Ha-Aretz means The Earth!?

I was just sitting, surfing on YouTube. No work today. Boring, boring.

So i just began thinking suddently out of the blue, that i’ve always been told that Hebrew and Arabic is very similar languages. I thought i would maybe be able to understand some hebrew. So i searched for some Israeli stuff, and i found some.

But i did not understand nothing! I was like “Is this even a semitic language? Yasalam it sounds like russian or polish ya man!”.

Disappointed as i was, i searched for “Hebrew Language” on google, trying to figure the whole deal out.

Interrestingly, i found out that the arab letter “dad” (like a deep D) is “tz” in hebrew. What hebrew words did i know with “tz” in it?

Ha-Aretz was the first thing that popped up into my head. If we replace ha- with al-, the arab grammatic article, and replace “tz” with “dh”, ha-Aretz is:
Al-Ardh.

Which means “the earth” in arabic. Cool!

What more? Well Yitzhak Shamir. Again, replace “tz” with “dh” and you will have “yedh7ak”: He laughs.

Thats awesome.

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

25 Responses to “Ha-Aretz means The Earth!?”

  1. Roman Kalik Says:

    🙂

    Classic Hebrew, and modern-day Hebrew by extension, is a Semitic language, and very related to Aramaic. The evolution of Arabic is also very tied to Aramaic, and thus to Hebrew.

    Ibn = Ben, for example. What may have caused you some trouble is accent and the way people pronounce the words – you’d propably have a much easier time understanding what a Sephardic Jew says. We could try some more words, if you want.

  2. Andrew Brehm Says:

    Hebrew and Arabic are indeed very close.

    I have just started learning some Arabic (slowly) and found that many words mean the same thing or similar things and that others are very similar.

    In fact the first two chapters of my primitive Arabic book contain almost exclusively words that I already knew from Hebrew.

    The alphabets (abjads) are also really the same, except that Arabic preserves more of the original two pronunciations per letter and uses dots differently. (Hebrew uses a dot to mark letters that are pronounced as stops, Arabic uses dots to mark letters that are pronounced as fricatives.)

    Some fricatives survived in Arabic but not in Hebrew:

    Dalet / Dal: always /d/ in Hebrew, but can be /dh/ or /z/ in Arabic.

    Tav / Ta: alwatys /t/ in Hebrew, but /t/ or /th/ in Arabic (and /t/ and /s/ in Ashkenazi Hebrew)

    Ayin: Arabic still has Ghayin. Hebrew used to have an Ayin pronounced like Ghayin, but it died out except in place names.

    And one stop survived in Hebrew but not Arabic:

    Pe: /p/ and /f/ in Hebrew, only /f/ in Arabic.

    And sometimes the fricative survived only in Hebrew:

    Bet: /b/ and /v/ in Hebrew, only /v/ in Arabic.

    (By “Arabic” I mean “modern standard Arabic” or whatever it is my book describes.)

    In fact, I have a table outlining this here:

    http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Not_A_Linguist/Abjad.html

    (Would be good if an Arabic-speaker took a look at it, I guess.)

    The relationships of the languages is very close to how the Tanakh (and the Quran) describe the relationships of the people.

  3. Andrew Brehm Says:

    (I have a newer version of the table, but I didn’t upload it yet. I am also trying to cover the original Phoenician looks of the letters.)

  4. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “Bet: /b/ and /v/ in Hebrew, only /v/ in Arabic.”

    Sorry, typo, should read:

    “Bet: /b/ and /v/ in Hebrew, only /b/ in Arabic.”

  5. Andrew Brehm Says:

    I think the Arabic article “al” is a cognate of Hebrew “elleh” (“these”).

    Perhaps Arabic articles used to be Proto-Semitic demonstratives?

  6. abuskander Says:

    “Dalet / Dal: always /d/ in Hebrew, but can be /dh/ or /z/ in Arabic.”
    Dhal in Arabic is only z in some colloquial dialects (it can be both /dh/ as in english that or z). The Standard pronounciation is always /dh/ as in english “that”.

