what is kafir ?

unknownuser

Quote from pvb on Today at 044141 PM
http//www.studytoanswer.net/islam/purearabic.html

This site talks about the foreign words in the Quran. Here are a few

kaahin (5229, 6942) - from khn', Syraic "priest", in the sense of a pagan soothsayer or diviner
masiih. (345, etc.) - from mshyh.', Syraic "the Christ", analogous to the Hebrew Mashioch
qissiis (585) - from qshysh', Syraic "Christian priest"
furqaaan (250) - from pwrqn', Syraic "salvation"
rabbaanii (373, 548, 56 - from rbn', Syraic "perceptor, doctor"
qiyaama (285, 2113, numerous times) - from qymt', Syraic "resurrection"
ruuh. al-qudus (16102) - from rwh. qwdsh', Syraic "Holy Spirit"

Salam,

Some are under the FALSE impression that Hebrew Aramaic and Arabic are all independant languages that are unrelated to each other.
So they come to the un-educated conclusion that the Quran contains many Syriac/Aramaic words. And, those words seem out of place to those people.

The FACT is that ALL the Semitic languages contain these words.

They retain the same meaning and are used in the same way.

Common example (just using a one word definition to make a point. But the ACTUAL definitions are more complex and shared by all the languages)
Kahen=priest....in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic

Messiah=annointed.....in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic

Why do they stop at Syriac? Why don't they admit that the words have deep roots in Hebrew and BEFORE? Don't they understand that those words are NOT foreign to Arabic at all?

IF I had to guess I would say that they have several hidden agendas.

To say that they are Syriac words in an Arabic book is a joke.
Its like saying kitab is an Arabic word when it is found in a Hebrew book.
The words do not belong exclusively to any one of the languages and not the others.

I should add I don't speak arabic or syriac, but am trying to learn aramaic to read the New Testament. Thanks to Arnab.

Well done pvb.

And you rightfully chose Aramaic above Syriac.

Paul Younan when he translated the Peshitta often used Modern Syriac. This is a mistake.

Syriac speakers, as a general statement, seem to be under the FALSE assumption that their language is not related to the rest of the Semitic Language Family. They will acknowledge it in word (meaning if you ask them they will willingly say "yes it is related to the semitic family&quot. But they do not observe this in deed when they translate the Peshitta or other words.

Many of the words in the Peshitta are mistranslated because they use Modern Syriac definitions which bear no resemblence to the Aramaic used in the time of Isa.

In fact many times they translate a word in a way that bears no resemblance to the Hebrew that was before it or the Arabic that came after it even though the Hebrew and Arabic definition is identical and the syriac definition is out of place.

Here is an example

The root word that is usually translated as baptize, baptism or submerge (or similiar word) is ayin-meem-dalet.

This word is used extensively in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Arabic Quran with the definition of stand, remain, endure, etc., standing place, pillar, column and the like.

This is from the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament

1637 - 'amad

Hebrew Word 'amad
Strong's Cross Reference 5975
Definition stand, remain, endure, etc.

Derivative TWOT Number 1637a
Derivative Transliteration 'omed
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 5977
Derivative Definition standing place.

Derivative TWOT Number 1637b
Derivative Transliteration 'emda
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 5979
Derivative Definition standing ground (Mic_111).

Derivative TWOT Number 1637c
Derivative Transliteration 'ammud, 'amm?d
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 5982
Derivative Definition pillar, column.

Derivative TWOT Number 1637d
Derivative Transliteration ma'amad
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 4612
Derivative Definition attendance.

Derivative TWOT Number 1637e
Derivative Transliteration mo'omad
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference 4613
Derivative Definition standing ground, foothold (Psa_693).

This basic term for "stand, " cognate to Akkadian emedu "to lean against, stand, place, " and Arabic 'amada "to prop up, support, " is very common in the Hebrew OT (used over five hundred times). Synonyms include yasab, Hithpael, "to take one's stand"; kun, Niphal, "to stand firm, fast"; nasab, Niphal "to stand, stand firm;" and qum, "to stand up, get up."

