Has anyone read the Qu 'ran? (A question for Muslims as well)

[OrdinaryMelkite]

If you are interested in the political aspects of the Qu’ran as well as the religious you might want to check Robert Spencer’s website Jihad Watch.

I browse the website regualrly-----thanks for the plug.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Native Arabic speakers on this very board have told me that there is no such thing as the “royal we” in Arabic…

Searching on Google for evidence of the “royal we” in Arabic only brings up Islamic apologetics and one line from a Wikipedia article saying that there are many places in the Qur’an where Allah is referred to as “we”. Nothing about the linguistic convention actually being present in the language outside of its usage in the Qur’an. That seems a little odd to me. I stopped after three pages, so maybe it’s in there somewhere…

The Arabic language is preserved through the Qur’an, and through poetry. The usage of “we” for majesty in the Qur’an is a proof that it exists in the language. I doubt you’ll find any scholar in Islam who would tell you that the “royal we” doesn’t exist.

Someone asked this question recently in the program that I’m in (I am studying Arabic fulltime these days) and this was the answer, that the plural connotes majesty. Maybe the native Arab speakers you talked to didn’t realize that they even frequently use the plural 2nd person to address someone politely, or an elder.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Did you enjoy the verses encouraging Muslims to Kill Non-Believers?

Do you know that the “peaceful” verses in the Quran are considered “abrograted” (cancelled) by most Muslim Scholars and that the “newer” verses (the violent ones) are the one that are considered valid now?

That’s because the “peaceful” verses are from Muhammad’s Mecca Period, when he had few followers and was trying to peacefully convert people. All of that changed when he moved to Medina and became a Military, Spiritual and Political Leader, and decieed to spread his message “by the Sword.”

This is an extreme and pardon me, but ridiculous opinion. It exists, but I wouldn’t call it mainstream. Certainly Muslims follow the entire Qur’an. My teachers have commented a few times on how utterly wrong it is to “abrogate” the Makkan Qur’an. It’s like most of the Qur’an. Sheer stupidity.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Thank you. These are really interesting replies because a lot of threads I’ve read about the Qu 'ran are all negative and it’s nice to read other perspectives.

I will probably read it one day after reading the other books on my list. So, is it best to read it in the order that it happened?

Regarding my boyfriend reading the Bible in Arabic, I think that’s a really good idea. I don’t know how well he can read Arabic though.

A lot of people say they want to read the Qur’an “in the order that it happened” but that doesn’t really make sense to me. It doesn’t catalogue chronological events, and you won’t really find an “edition” or whatever that will order in according to the order in which it was revealed–and even if you could find that, it’d only be useful if you were familiar with the life and history of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself anyway.

Best to just pick it up from the beginning and read it through. Allah put it in that order–good enough for me.

 

[Sister_Amy]

If you are interested in the political aspects of the Qu’ran as well as the religious you might want to check Robert Spencer’s website Jihad Watch.

Or you could check out LoonWatch, decrying how totally ridiculous the aforementioned site is.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This is an extreme and pardon me, but ridiculous opinion. It exists, but I wouldn’t call it mainstream. Certainly Muslims follow the entire Qur’an. My teachers have commented a few times on how utterly wrong it is to “abrogate” the Makkan Qur’an. It’s like most of the Qur’an. Sheer stupidity.

Thank you for that.

Maybe you would like to read Walid Shoebat’s “God’s War On Terror,” which documents specific cases where Mainstream Muslim Clerics declare the “violent” parts to be the “legitimate parts.” Or maybe read Joel Rosenberg’s “Inside the Revolution,” whoch does the same thing. Or even listen to Boutros’s program, which documents evidence of the aforementioned and much, much more.

These people are not just irresponsible Christian Apologists which throw out baseless accusations----there are people who’ve “been there” and have done the appropriate homework.

But Ok----whatever.

Tell me, though,
Do you believe in the Muslim Messiah and that he will come at the end of time to forcibly convert the populace at the point of a Sword?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Or you could check out LoonWatch, decrying how totally ridiculous the aforementioned site is.

Have you actually taken the time to look over the site?

Or do you rely on the opinions of other sites for that?

