The Philosophy of Language - Part Two: Symbolisim

As described in the previous article, the language of the Qur’an and Hadith was never delivered in script. It was spoken, and the inscriptions came after the speech. Inherently, the inscriptions have never been letters and words.

One might, for instance, read the Qur’an and understand what is written, but the true intellect will ask, ‘what is being said?’ Not what is written. What is Allah really saying? What is the Holy Prophet really saying? If Allah used a certain allegory, or narrated a certain story, the surface might be understandable in regards to the rational interpretation of the story or allegory, but human thought and emotion is not only a rational faculty. The application of logic, reason, and sense, will dip below the surface to truly discern, ‘If Allah is speaking of this or that, what is He really conveying? What is the wisdom? What is the knowledge? What is the philosophy? And most importantly, Why?

Script and speech are two very different things, where a script is an inanimate representation of something, but speech is the animate deliverance both thought and emotion, representing the true form of what the speaker intends to reveal. You see, it is only in the modern sense that language has really been compounded into words and letters. In all previous eras, language has always existed in cuneiforms and hieroglyphs, which the modern academic scornfully perceives as primitive and archaic. The same academic also does not know that language is the ‘utterance of something’ as speech, not inscription. The etymology of ‘Word’ in itself means ‘something uttered or spoken’. The etymology of ‘Language’ in itself means ‘a manner of expression and/or oration’. By virtue of this, when perceiving an inscription, an intellectual will always say ‘it has been in inscribed in such and such a language’. However, this only gives us a definition of the term. It does not explain its essence and existence. So again we arrive at the conundrum… what is ‘language’? And why should ‘language’ not be perceived as words and letters? Both the English definitions given above elaborate language as the medium of relaying something, in context of which it can be understood as the conception or representation of thoughts and emotions, ergo, language is symbolic. This is a sound explanation as even; Semetic languages like Syriac, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Indian subcontinental languages like Sanskrit, Tamil, Malayalam, Malay, Javanese, as well as Indo-European languages like Celtic, Runic, Germanic, Greek, Slavic, Indigenous languages of the Americas like Mayan, Aymara, Guarani, Tupi, Aztec, African languages like Cushitic, Mizraic, Bantu, Nilotic, Asian languages like Chinese, Mandarin, Mongolian, Turkic, Tibetan, Burmese, and Aboriginal (Australia/New Zealand) Tiwi, Papuan, Tasmanian, Warlpiri, all existed in hieroglyph and cuneiform. Every single ancient language from the beginning of human history up until the recent half-millennia all existed in picto-form. All scripted in shapes and forms and the morphology of shapes and forms, symbols, each one ever acting as a representation of what was spoken. In every language, the symbols represent two key attributes among many others; Sound; Each symbol is identified by its inscribed shape and structure, and each symbol makes a certain sound which must be mimicked in order to relay what the symbol means. Sound is relayed by combination of breath and vocal tract motion/vibration, from diaphragm to nose, mouth, tongue, and lips, and is identified from its point of articulation (where the sound escapes - nose, mouth, throat, gut, lungs, etc). For instance; The symbol Alif ا relays the sound ‘AA’. Articulated from the upper throat with restricted breath. The symbol Laam ل relays the sound ‘LL’. Articulated from the tip of the tongue with contained breath. The symbol Haa ه relays the sound ‘HH’. Articulated from the mouth with released breath. The morphology of these root symbols come together to form the symbol الله Allah, which is a universal symbol. Anyone who recognizes this symbol knows exactly which combinations of sound to make and how to relay those sounds so that anyone else who hears it, understands exactly what has been relayed. Following the ‘sound’; Meaning; Each symbol must represent something. A symbol that is unknown, or incorrectly structured or relayed, means nothing, or means the adverse of something, and oftentimes becomes forbidden to use. Which is to say, every true and correctly structured symbol has a true meaning and essence in representation of that which Allah has brought into existence. Anyone who sees and recognizes that symbol, or hears the sound made regarding that symbol, immediately comprehends what