    “Tav / Ta: alwatys /t/ in Hebrew, but /t/ or /th/ in Arabic (and /t/ and /s/ in Ashkenazi Hebrew)”
    – Again, this is only true for colloquial (3ameia) arabic, that is the different dialects. If the letter mentioned is ث, the standard pronounciation is “th” as in “thing”. In Egypt it is most often /t/, only rarely /s/. Iraqi’s have retained the original pronounciation.

    There is very big difference between the Standard Pronouncation of a consonant and the colloquial one. For example, in Alexandrian Egyptian (that i speak), Qaf (/Q/) is a glottal stop, while in Sa3idi Egyptian (that my grandparents spoke), it is /g/ as in “goat”.

    Roman:
    Both Ibn and Bin is used 🙂 I have arabic books who in one prints writes “ibn” and in another writes “bin”.

    Yes you must be right about the accent thing. For example, in the 2006 song “Yalla ya Nasrallah”, i noticed that “R” was pronounced as in german and danish. Is this the ashkenazic accent?

  7. Assaf Says:

    Hi Ahmad,

    Nice site. I like to read blogs, but don’t usually comment on them. I’ve learned a bit about Islam in my academic studies this year and would like to ask you some questions from your Orthodox Sunni perspective if you don’t mind later on.

    As far as modern Hebrew Israeli pronunciation, it is a mix of many different dialect pronunciations. Imagine if a bunch of Arabs throughout the Middle East and North Africa came to one country and merged all their dialects into one.

    In modern Hebrew, the kh sound of khet merged with the aspirant H sound of Het which is still preserved in Sephardic pronounciation and Arabic, but is being lost in the next generation of Hebrew speakers into nothing more than the kh sound.

    The ayin was preserved and the TH variation of Tav depending on the place of a dagesh or dot (T) were preserved in Sephardic pronounciaition also, but are now not spoken except in Sephardic Torah readings in synagogues.

    I still like to make a differentiation between the aspirant H and the Kh, but this is usually regarded as a Sephardic accent on my behalf.

    Where the modern r sound of the Hebrew letter resh comes from is a mystery to me since old Ashkenazi pronounciation as well as Sephardi had a more trill sound like in Arabic. you can still here this when many older or hareidi Ashkenazim speak in Yiddish – a Jewish German language similar to Ladino (Jewish -Spanish) or Jewish Arabic (which has many names depending on where they came from). Now it sounds more like the French R. I don’t know how this happened, but if anybody else knows, I would be interested.

    Good luck on your new blog,

    Assaf

  8. Assaf Says:

    I meant to say that the Kh sound of Khaf has merged with the aspirant sound of H in Het into what is now called Khet according to the Ashkenazi dialect

  9. Assaf Says:

    I should also say that Hebrew Ayin was originally the same as what many Arab bloggers use a 3 for and the proper pronunciation of Het is the same as what they write as 7 if I am correct.

  10. abuskander Says:

    Okay Assaf, thank you very much for this clarification. You are welcome to comment and to ask me questions any time you like. I hope you will enjoy your reading here.

  11. Assaf Says:

    Thank you very much, Ahmad.

    My first question would be regarding your comment on a previous entry that all of the companions of Muhammad were righteous and yet we know that some made war against the Prophet Muhammad’s family and other such things. How do you personally from a Sunni perspective reconcile this? We have similar issues about some of our own figures in history and the responses are always interesting to hear.

    Also, how do you feel about Sufism and Sufi practices like dhikr and sama? I was told that in Egypt before the 20th century, most Muslims belonged to Sufi orders but the influence of Wahhabi inspired movements have made many Sunnis regard them as outside Islam. I know that the Wahhabi movement was also famous for rejecting many ancient rulings of the ulema. I personally find Sufis interesting because of the similarities to many mystical teachings of my faith associated with Sephardic teachings particularly.