The verb 'amad is used so extensively in the OT of the physical act of standing as to preclude a complete analysis in this work, but the reader is referred to the full categorizations in BDB and KB. Attention should be given to certain key passages, particularly those with significant theological import, one such expression is "to stand before Yahweh, " used, for example, of Abraham in Gen_1822 (cf. Gen_1927) and Moses in Deu_410 (cf. Jer_151, of Moses and Samuel). "To stand before Yahweh" (construed with lipne ) in these instances is a posture of prayer and intercession. That men have felt a need for Yahweh's help is not surprising. But the fact that men may "stand" before the Creator of eternity and make intercession is utterly remarkable. It is important to add, however, the observation of E. Jacob that such intercession is not at all magical, nor is there an automatic answer from God to the petitioner. He writes, "Whether intercession is useless because of the greatness of the sin or pardon is impossible because of the absence of intercession (Eze_2230; Isa_5916), it is important to notice that it depends on the divine liberty and that no human device can bring about God's pardon"(jtot, p. 296).

Another nuance to the expression, "to stand before Yahweh, " is afforded by a passage such as Deu_1917. In this context litigants "shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days" (cf, Jer_710). Such presentation was for judgment. Standing before Yahweh and his ministers in the sanctuary portends the ascertaining of truth and justice, At times the nation as a whole was called to come to the central sanctuary and "stand before Yahweh" in solemn assemblies for sacrificial acts (e.g. Lev_95). Servants of Yahweh "stand before him" as an expression of dedication, allegiance, and servitude. This terminology is used of priests (e.g. Eze_4415), and particularly of genuine believers during the period of Israel's decline and apostasy (Elijah, 1Ki_171; 1Ki_1815; Elisha, 2Ki_314; and Gehazi , 2Ki_516).

As Joseph stood before Pharaoh (Gen_4146), David before Saul (1Sa_1621), Abishag and Bathsheba before David (1Ki_12, 1Ki_12, and Nebuzaradan before Nebuchadnezzar (Jer_5212); so the believer stands before Yahweh in a position of obedience, respect, and readiness to serve. Such a position is noble in proportion to the majesty of the one served, When a person stands before Yahweh for service, there is no higher honor to which he may aspire.

A crucial use of the verb 'amad, the subject of perennial debate, is in the controverted "long day" of Jos_1012-13; a day unlike any other, .. when Yahweh listened to the voice of a man, for Yahweh fought for Israel" (Jos_1014). R. D. Wilson explained long ago that the use of 'amad (coupled to dom) in vv. 12-13 refers not to a prolongation of the day, but to a cessation from the heat and light of the sun; that is, an eclipse coupled to a storm. The defeat of the enemy was completed not in the midst of a very long, hot day, but in the darkness of a storm. On this point, see H. J. Blair in NBC, rev. ed., p. 244, and J. Rae in WBC, p. 218. D. Patten, following a lead from 1. Velikovsky, associates the phenomenon with a close fly-by of a heavenly body.

'omed. Place, standing place, stood upright. (ASV, RSV similar.) A masculine noun found with a governing proposition and pronominal suffix in late OT Wrkings (nine times in Dan, Neh, and 2Chr.).

'emda. Standing. (ASV "stay, " RSV "standingplace, " NASB "SUPPORT.&quot A feminine noun found only in Mic_111.

'ammud, 'ammud. Pillar (ASV, RSV, "pillar, column, post&quot. A very common noun (110 times in the OT), used of pillars supporting buildings (e.g. Jdg_1625), the bronze pillars of the temple (1Ki_715), and the pillar of cloud and fire in Yahweh's theophany (e.g. Exo_1424).