 

[dzheremi]

The Arabic language is preserved through the Qur’an, and through poetry. The usage of “we” for majesty in the Qur’an is a proof that it exists in the language. I doubt you’ll find any scholar in Islam who would tell you that the “royal we” doesn’t exist.

I do not look to religious scholars to answer linguistic questions, but to past and present common usage. Religious scholars do not determine such things.

Someone asked this question recently in the program that I’m in (I am studying Arabic fulltime these days) and this was the answer, that the plural connotes majesty.

I am aware of this phenomenon in a multitude of languages across the world, and speak several myself that distinguish formality registers by use of a particular plural (Russian, for instance, embodies what linguists call T-V distinction). This is somewhat different than the semantic function of the majestic plural use in the Qur’an, as it is a matter of social distance and not religious reverence. I am only curious about this with regard to Arabic because I have never observed it in use outside of the Qur’an, which makes me wonder if an exception is made for the Qur’an for religious reasons. I think I will write to my old Arabic professor about this. It is curious that it should be “preserved” in one document only (unless you have other examples you can show me…?)

Maybe the native Arab speakers you talked to didn’t realize that they even frequently use the plural 2nd person to address someone politely, or an elder.

Maybe? I would still defer to native speakers as a matter of course. The fact that no mention of the royal we in Arabic appears outside of Islamic apologetics strikes me as odd. Can you show me some examples from non-religious writings in Arabic that use it?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Thank you for that.

Maybe you would like to read Walid Shoebat’s “God’s War On Terror,” which documents specific cases where Mainstream Muslim Clerics declare the “violent” parts to be the “legitimate parts.” Or maybe read Joel Rosenberg’s “Inside the Revolution,” whoch does the same thing. Or even listen to Boutros’s program, which documents evidence of the aforementioned and much, much more.

These people are not just irresponsible Christian Apologists which throw out baseless accusations----there are people who’ve “been there” and have done the appropriate homework.

But Ok----whatever.

Tell me, though,
Do you believe in the Muslim Messiah and that he will come at the end of time to forcibly convert the populace at the point of a Sword?

I wasn’t calling you stupid, by the way. I was calling the people (Muslims) who share that opinion stupid. You’re only saying what you’ve heard, and I agree some people believe that. It’s not a claim made by people against Islam, because some Muslims do argue that point. I’m saying that those Muslims are wrong. I’m coming from a background of actually studying the Qur’an, studying scholars of the Qur’an. And my teacher has explicitly denounced the view that Makkan Qur’an should be abrogated, with strong evidence. Should be podcast soon.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Have you actually taken the time to look over the site?

Or do you rely on the opinions of other sites for that?

Of course I’ve looked it over. Read his books, even. I don’t know how else say but the guy seems to be deliberately distorting the truth. Mistranslating Arabic, drawing really wild conclusions from weak evidence, and ultimately trying to smear Islam in any way he can think of. And the commenters there are even worse–seriously crazy, if you ask me.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I do not look to religious scholars to answer linguistic questions, but to past and present common usage. Religious scholars do not determine such things.

Since I’m studying with linguistic scholars, who are also religious scholars, I take issue with this. Many of the great scholars of the Arabic language throughout history were also giants in similar religious fields. The study of the Arabic language arose primarily because of the Qur’an, so I don’t think it’s fair at all to divorce the two.

So if you know a real linguistic scholar who argues against the majestic “we” in Arabic, I’d like to see that proof. But just average Arab speakers? It doesn’t count for much. I’d argue most English speakers don’t know that English has a “royal we” because it’s not commonly found today. Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t/didn’t exist, just that their knowledge is lacking.

I am aware of this phenomenon in a multitude of languages across the world, and speak several myself that distinguish formality registers by use of a particular plural (Russian, for instance, embodies what linguists call T-V distinction). This is somewhat different than the semantic function of the majestic plural use in the Qur’an, as it is a matter of social distance and not religious reverence. I am only curious about this with regard to Arabic because I have never observed it in use outside of the Qur’an, which makes me wonder if an exception is made for the Qur’an for religious reasons. I think I will write to my old Arabic professor about this. It is curious that it should be “preserved” in one document only (unless you have other examples you can show me…?)

