I haven’t been online much the past week and I really can’t waste the little time I have on arguments at this level and caliber.Your subtelty is appciated, but unnessessary. The Arabic Quran doesn’t exist, but I am willing to discuss the one you have.
This is most definitely proof. Proof is “factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.” (source) The fact that Aramaic predates Arabic is a matter of the impartial historical record. To ignore this because you don’t like it or it doesn’t conform to your picture of the world just makes you look like a fool.The difference between a learned approach and the one you are using is this.
The argument for Arabic coming from Aramaic/Hebrew are :
1- There are Aramaic/Hebrew documents predating Arabic ones.
This is natural because Arabs were nomads that didn’;t leave behind written documents/statues/tablets etc. This is not ‘proof’ this is evidence only.
How is this even a point? Missionaries also translated the Bible into the Arabic from the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.2- Missionaries and priests assumed that the Qur’aan isn’t the word of God and hence Arabic must have come from Aramaic. This is just an assumption not a fact and it is a highly subjective one.
This is the biggest joke I’ve ever seen. As a linguist, I am not sure if I should pity you for your ignorance or pity myself for the time I’m surely wasting on someone who has already clearly made up their mind in favor of such an obviously false and untenable position. This is no form of argument, as it has no relation not only to the topic at hand, it is completely ignorant of even the most basic facts that apply to ANY LANGUAGE (Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Thai, Swahili…you name it):1- A system cannot come from Chaos but a system can degenerate into chaos. Arabic is highly systematic, Aramaic/Hebrew are totally - NOT systematic.
The highly systematic structure of Arabic implies that IT cannot have come from an unsystematic language. Grammar (i3rab and taSreef) is almost mathematical in its nature and is so highly systematic that they are considered formulas. However, if ones uses Arabic and neglects the system then it can degenerate into similar sounding labguages like Aramaic/Hebrew.
This makes absolutely no sense. You clearly have no knowledge of the linguistic history of Arabia, not that your case would be helped if you did, so I don’t blame you for just making stuff up and posting it anyway. That’s what I would do if I had no linguistic training but a lot of preconceived ideas of how I’d like the world to be.2 - Migration paths. Populations migrated from Yemen, to Arabia, to Mesopotamia to Palestine/Syria then onto Egypt. Languages and Dialects would travel this same path. From Yemen/Arabia to Mesopotamia where Arabic would degenerate into something less then onto Palestine where it would degenerate further into Hebrew and Syria where it would degenerate into Aramaic. Language cannot travel backwards only forward with the migrating populations.
This proves absolutely nothing at all. Do you have a source for this example, by the way? I would like to read it from some reputable linguistic journal, thesis, confrence paper, etc. One borrowing (if proven) does not make Arabic the parent language of Aramaic anymore than the many borrowings from Aramaic into Arabic make Aramaic the parent of Arabic. That is not how language works.3- Finally, there are words in Arabic/Aramaic and Hebrew whose origins only exist in ancient Arabic and are unknown in the two other languages. This would make Arabic the source/origin. For example the word Malaak (Angel) in all 3 languages. This is the oldest form in Hebrew/Aramaic. In Arabic you can go further back - to Uluk (message) from which Ma’lak (messenger) comes and then onto the new form Malaak.
This is a religious, not a linguistic argument. There is no such thing as “correcting” a language, and certainly not with the grammar of another language, even a related language like Arabic. There is nothing to “correct” to begin with.In fact, not only was the Hebrew of the Torah corrected by Jewish Rabbis using Arab/Islamic linguists but some concepts in the Bible would not have been understood had it not been for Arabic - angel (Malaak) being one of them.
I could correct many of the errors contradictions in Genesis using the Qur’aan for example.