The masculine noun 'ammud "pillar, column, " is used of structural, supporting pillars; bronze (monumental) upright columns; vaporous columns of smoke, fire, and cloud; and in figurative expressions of the "supports" of earth and heaven (see Psa_753 ; Job_96). Pillars for thestructural support of the roofs of great buildings were used from an early period in the ancient near east. The familiar story of Samson's final victory over the Philistines in the palace at Gaza describes how he destroyed the building, killing thousands and himself, by knocking out of place the supporting pillars (Jdg_1626-30). J. B. Job notes that the archeological evidence from Philistine sites suggests these pillars were of wood, set on stone bases (see "pillar, " NBD, p. 99. Solomon' palace was noted for the four rows of cedar pillars with corresponding cedar beams (1Ki_72-36). Earlier, the tabernacle had pillars made of acacia (KJV, "shittim"; Exo_2632, Exo_2637; cf. Exo_2710ff). Pillars are mentioned in the description of Ezekiel's temple (Eze_426) and the palace of Ahasuerus (made of marble, Est_16).

The temple of Solomon is remarkable in the description of two free-standing pillars made of bronze, named "Jachin" ("he shall establish&quot and "Boaz" ("in it is strength, " 1Ki_713-22). These products of Hiram of Tyre (Huram-abi in 2Ch_213) must have been majestic in strength (27 feet high, plus the capitals which were 7.5 feet high), and lovely in beauty (see the description of the capitals in 1Ki_717). In 2Ch_315 the word for the height of the pillars differs from that in 1Ki_717 and may refer to the combined length of the two pillars (see 'ulam "porch&quot. It may be noted that the text does not specifically say that these pillars were free standing. It may be that they stood at the front corners of the porch. Or, if the porch had closed sides somewhat like a vestibule, they could have ornamented the entryway, dividing it into three openings. This is the way such pillars were used in the government buildings of Megiddo (David Ussishkin, "King Solomon's Palaces, " BA 36.78-105, especially 85,87,9.

Some scholars have suggested that these twin pillars may have contained the sacred fire of the temple with the smoke symbolizing the presence of the Lord (see J. Gray, 1-H Kings, p. 175). In any event, the pillars with their strength, beauty, and symbolic names likely represented the presence of the Lord and the permanence of the Davidic house.

The word 'ammud is also noteworthy in the phrases 'ammud 'anan and 'ammud 'esh, "the pillar of smoke" and "the pillar of fire" (Exo_1321; cf. Exo_1424 'ammud'esh we anan, "pillar of fire and smoke"; see the articles on 'esh and 'anan). These visual tokens of the presence of Yahweh in leading, directing, and protecting his people were designed for the comfort of Israel and the consternation of her enemies (see Num_1413-14). It was in the mysterious pillar of cloud that Yahweh would manifest himself before Moses (Num_125; Deu_3115), and this mysterious manifestation in cloud, smoke, and fire was never forgotten by Israel (e.g. Neh_912).

ma'amad. Attendance, office, place, state. (ASV, RSV similar; for RSV add "duty, seating.&quot A masculine noun which prefixed mem of location; hence, the term speaks of a "place of standing" in the sense of "office" (Isa_2219) and "service, attendance" (1Ki_105).

mo'omad. Standing. (So ASV; RSV, NASB, "foothold, &quot Only in Psa_692 , in a figure of distress.

Bibliography AP-Thomas, D. R., "Notes on Some Terms Relating to Prayer, " VT 622541. Patten, Donald W., Hatch, Ronald R., and Steinhauer, Loren C., The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophies, Pacific Meridian, 1974. Wilson, Robert Dick, "Understanding 'The Sun Stood Still, ' " Princeton Theological Review 1646-54; reprinted in W. Kaiser, ed., Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, Baker, 1970, pp. 61-65. TDNT, VII, pp. 641-46. THAT, II, pp. 328-31. R.B.A.

