jesus; *however* I would not and have not appealed to a
Rabbi in a discussion of that subject.
Thus you are trying to create a smoke screen. You cannot appeal to a source
(be it a book or a Rabbi) in the way that you have done. If you wish to
offer the Rabbi's opinion on the pronunciation of a word to prove a point,
it is clearly ridiculous to then refuse to accept his explanation of what it
means. Despite all your protestations to the contrary, this is a
double-standard.
> As anyone can see, yet another one of Andy's points is rendered
> useless. Please, Andy, I hope you can do better than this.
Oh there is much better to come, as you have provided more than enough rope
to hang yourself with on this topic :-) As I have shown above, rather than
my point being rendered useless, your trying to get off the hook has only
highlighted the extent of your double-standard when it comes to the poor
local Rabbi!
> So far this response has been one of your weakest and not even remotely
> informative or enjoyable.
Again, attacking what I wrote in this way does not get you off the hook. I
am sure that you have not found it "enjoyable", as I never intended it to be
so. I intended to show the mistakes, false presumptions, and grammatical
errors that lie behind the claim that Muhammad's name is to be found in Song
of Songs 5:16. To admit that one is mistaken can be hard --- I have been
grown-up enough to admit the mistakes I made in my first post; is it too
much to ask that you also own up to the places where you are in error?
> Regarding his huge mistake which revealed that:
> A) He was arguing the whole while without even looking at the text in
> Hebrew.
What on earth gave you the impression that I was not looking at the text in
Hebrew? Given that your entire argument has been built using a concordance
(your grammatical mistakes show this), I could ask what evidence you have
shown to prove that you have the Hebrew Scriptures in front of you? Perhaps
I should ask you to quote edition and publisher, in the interests of
integrity. Throughout this debate I have most certainly referred to the
Hebrew! I have used the Ben-Asher Morphological Hebrew text, (c) 1967/77,
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.
> Had he actually, read the text from the beginning of the
> argument he would have seen clear as day that the word is "MACHAMADIM"
> not "MACHMAD" which is entirely missing a consonant and two vowels.
And as I have pointed out several times already above, in my first and
second replies to you (this is the third), I used both the words
"machamaddim" and "machmad". I have long been aware of which is the singular
and the plural! However, I think your lecturing me on this is a little bit
rich, given the confusion that riddled your first post on this subject.
Throughout your post you used "machamad/machamadd [sic]" and
"machammadim/machamadim/muhammadim [sic]" interchangeably, never once
explaining that the latter is the plural of the former. Therefore, if anyone
is guilty of not understanding plurals, it would appear to be you, given the
evidence in this thread!
> B) He did not even know what he was talking about
>> I accept that my mistake was not to point out that machamaddim is the
>> plural of machmad, and I made the mistake of using the two words
>> interchangeably without explaining this point to the casual reader not
>> familiar with Hebrew.
> So rather than standing by his previous admission that he made an
> outright blunder and had not actually read the Hebrew text of Shir
> Hashirim before insisting it was not referring to the Prophet Muhammad
> (Peace be upon him), he is now trying to modify that confession to a
> mistaken mere inadequacy in expression. Andy should be sincere and not
> try and slip away from a confession once he has already made it.
Perhaps you would care to show me where I made this mythical admission that
I have never read the Hebrew text! As I have clearly laid out above, I
wanted to ensure that ordinary readers of our thread who do not know Hebrew
understood the difference between "machmad" (singular) and "machamaddim"
(plural). Given that I have explained this and you have glossed over it,
which of us has a) been the clearest and b) demonstrated a better
understanding of Hebrew grammar?
CONTINUED IN PART 2
Shi...@zaman.net
information. After the first few paragraphs one can see it is the same
material regurgitated. I have already addressed every point in here.
However, Andy has introduced some more hilarity as he does with every
post.
If anyone feels that Mr. Bannister has refuted me convincinlgy on any
point or that I need to address anything he brought up in this series
then please email me and let me know. PLEASE be specific. Then, I will
respond to such requested issues as per request. I will post them on
this newsgroup as well as in email. Otherwise, no competent human
being who exists elewhere other than in front of his/her computer 24/7
has the time or tenacity to address this epic of mundane contentions.