is relayed. In the above example, the Alif ا has a meaning by itself. The sound it makes is known by all who recognize it, but, according to linguists, ‘its essence is only known to Allah’. The morphology of all the symbols gives us the symbol الله, which is immediately recognized and comprehended as God’s Name in Arabic as Allah, and nothing else. In the same way, the symbol יהוה can only be used to represent God’s Name in Hebrew as Yahweh, and nothing else. While all languages have synonymic sounds and symbols, they are all uniquely represented in their own shape and form, and the essential meaning of symbol is based purely in the context used. As such, it is understood that a symbol is just a symbol until it is given a designation and context. For example, ‘Chair’ remains ‘Chair’ until its given a designation as ‘The man sat on the chair’ and now it has a meaning and purpose. That being said, symbolism in its true purpose is only limited to language. Representing speech into script. Symbolism, in its true sense, does not represent structure, ideology, or creation as a whole. It is just scripted language. Unfortunately, not only has the modern age removed symbolism from language, it has adapted the use of structured shapes and forms (triangle, square, circle, etc) in a bid to represent the essence of things that cannot be represented symbolically. They must be represented in their true form. Religion, for example, cannot be represented symbolically, which would be an act of veiling its true form. The religious language can be represented using symbols (Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Chinese) using characters and glyphic shapes and forms, but its essence can never have a symbol. Allah Himself does not have a symbol. No Prophet of Allah has a symbol. Nothing in all of Creation can be represented by a symbol. Only in scripted form can symbols represent what was uttered of anything in existence. Symbols do not, in any way or form, represent the essence of divinity. This is the ultimate truth of the matter. It is very easy to identify the incorrect use of symbolism in connection to religious doctrine and ideology. Outside of language, the use of ‘religious’ symbolism draws closer to Kufr, and ever closer to witchcraft and sorcery. There is no symbol that can represent God Himself, only a symbol to represent His spoken name. As such, even the religious structure He has ordained has no symbol. The star of David does not represent the religion of David or the religion of Abraham. The cross does not represent Jesus or his religion. The crescent moon has never represented Islam. When one says ‘Islam’, the symbol اسلام can be used to script the spoken ‘Islam’, but one cannot use the moon and star to represent Islam, for those objects are part of Creation and they each have a meaning and purpose of their own. Muslims, Jews, and Christians, even Hindus and Buddhists, should understand that God and His Creation do not have symbols. Only the language used to describe them contains symbols to script what is spoken. Outside this ordained use, every other application either has no essential meaning or purpose, or is embedded into occultic practice, as is very apparent with the practices of modern civilization. This elaborates the definition of a Dajjalic Age, where symbols are used to deceive by concealing and containing the true meanings of things. Occult organizations have compounded symbolism deep into their occultic practices, and that is the nature of occultism. The word ‘occult’ shares the same etymology in English as the word ‘Kufr’ in Arabic, the practice of concealing the essence of truth. It is the act of hiding behind a veil, in likeness of the devil whispering from a concealed vantage, and is the nature of all occult practices. The shape of a triangle, for example, is associated with masonic/dajjalic practices, but that only remains as an association. The triangle by itself only means ‘triangle’. It represents a shape with three geometric sides. The pyramid by itself is just a pyramid. It is a geometric structure that represents something of ancient civilizations. But when adapted and given a designation, such as the ‘one-eye of Dajjal’, its contextual meaning has been forced to change from something that was inherently true, to now representing something that is false. It is upon the individual to go deeper and investigate the symbol within its context. The same case would apply to other occultic symbols such as the 6-pointed Star of David adapted by Zionism, or the 5-pointed pentagram adapted by paganism and witchcraft. Isolate these symbols from their adapted associations and they would represent themselves in their true and original form, with a meaning and essence far variant than their occult affiliations.