If you are going to make arguments based on linguistics, you must quote LINGUISTS, not orientalists. The two are not necessarily the same, and in those cases where they are, it still remains the case that any reputable linguist must divorce his own extra-linguistic interests from his professional work. I am a Christian, but I do not make the claim that Arabic came from Syriac (or Amharic, Coptic, or any other Semitic language spoken by Christian people), because it is not linguistically sound. This is not, in fact, how Arabic or Syriac developed. There are cases where one language can be more or less developed out of another (as is the case with Maltese, which developed from the Siculo-Arabic or Sicilian Arabic dialect spoken in the region after the Muslim conquest of 902 AD), but is just one of the ways in which linguistic variation and be shown within the general framework of historical linguistics wherein related languages share a common origin in a proto-language. This is the case with all Semitic languages (Maltese included), and indeed all languages.But I’m no longer alone in stating that Aramaic/Hebrew come from Arabic not Vice Versa, some of your own orientalists now say so too. Just search around and you will find their quotes on this issue.
Really? You should read some of your comments.I am not here to get involved in childish discussions with childish approaches and attitudes.
Actually, a third grader from Alabama could have put together a cogent response to your argument. I expected more from such a confident Muslim. I should have known better.I’ll answer which ever points you made that meet a minimum level of intelligence (I have to say) briefly, then close the issue of The lowest/closest point on earth and the grammar issue of too which I kept running in the hope of inviting maturer discussions from maturer members of this board.
Says who? Arabs?Not only is Arabic the ‘purest’ most powerful of languages around today but its scholars are the most learned in any language.
I understood your linguistic mythology just fine. I simply refuted your argument with a few taps on my keyboard. There are 150 or more non-Arabic words in your Quran, and these words lend strong evidence to the argument against the Quran as either pure or inspired by God. You overlooked the point. Why does ‘Allah’ need Ethioptic, Romanian, Hebrew, et al. Needless to say, the Arabic of the Quran isn’t pure at all.1- ‘Purest’.
I ‘tried’ explaining that to you but of course you weren’t able to understand. This is a s pure as any language can get.
So there was Arabic influence on Hebrew grammar, in the opinion of an un-named Rabbi? That’s your evidence?! You can quote this Rabbi verbatim, but can’t name him? Curious.2-Grammar
Quoting one Jewish Rabbi/Scholar.
The rules of the Hebrew grammer adverted to in the fragments of this work possessed by us - only a little more than the introduction has been preserved - like wise reveal the influence of the school of Arabic grammarians.
How is this used as evidence to support your thesis of Arabic superiority and sequence of development? You are claiming that Arabic is pure and that it pre-dates Hebrew and Aramaic. I am still awaiting your evidence."The two volumes The Book of Roots and The Book of Embroidery…
And way ahead of the Arabs were the Italians, Byzantines and Hellenes of Classical Greece. You still haven’t made a point against me or a connection that identifies Arabic as predating Hebrew or Aramaic. Nor have you demonstrated the purity of the Quran. I’ll hold my breath and wait, ok?-What Do Orientalists Say About The Arab Grammarians?
…the Arab grammarians were** way ahead of their time**.
Not only is this a bad analysis, but makes my point. A real linguistic miracle would be that the Quran did use words that the Arabs didn’t know at the time. Now **that **would be a miracle.3- Concerning the Arabic of the Qur’aan and the presence of non-Arabic words. The only point that could be made here is if the Qur’aan used non-Arabic words that the Arabs didn’t KNOW of at the time.
.For example, Haman the advisor to Pharaoh has a non-Arabic name. How would the Qur’aan refer to him without using a non-Arabic word ? We need to use a minimum level of intelligence here
Notice that the Muslim says that ‘adna’ means ‘lowest’ then gives citations from the Quran and none of his own translations read ‘lowest’…lol…Moyadd, do you even read your own posts? The Arabic word ‘adna’ means ‘nearer’ or ‘closer’ and the Quran 30:2-5 says nothing about the ‘lowest point on the earth’. Also, the battle between the Persions and Byzantines was over jerusalem, which is **not **the lowest point on the earth. Either way, the Muslim is wrong.4- Adna meaning lowest not Closest.
