The Origin of the Arabic Language
-
peace Tay,
What makes it (Lane's Lexicon) the legitimate source?
It isn't, it's just good as an additional study tool, like many other things. Perhaps people get the impression its somehow being used as the best source because its mentioned most often on the forum, but that's probably because quite a few people have it (more so than other lexicons?). Also, not many people share info from their sources/lexicons (as much as I do for example, as I have Lane), which I personally find a little strange.
What is it based upon?
Apparently, on pre-Quranic poetry/documents, Quranic, and post-Quranic manuscripts. The introduction to the lexicon is rather extensive. You can read a little about it here
http//www.simplyislam.com/54617.html
Out of curiousity, how does Lux translate the verses discussing al quran being in Arabic?
Wakas
-
Salam Aleikum
Luxenberg doesn`t say that the whole Quran was written in Aramaic, but the arabic writing has its origin in a dialect of aramaic. What he states is that arabic was strongly influenced by aramaic. Many words in todays arabic as in the old arabic are originally aramiaic, which is like arabic and hebrew a semitic language . Words like joua (inside) barra (outside) medina (city). And you can find aramaic words in the Quran. Now he searched the Quran for the so called ?gharib al-quran?, verses or words of which it is not clear what they actually mean.When the first Quran was written it was written without the little hints (fatha, kasra, damme,...) obove or under the letters which tell you which vokal follows and what helps you lot to understand the word. Much later they put the hints on the words. Thinking it are arabic words they put the hints as it was logical for arabic words. Todays Quran does have those signs (Vocalisation ).
He is saying that the old scholars forget the influence of the aramaic and interpret the words with the help of arabic.
But when using the aramaic word structure (rasm) some verses seem to be easier to understand (at least for him).
And obvioulsy other Muslims came in some points to the same conclusion. In the english translation of the Quran in free-minds. org in verse 7833 the same translation is found for qawaib.Luxenberg is not the first and only one who found out that arabic is influenced by other languages. The islamic scholar As-Suyuti who lived in the 15.th century counted 50 languages which are found in the Quran.
Bye and Peace
-
Peace Tay, all,
Luxembourg's main argument was that the Arabic language did not exist in the 7th century.
If this was Luxembourg's main argument, then he doesn't know what he is talking about. There are many Arabic inscriptions that are much older than the 7th century. For example, there are many inscriptions from the 6th century and the Namara inscription, for example, is from the 4th century. There is also the older Obados inscription which has both Nabataean and Arabic text.
Upon doing some research, I fould that there were in fact archaelogical evidences found dating as far back as the 4th century - stone engravings, etc.
You are correct and Luxembourg is wrong.
Luxembourg's mistake is common because he was looking for "religious" Arabic inscriptions. It is a fact that "religious" Arabic" inscriptions don't start to appear until the 7th century, many years after the revelation of the great reading.
Hence, you NEVER find ANY Arabic inscriptions on Temple walls or in any religious manuscripts prior to the 7th century.
On the other hand, there are thousands of Arabic "graffiti" written by average common people prior to the 7th century.
With that said, what is the true history of the Arabic language preceding the Qur'an?
The true history can only be based on archeological evidence.
From the archeological evidence, we see that Arabic was not a formal language of religion but was a secular language of the common people.
I have heard of poetry existing before the Qur'an. Are there any writings that have been found that predate the Qur'an, that have been "scientifically proven" to predate the Qur'an?
There is ZERO evidence of the existence of the kind of poetry that is now alleged to be "pre-quranic" prior to the revelation of the great reading.
The vast majority of alleged "pre-quranic" poetry has been proven to be a "post-quranic" fabrication.
The Namara inscription that I mentioned earlier proves that the most famous "pre-quranic" poet Imru' Al-Qays is a fictitious character.
Alleged poets such as Qays Ibn Al-Mulawah (Majnoon Layla), Antar Ibn-Shadad, etc. are as real as Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. They are nothing more than the figment of imagination of the Ummayad and Abbasid period storytellers.