I don’t have other examples to show you, but I’m not well-read in Arabic literature or poetry. In fact, I have a daily battle with Arabic poetry (I tweeted about it yesterday even.) The stuff makes me want to pull my hair out.

My point is really that scholars of Islam, not just “apologetics” conclude that the plural is for majesty and not plurality. And since the Qur’an has been around for 1400 years, it’s not like this question is new.

 

[4Horsemen]

The Arabic language is preserved through the Qur’an, and through poetry. The usage of “we” for majesty in the Qur’an is a proof that it exists in the language. I doubt you’ll find any scholar in Islam who would tell you that the “royal we” doesn’t exist.

Someone asked this question recently in the program that I’m in (I am studying Arabic fulltime these days) and this was the answer, that the plural connotes majesty. Maybe the native Arab speakers you talked to didn’t realize that they even frequently use the plural 2nd person to address someone politely, or an elder.

Most agree that the “royal we” has been used in English by kings and magistrates. So it is probably fairly common, at least it was during the reign of kings. Also, in modern times, Presidents of various countries have probably used it as well. I don’t have an example offhand but read something of that nature.

I suspect that different translations of the Qur’an vary in linguistic style. I recall reading somewhere that the true, original copy is in Saudi Arabia, and no one is allowed to touch it other than the royal family. Yet, all Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, are obligated to pray in Arabic even if they don’t understand a word of what they are saying. I imagine you are studying Arabic to be able to recite the prayers and read the Qur’an to obtain graces from Allah. (What kind of graces does Allah bestow?) The copy I have is a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an in New York.

There are differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles as well. Catholic bibles include more books. By the way, the talk here is about reading the Qur’an, but I’m wondering if you have read the Bible and how you compare it to the Qur’an linguistically and spiritually, if you care to respond.

 

[dzheremi]

Since I’m studying with linguistic scholars, who are also religious scholars, I take issue with this. Many of the great scholars of the Arabic language throughout history were also giants in similar religious fields. The study of the Arabic language arose primarily because of the Qur’an, so I don’t think it’s fair at all to divorce the two.

The study of language is not a religious field. The study of religious language is a linguistic field (see, for instance, Morrow’s “Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon”). Anyway, it seems you are misreading my statement. It is of course true that there is nothing in the exercise of religious duties that precludes serious linguistic research, and indeed many people of every and no religious persuasion have contributed to the linguistic literature on Arabic and indeed all world languages. One of the earliest grammatical treatises on any language was Panini’s Sanskrit grammar (4th century BC), for instance, which was written as aide to readers of Vedic religious texts. I do not think it is a stretch to say that just as all art began as sacred art, all sciences began as “sacred sciences”. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that. None of this contradicts the general principle that the grammar of a given language is not determined in relation to its religious use alone (or indeed any one particular specialized speech context), but instead by common usage. To hold otherwise would be prescriptive in a way that is inappropriate for serious linguistic scholarship. The Qur’an is a product of its particular environment, preserved in a particular dialect, and as such can be assumed to be a good snapshot of that particular dialect at the time it was written. However, should we find something in it that is grammatically strange or otherwise linguistically obtuse, the answer must be sought from a scientific perspective and not attributed to the supposed “divine” origin of the book. Insofar as I have not seen any answer in the Islamic apologetics I have read that does not eventually resort to such non-arguments, I think it is fair to insist on a strict division of the scholar’s religion from his linguistic work, just as I would insist on the same from any scientist of any religion, regardless of the subject being investigated.

So if you know a real linguistic scholar who argues against the majestic “we” in Arabic, I’d like to see that proof.

I do not know of any linguistic literature that addresses it in any way. That’s why I asked abut it here. I once prepared a paper on non-verbal predication across ten languages which included elicitation from a native Iraqi Arabic speaker who was coincidentally also a linguist. We went through the full paradigm of pronoun forms in Arabic and this particular usage of “nahnu” never came up. I don’t have my original notes, so it is possible that there is something on this usage there and I don’t remember it (this was about three years ago by now), though it would not surprise me if it were absent totally due to the nature of the paper. Things like this are really more the province of semantics and sociolinguistics, not necessarily typology.