This is from PRL

Ayn-Miim-Dal = to intend, support, place columns or pillars, place lofty structure, prop up, resolve, aim, direct, propose, commit (a sin intentionally), lofty structure, tent, pole, base, chief.

muta'ammidan (ap-der. acc. vb. V) on purpose, intentionally.
'imaad (n.) tall lofty structure, lofty colums.
'amadun (n. pl.) columns.

imad n. com. (pl. amad) 132, 3110, 897, 1049

ta'ammada vb. (5)
perf. act. 335
pcple. act. 493, 595

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 5, pages 436, 437, 438

The meaning is identical in meaning and usage in Hebrew and Arabic. Yet the Translator of the Peshitta claims that it has the independant Christian meaning of "baptize."

This is not to say that John and Isa were not using water as a means of cleansing the people. We find many times in the OT where cleansing rituals with water are indentified and detailed as we do in the NT and the Quran.

When you understand that 'amad does not mean "baptise" (a Christian term), the difficulty in understanding some of the verses of the Gospels are clearly understood.

To state it plainly The Peshitta needs to be understood in its ORIGINAL Aramaic and not understood using Modern Syriac.

Its just like Modern Arabic speakers trying to read the Quran and not understanding the Ancient Arabic in which it is written.

Salam,
Arnab

pvb

Thanks for clarifying Arnab- Have I asked how long you have been studying semetic languages?

progod

Neither Hebrew or Aramaic are proven predecessors to Arabic. If anything there are two camps among linguists. The judeo-christian ones who believe that Hebrew and Armaic are predecessors because they have an older existence in known scripts. And those who believe that the conservative features of Classical Arabic show it to be for the most part older than Hebrew and Aramaic. (although it wasn't as famous or well-known in those times, and maybe not an exact carbon copy of the Classical Arabic made famous by the Quran and preserved in pre-islamic poems or even on the scarce 3rd century Arabic carvings written in Aramaic scripts etc.) Which do I believe? I don't know nor does it matter too much to me. As studying latin may help me familiarize myself with romanice languages, cognates in two related languages can and often do have significantly different meanings, AND different meanings than their ancestral latin words. And that goes for all related languages and their supposed ancestor languages. They are similar but NOT the same, and they cannot be mixed. I could give you a number of examples between portuguese and spanish and their ancestral latin. So even though hebrew and aramaic being older or ancestral languages to Arabic is a THEORY it still does not justify trying to use the grammar or meaning of one to explain the other.

Godbless,
Anwar

Also Classical Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic (all dialects), Gee'z, Amharic, Mehric, Akkadian and other languages are in the same family and share a source language in common (the proto-semtic proposed by all serious semetic linguists). So just because Arabic words resemble words in its sister languages doesn't mean that these words were borrowed. As a matter of fact it's impossible to prove unless the word doesn't have an Arabic root or Arabic form. All the ones that pvb mention do. I don't like Judeo-centric linguistics. It's very dishonest and untruthful, and serves a biased agenda.

unknownuser

Neither Hebrew or Aramaic are proven predecessors to Arabic.

You are wrong.
The only reason it is debated is because of hadith and those who WANT to say that Arabic fell out of the sky one day and was given to Muhammad. Which is nonsense.

If anything there are two camps among linguists. The judeo-christian ones who believe that Hebrew and Armaic are predecessors because they have an older existence in known scripts. And those who believe that the conservative features of Classical Arabic show it to be for the most part older than Hebrew and Aramaic. (although it wasn't as famous or well-known in those times, and maybe not an exact carbon copy of the Classical Arabic made famous by the Quran and preserved in pre-islamic poems or even on the scarce 3rd century Arabic carvings written in Aramaic scripts etc.)

Either you just made that up, or you are seriously misinformed.

Arabic ( al-arabiyyah or just arab&#299, in terms of the number of speakers, is the largest living member of the Semitic language family. Classified as Central Semitic, it is closely related to Hebrew and Aramaic and has its roots in a Proto-Semitic common ancestor.

source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language

Which do I believe? I don't know nor does it matter too much to me.As studying latin may help me familiarize myself with romanice languages, cognates in two related languages can and often do have significantly different meanings, AND different meanings than their ancestral latin words.

