what is kafir ?

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.