Really? Shall I quote you from the haditha of your prophet? Apparently, your prophet says [Bukhari 4.54.414] that **first **there was nothing but Allah, **then **he created his throne above water that was already in existence. After that he **wrote **a book, and then **finally **he created the heavens and the earth. Notice folks that in an earlier post Moyadid claimed that Allah ‘does not write’, yet here in Islamic sources his own prophet refutes him!Incidentally, there is no creation starting point. There is no Adam and Eve alone in heaven and a serpent (who is above all cattle !! Biblically). This is the Qur’aan/Islam.
Fairy tales? You mean like a Allah’s she-camel leaping out of a rock? That kind of fairy tale?You will have to try and think out side this simplistic approach of the usual fairy tales
Your Quran says that Allah took a few days to create it all and not all at once. You ought to stick to your sources. You want to discuss the hadith literature, or Tabari on the subject of what came first and when?All was Created together.
Actually, any basic introduction to Greek stocism or the first 600 years of Christianity will enlighten our readers on the origins of the subject matter you pretend to have knowledge of.There is Kun (Be!) and there is a creation and there is a creation after creation. Comming into exsitence is simply the act of coming out gradually from Al Ghayb (The unknown/unseen) into the world of ‘Knowing’. These concepts are bit too advanced for this level of argument.
Please tell me part two is more exciting!End of Part (1).
Why do you think bio-sex persons as a creation of God!, I will give an example, their is a medical phenomenon known as Anophthalmia, where babies are born without eyes, the doctors investigated those defects and linked that to the mother exposure to pesticides in her first three months of pregnancy (when the eyes are developed), they found those cases mostly in rural areas near the farms, now WHO DEVELOPED THOSE PESTICIDES??? God or us…The OP (Sam_777) should answer this question please, and forget about the two hearts…
I wouldn’t say anyone was created neuter. There is one sex or the other. Even if it is dysfunctional, and they become trans-gender in behavior, they are one or the other, --perhaps in need of therapy, if possible. But these things are all gone at death.But we see some who are neither male nor female. they are of neutral gender. Could this be looked upon a mistake in the Bible? Or a change in the God’s plan of creation?
.Islamic ‘apologists’ haven’t been saying that the Qur’aan was ‘written’ by Allah. I think you mean it comes from Allah. Allah doesn’t write [emp mine]
Hi Lothair,Quoting Moyadid:
.
Let’s take a look at the Quran [4:81]. In this verse, Allah **writes ** yaktubu; Rt. Kaf-Ta-Ba ] the deeds of those who mediate against the lone prophet of Islam. There are several other examples like 21:94 where Allah promises to write down the good deeds of the believers. In fact, Allah needs the angels to write for him too [cf. Q. 68:1]. Apparently, Allah plans on tormenting the critics of his poet, but has a bad memory so he writes things down so that he can recall them on judgment day [Q 19:79]. Allah writes down quite a bit, and the hadith support it. Allah writes goods deeds [Muslim 1.234] and in fact, Allah even credits the Muslims for good intentions. What a good deal that is!
Anyhow, there is more, but I think that makes the point. If the Muslim tries to come back and say, ‘Allah orders *angels *to do the writing’, I’ll be ready for him.
DavidMark, Thanks for using the Quran for some reason. I do not know if your post is relevant to the topic.5:116. And behold! Allah will say **“O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men, ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” **
He will say: "Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
5:117. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up, Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a Witness to all things. (The Qur’an, Yusuf Ali tr.)
I like Yusuf Alí’s translation. What are your real beliefs, concerns and conceptions?DavidMark, Thanks for using the Quran for some reason. I do not know if your post is relevant to the topic. What is the view of the Baha’i members about it? Specially the part that I bolded in Red?
I ask the other Muslim posters here to please see if the translated words " when Thou didst take me up " are the correct translation??