    Also, how much innovation do we as traditional believers accept? In former times not so long ago, the Jewish and Muslim faiths in the Mediterranean region thought that innovation within a traditional framework was important , which made them important innovators in all fields. Now, the traditional religious world of both Muslims and Jews has grown increasingly conservative and literal in their interpretations beyond what once was the mainstream, and innovation in the arts and sciences is now confined increasingly to the secular world. I believe a return to a more traditional and Orthodox but less self isolating approach is important for the continued relevance of our faiths in the modern world. What are your thoughts on this?

    Also, I wanted to say how important people like you and others are, who are contributing to understanding between people who might otherwise not have contact. Many of my family members and friends come from families who were expelled or fled from parts of the Arab and Muslim world and the wars and conflict between us this past many years have done much to bring about suspicion and hatred between people.

    For a long time, I used to think that all Arabs or Muslims are like this or that, but when I became friends with some, I realized that the religious or nationalist extremists were all I was seeing and that this distorted my view, and my friends realized the same regarding us (if they already hadn’t). So I think that religious and nationalist expression are important, but we can’t allow ourselves to be blinded to our common humanity because of it or use it like a weapon on each other which is something that plagues the entire Middle Eastern region.

    Anyway, this reply is long enough already and I have to go prepare for the Sabbath, so thanks for the opportunity and I look forward to reading your reply,

    Assaf

  12. abuskander Says:

    Dear Assaf,

    thank you very much for your questions. I am more than happy to answer, but to save us both from some time, i take myself the freedom asking you to specify your questions. What i need is that you specify your questions about the conflicts between various sahaba (ra) and the Prophets pbuh progeny (ra).

    I know of at least five events that the shia and other sects portrays as conflicts between the Sahaba (ra) and the Prophets (saw) progeny, and these are:
    1. The alleged burning of Fatimah’s (ra) house. A baseless forgery according to the sunni muslims.
    2. The battle of the Camel (Harb al-Jamal). A complex matter, but to summarize our answer, the war was a mistake provoked by hypocrites which we free Ali, Aisha, Talha and al-Zubair (May Allah be pleased with themall) for responsibility of.
    3. The battle of Siffin. I think you are referring to this one. A complex answer that i would love to explain for you, of course if it is this you are referring to.
    4. The conflict between Mu’awiya (ra) and al-Hassan (ra). Ended in peace when Al-Hassan (ra) handed over the power to Mu’awiya (ra). We do not view this as a personal fight.
    5. The martyrdom of Al-Hussain (ra). A plain and easy answer – his murderers and whoever ordered it was not sahaba (companions).

    Regarding Sufism,
    i would like to quote the words of the grand Mufti of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Shaykh Ali Gomaa (May Allah preserve him):
    Sufism is Islam and Islam is Sufism.

    Perhaps needless to say, this does not refer to the various practises that many egyptian villagers who calls themself Sufi’s have invented into Islam, neither does it refer to what orientalists refer to as Sufism. What it refers to is the “Tasawwuf” – an islamic science (like the hadith science, the jurisprudence science etc.), the science on how to reach Ihsan spritually. Ihsan is worshipping God as if you see him, knowing that he indeed sees you, having God and his Messenger more beloved to your heart than everything else, and so forth. This is the Sufism that is so essential to Islam.

    However in common usage in the Arab world, Sufi is not used this way in common sense. To explain the difference, i shall tell you the story on how the Sphinx lost its nose (at least this is the story i were told as a child):

    The Egyptian farmers (fellahin) used to make sacrifices to the Sphinx, believing that it would increase their harvest. Seeing this, a Sufi Saint made analogy to the Idols that the People of Ibrahim (as) used to worship, and he cut off its nose. “You worship something that cannot defend itself from my sword. If this idol of yours has any power, who cannot it defend itself?”.

    Today in Egypt, such fellahin will propably be called Sufi’s. Being “Soufiea” in Egypt is something that is not “Sunni”, but the practices and popular beliefs of the fellahin, that sometimes fell into un-islamic practises.

    So for this reason, in Egypt, my family refer to themselves as “Sonneya” (Sunni) rather than “Soufeia” (Sufi), even though the vast majority of my family follow the Shadhili Sufi Tariqa.