I am sure that like all people, "pre-quranic" Arabs had songs. Singing is the basic form of poetry. However, nothing of that survived or the little that did was altered by the storytellers and is hence indistinguishable from the later day fabrications.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace Warda,
Luxenberg doesn`t say that the whole Quran was written in Aramaic, but the arabic writing has its origin in a dialect of aramaic.
Modern linguists now believe that Arabic descended from a language called Safaitic. Both Safaitic and Arabic are Southern Semitic languages while Aramaic, Nabataean Aramaic, and Hebrew are Western Semitic languages.
What he states is that arabic was strongly influenced by aramaic.
There is no evidence of a "strong" influence. In fact, them coming from two different branches of Semitic languages negates that.
Many words in todays arabic as in the old arabic are originally aramiaic, which is like arabic and hebrew a semitic language . Words like joua (inside) barra (outside) medina (city).
As far as I know, the words "joua" (inside) and "barra" (outside) are NOT old Arabic words and they never appear in the great reading. As for "medina" it could have well been a loan word.
What we are after is how a "pre-quranic" Arab would have understood something. For instance, they would not have understood "medina" as a city in Saudi Arabia. They would have understood it as "medina"/city and NOT Medina. Hence, Medina is not an old Arabic word. Despite this fact, some translators translate "medina" as Medina in some verses.
The word "medina" illustrates that even the same exact word can be understood in two different ways in two very similar languages (in this case modern Arabic and old Arabic). Hence, even if some words sound the same in the two different languages of Aramaic and Arabic, this doesn't mean that they had the same meaning for a "pre-quranic" Arab.
And you can find aramaic words in the Quran. Now he searched the Quran for the so called ?gharib al-quran?, verses or words of which it is not clear what they actually mean.
When the first Quran was written it was written without the little hints (fatha, kasra, damme,...) obove or under the letters which tell you which vokal follows and what helps you lot to understand the word. Much later they put the hints on the words. Thinking it are arabic words they put the hints as it was logical for arabic words. Todays Quran does have those signs (Vocalisation ).
Yes, the vocalization was added many hundreds of years later. Hence, they should be considered as reflecting a later day interpretation, especially those few of them that don't make sense with the context.
He is saying that the old scholars forget the influence of the aramaic and interpret the words with the help of arabic.
But when using the aramaic word structure (rasm) some verses seem to be easier to understand (at least for him).
And obvioulsy other Muslims came in some points to the same conclusion. In the english translation of the Quran in free-minds. org in verse 7833 the same translation is found for qawaib.I would say that the exact opposite is true and that the "post-quranic" scholars were too much influenced by Aramaic (Christian) and especially Hebrew (Jewish) interpretations. You see this in works such as "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir" and other commentaries on the great reading/"quran".
Luxenberg is not the first and only one who found out that arabic is influenced by other languages. The islamic scholar As-Suyuti who lived in the 15.th century counted 50 languages which are found in the Quran.
Arabic itself had several dialects and even scripts (for example the now extinct Musnad script). For example, people differ on whether ancient Sabaic is a dialect of Arabic or a separate language.
Languages are called "living languages" for a reason. They evolve and interact with other languages. This doesn't mean that the meaning stays the same across languages or even within the same language over time.
Hence, the context in texts from the specific period must be used to verify if a meaning makes sense or not.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace All,
Wakas regarding Lane's Lexicon, you stated
It's just good as an additional study tool, like many other things.Perhaps people get the impression its somehow being used as the best source because its mentioned most often on the forum, but that's probably because quite a few people have it (more so than other lexicons?).
I understand. It seems everywhere I go, Lane's is used in breaking down the Arabic. I thought it held some sort of precedence over other works.
Thanks for the link, it was helpful.Regarding Luxenberg's work, I have not read it. It has not been translated from German, from what I know. And despite two years of German in high school, all I remember are the curse words.
I'll leave a link to a synopsis on Luxenberg's work at the bottom of this post.
Warda stated
Luxenberg doesn`t say that the whole Quran was written in Aramaic, but the arabic writing has its origin in a dialect of aramaic. What he states is that arabic was strongly influenced by aramaic.