I honestly don't believe anyone will even read through even half of
his material, simply because he loses the reader early through various
travesties of logic. I look forward to all of your emails and refuting
this nonsense per request.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
Andy Bannister
> I seriously doubt anyone will read this series of rehashed
> information.
I would have hoped that by now you had learnt that resorting to diatribe
rather than reasoned debate does not get you anywhere. It does not take a
great deal of effort to realise that much of what I wrote in my recent
four-part post was indeed new; I certainly covered ground we have +been
over+ before, but in more depth and detail than in the past. I am sorry if
the discussion has become too deep and detailed for you.
> After the first few paragraphs one can see it is the same
> material regurgitated.
As I said above, most of what I wrote was new. The older material you can
see (where I have quoted from what you or I wrote before) by looking for the
">" characters, signifying a citation from earlier before. If you cannot be
bothered to take the time to read what I wrote, carefully research (i.e.
check a reference book) and then reply, then so be it. However, I believe
that what I wrote at the end of the fourth part of my post still holds true:
"If you wish to pull out out of the discussion, then that is of course
entirely up to you. If you wish not to respond to this lengthy rebuttal and
analysis, then that is your choice. However, I am sure that you will realise
that to many on SRI (especially those who have been able to follow such a
technical discussion), this will seem like you are begging out because the
arguments that I and others have put forward are too powerful for you. I am
sure that when you started this thread, you hoped that the argument you had
built from a concordance would suffice, and that nobody would take you to
task for it. You were probably not expecting to be embroiled in discussion
many weeks later, and I will fully understand if you wish to back down."
> I have already addressed every point in here.
If you had bothered to read the material, you would see realise that to try
to gloss it with a sweeping aside like this only makes you look lazy. Much
of the material was entirely new; one example of many is where I discussed
the problems and errors in your Arabic quotations and grammar on two
occasions.
> However, Andy has introduced some more hilarity as he does with every
> post.
Once again, attempting to belittle me in order to distract from the fact
that you appear to be overwhelmed is no way to carry on a discussion. I seem
to recall in the last "round", it was you rather than I who made the more
amusing gaffs; such as claiming that the Hebrew "elohim" is feminine!
> If anyone feels that Mr. Bannister has refuted me convincinlgy on any
> point or that I need to address anything he brought up in this series
> then please email me and let me know.
Alternatively, people could ask you on SRI itself. It would be better to
keep this debate in a public light, rather than behind closed doors. I will
let you (and the good folk of SRI) know when the web page is up and running,
which will cover the issue in depth.
> Otherwise, no competent human
> being who exists elewhere other than in front of his/her computer 24/7
> has the time or tenacity to address this epic of mundane contentions.
I am sorry that you feel you need to back away from our discussions. I for
one have found them very informative, and they have fired a new passion for
Biblical Hebrew that was not there before. I do think that a lot of time
would have been saved for the both of us if you had checked out a recognised
authority on the language (i.e. BDB or GKC) before you started this thread,
as that would have helped you understand the real meaning of the verse we
have discussed.
> I honestly don't believe anyone will even read through even half of
> his material,
Actually I have already had emails from people who have read it all. I
accept that my rebuttal to your claims was fairly lengthy, but I wanted to
make sure all the angles were covered. It is not good scholarly practise to
argue in sentences and throw cheap insults around; better to refer to
sources and references to back up your arguments. Thus I am sure that the
length will put many off, but I also believe that those who want to
understand the issue properly will take the time to read what I wrote (just
as they may have taken the time to read what you wrote).
> simply because he loses the reader early through various
> travesties of logic.
My post was carefully constructed and responded to the line of thought you
had laid out in your post; if it is hard to follow, perhaps you ought to ask
yourself to what degree you are responsible? And as for "travesties of
logic", simply flinging diatribe around does not disguise the fact that you
have a lot of questions and problems to answer if you wish to support your
original claims. Why not start at the beginning, and explain your Hebrew
Transliteration method that a) disagrees with all the recognised authorities
and b) contradicts itself/yourself from one paragraph to the next?
> I look forward to all of your emails and refuting
> this nonsense per request.