    As for the innovation (islamic term: bid3a), we orthodox sunnis differ between a good bid3a and a bad bid3a. How he differ between these two is hard for me to tell since i rely on the decision of the scholars in this matter, due to lack of knowledge on my behalf. However, i recommend you to read this article:
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/bida.htm
    It is by the famous American-born, Jordan-based scholar Shaykh Nuh Ha-Mim Keller (May Allah preserve him).

    I hope this will help you out, despite that the article use many scholarly terms and is directed at a more advanced audience. If any terms used in the article cause you any hardship, then please ask me. I will be happy to help.

    Needless to say, i also used to suffer from this stereotypical picture of the Jews. In fact, it was in Egypt i saw the first jewish person in my life. This was after i emigrated to Denmark, and after a year of hard work, i went to Sharm el-Sheikh on a vacation to relax. There i met a man who introduced himself as “Yemeni”, he had a very pale friend with him that did not say much, but i unknowingly thought that both were yemenites. We spoke together in Arabic, i really liked him, and we arranged a meet next day where we would go out and eat together. It was only when he was about to leave i heard him spoke a strange language to his pale friend that i began to wonder where he were from. A Yemenite in Egypt? Thats almost impossible, i began to think. He cannot be yemeni. So i asked his pale friend in English where he were from. “WE are from Israel”, he answered. “See you tomorrow!”. I was chocked. These men i’ve just sat with, were they Israeli? How can they be the same people who are killing my arab brethen? Should i really meet with them tomorrow?

    I wondered about this the whole evening and the morning that followed, and i grew tired of thinking, so i just decided to meet with them. I have never regretted this ever since. This opened my eyes. Jews can be good persons – so good that i will not even know of them being jewish.

    So please, dear jewish friends, please keep visiting our country. I am sure more people will be kicked out of their stereotypical image this way.

  13. Roman Kalik Says:

    Yes you must be right about the accent thing. For example, in the 2006 song “Yalla ya Nasrallah”, i noticed that “R” was pronounced as in german and danish. Is this the ashkenazic accent?

    Like Assaf said, it’s a pretty weird issue – if I were to wager a guess, I’d say that this particular pronunciation is from a German origin. Jews of intellectual German origin greatly influenced the modern rejuvenation of the Hebrew language.

  14. Assaf Says:

    Thank you for your reply, Ahmad.

    Yes I was thinking mainly about the Battle of the Camel and the Battle of Siffin about which I would love to hear you speak more about.

    As far as the Battle of the Camel, do Sunnis believe that Aisha made a mistake? I guess the broader question would be can the Sahaba make mistakes and still be considered righteous?

    So I guess another question needs clarifying for me – what exactly does the doctrine of the righteousness of the Sahaba mean? Does it mean they never made mistakes? I mean, they were only humans. The character of Muawiya seems problematic to me. It definitely seems to me that he manipulated Ali and the arbitration they went through in ways that would ensure his victory when he was in fact behind. From my understanding this led to the forming of the Kharijite fanatics who then murdered Ali.

    Your definition of Sufism and Ihsan reminded me of what I read al-Ghazali say that the goal is to fill your heart till it is empty of everything but God – this seems to me to be the goal of all mystic lovers of God.

    I looked up the Shadhili Sufi Tariqa you mentioned and read a little bit about it. One thing that struck me was the belief not to take on too many ascetic practices and to enjoy the fruits of this world. This is similar to mainstream Jewish mysticism as well and reminded me of the Talmudic saying that in Paradise we we will be asked to account for every permitted fruit we did not taste in this world because they were put here by God for our enjoyment. I also saw some Shadhili dhikr on youtube. Very beautiful stuff.

    As far as innovation, I read the article you gave about Bida and enjoyed it. It seems that what the Sheikh was saying was, to put it very simply, that innovation that does not contradict traditional teachings and isn’t explicitly forbidden is generally permitted and that the gates of ijtihad are not, in fact closed like you hear many claim. Is this a correct understanding on my part? And if so, how can this be translated into practical steps such as more equality for women (just as one example)?