You are correct. My apologies. What he says is that written Arabic did not exist prior to the 7th - 8th Centuries
"In the Foreword, Luxenberg summarizes the cultural and linguistic importance of written Syriac for the Arabs and for the Qur?n. At the time of Muhammad, Arabic was not a written language. Syro-Aramaic or Syriac was the language of written communication in the Near East from the second to the seventh centuries A.D. Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, was the language of Edessa, a city-state in upper Mesopotamia. While Edessa ceased to be a political entity, its language became the vehicle of Christianity and culture, spreading throughout Asia as far as Malabar and eastern China. Until the rise of the Qur?n, Syriac was the medium of wider communication and cultural dissemination for Arameans, Arabs, and to a lesser extent Persians. It produced the richest literary expression in the Near East from the fourth century (Aphrahat and Ephraem) until it was replaced by Arabic in the seventh and eighth centuries."
taken from
http//syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.htmlPeace,
Tay -
Peace Ayman,
Than you for the insight. My original statement, that Luxenberg claimed the Arabic language did not exist prior to the 7th century, was made in error. He was referring to the written language.
However, if what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then Luxenberg's entire premise is false. If Arabic graffiti can be found prior to the 7th century, then a written language must have existed prior to the Qur'an. BTW, would you happen to have any links or info regarding this topic?
There is ZERO evidence of the existence of the kind of poetry that is now alleged to be "pre-quranic" prior to the revelation of the great reading.
I've read about this elsewhere. It's been claimed that the clergy of early Islam paid poets to fabricate biased poetry that would be predated to form political advantages, essentially manipulating the common people's blind faith in everything Islamic.
From the archeological evidence, we see that Arabic was not a formal language of religion but was a secular language of the common people.
This seems to be the natural progression of most languages and makes sense.
What we are after is how a "pre-quranic" Arab would have understood something. For instance, they would not have understood "medina" as a city in Saudi Arabia. They would have understood it as "medina"/city and NOT Medina. Hence, Medina is not an old Arabic word. Despite this fact, some translators translate "medina" as Medina in some verses.
Ayman, as you are clearly well-versed in this subject, what is your opinion of the influence the Qur'an holds over the Arabic language? I mean, if no written Arabic can be found prior to the Qur'an, then the Qur'an itself is the catalyst of the Arabic language, is it not?
Thanks again for your insight.
peace,
Tay -
Peace to all of you,
The source of the arabic writing is the Nabataen dialect. The arabic language of course is much older. The oldest evidence of arabic writing ever been found is found in Zebed and is dated in 512 a. C. According to some scientists it were christians who used the new arabic writing for their rituals. Those christians spoke the widespread syro-aramaic as educated arabs did as well. Later of course arabic should take the place of aramaic.
Luxenberg is not the first who found out the existence of aramaic words in arabic.
Alfonse Minaganas (1881-1937) wrote 1927 a work about ?Syriac influence on the style of the Kur`an?.One reason that other scientists (we
re talking here about europeans only) didnt find out the aramaic origin of some words is that they believed in the writing of the Quran in the ?`Arabia?, the language of the poets. I doubt this too. However Luxenberg states that the Quran was written in the local dialect of Mecca.I quoted the words ?joua?/?djuwwa? and ?barra? and ?medina? for two reasons (and I mentioned that they are NOT arabic) First it shows that there are also aramaic signs in todays spoken arabic (
Amiya). Second the word ?joua/djuwwa? is one the words which is, according to Luxenberg, was misinterpret through all these years. fi djawwi as-samadoes not mean ?in the air? but ?in the middle of the sky?. This is not a great deal but it gives a little impression.
It are not only words of aramaic origin but also grammar structures what he finds. Other words of aramaic origin salat,mihrab, furqan, quran.He is saying that the old scholars forget the influence of the aramaic and interpret the words with the help of arabic.