But just average Arab speakers? It doesn’t count for much.

Since average _____ speakers are the only people who have ever determined common usage, I very much disagree with this.

I’d argue most English speakers don’t know that English has a “royal we” because it’s not commonly found today. Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t/didn’t exist, just that their knowledge is lacking.

Very true. Note that I have never once asserted that Arabic does or does not have this or that grammatical construction or feature. But the assertions of Arabic speakers (scholars and non) are enough to investigate just what is going on here.

I don’t have other examples to show you, but I’m not well-read in Arabic literature or poetry. In fact, I have a daily battle with Arabic poetry (I tweeted about it yesterday even.) The stuff makes me want to pull my hair out.

If you find any, please share them with me.

My point is really that scholars of Islam, not just “apologetics” conclude that the plural is for majesty and not plurality. And since the Qur’an has been around for 1400 years, it’s not like this question is new.

I would hope that it is scholars of Islam who would be writing the apologetics! I have never been convinced that the use of “we” in the Qur’an was to mark plurality. In fact, I naturally assumed it was a majestic plural. It is the apparent absence of this form outside of the Qur’an, coupled with the assertions of native speakers that this is not a feature of Arabic, that has made me doubt my own assumptions. I still don’t think it is to mark plurality, but at the same time I don’t know why it would be used if Arabic does not have a majestic plural usage.

 

[Thyme]

Tell me, though,
Do you believe in the Muslim Messiah and that he will come at the end of time to forcibly convert the populace at the point of a Sword?

Is this true? My friend said that Muslims believe that Jesus will come to lead Muslims into war and in the end, it will just be Muslims living happily.

Is there an official interpretation of the Qu 'ran at all?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Most agree that the “royal we” has been used in English by kings and magistrates. So it is probably fairly common, at least it was during the reign of kings. Also, in modern times, Presidents of various countries have probably used it as well. I don’t have an example offhand but read something of that nature.

I suspect that different translations of the Qur’an vary in linguistic style. I recall reading somewhere that the true, original copy is in Saudi Arabia, and no one is allowed to touch it other than the royal family. Yet, all Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, are obligated to pray in Arabic even if they don’t understand a word of what they are saying. I imagine you are studying Arabic to be able to recite the prayers and read the Qur’an to obtain graces from Allah. (What kind of graces does Allah bestow?) The copy I have is a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an in New York.

There are differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles as well. Catholic bibles include more books. By the way, the talk here is about reading the Qur’an, but I’m wondering if you have read the Bible and how you compare it to the Qur’an linguistically and spiritually, if you care to respond.

I don’t know what you’re referring to as a “true, original copy” but the standard printed Arabic Qur’an from Saudi Arabia, in Arabic, is pretty widely distributed nowadays. The Qur’an, in addition to being written as a book, has been memorized by Muslims for centuries, such that when someone memorizes it he recites the entire thing to his teacher, with a chain going back to centuries. It’s preserved in hearts as much as on paper.

I’ve had a simple understanding of Arabic for a few years now–i.e., the prayers, basic Qur’anic vocabulary and simple phrases, and the ability to read it in Arabic. I’m actually studying now for deep linguistic analysis.

I have read the Bible but I don’t compare it to the Qur’an linguistically or spiritually. I’m not a student of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, so I’m not in any way qualified for a linguistic analysis of the Bible. As for spiritual analysis, I read the Bible for years and years as a Christian, then read the Qur’an once and became a Muslim. That doesn’t to me say much about the Bible, but rather the impact that the Qur’an had on me.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Is this true? My friend said that Muslims believe that Jesus will come to lead Muslims into war and in the end, it will just be Muslims living happily.

Is there an official interpretation of the Qu 'ran at all?

I’m not sure about “forcible conversions” (not mentioned in the hadith) nor Jesus leading a war, but that Jesus will return and rule mankind, absolutely.