You cannot compare two different language families and expect to get the same result when studying them. You are discussing Apples and Oranges.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_families_and_languages

And that goes for all related languages and their supposed ancestor languages. They are similar but NOT the same, and they cannot be mixed. I could give you a number of examples between portuguese and spanish and their ancestral latin. So even though hebrew and aramaic being older or ancestral languages to Arabic is a THEORY it still does not justify trying to use the grammar or meaning of one to explain the other.

Different language families have different structures. You cannot effectively compare studying one to studying the other.

MOST not some, not a few, but MOST...of the words in all three of the scriptural semitic languages have EXACTLY THE SAME MEANING.

The few differences are due to cultural differences creeping in to the definitions (ie modern interpretations), or limited information on the specific word. When a difference DOES occur one can trace the root meaning by comparing usage in scripture, definitions etc

Also Classical Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic (all dialects), Gee'z, Amharic, Mehric, Akkadian and other languages are in the same family and share a source language in common (the proto-semtic proposed by all serious semetic linguists).

So now you ARE acknowledging that they are related? yes

So just because Arabic words resemble words in its sister languages doesn't mean that these words were borrowed.

Of course they weren't borrowed. That was my point previously.

I don't like Judeo-centric linguistics. It's very dishonest and untruthful, and serves a biased agenda.

There is no such thing as Judeo-centric linguistics. I'm going to assume that you were being sarcastic.

If you lose YOUR Biases you might actually learn something.

Salam,
Arnab

huruf

Neither Hebrew or Aramaic are proven predecessors to Arabic. If anything there are two camps among linguists. The judeo-christian ones who believe that Hebrew and Armaic are predecessors because they have an older existence in known scripts. And those who believe that the conservative features of Classical Arabic show it to be for the most part older than Hebrew and Aramaic. (although it wasn't as famous or well-known in those times, and maybe not an exact carbon copy of the Classical Arabic made famous by the Quran and preserved in pre-islamic poems or even on the scarce 3rd century Arabic carvings written in Aramaic scripts etc.) Which do I believe? I don't know nor does it matter too much to me. As studying latin may help me familiarize myself with romanice languages, cognates in two related languages can and often do have significantly different meanings, AND different meanings than their ancestral latin words. And that goes for all related languages and their supposed ancestor languages. They are similar but NOT the same, and they cannot be mixed. I could give you a number of examples between portuguese and spanish and their ancestral latin. So even though hebrew and aramaic being older or ancestral languages to Arabic is a THEORY it still does not justify trying to use the grammar or meaning of one to explain the other.

Godbless,
Anwar

Also Classical Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic (all dialects), Gee'z, Amharic, Mehric, Akkadian and other languages are in the same family and share a source language in common (the proto-semtic proposed by all serious semetic linguists). So just because Arabic words resemble words in its sister languages doesn't mean that these words were borrowed. As a matter of fact it's impossible to prove unless the word doesn't have an Arabic root or Arabic form. All the ones that pvb mention do. I don't like Judeo-centric linguistics. It's very dishonest and untruthful, and serves a biased agenda.

I think so too.

progod

Peace,

Arnab,

Please do not think that I am a novice to linguistics. You are assuming things about me and then acting like I'm contradicting myself when you assumed wrong about me. This will be my last post you can agree or disagree. It doesn't matter to me