    I did not have much difficulty understanding the article, but you could help me with some other terms you use. In regards to deceased figures and God I see you use many abbreviations after their names. This is a custom for us as well and I assume that pbuh is the same as peace be upon him (which is the same as our alav hashalom). But what do “saw” and “ra” and “sa” and “tt” mean and what are the different reasons for them?

    Thanks Ahmad,

    Assaf

  15. Assaf Says:

    Roman,

    Are you referring to the German maskilim? I always thought that the most important European modernizers of Hebrew were East European like Ben-Yehuda and would therefore speak the resh with a Yiddish accent. Or are you speaking of later German Hebraists that I don’t know about?

  16. abuskander Says:

    Shory dear Assaf, this will be a short reply. I will tell you about the battle of Siffin and the battle of the Camel tomorrow inshallah.

    About the 3uduul (uprightness) of the Sahaba (ra), it does not mean that they cannot commit mistakes. There is a difference between being Upright and being Infallible. Their uprightness means that they all had good hearts, good characters and good intentions, but that they were not protected from error. They could err. But overall, they were good people, and the best amongst them being Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (ra), who is the best of this ummah after its prophets.

    As for the abbreviations, i will list some of them:
    A.S = 3alayhi al-salam (Peace be upon him)
    saw = Sallalahu 3alayhi wa sallam, May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him
    R.A = When used for sahaba, it means “Radi Allah 3anhu”, May Allah be pleased with him. When used for scholars, it means “Rahimahu Allah”, May Allah have mercy on him.
    tt = Tabaraka wa ta3ala. Honoured and most high. Reserved for God.

  17. Assaf Says:

    Dear Ahmad,

    Thank you for your reply and please take your time to answer if you need to. I am sure you are busy. I have spent time writing here today when I should be studying my academic work but I have enjoyed our conversation so much that I have taken time away anyway.

    Back to the original topic of your post does the name al-saddiq mean righteous like in Abu Bakr al Siddiq and Jafir al-Sadiq? In Hebrew Tzadiq (tz often converts into just s in arabic) means righteous one and often refers to what a Muslim might refer to as a wali – someone who is saintlike and who we hold to have a special relation to God. We often visit or study under such a person or visit his grave.

    Also, an Egyptian Muslim friend of mine (although not too religious) told me that akida equals creed in Islam. I wonder if this is related to the Hebrew word for binding. In Hebrew we refer to the binding of Yitzhak (Ishak) – or Ishmael for Muslims – as Akedat Yitzhak – the binding of Yitzhak since he was not sacrificed.

    I wonder if there is any connection between the semitic words?

    Assaf

  18. Roman Kalik Says:

    Asaf, I’m referring to earlier attempts to rejuvinate the Hebrew language as a modern spoken tongue, which was a largely failed undertaking of the Maskilim in the 18th century, but was nevertheless one of the foundations that Ben Yehuda and others would then build on. Further we have the large German Jewish population amoung the upper-middle class of Jerusalem, as well as other Jewish population centers, in the early period of the 20th century. They, I think left a more passive influence on affairs, but a noticable one nontheless.

  19. abuskander Says:

    Dear friend Assaf,
    i appreciate very much that you comment on my blog. I am always happy to read your comments and very much enjoying our conversation. I hope that you will not be offended that my answer comes so late.

    About the word “Sidiq”, in itself, it meast “truthful”. The title were given to Abu Bakr (ra) when he believed in the Prophet’s (saw) Israa, and the idol-worshippers of Makkah said that he was telling a lie. So he was gived the title “Sidiq”.

    When a man is “Saduq”, it means that he is reliable and tells the truth. Also when i say “Sadaqny” (in levantine and lower egyptian dialects, the q pronounced as a glottal stop), it means “Believe me”.

    The “Sad” (deep s) and “Dad” (deep d) seems to have merged together into the hebrew “tz”.

    Yes, 3aqida (with ayin) means creed. The root of the word is “3aqada”, which means “to tie together, to knit, to bind”, so yes it seams very much that there is a connection between these two words.