Thank you for an interesting discussion. I would never stoop so low as to
call what you wrote in your first post "nonsense", as that kind of language
simply shows that your arguments are weak. Your posts have generally been
very well written, and have caused me to have to work hard and do my
research carefully. However, Muhammad's name is not to be found in Song of
Solomon 5:16, and I am sorry if recognising that it is not there has caused
you difficulties.
I am sure we will debate again in the future.
Many blessings in Jesus upon you and your family,
Andy Bannister
[Tue 18 April 2000 - 12:00GMT]
asim...@my-deja.com
Shi...@Zaman.Net wrote:
> I seriously doubt anyone will read this series of rehashed
> material regurgitated. I have already addressed every point in here.
> However, Andy has introduced some more hilarity as he does with every
> post.
>
> point or that I need to address anything he brought up in this series
> respond to such requested issues as per request. I will post them on
> being who exists elewhere other than in front of his/her computer 24/7
> has the time or tenacity to address this epic of mundane contentions.
> travesties of logic. I look forward to all of your emails and refuting
> this nonsense per request.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shibli Zaman
> Shi...@Zaman.Net
>
>
Salaam
What's even funnier is the attempts of Anbdy trying to make us believe
he actually studied Arabic or he did not have any help in writing this.
<I did, and it has caused problems for you. What you have shown in your
above quotation from Sura 55:39 is that you are not as familiar as
you think with the Classical Arabic in which the Qur'an was written. The
mistake that you made, Shibli, was that you didn't provide us with
the complete data for the above verse, and as a result you
misrepresented the quotation; either that, or you don't appear to
understand Classical Arabic very well.>
One wonders how all of the sudden Andy is acting like an authority on
classical arabic. It is obviously false as is confirmed farther down:
<As you pointed out, it is true that the final "noon" of the verse above
does have a shadda, indicating doubling (NN). However, what you *failed*
to report was that the "noon" also has a double damma, a sign for a
final "U" vowel. In fact, the double damma indicates that the vowel
should be pronounced with the sound of "N". W. Wright, the recognised
authority on Classical Arabic, the language of the Quran, stated:
"The marks of the short vowels when doubled are pronounced with the
addition of the sound 'n' . . . This is called tanwil or 'nunation'. and
takes place only at the end of words."
['A Grammar of the Arabic Language' (Cambridge, 1955), I:12A].>
This is partially right as any student with any inkling of Quranic
recitation will tell you, but when the ayat ends with the nunation,
the UN is silent. Now one wonders why it took so long for Andy to go
about searching for clues when he makes a basic error. Now if the
tanwil was a portion of the sentence and the sentence continued than it
would have been a different story but these are one of the exceptions of
tajwid. Shibli as pointed out was not making reference to the case
pointed out by Wright in normal cases of tanwin. In the ayat it is
recited jaann with emphasis on the nn.
<Thus your word JAANN should correctly be transliterated JAANNUN and it
is *NOT* an example of a double consonant without a vowel. You
may think so because you probably read the Qur'an after the tradition
of Modern Arabic, which ignores final vowels.>
Just a side note. The firsyt introduction of the vowel marks was after
the revelation of the Quran. Classical arabic in realty ignores vowel
marks. Nobody reads Quran after the tradition of modern arabic. What
one means by this statement beats me.
<However, the Qur'an is written in *Classical Arabic*, so the proper
pronunciation should include final vowels, as the text is written. If
any doubly closed syllables do occur in Arabic they are very rare; I
would be interested to see if you can find an example. But I very much
doubt that you can find a word anywhere closed with a double D without a
vowel, as you propose for MACHAMADD>
It has absolutely nothing to do with classical or modern arabic. When
the tamshid ends with a waqt, and the case Shibli quoted the geem is
above the ayat, the ghunna or nasal sound is emphasized on the double
consonant and the word is pronounced jaann. (Thus thwe double nn). The
ayat does not continue with jaannUN. Any child who recites Quran can
tell you that, even a non-Arab like me.
I referenced Shibli's post very briefly and he points out this fact very
clearly. Now one can appreciate this response of Shibli very well.
Salaam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andy Bannister
qaama l-maseehu
Thank you for your comments concerning my four-part post to Shibli, in which
I replied to his assertion that Muhammad's name is to be found in Song of
Songs. I will endeavour to respond to some of the points that you made in
your post; sorry it's taken me over a week to respond, I've been away for
Easter visiting family.