As for an official interpretation of the Qur’an: no. There’s neither an official “interpretation” nor an official “translation.” The Qur’an often can be interpreted in many ways, and so it would be narrow to try to restrict its meaning. So often you find varying scholarly views (i.e., scholars who have extensively studied the Qur’an and prophet traditions, with different understandings of the Arabic language, have arrived at slightly different nuanced meanings.) And an interpretation which diverges from scholarly tradition is usually rejected (for instance, the Ahmadi interpretation of an ayah which led to the development of that sect.)

And there is no official translation because while the Arabic is intact, many meanings can be inferred or implied by the text and nailing down one specific translation doesn’t do justice to the Qur’an. So a translator can attempt to capture meaning, but it’s not possible to capture all possible meanings, and a translation cannot convey the miracle inherent in the form of the Qur’an, so there’s no “official” translation either.

 

[MartinJordan]

I think it’s interesting that in actuality, one must pray to God/Holy Spirit (as per Catholic recommendation) to get inspiration and focus to let God’s word (The Bible) to speak to the one reading.

If one just memorizes Bible or the verses, one can miss the actual point of what is being said and the full context of what has been written through inspiration via the same Holy Spirit’s guidance.

I have a good PhD Buddhist friend who says that he’s read the Bible twice through (I believe him) . Unfortunately I believe that he’s only read it, but not understood.

MJ

 

[Thyme]

I’m not sure about “forcible conversions” (not mentioned in the hadith) nor Jesus leading a war, but that Jesus will return and rule mankind, absolutely.

As for an official interpretation of the Qur’an: no. There’s neither an official “interpretation” nor an official “translation.” The Qur’an often can be interpreted in many ways, and so it would be narrow to try to restrict its meaning. So often you find varying scholarly views (i.e., scholars who have extensively studied the Qur’an and prophet traditions, with different understandings of the Arabic language, have arrived at slightly different nuanced meanings.) And an interpretation which diverges from scholarly tradition is usually rejected (for instance, the Ahmadi interpretation of an ayah which led to the development of that sect.)

And there is no official translation because while the Arabic is intact, many meanings can be inferred or implied by the text and nailing down one specific translation doesn’t do justice to the Qur’an. So a translator can attempt to capture meaning, but it’s not possible to capture all possible meanings, and a translation cannot convey the miracle inherent in the form of the Qur’an, so there’s no “official” translation either.

So it all depends on personal interpretation? What about major interpretations such as Jihad? I believe that there originally was an official interpretation because Muhammed would have meant one thing when telling people everything. He wouldn’t have just said it and told people to interpret it how they liked, otherwise no-one would know the original meaning of the Qu 'ran and Muslims would no-longer be able to say that Islam has never been altered.

Also, it would mean that people are correct when they say that the Qu 'ran tells Muslims to kill the unbelievers because there is no official interpretation to say otherwise.

 

[4Horsemen]

Is this true? My friend said that Muslims believe that Jesus will come to lead Muslims into war and in the end, it will just be Muslims living happily.

Is there an official interpretation of the Qu 'ran at all?

Any musing on why it would be that Jesus would be the one to come back instead of Mohammed? Then is Jesus considered the same person as the last prophet (I think it’s Mahdi) whom the Muslim world is waiting for? So if Jews believe their Messiah is coming and Christians believe Jesus is returning and Muslims believe their last and most important prophet is coming, why can’t all three faiths consider that He might be the same person we’re all waiting for under different aliases?

 

[4Horsemen]

I read that there are various sects of Islam.

1. Sunnis They comprise about 85% and are doctrinal following the practices derived from the Sunna of the Prophet (the Tradition or Hadith, which is interpreted by Muslim scholars.
2. Wahhabis. Mostly in Saudi Arabia, a Sunni subsect. A reformer, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab wanted to purify the religion and go back to a literal meaning of the Qur’an and Hadith.
3. Shi’ites “The party of Ali” is the meaning and it’s the largest non-Sunni sect. They believed that Ali was the rightful successor as son-in-law of Muhammad. He had married Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter. They believe the Imams are the prophetic line. More mystical than Sunnis. Differ on marriage and legitimacy of first three Caliphs.
4. Sufis The Sufis are the mystical sect in Islam, much like the Christian mystics.
   They’ve been persecuted frequently.

There are other sects as well with different styles of spiritual expression.

Paraphrased from Inside Islam by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.