Re: The concept of Kitab

Nasir Malik, hello

You write

[quote]I was try to make you realize that just because we see that
certain
scripts develop within human history does not mean writing itself was
made by human beings. You dont know the difference between writing and
certain scripts? One is a subset of the other. [/quote]

'Writing' is a a concept based on synthetic induction. As I have been
accused of using 'pretentious' words like 'ontological' I will make
myself clear in plain English. We can speak about the nature of 'dogs'
without referring to any particular species of dog. However, without
any particular examples of 'dog' it would be impossible for us to speak
about the shared characteristics of 'dogs'. We make generalizations
about 'dogs' on the basis of observed characteristics among particular
animals. Animals that share these characteristics are called 'dogs'.
Animals that do not share these characteristics are not called 'dogs'.
Now, all the labradors in the world are indeed a subset of the
category 'dog' . But the' concept dog' has no other basis than the
observed examples of animals that we call 'dogs'. The same applies to
writing. 'Writing' as a concept that we all use would have no meaning
without the presence of certain scripts about which we can make
generalizations. I have defined writing as graphic signs that represent
spoken language. There are many many kinds of graphic signs that
represent spoken language. But they all have one characteristic in
common - they represent spoken language! If you give a pen to a
gorilla it is perfectly capable of making squiggles on a *** of
paper. But we would not call those squiggles 'writing' because they
would not represent spoken language. 'Writing' as a concept that we all
use would have no meaning without the presence of 'concrete scripts'.


You say

[quote]What is at issue is the issue you continue to avoid.
You claimed that writing itself (not some specific script) was invented

by humans but you have not given evidence. [/quote]

If I have 'avoided' the issue it is quite simply because I do not
understand you. I do not understand the words 'writing itself'. What do
you mean by 'writing itself'? It is as if for you there is something
called 'writing itself' that can somehow be independent of any written
script. I have given evidence of the development of written scripts.
That is I have given evidence of the ORIGINS OF WRITING. No doubt if
you do a google search yourself on the origins of writing you will find
ample evidence of precisely how writing originated in settled urban
societies about 5500 years ago.


[quote]In a bad attempt to give
evidence you noted that this or that scripts development has been
documented. But this is fallacy. Your argument seem to be 'this or that

scripts development has been documented therefore the very act of
writing was invented by man'. Tell me how does one follow from the
other? How does one imply the other? Where is the logic? [/quote]

Well, writing is literally INCONCEIVABLE without any form of written
script. The ONLY written scripts we have, have been written by human
beings. We have NO written scripts that have NOT been written by a
human being. Why not apply your argument to other inanimate composite
tools developed by human beings? We have many types of musical
instrument. Some have survived for thousands of years. Indeed, even
primitive flutes made out of antler bone by Neanderthals have been
discovered. But would you accept as a valid argument that this does not
prove that musical instruments are NOT a human invention? Perhaps for
someone who reasons like you, there would be some kind of ideal
Platonic essence called 'musical instrument' ('in itself'?) that is
somehow independent of .... musical instruments.

[quote]> Nobody would claim that human beings
> are responsible for 'inventing' dogs or cattle

Exactly. It is fallacy to say 'we have document the development of this

kind of domesticated version of the animal therefore humans created
that animal.' But your argument was 'we have document the development
of this particular form of writing therefore the very process of
writing was invented by humans.' Same logical structure I think. Dont
you agree? [/quote]

No I don't. Poodles and labradors are breeds that have been developed
by human beings from wild dogs. Written scripts have indeed been
DEVELOPED from previous written scripts. But written scripts have not
been developed from something that can be called 'writing itself' that
PRE-EXISTED their observable morphologies.

Regarding Islam being practiced 'without any written script'. Yes, I
would say that this was the case as long as Mohammed was alive. But
that is to do with the personality of Mohammed himself and the fact
that the early Muslims considered him to be a Prophet. But surely every
Muslim would maintain that the central event in Mohammed's life was the
revelation of the Quran to him. Every single revelation was WRITTEN.
Did Mohammed have any revelation from Jibril that was NOT consigned to
writing? This seems such an obvious point that I really don't know how
any Muslim can take issue with it. The revelations are WRITTEN
revelations. They were written as they were revealed. There is a direct
and inextricable link between 'divine voice' and writing in Islam,
making Islam ontologically dependent upon the latter.

[quote]Others in this thread told you that kitab dont literally have to

mean a written text. Are you just ignoring that?[/quote]

The Arabic for Book is Kitab (a word that appears in the Quran itself
at least a hundred times). The Arabic for writing is 'kitibat'. It can
mean prescription or divine command (sharia) but in a written form.
Just as we say in English 'It is PRESCRIBED that you shall not commit
adultery etc etc.' Ultimately, we are talking about writing.

Kleine, hello

You write.


21.

[quote] The idea you are advocating is interesting and I believe that
it is,
from one point of view, a true theory. But it seems to me that it is
not adquate for the entire picture. Of course, as stated, it is
atheistic and all of us theists are required to disparge it. It is
atheistic because it leaves no room for the deity. [/quote]

No it is NOT atheistic and more than the theory of evolution is
atheistic. It simply contradicts the versions presented in the Bible or
Quran. And that is not the same thing.


[quote] The revision I would favor is the proposition that "To many
Muslims
Islam is ONTOLOGICALLY dependent upon a written Qur'an". There are
other kinds of Muslim thought, especially amomg the Sufis.[/quote]

?. Who are considered heretics by orthodox Muslims. Why ? Because they
have overstepped the boundaries set by the WRITTEN Word of God.

Dara writes :

[quote] I repeat. Human being without writing would simplay not have
existed,
because its faculties for speech and writing existed prior to its
biological conscrescence.[/quote]

And have you got any proof for your assertions ? I have many counter
proofs. For a start there have been hundreds and hundreds of
traditional societies (Native North American, Inuit, Australian
Aborigenes etc) who HAVE ?simply existed? without writing.

.

Quantcast