> What's even funnier is the attempts of Anbdy trying to make us believe
> he actually studied Arabic or he did not have any help in writing this.
If you had read my posts to Shibli you would of course had seen that I never
once claimed that I had studied Arabic. In fact, several times in other
posts on SRI I have been quite clear that I *intend* to study Arabic, after
I have finished Greek (studying at present) and Hebrew (will study in
2001/2002). However, what I did do in my discussions with Shibli was to ask
those who knew their subjects better than I, or check reference sources. For
example, I swapped several emails with a Professor of Hebrew, as well as
checking the recognised sources such as the BDB or GKC. And for the Arabic,
I ran Shibli's claims past a friend who has extensively studied Classical
Arabic as well as referring to sources such as Wright. So what was your
point exactly?
Before I get to the questions you raised in your post, I just wanted to
point out that this discussion about the Arabic in Sura 55:39 (quoted by
Shibli) is utterly irrelevant to the question Shibli and I were discussing;
namely his claims that Muhammad's name is found in Song of Solomon 5:16.
Having uploaded 130K to SRI and spent many hours work refuting those claims,
I do not want to see the discussion accelerate up this particular
cul-de-sac; whilst the issue of Shibli's Arabic transliteration is an
interesting one, it has no bearing on the false claim that Muhammad can be
found in this (or any other) Bible verse.
Just to recap, I had asked Shibli to provide an example of an Arabic word
ending with a doubled consonant, and he cited:
| "fa yawma'ithil-laa yus'alu `an thambihee insuw-wa laa JAANN" (final
| "noon" doubled with a shadda at the end of the sentence).
| [Surat ar-Rahmaan, verse 39]
Now on with my reply to your post:
>> What you have shown in your above quotation from Sura 55:39 is that you
>> are not as familiar as you think with the Classical Arabic in which the
>> Qur'an was written. The mistake that you made, Shibli, was that you
>> didn't provide us with the complete data for the above verse, and as a
>> result you misrepresented the quotation; either that, or you don't appear
>> to understand Classical Arabic very well.
> One wonders how all of the sudden Andy is acting like an authority on
> classical arabic.
I am not claiming to be an authority. However, when I spoke to those who
*have* extensively studied Classical Arabic, then they immediately pointed
out the problems with Shibli's quotation from Sura 55:39. Wright (see the
citation in a moment) also confirmed my suspicions that something fishy was
going on ...
I wrote to Shibli:
>> As you pointed out, it is true that the final "noon" of the verse above
>> does have a shadda, indicating doubling (NN). However, what you *failed*
>> to report was that the "noon" also has a double damma, a sign for a
>> final "U" vowel. In fact, the double damma indicates that the vowel
>> should be pronounced with the sound of "N". W. Wright, the recognised
>> authority on Classical Arabic, the language of the Quran, stated:
>>
>> "The marks of the short vowels when doubled are pronounced with the
>> addition of the sound 'n' . . . This is called tanwil or 'nunation'. and
>> takes place only at the end of words."
>> ['A Grammar of the Arabic Language' (Cambridge, 1955), I:12A].>
And you wrote:
> This is partially right as any student with any inkling of Quranic
> recitation will tell you, but when the ayat ends with the nunation,
> the UN is silent.
As I am sure you realise, the Qur'an (as a rule) is read and recited in
Classical Arabic, i.e. with the case endings (nunation, tanwin). The **very
important exception** from that rule is in the so called "pausa", i.e. at
the end of verses and phrases, where the pronunciation is much as in
vernacular (modern) Arabic. In "pausa" not only are the short vowels omitted
in recitation, but also the case endings "-un" (nominative) and "-in"
(genetive), whereas the case ending "-an" (accusative) becomes a long "a".
Now in Sura 55:39 the "jaannun" stands in pausa, as it is at the end of an
ayat, as you pointed out.
Thus you need to decide whether you are referring to the written text with
"jaannun" or to its oral recitation, which may sound as "jaan" with emphasis
and a nasal voice on "n". Though the "n" may be emphasized and recited with
a nasal voice, you cannot decide whether it is doubled or not simply by
listening to the recitation. Rather, you need to consult the written Qur'an.