But when using the aramaic word structure (rasm) some verses seem to be easier to understand (at least for him).Ayman wrote
I would say that the exact opposite is true and that the "post-quranic" scholars were too much influenced by Aramaic (Christian) and especially Hebrew (Jewish) interpretations. You see this in works such as "Tafsir of Ibn Kathir" and other commentaries on the great reading/"quran".
Ayman, this is really interests me! During all my researches I was always confrontated with european scientists, unfortunately. Can you please write more about it?
Personally I think that admitting that there are some words or even verses of aramaic origin which have to be seen in a new light doesn`t take anything from the holyness of the Quran. As Ayman stated very correctly languages are ?living? they asorb from other languages. Some do more than others. Arabic did much less than other languages like for example Turkish. In the language-scientific point he did a good job. And sometimes it could make sense.
But I am not at all with the conclusion Luxenbergs draws, namely that the Quran is a book of christian origin. He draws too strong lines to christianity.To answer the question of Tay Arabics grammar is made from the Quran. The development of the ?Fusha?, the ?High Arabic? language started with the Quran. Of course spoken arabic is much older. But the systemization of the language started then.
Bye
-
Peace Warda (flower?),
Thanks for articulating.
You stated,
Arabics grammar is made from the Quran. The development of the ?Fusha?, the ?High Arabic? language started with the Quran. Of course spoken arabic is much older. But the systemization of the language started then.
This is fascinating! Thank you. It puts things in a whole new perspective, and is surely worthy of more research.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay, all,
Than you for the insight. My original statement, that Luxenberg claimed the Arabic language did not exist prior to the 7th century, was made in error. He was referring to the written language.
Just "symbols" do not make language. For example, is the statement "bism Allah AlRahman AlRahim" Arabic or English?
It is of course Arabic. It doesn't matter that it uses English symbols as long as it uses them consistently. For example, if I use the expression "al"
consistently for the definite article and not occasionally switch to "the" then this is indeed Arabic and not English, even though it uses English symbols.However, if what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then Luxenberg's entire premise is false. If Arabic graffiti can be found prior to the 7th century, then a written language must have existed prior to the Qur'an. BTW, would you happen to have any links or info regarding this topic?
The graffiti is Arabic but uses symbols that are different from the Kufic script we all know today. You can see some examples here
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/safaitic.htm
For example, the Namara inscription that I mentioned earlier actually uses Nabataean symbols but is linguistically in Arabic (just like the Arabic example that uses English symbols that I gave above).
I've read about this elsewhere. It's been claimed that the clergy of early Islam paid poets to fabricate biased poetry that would be predated to form political advantages, essentially manipulating the common people's blind faith in everything Islamic.
Think of poetry at the time of the Ummayads and Abbasids as you would think of TV today.
The main purpose of poetry was entertainment and propaganda. Hence, you could surf the channels and turn to poetry that talks of amazing stories of romance and stories of war and heroism. You could also turn the channel to political poetry that praises one party's forefathers as more deserving of kingship and attacks another party. You could also turn the channel to religious programming in the form of Hadiths.
Poetry was propagated by the professional storytellers in the same way as Hadiths were propagated and were produced by similar political and social factors and supply and demand.
Ayman, as you are clearly well-versed in this subject, what is your opinion of the influence the Qur'an holds over the Arabic language? I mean, if no written Arabic can be found prior to the Qur'an, then the Qur'an itself is the catalyst of the Arabic language, is it not?
The question you are asking is common because there is presently no coherent theory on "pre-quranic" Arabia.
Plenty of written Arabic was found prior to the revelation of the great reading/"quran", but as I mentioned the symbols were not the recognizable kufic script we know today.
As a language of the common people, Arabic must have been frowned upon by the religious and political elite. This of course would totally destroy the hearsay theory that rulers such as the Ghassanids invited the alleged pagan Arabic poets to court. This is because the elite religious and political establishment would have looked down at Arabic as a "common people" language and not a "scholarly" one. This would explain why there was very little, if any, Arabic literary works before the revelation of the great reading.
