Above it were neither 19 nor 17 (surah 74:30)
Dr. Christoph Heger
Mr. Rahim Choudhary <a...@lucent.com> on 30 Jul 1999 19:55:42 -0700 in his=
=20
contribution to the thread "Above it are 19!" apparently was more or less=
=20
prepared to believe in the alleged "Code of 19" in the Qur'an:=20
>I can see no reason why to doubt the 19 phenomenon...
His main reason not to doubt seems to be:
>In fact I see no satisfactory understanding of the Quranic Ayah:
>
>WA ALAIHA TISAATUN ASHRA.
This is surah 74:30 in a somewhat unusual version/transliteration, the us=
ual=20
version being "`alayhaa tis`ata `ashara", which is translated verbatim:
Above it (are) nineteen
Rahim Choudhary surely is right stating:
>The current understanding that says that the Ayah
>refers to 19 Angels that guard the gates to hell is almost ridiculous.
After all, this understanding of 74:30 admittedly is stipulated by 74:31.=
It is=20
however common view of Islamic and orientalist scholarship that 74:31 was=
=20
inserted/revealed later -- obviously as kind of comment or admonition to =
cling=20
exactly on to this understanding that "above it (are) 19" means: 19 Angel=
s guard=20
the hell.
If we duly discard this understanding forced upon 74:30, how might we und=
erstand=20
it? Nineteen what? I am going to answer this question in two steps.
Firstly, instead of the usually given Arabic text "`alayhaa tisa`ata `ash=
ara"=20
Muslim tradition knows also the version "`alayhaa sab`ata `ashara", "abov=
e it=20
(are) 17" (Ibn Hisham, Kitaab seerat rasooli llaah, ed. Ferdinand Wuesten=
feld,=20
Goettingen 1860, reprint Frankfurt/Main 1961, II, 67, 4-16).
Referring to 17 angels to guard the gates to hell, of course, is nothing=20
better than to 19 ones.
Secondly, I propose to read "`alayhaa sab`atu =B4as`urin", an emendation =
which=20
presupposes in the rasm (=3Dscript apart from diacritical points and vowe=
l marks,=20
which are later inventions) the metathesis of the "s" (sin) with the "`" =
(`ain)=20
and an additional alif in front of the rasm "s-`-r".
Due to the structure of the Arabic script it is no big affair to intercha=
nge a=20
"s" (sin) with an "`" (`ain).
For the additional alif we have documental evidence: Some of the oldest Q=
ur'an=20
codices read "tis`ata =B4a`shurin" (Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the His=
tory of=20
the Text of the Qur'an. The Old Codices, Leiden 1937, p. 217). Already in=
the=20
9th century, when Islamic orthodoxy consolidated, Muslim scholarship did =
not=20
know what to make of this reading. Abu Haati as-Sigistaanee (+ 864) e.g. =
is=20
reported (G. Bergstraesser, Nichtkanonische Koranlesarten im MuHtasab des=
ibn=20
Ginni, Muenchen 1933, p. 73,5ff) to have said about this odd variant: "It=
makes=20
no sense to be recognized except that in 'tis`ata =B4a`shurin' the plural=
of 'ten'=20
[i.e. =B4a`shurin in a nonsensical way understood as plural of `ashr/`ash=
arah;=20
Ch.H.] is intended or something other than it appears to us." In addition=
one=20
may remember that the discussion with "Brother Mark" has shown that in th=
e older=20
orthography of the oldest Qur'an manuscripts more alifs were present whic=
h later=20
were omitted in many cases.
Whereas a plural "=B4a`shurin" of "ten" certainly is nonsense, a plural "=
=B4as`urin"=20
to "sa`r" or "sa`ar" makes sense. Though this word is not contained in an=
y of=20
the Arabic dictionaries, it can be shown from old Arabic literature, amon=
gst=20
them the poets Mutalammis and Umayya b. Abi S-Salt, that there was a word=
"sa`r"=20
or "sa`ar" (with the plural "=B4a`shurin") with the meaning of "gate".
In the end we arrive at the reconstruction of surah 7:30 as
"`alayhaa sab`atu =B4as`urin"
with the translation
"At it (are) seven gates."
(The native English speaker kindly may insert the correct preposition "at=
", "on"=20
or whatsoever).
The assertion that hell has seven gates is very apt to the context of sur=
ah=20
74:30. And this topic of hell having seven gates is not only a very famil=
iar one=20
>from Old-Orient times, but is also present in the Qur'an, namely in surah=
15:44.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Dr. Christoph Heger
When I read my first message under the above title I was startled at its
appearance: It was nearly unreadable due to numerous nonsense signs
inserted for some reason unknown to me. For the esteemed readers'
convenience I try it again with another e-mail software. Simultaneously
I use the opportunity to enrich my first message a bit.
Mr. Rahim Choudhary <a...@lucent.com> on 30 Jul 1999 19:55:42 -0700 in
his contribution to the thread "Above it are 19!" apparently was more or
less prepared to believe in the alleged "Code of 19" in the Qur'an:
>I can see no reason why to doubt the 19 phenomenon...
His main reason not to doubt seems to be:
>In fact I see no satisfactory understanding of the Quranic Ayah:
>
>WA ALAIHA TISAATUN ASHRA.
This is surah 74:30 in a somewhat unusual version/transliteration, the
usual version being "`alayhaa tis`ata `ashara", which is translated
verbatim:
Above it (are) nineteen.
Rahim Choudhary surely is right stating:
>The current understanding that says that the Ayah
>refers to 19 Angels that guard the gates to hell is almost ridiculous.
After all, this understanding of 74:30 admittedly is stipulated by
74:31. It is however common view of Islamic and orientalist scholarship
that 74:31 was inserted/revealed later. Indeed, already its enormous
length in comparison with the verses of its context is striking. Verse
74:31 obviously was thought as kind of comment or admonition to cling
exactly on to this understanding that "above it (are) 19" means: 19
Angels guard the hell.=20
If we duly discard this understanding forced upon 74:30, how might we
understand it? Nineteen what? I am going to answer this question in two
steps.
Firstly, instead of the usually given Arabic text "`alayhaa tisa`ata
`ashara" Muslim tradition knows also the version "`alayhaa sab`ata
`ashara", "above it (are) 17" (Ibn Hisham, Kitaab seerat rasooli llaah,
ed. Ferdinand Wuestenfeld, Goettingen 1860, reprint Frankfurt/Main 1961,
II, 67, 4-16).
Referring to 17 angels to guard the gates to hell, of course, is nothing
better than to 19 ones.
Secondly, I propose to read "`alayhaa sab`atu =B4as`urin", an emendation
which presupposes in the rasm (=3Dscript apart from diacritical points an=
d
vowel marks, which are later inventions) the metathesis of the "s" (sin)
with the "`" (`ain) and an additional alif in front of the rasm "s-`-r".
Due to the structure of the Arabic script it is no big affair to
interchange a "s" (sin) with an "`" (`ain).
For the additional alif we have documental evidence: Some of the oldest
Qur'an codices read "tis`ata =B4a`shurin" (Arthur Jeffery, Materials for
the History of the Text of the Qur'an. The Old Codices, Leiden 1937, p.
217). Already in the 9th century AD, when Islamic orthodoxy
consolidated, Muslim scholarship did not know what to make of this
reading. Abu Haati as-Sijistaanee (+ 864) e.g. is reported (G.
Bergstraesser, Nichtkanonische Koranlesarten im MuHtasab des ibn Ginni,
Muenchen 1933, p. 73,5ff) to have said about this odd variant: "It makes
no sense to be recognized except that in 'tis`ata =B4a`shurin' the plural
of 'ten' [i.e. =B4a`shurin in a nonsensical way understood as plural of
`ashr/`asharah; Ch.H.] is intended or something different from what it
appears to us." In addition one may remember that the discussion with
"Brother Mark" has shown that in the oldest Qur'an manuscripts with an
older orthography more alifs were present which later were omitted in
many cases.
Whereas a plural "=B4a`shurin" of "ten" certainly is nonsense, a plural
"=B4as`urin" to "sa`r" or "sa`ar" makes sense. Though this word is not
contained in any of the Arabic dictionaries, it can be shown from old
Arabic literature, amongst them the poets Mutalammis and Umayya b. Abi
S-Salt, that there was a word "sa`r" or "sa`ar" (with the plural
"=B4a`shurin") with the meaning of "gate".
In the end we arrive at the reconstruction of surah 7:30 as
"`alayhaa sab`atu =B4as`urin"
with the translation
"At it (are) seven gates."
(The native English speaker kindly may insert the correct preposition
"at", "on" or whatsoever).
The assertion that hell has seven gates is very apt to the context of
surah 74:30. And this topic of hell having seven gates is not only a
very familiar one from Old-Orient times, but is also present in the
Qur'an, namely in surah 15:44.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
From ar...@scheherazade.devnull.net Tue Aug 3 06:45:04 1999
Message-Id: (mailed to moderator)
From: ih...@wam.umd.edu (Asim Mehmood Awan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Ibn Rajab on Mawlid
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
X-Original-Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
X-Original-Message-ID: (mailed to moderator)
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: rac9.wam.umd.edu
Approved: sri-...@hrweb.org
Moderator: sri-...@hrweb.org (SRI Moderator)
X-Folder: SRI
Status: RO
Whether ibn Rajab, or any other imam, they do not have any authority to
bring something into the shariah. Quoting the honour of Rasul (S) does not
mean we institute things into the shariah. Allahs Messenger (S) said in
essence He who loves my sunnah, loves me. This is the true standard of
ishq-e Rasool. The adherence to the ways of the Blessed. There is enough
Muslims are not doing in there deen to be arguing over a matter like this.
It is in total conradiction to the spirit of Islam. Love of the Prophet
(S) is fardh, Mawlid cannot even be considered nafl.
Allahs Messenger (S) also said to the effect Allah does not accept the
non-obligatory deeds until the slave performs his obligatory ones.
Any of the ulema pushing Mawlid among the followers in a time like this is
frankly not doing his job. By the way, it is well-known that Shaykh
Sirhindi (R) opposed the practice of Mawlid.
Not only that was extremely staunch in his attacks on bidah. He was in
fact the revivalist of shariah among the sufis of the subcontinent.
But what you do find is practices such as Mawlid are well received in the
African continent. And it did contribute towards the spread of Islam just
as the practice of samaa with musical instruments contributed to the
spread of Islam in the subcontinent. But a sad fact is these things
became part of shariah, and the distinction was lost. Now Muslims are
ready to fight over these issues.
--
The ascetic who is secluded in the desert and receives his food from the
hands of the caravaneers, has less merit in the face of Allah, than the
donors who deprived themselves of something that they have earned with
much difficulty.
Shaykh Ahmadu Bamba (R)
Rahim Choudhary
Mr Heger has taken a trip in free wheeling ecstassy for himself.
First of all the issue of 19 is not new.
Second I did not respond to the garbled message that Mr Heger refers to.
Third he reads my intentions better than myself, in the way he quotes me.
The result of such speculative adventures is fine with Mr Heger but not for
Muslims who do not take liberties with the Word of Allah. It is this kind of
recklessness that has brought the Bible so close to being detached from what
Christ said or did.
AltWay
Christoph Heger) wrote:
Re: Above it (are) nineteen.
Rahim Choudhary surely is right stating:
The current understanding that says that the Ayah
refers to 19 Angels that guard the gates to hell is almost ridiculous.
After all, this understanding of 74:30 admittedly is stipulated by
74:31.
Comment:-
What someone thinks, or agrees, is "almost ridiculous" is hardly proof of
anything except his own inabilities to comprehend. It all depends on what
they understand by "angel" "hell" and what significance they think numbers
have.
Angels are regarded as the instruments through whom God works and could
refer to forces, principles and faculties. Numbers have been used in ways
other than counting quantities - they can refer to position in a series,
order, inner structure etc. 19 is an indivisible number and it is also
yields by digital addition 1+9=10 Here cycles of events are being referred
to. 10 by further digital addition yields 1+0=1. Both 0 and 1 have
significance with respect to God. 19 is also 7+7+5 where 7 and 5 are mystic
numbers and so is 3 (the three numbers 7,7,5)
As for the Gates of Hell, these are said to be guarded by angels - there is,
therefore, no contradiction.
Though I am no expert in Arabic, it seems to me to be unlikely that those
who added the diacritical and vowel marks and were closer in time to the
original meaning are wrong while someone many centuries latter with
different motives of his own and ways of understanding was right.
H.S.Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" and "Views"
_______________________/ ... ...... on www.altway.freeuk.com
______________________/ .............
Dr. Christoph Heger
When I started this thread, I didn't notice some additional evidence -
not decisive, but interesting - which has been confirmed to me in the
meantime by private communication.
In my contribution I had pointed to the fact that Muslim tradition knows
also the version `alayhaa sab`ata `ashara (above it are 17) instead of
the usually given Arabic text `alayhaa tisa`ata `ashara (Ibn Hisham,
Kitaab seerat rasooli llaah, ed. Ferdinand Wuestenfeld, Goettingen 1860,
reprint Frankfurt/Main 1961, II, 67, 4-16).
I now can add that also the comment of the Jalalayn (tafseer
al-Jalalayn) to 74:30 knows of the variant `alayhaa sab`ata `ashara
(above it are 17).
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Saad Alfoudari
>
> Greetings to all,
>
> When I started this thread, I didn't notice some additional evidence -
> not decisive, but interesting - which has been confirmed to me in the
> meantime by private communication.
[Deleted Text]
Truely,
74:31 ... and we have not made their count but a seduction/allurement
for those who rejected....
We live and learn.
Peace
Saad