And in the written Qur'an, not only do you have the sign for doubling (the
tashdeed mark) but also the case ending, the following "-un". This has been
so since at least the time when these vowelling and diacritical marks were
invented. Thus the word that is *written* in the Qur'an is JAANNUN. As it is
the *written* text Shibli and I were discussing, he should have correctly
transliterated JAANNUN, even if the recitation (due to pausa) ignores the
case ending and puts the stress on the "n".
> Now if the tanwil was a portion of the sentence and the sentence continued
> than it would have been a different story but these are one of the
> exceptions of tajwid.
As I have pointed out above, as JAANNUN occurs at the end of the
sentence/ayat, then it stands it pausa, and thus is pronounced JAAN with the
emphasis on the "n" when recited (tajwid). However, in the +written+ Qur'an
(we checked the Cairo standard Qur'an) the word is JAANNUN, as it possesses
both a tashdeed, indicating the doubling of "n", and above it the tanwin
sign, indicating the "-un".
>> Thus your word JAANN should correctly be transliterated JAANNUN and it
>> is *NOT* an example of a double consonant without a vowel. You
>> may think so because you probably read the Qur'an after the tradition
>> of Modern Arabic, which ignores final vowels.>
> Just a side note. The firsyt introduction of the vowel marks was after
> the revelation of the Quran. Classical arabic in realty ignores vowel
> marks. Nobody reads Quran after the tradition of modern arabic. What
> one means by this statement beats me.
I mean that there is a difference between "Modern Standard Arabic", for
instance the language of newspapers etc., and the Arabic in which the Qur'an
was written. "Modern Standard Arabic" is more or less a modernized Classical
Arabic. People, however, don't speak Classical, but one of the various kinds
of vernacular Arabic. In many cases, you can even see how people read a
piece of Classical Arabic, yet pronounce it as vernacular Arabic. To give
you an example: even if the written Classical Arabic is with vowel marks
that you may differentiate "rabbuka", "rabbika" or "rabbaka", meaning "your
lord" (when the "you" is a male) in the three cases nominative, genetive and
accusative, people pronounce it in all cases as "rabbak" which is *actually*
vernacular Arabic.
Thus you miss the point entirely when you write:
> It has absolutely nothing to do with classical or modern arabic.
Anyway, to move on:
>> However, the Qur'an is written in *Classical Arabic*, so the proper
>> pronunciation should include final vowels, as the text is written. If
>> any doubly closed syllables do occur in Arabic they are very rare; I
>> would be interested to see if you can find an example. But I very much
>> doubt that you can find a word anywhere closed with a double D without a
>> vowel, as you propose for MACHAMADD>
> When the tamshid ends with a waqt, and the case Shibli quoted the geem is
> above the ayat, the ghunna or nasal sound is emphasized on the double
> consonant and the word is pronounced jaann. (Thus thwe double nn). The
> ayat does not continue with jaannUN.
I would like to make a number of points here:
1) I am not sure what you mean by "tamshid"; we checked Belot ("Vocabularie
Arabe-Francais a l'Usage Etudiants") and could not find it. I am guessing
that you mean "tashdeed", the sign for doubling a consonant.
2) As "waqt" has the meaning of "time, hour, instant, season", it is unclear
what this should mean in your context. Probably you made a mistake and
should have written "waqf", which among others has the meaning of "pause in
recitation" - which Orientalists for some reason term "pausa". Then instead
of "When the tamshid ends with a waqt..." you may read "When the tashdeed
ends with a waqf", and that would make sense; apparently you think that the
"nun" bears a tashdeed and above it a jazma (or sukoon) sign to indicate a
stopping, the pausa (waqf).
3) I would love to know exactly what you mean by your cryptic "the geem is
above the ayat". I assume that you probably mean that you think that the
jasma (or: gasma) sign, which is developed from and still looks a bit like a
mini jeem (or: geem) and indicates the lack of a vowel, is added above
"jann" to indicate the proper pronunciation of "jann" in the pausa. However,
we checked whether there actually is a jasma sign above the "n" in "jann" in
the Cairo standard Qur'an. THERE IS NOT. There clearly is a tashdeed,
indicating the doubling of "n", and above it the tanwin sign, indicating the
"-un". Thus the word is written JAANNUN.
I hope this makes things clearer.
Many blessings in Jesus,
Andy Bannister
Shi...@zaman.net
I had trouble sending this before via Deja.com since I was away from
home on business. Apparently, Mr. Bannister has a problem
understanding that I have a life aside from the Usenet and I do not
think of him in my spare time.
I made it VERY clear that I have already addressed and/or will gladly
further address anything that the READERS find necessary. They are the
ones whom concern me. This is not Andy vs. Shibli, and I hope he comes
to terms with that. Now for some issues regarding this quasimadcap
response..
In article <8dhj8b$1mh$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
"Andy Bannister" <an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
> "If you wish to pull out out of the discussion, then that is of course
Nowhere have I said I am "pulling out". Declaring victory when the
entirety of SRI readers with the exception of missionary cronies is
making fun of you is quite ridiculous to say the least. Even the
Hebrew speaking community (who also refute me) is mocking your poor
"concordance" beating in the face of your heavy lack of knowledge in
Hebrew etymology, linguitics and culture.
Your audacity is also repugnant as you lie, pass off others'
information as your own (as if we are to believe you suddenly learned
how to read Classical Arabic overnight..yeah right), post as other
people supporting you, whereas, it is actually YOU, and other highly
unethical methods. In light of this you still have the gall to say I
am unnecessarily resorting to "diatribe". If you didn't notice, my
approach was much different towards you before you were exposed, and
you know this.
> of the material was entirely new; one example of many is where I discussed
> the problems and errors in your Arabic quotations and grammar on two
> occasions.
Regarding the "Arabic grammar errors", I would advise you not consult
Christian Arabs from Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine or elsewhere since
those Christians are "Mu`arrab" meaning "Arabicized" from Phoenician,
Greeek, Hellenist, Roman and other cultures and their variance in
language from the language of the Arabs is quite distinct in this.
Thus, you make the retarded mistake of saying the word in Surat
ar-RaHmaan is not "JANN" but "JAANNUN". The sad thing is that you
don't realize that every Muslim reader above the age of 7 was giggling
when they read this. The word is plural for "JINN", meaning "spirits",
which comes from the root "jeem, double-noon", which has the implicit
meaning "hidden". From this root are also found the word for Paradise,
"JANNAH". The "un" sound you have pointed out is a dynamic sound
dependent on grammar as well as sentence position. Look at (or, to be
more accurate, get your Christian Arab friend to look at) the same
Surah, verse 33 and you will find the singular form "JINN" with a
double noon. The word is "JANN" plural and "JINN" singular. the
vocative, fatha, kesra, tanween, etc are excluded from the word when
it is quoted in isolation. Most importantly, they are always excluded
at the end of a sentence (as is the case with "JANN"). The word is
"JANN" and not "JANNUN" as you have stated so insipidly. This is
something every Muslim kindergarten student worth the name knows.
However, you have a chronic habit of exposing yourself. I thank Allah
for making the mischief makers visibly clear.
> Once again, attempting to belittle me in order to distract from the fact
> that you appear to be overwhelmed is no way to
Again, you wish. Isolate one single point and I will address it.
Otherwise, don't write a novel of idiocy and expect me to address it
in its entirety.
> to recall in the last "round", it was you rather than I who made the more
> amusing gaffs; such as claiming that the Hebrew "elohim" is feminine!
"El" is masculine, "Eloh" is feminine. "Elim" is masculine plural:
"(plural intensive - singular meaning) 1. God, GODDESSES."
[Theological Word Book of the Old Testament]
"Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous plural ELIM in the Phoenician
inscriptions (Ueber einige phon. Inschr., 1889, p. 17 sqq.)"
[The Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Elohim"]
"Elohim" is feminine plural:
"The ancient Jewish and the early ecclesiastical writers agree with
many modern scholars in deriving Elohim from El, but there is a great
difference of opinion as to the method of derivation. Nestle (Theol.
Stud. aus Würt., 1882, pp. 243 sqq.) supposes that the plural has
arisen by the insertion of an artificial h, like the Hebrew amahoth
(maidens) from amah."
[The Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Elohim"]
In Semitic languages an "h" is added to effeminate a word. This is
also something a Arabic speaking child knows.
Hetero-Biblical scholars also agree to the mysterious gender
compromise that exists in early Semitic scripture:
"...The androgynous constitution of the Elohim is disclosed in the
next verse.."
[Manly P. Hall; "Masonic, Hermetic, Quabbalistic & Rosicrucian
Symbolical Philosophy"]
Of course, as I am sure you are feeling queasy about the idea of
praying to a God whom your Bible refers to in a feminine form. You do,
however, have a viable alternative. Accept "Allah" as the One and Only
God as He is.
"There is no such verbal stem as alah in Hebrew; but the Arabist
Fleischer, Franz Delitzsch, and others appeal to the Arabic,
'Aliha'.."
[The Catholic Encyclopedia]
Seems like the Bible was trying to talk about "Allah" all along as
"aaliha" is the general form from which "Allah" is derived. So not
only is "Elohim" feminine according to Hebrew lexics, the only safe
passage away from this gender compromise is to accept Franz Delitzch's
theory that "Elohim" is actually an Aramaic attempt at "Allah". Keep
in mind, as you constantly and chronically seem to forget, words such
as "Elohim" and "Abraham" predate the Hebrew language by hundreds of
years.
You set yourself up again and again...when will you give up?
> Alternatively, people could ask you on SRI itself. It would be better to
> keep this debate in a public light, rather than behind closed doors. I will
You obviously can't read very well. I said I would address them in
both email as well as on SRI. Buy glasses.
> > I honestly don't believe anyone will even read through even half of
> > his material,
>
> Actually I have already had emails from people who have read it all. I
Would those emails be from the infamous "Brother Zak Anwar" who ended
up being YOU?
All are welcome to read the post in detail:
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608384116&CONTEXT=956339564.1622540302&
hitnum=1
Missionaries like you fill me with grief at the low levels to which
humans can fall.
"When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say:
'Why, we only Want to make peace!" [Surat al-Baqara 2:11]
> original claims. Why not start at the beginning, and explain your Hebrew
> Transliteration method that a) disagrees with all the recognised authorities
> and b) contradicts itself/yourself from one paragraph to the next?
Already addressed but Andy has comprehension problems as we have
already witnessed. THERE IS NO STANDARD ON TRANSLITERATING ARABIC,
HEBREW OR MOST OTHER FOREIGN LANGUAGES. This contention is just plain
retarded. I offered him a challenge before which should have silenced
any mentally competent person and that was PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT
STANDARDIZING THE STUDY AND DOCUMENTATION OF HEBREW TRANSLITERATION
INTO ENGLISH. There exists no such thing. Get it through that
thickness already.
> research carefully. However, Muhammad's name is not to be found in Song of
> Solomon 5:16, and I am sorry if recognising that it is not there has caused
> you difficulties.
"Chikko mamtaqeem v'chulo MACHAMADIM ze dodee ve ze ra'ee beno
Yarushalaim"
"His mouth is most sweet, verily he is Muhammad; This is my beloved
and
this is my friend, oh daughters of Jerusalem"
[Shir Hashirim, aka Song of Songs, 5:16]
"...and the book itself as an allegory depicting in great detail the
experiences of the nation in its relations with its God from the
Exodus down to *THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH AND THE BUILDING OF THE
THIRD TEMPLE.* This in general is also the interpretation of the
Midrash Rabbah and such famous scholars as Saadia ben Joseph, Rashi,
and Ibn Ezra, although they differ considerably among themselves in
details."
[The Interpreter's Bible Encyclopedia]
"An early commentator, Rabbi Akiva (died AD 135), claimed that 'The
whole word is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given
to Israel; for all the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the
holiest of the holy."
["The Song of Solomon-Love Poetry of the Spirit" John Updike]
Sounds a like there is a lot more to Song of Songs than the
Christian's wish. Their attempts to brush it under the rug as a dirty
love poem are telling.
> I am sure we will debate again in the future.
May God give you some ethics and more common knowledge or God forbid
the day I am forced to debate you again. I have discussed the issue
with others such as Denis Gurion who actually knows Hebrew. He was
humorous and sarcastic in some of his approach, however, not deceptive
>from what I understood. I left his post alone and allowed the reader
to decide which stance was more credible and whether I had already
addressed the issue or not. Andy, you have a lot to learn in the area
of dialog with wisdom and ethics.
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net