Now you can understand why despite the fierce resistance of the prophet by the religious elite, the message spread so quickly. It was in the language of the common people and everybody could understand it. The fact that the great reading was not only critical of the established religious dogma but was also in the language of the common people, must have added insult to injury as far as the religious and political elite were concerned. This also explains why people were asking for an Arabic and a non-Arabic reading.
Of course, this all changed after the rapid acceptance of the great reading. Hence, we can see this also explains the rapid and dramatic advancement of Arabic literature in the "post-quranic" era.
Another point that this theory would explain is how the term "ummi" which comes from "ummat"/people came to mean "illiterate". With the interpretation of 16103 and as confirmed by the archeological evidence, the following meanings of "ummi" converge
- Doesn't know the language of the previous book.
- Is illiterate in the religious language of the elite.
- Is from the common people ("ummat").
The fact is that even the descendants of Israel are described as "umiyun" in 278. So this was not a division along religious lines (i.e., pagan vs. non-pagan) as traditions contend.
What I presented is part of an attempt I am working on for a coherent theory of "pre-quranic" Arabia. This theory has a chance of being coherent because it is based on the evidence from the great reading and physical archeological evidence and unlike all existent theories, it doesn't attempt to fill the blanks with hearsay. It also neatly resolves paradoxes created by traditional interpretations of verses such as 622 and 320.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace be upon you Ayman,
Another point that this theory would explain is how the term "ummi" which comes from "ummat"/people came to mean "illiterate". With the interpretation of 16103 and as confirmed by the archeological evidence, the following meanings of "ummi" converge
- Doesn't know the language of the previous book.
- Is illiterate in the religious language of the elite.
- Is from the common people ("ummat").
The fact is that even the descendants of Israel are described as "umiyun" in 278. So this was not a division along religious lines (i.e., pagan vs. non-pagan) as traditions contend.
Excellent, thanks for the clarity!
-
Peace Ayman,
just reading what you said below
this question occurred to me...
"is this Qur'an that we see today the original?"
has there been any changes? corruption?
how can we be sure?thanks for your help.
salaam.
Just "symbols" do not make language. For example, is the statement "bism Allah AlRahman AlRahim" Arabic or English?
It is of course Arabic. It doesn't matter that it uses English symbols as long as it uses them consistently. For example, if I use the expression "al"
consistently for the definite article and not occasionally switch to "the" then this is indeed Arabic and not English, even though it uses English symbols.However, if what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then Luxenberg's entire premise is false. If Arabic graffiti can be found prior to the 7th century, then a written language must have existed prior to the Qur'an. BTW, would you happen to have any links or info regarding this topic?
The graffiti is Arabic but uses symbols that are different from the Kufic script we all know today. You can see some examples here
-
Peace,
Mines are the thoughts of a layman in this very interesting, informative and important discussion.
I think we do God?s system a disservice when we purport that every ?dot and tittle? to borrow a phrase from the bible, is exactly as it always was in the Qur'aan. According to what I understand from the Reading is that God will preserve the message. He doesn?t say He will accomplish this in that manner. This manner of preservation requires infallibility from the honored scribes mentioned and those who came after them. Humans are not infallible, even with all good intentions. The Reading states that men changed the message that was given to previous messengers. But, it states that the words of God cannot be changed. Does that mean men were able to change His words before and now they are not? Wouldn?t that be a contradiction? We must be clear as to what is meant by the preservation of the message and the immutable, unchangeable Words of God. We must ask ourselves the hard questions and find the pragmatic answers. The easy answer is, ?It?s a miracle!?
Much of the research mentioned in this discussion is way, way out of my purview but I do recognize the magnitude of its significance. I eagerly await the bottom line findings of those who are sincere in finding the truth. I hold on to the words in the reading that says God has made this EASY and that is what it would have to be for me to understand and to be a universal message for all mankind. What is hard is the unity, for those who put into practice shirk in any of its many forms.
The real names and credentials of the researchers are of little import. God guides according to laws and I believe the only credentials that will really matter are intellect and a pure heart seeking guidance.
Have you not considered how Allah sets forth a parable of a GOOD WORD (being) like a GOOD TREE, whose ROOT is firm and whose branches are in heaven,