Of course Hebrew, Aramaic (all dialects) and Classical Arabic (and even modern dialects) are related. I admitted that from the gate.
Never speak about Arabic as if it were one language. Arabic is a macro-language. Its oldest and original is Classical and then there come the dialects of different countries (which are quite different yet based on Classical), and then MSA an almost carbon copy of Classical but with less features and rigider rules to regularize it a little more.
I CAN talk about Latin and its children languages along Proto-semitic and its children dialects because there are similar features about the relations between Latin and its children languages and the relation between these children languages like there is between Central (semtic) Afro-Asiatic languages and Classical Arabic and its children dialects (and their evolution). I never went into specifics of the languages like grammar, sound systems and syntax because THAT COULD be like comparing apples and oranges (but that depends on what syntax, sounds and grammatical trends your talking about). I just mentioned general, yet very true trends about related languages and their predecessor languages.
The fact is that just as Spanish, Portugese, Italian (and its dialects), French, Galician, Catalan etc. all come from a proto-romance langauge (which is latin) they are all separate languages and one can't be used to better understand the other. The only time when comparing them is helpful is when we are trying to figure out the origin of words or changes of words. And the same goes for Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew. They are separate languages and one cannot be used to explain the other. (that is unless we've lost knowledge of one and then make assumptions to regain that knowledge using a similar language. But even that is guessing, and we've never lost knowledge of Classical Arabic. EVER.)
The words in these languages are not the same. They are sometimes similar but they have different pronunciations, forms and most importantly slightly (or sometimes drastically) different meanings. For instance Jesus' (god bless him)famous lama sabachtani as left behind. Sabaqa in Arabic means to go ahead of someone physically or intangibly. But never to abandon. Devorot (hebrew) and kalimat(un) are two unrelated words that mean the same thing (word). Tov and Tayyib, are related, sound completely different but mean pretty much the same thing (good). What about Behemoth and bahimatun. THe Hebrew is giant right? The Arabic means big ruminants like camels and cows but not giant (that 3imlaaq). And I'm sure we could find words that have no similarity in either langauge in sound or meaning, or that sound similar but mean completely different things (although there might be an obvious similar original meaning of the Proto-semitic word.)
I said Judeo-centric to point to bias not a particular discipline of linguistics.
This is my last word. Drop this dishonest pseudo, judeo-biased linguistics. It is wrong.

Agree or disagree that is all I have to say. Let truth seekers accept and non-truth seekers deny, degrade and twist.

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

Peace,

By the way 'ammada (form two) means to baptise in Arabic as well.

And thanks Huruf for seeing the truth

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Peace,

Arnab,

Please do not think that I am a novice to linguistics. You are assuming things about me and then acting like I'm contradicting myself when you assumed wrong about me. This will be my last post you can agree or disagree. It doesn't matter to me

Of course Hebrew, Aramaic (all dialects) and Classical Arabic (and even modern dialects) are related. I admitted that from the gate.
Never speak about Arabic as if it were one language. Arabic is a macro-language. Its oldest and original is Classical and then there come the dialects of different countries (which are quite different yet based on Classical), and then MSA an almost carbon copy of Classical but with less features and rigider rules to regularize it a little more.
I CAN talk about Latin and its children languages along Proto-semitic and its children dialects because there are similar features about the relations between Latin and its children languages and the relation between these children languages like there is between Central (semtic) Afro-Asiatic languages and Classical Arabic and its children dialects (and their evolution). I never went into specifics of the languages like grammar, sound systems and syntax because THAT COULD be like comparing apples and oranges (but that depends on what syntax, sounds and grammatical trends your talking about). I just mentioned general, yet very true trends about related languages and their predecessor languages.
The fact is that just as Spanish, Portugese, Italian (and its dialects), French, Galician, Catalan etc. all come from a proto-romance langauge (which is latin) they are all separate languages and one can't be used to better understand the other. The only time when comparing them is helpful is when we are trying to figure out the origin of words or changes of words. And the same goes for Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew. They are separate languages and one cannot be used to explain the other. (that is unless we've lost knowledge of one and then make assumptions to regain that knowledge using a similar language. But even that is guessing, and we've never lost knowledge of Classical Arabic. EVER.)
The words in these languages are not the same. They are sometimes similar but they have different pronunciations, forms and most importantly slightly (or sometimes drastically) different meanings. For instance Jesus' (god bless him)famous lama sabachtani as left behind. Sabaqa in Arabic means to go ahead of someone physically or intangibly. But never to abandon. Devorot (hebrew) and kalimat(un) are two unrelated words that mean the same thing (word). Tov and Tayyib, are related, sound completely different but mean pretty much the same thing (good). What about Behemoth and bahimatun. THe Hebrew is giant right? The Arabic means big ruminants like camels and cows but not giant (that 3imlaaq). And I'm sure we could find words that have no similarity in either langauge in sound or meaning, or that sound similar but mean completely different things (although there might be an obvious similar original meaning of the Proto-semitic word.)
I said Judeo-centric to point to bias not a particular discipline of linguistics.
This is my last word. Drop this dishonest pseudo, judeo-biased linguistics. It is wrong.