    In my next comment, i will deal witht he battle of the camel and the battle of Siffin.

  20. abuskander Says:

    Regarding the two battles, the reason was one: The killing of ‘Uthman. It was well known that the one who murdered the rightly guided caliph ‘Uthman (May Allah be pleased with him) was in fact from ‘Ali’s (ra) partisans, and thats the reason why both of these wars was fought “against” ‘Ali (ra).

    First of all, it is not about the Sahaba (ra) against the Household of the Prophet (saw), like the shi3i and orientalists often portray it. Both Ali (ra) and A’isha (ra) were Sahaba according to the sunnis, and both were members of his Ahl bayt, his household.

    I will deal with the battle of the Camel:

    When ‘Uthman was killed, a criminal act which Ali (ra) tried his best to prevent, the people were disappointed, and so was ‘Ali (ra) – he was so disappointed that he refused to take the caliphate, as he said “Leave me and seek somebody else”. But when he assumed the caliphate anyway, he was aware that ‘Uthmans (ra) killers had tribal protection, and that bringing them to justice would only do harm.

    Many people were unsatisfied with this – the Islamic state were on the edge of a civil war. Keep in mind that ‘Uthman (ra) was from the very powerful Arab tribe Bani Umayya.

    Seeing the Islamic state at this, A’isha (ra) went out with two of the Mubashirin (people promised paradise), Talha and al-Zubair (May Allah be pleased with them), to reconcile between the parties of war. This is in fact the duty of a Muslim, as Allah (tt) said:
    If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).
    (Sura 49 aya 9)

    So when Aisha (ra) arrived with Talha and al-Zubair, the following happended according to the books of history:

    Ali sent Al-Qi’qa’ah bin ‘Amro to the people of Al-Basrah asking them why they are leaving: “Al-Qi’qa’a left and reached Basrah. He started with Aysha may Allah be pleased at her and made salam to her and said: “O’ Mother, What moved you and pushed you to this country”? She answered: “O’ Son, to reform between people.” Al-Qi’qa’a said: “Send for Talha and Al-Zubair so that you hear my words and their words.” Aysha sent for them and they arrived. Al-Qi’qa’a said: “I asked the Mother of Beleivers what brought and pushed her here and she answered to reform between people, what do you say you both? Do you agree or disagree (on her agenda)?” They two answered: “We agree.”
    References:
    – Tarikh Alumam wa al-Muluk, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the events that took place in year 36AH.
    – Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, by Ibn al-Athir al-Kurdi, vol. 3 p. 123

    So the sole propose that A’isha, Talha and al-Zubair (May Allah be pleased with them) went to Basra was to reconcile between the fighting parties. And they succeded! Again, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari collected the following:
    Ali, Talha and Al-Zubair came out, agreed, and talked in the matters they disagreed with each others. The did not find a better solution than peace and to end the war when they saw the matter is started to be cleared and not achievable through war. They departed from each other agreeing on their resolution. Ali came back to his barracks and Talha and Al-Zubair wnet back to their barracks. In the evening, Ali sent Ibn Abbas (ra) to Talha and Al-Zubair who sent Muhammad bin Talha (ra) to Ali in a job to talk to their comrades. They all said yes for a peace. At night – that was in Jamadah Al-A’akhirah – Talha and AL-Zubair talked to the leaders of their comrades, and Ali talked to the leaders of his comrades except those people who ate Uthman. They ended up on peace and they slept in a night that they never had before because of the goodness they are near to and because they got away from what some people desired and embarked on whatever they embarked on. And the people who provoked the matter of Uthman had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite the war in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them, they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness… they laid swords in the believers. Then the people of Al-Basrah got angry and every people fought his comrades who were stunned. And Aysha said: “Ka’ab, leave the camel and advance with book of Allah and call them to it.” And she gave him a mushaf. The people came and the Saba’eiyah were in front of them fearing of a peace to happen. Ka’ab received them by the mushaf and Ali behind them trying to hold them back but they rejected anything but to continue the war. So when Ka’ab called them, the Saba’eiyah threw him with lances. He was killed. Then they started throwing Aysha with lances while she was on her camel. Aysha said, “O’ my children! The rest of you, the rest of you, – then her voice increases in tone – Allah Allah, remember Allah and Judgment Day.” But the Saba’eiyah refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aysha said when the Saba’eiyah refused to stop, “O’ people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.” And then she went on supplicating. Then the people of Basrah started supplicating. Ali bin Abi Talib heard the callers. He said, “What is this noise?” His army answered, “Aysha is calling and her army is calling with her against the killers of Uthman and their friends.” Ali started calling and said, “O’ Allah, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends!”
    Refer to the Tarikh of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari again, Chapter 36AH, p. 38-43.

