Quran language: Was it existing before revelation ?
-
Salam
Recently I came across a very interesting theory
The arabic language is exclusively the language of the Quran and all the rest of languages are " a3jami" .
There are no scienific proofs that a caligraphy similar to the one in the Quran had ever been found for the period prior to the revelation.
The Quran has got an internal languistic structure which leads to the comprehension of words meanings and not the dictionnaries .
The Quran is the litterary copy of the univers and no comprehension of the Quran can be complete without understanding the mechanisms of the univers.
Here is the link but it is in arabic www.mi3raj.net/vb
What is your opinion ?
Thank you for your time.
-
Peace,
There are alot of theories on the language of the Quran. Some people believe that there were Arabic dialects very different from the language of the Quran and that it was a langauage of prestige amongst the Arabs. Other people believe that the language the Quran uses is strictly the Quraish dialect and others believe that that it is a middle-ground language(of course written in good style) for all the dialects. Some people believe that the Quran somehow invented its language.
All the words of the Quran can be defined through a dictionary that extensively covers Old Arabic. Reviewing several dictionaries is the best way as some dictionaries may not be extensive as others. If the Quran was revealed to the Old Arabs who were around before the Quran then it had to have been revealed in a language that they could easily understand.
That is why I am of the position that the language that the Quran is written in is a language that overlaps all Old Classical Arabic dialects. And uses words that all of these dialects would readily and easily use. We know that the Arabs to the far south had a dialect that would have had more remnants of Old Ethiopic/Sabaic words and we know that the Arabs from the north would have a dialect that had more remnants of Aramaic with the Lakhmids and Persian with the Ghassanids. We already know of some Old Arabic dialects that use the Hebro-Aramaic 'haa' instead of al. But that does not mean that al wasn't used at all, it just means that they identified with haa more than al because of the region they were in. The same thing goes for Southern Arabic, they used 'm' in their noonations so technically they used meemation. So they said rajulum and such. However that does not mean that they did not use un at all it just means that they identified more with 'um' in their dialect.
The Hijaaz area was easily an area where south meant north, and where these people then went back to their homes, so the langauge remained relatively stable despite regional twangs (for instance haa and meemation). But the Hijaaz language being in between would obviously be the most middle and most understood Arabic. The Quran afterall does say that it is 'biArabeeyin(an Arabic)' and not al-arabeey (the arabic language).
This is why the grammarians went for bedouin Arabic as the bedouins (being somewhat isolated from cities) kept the Old langauge without Aramaic or Old Ethiopian taints. But the langauge of the Quran was the common language of the street (in the Hijaaz) and the isolated Bedoiuns in the Arabian peninsula.
This situation changed however as the Arabian pensisula opened up, as the Arabs made it a center for Islam. So it opened up to all surround influences that came under the Islamic fold (the Old Arameans, the Persians, the Turks and their Arab cousins whose grandfathers went to live in distant lands and whose language had change due to the natural process of language mixing that happens when cultures of different languages find themselves living in the same place) That is why the Saudi Peninsula developed its own dialect (aside from Old Classical Arabic ones) as well as the other now Arab countries.
This is what I know on the subject.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salam
Thanks progod for your answer.
This is another hypothesis
Words of the quran are concepts and their meaning can only defined from within the Quran itself and not from dictionnaries. How ? using the theory of "al mushtarakat al lafdhiya". Quran is self sufficiant and any borrowing from outside damage its coherence.
Arabic is not the language of arabs but the only language which can bear truth. When we say arabic language it has nothing to do with arabs but with truth of the Quran. indeed the etymology of the word "arabic" shows that it has never been used prior to Islam according to the author of this thesis. The closest word was a3rab .
The analytical approach of the Quran can not be done without understanding a fundamental point The Quran is the textuel image of the univers. Any attempt of explaning the Quranic truths is a dialectic between the text and the univers.
I hope to hear from the sisters and brothers here.
Respect.
-
Peace,
I'm sorry but I cannot accept this as it is nothing more than esoteric ideas imposed onto the Quran. And with all due respect I don't think any sensible person can. We need to stop esoterizing the Quran and opening up these doors to try to get whatever we want to out of the Quran. You can even understand 'wa' in the Quran if not for a dictionary (human or book). That the Quran is in Arabic is a fact and that Arabic was spoken before the prohpet Muhammad and before the Quran is also a fact. The Quran explaining itself has to do with the ideas it puts forth NOT the words it uses. I am very dissapointed with this type of thinking, it only leads to distortion of the Quran.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace and welcome, KEBCN,
I am not a linguist nor well-versed in history but I'm interested nonetheless. A few thoughts/questions came to mind after reading your posts. First
The Quran has got an internal languistic structure which leads to the comprehension of words meanings and not the dictionnaries.
This is something I don't quite understand. How would someone who does not speak Arabic learn this internal linguistic structure without the help of dictionaries?
The Quran is the textuel image of the universe.
Please explain what this means. I understand and agree with the follow up in that one should study the universe in concordance with their qur'anic studies. I would go further and suggest one should study all facets of life including (but not limited to) communication, psychology, the arts, and even other spiritual teachings. And upon returning to the qur'an, it takes on entirely new dimensions. But as far as the qur'an being a "textual image of the universe", I really don't understand what you mean by that.
Peace,
Tay -
Salam
The Quran is the litterary copy of the univers and no comprehension of the Quran can be complete without understanding the mechanisms of the univers.
Salaam KEBCN
I think the article says that the Book is nature, not the qur'aan. Unless I was reading a different article.
I could not register to the site. Not all articles/books are accessible to non members. Do you have any idea why?