Agree or disagree that is all I have to say. Let truth seekers accept and non-truth seekers deny, degrade and twist.

Godbless,
Anwar

Salam,

You are severely confused for someone who claims to know a lot about linguistics. As much of what you stated is incorrect.

Peace,

By the way 'ammada (form two) means to baptise in Arabic as well.

That is an ACQUIRED meaning not true to the ROOT. This, at least, you should know.

And thanks Huruf for seeing the truth

Are you sure you are thanking her for "seeing the truth" or is it that she merely agreed with you hmm

Salam,
Arnab

progod

Peace,

Thanks for that Arnab. If that is all you can say that is fine. I see you didn't really show me how I was wrong (because i'm not) but just flatly stated I was wrong. But I don't have a problem with that I just hope you review what I've said and really consider the truth of it, I think I was clear enough. As for acquired meanings that is is all subjective. Obviously this meaning theoretically can only go back as far as Judaism goes among Arabs. I would agree in saying that it is most likely a borrowed word taken from Aramaic, Hebrew or even Greek and introduced by Arab Jews or Christians (but I admit this is an assumption even if it is the one most likely to be correct). Now how it came about from a central idea of 'support' is something we may never know. It could have been taken from some word spoken in the Jewish or Christians sphere (that leaves a number of options from Assyrian to demotic or archaic coptic or greek). Or it could be a concept derived from support like supproting the truth, faith, cementing one's faith, oath and dipping in water was the ritual representing that.(just like salat, having a meaning of prayer, has come to mean a certain ritual of prayer that most Arabs make. Arabic has a number of meanings of roots like that have take a sharp left turn and can be seen independent of the root even though that root meaning was its original point of origin. So let's not be blind to the fact that spin-offs of a root can evolve into totally separate meanings that don't seem to be connected to a essential root meaning.

And lastly if Huruf agreed with me on this issue then she saw the truth. Try to see the trees from the forest.

Godbless,
Anwar

Makaveli

Kafiirun means deluded/delusion. This is why if we take words in the Qur'an and translate them in the traditional fashion then the book is full of inconsistencies. How can eblees is described as al-kafiirun in 434 when he is clearly not (28-19), and is seen clearly talking to God and is even given postponement (1534-44). Because eblees is not a devil, but the specific word with its own meaning.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609879.msg410866;topicseen#msg410866

Makaveli

I think kaffirs can say ok ish things but still act wrongfully. The word is said to mean one who conceals and is concealed from the truth, covered, like how the Qur'an says about a covering over hearts so they can't really understand or do the right thing except unintentionally or on occassion. That Iblees which seems to stem from the word despaired as in who causes one to lose hope (by offering false hope that is demonstrated as a mirage like in the Pagan Battle against Muslims) and loses hope or has lost all hope so is on a spiral of evil counsel all the way to hell. He too is concealed from the option or truth of forgiveness, repenting truly and turning back. The Qur'an says he is a race of being called a jinn which were made before human beings out of a different central substance but is thus as real as a person is real but made out of fire rather than mud or clay. He seemed to have wanted jinn to be the special dominant species rather than put under the dominion of the human mud people.

There were no 'pagan' battles against anyone, since Muhammedians are pagans themselves. But if we speak of Eblees as a devil, which I state is not correct, but if we do, there is no way such force can be deluded either. I am just trying to make others think, if there really is a bad guy whose sole purpose in life is to distract you, or perhaps it is you who are deluded? This is also the question of responsibility. Once we are responsible for our own actions, and do not try to blame them on somethign else, this is when we become thinking beings.