    So the efforts of A’isha (ra) was destroyed by the Sabaeia. The Sabaeia was a fanatic party of Ghullat Shiism (People who are extremist in their Shia believes, named after Abdullah ibn Sabaa, who believed that Ali was in fact a reincarnation of God), and in fact it was these people who were behind the murder of ‘Uthman (ra).

    Seeing this in the back-light, maybe The Mother of the Faithful A’isha al-Sidiqa bint al-Sadiq (May Allah be pleased with her) should have acted otherwise and should also have calculated upon the fact that maybe Ali (ra) was unable to control the hypocricy of the Sabe’ia, had she calculated on this then the war would not have escalated and all these faithful persons would never have been martyred. And she regretted it too.

    And Ali (ra) said to her after the war:
    May Allah forgive you. And she said to him: And you too, i only wanted reformation.
    Refer to Shatharat Al-Thahab, by Ibn Imad, volume 1, page 42.

    And ‘Ali arranged for an escort for A’isha (ra) to Madinah, and there was absolutely no hatred between the two. The only hatred exists in the Shi’i view on history, they curse the mother of the faithful and portray the event as black/white without any graytones. Either one sides with Ali (ra), or one sides with A’isha (ra). We orthodox sunni’s side with both, and according to us the dust of their feet are more pure than our faces. Who are we do condemn anyone of them? What A’isha (ra) did, she did in the best intention and with the most pure heart, and had she known that it would end this way, she would never have departed.

    Like the great malaysian scholar Shaykh Muhamad Afifi al-Akiti said:
    When lions fight, street dogs keep quiet.

    I am sorry i cannot write to you about the battle of Siffin now, my son needs help with his homework, but i will do it soon. I hope this clarified a few things and that you have a greater understanding of the Sunni view now.

    Best wishes,
    Ahmad.

  21. Assaf Says:

    Roman,

    Thank you for this info. i wasn’t aware of the influence of German Jews later on in Jerusalem etc except for scholars like Scholem etc. It seems that their continued adherence to German Pronunciation fits the Yekke stereotype well 🙂

  22. Assaf Says:

    My friend Ahmad,

    Please take your time as you need to and do not apologize for it. Your family is more important. I have read your response and it has greatly enhanced my understanding of the Sunni perspective of the Battle of the Camel.

    I Hope to read your discussion of Siffin as well. I have enjoyed reading what you have provided and appreciate the time you have taken to write it.

    I wish your son continued success in his studies,

    Assaf

  23. Howie Says:

    Dudes…

    We are cousins after all…

    Come on…my Hebrew is not that great and I don’t have much Arabic but;

    Ach-brother
    Hamor-mule
    Shalom-Salaam -do I need to define that one?
    ab or av- father
    em- mother

    I could go on and on and on

    We are of the same people…same language…same Papa Abraham…

    We just have one really dysfunctional family thing going on…I mean major Jerry Springer stuff here.

  24. Howie Says:

    Ahmed-

    “About the word “Sidiq”, in itself, it meast “truthful””

    In Hebrew…Tzedek…truthful or actually righteous or correct.

    Cousins…yup…we cousins…

    Ah…mind sharing the oil cousins?

  25. abuskander Says:

    I’ve heard that you guys make good chocolate (and that you control the US by the way), i’m ready to share some of our oil in exchange for that 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: