'Arabic' or Faultless/Pure/Eloquent/Clear Minded?
-
Peace be upon you all,
I agree.
-
Yes, I agree. It is a shame that a revised translation of the Qur'an hasn't been made, in order to correct or reinterpret some dubious translations and ideas you take therefrom.
-
Peace be upon you,
The god says weather CLEAR or not, it is a guide to certain types and not a guide to others.
Its similar to the statement that even if you showed them all of the signs they will not trust/believe.
-
The god says weather CLEAR or not, it is a guide to certain types and not a guide to others.
Its similar to the statement that even if you showed them all of the signs they will not trust/believe.
Exactly. God's guidance is beyond language barriers.Nice looking, truth. )
-
Salaamun alaikum Truth,
I'm putting this up separately even though it was stimulated by a reply to a different post
The post about whether al-quraan should be for conviction or for application?
It is blindingly obvious that the reading is in the Arabic script and language; whether the text mentions it or not.
To you, me and some others, sure. There are people who actually overlook this and seek out etymologies from Aramaic! Without statements such as these, it would be a free-for-all, linguistically. This statement repudiates such exercises.
It is a description not of which language it is in, but its quality as the surrounding statements always highlight. It is obvious what language it is - it would be pointless me saying that this post is in the English language - would it not?
I see 3 points that makes your deduction shaky for me
1.The verse ends with 'la'alakum ta'qiloon'. What does eloquence or faultlessness to do with this? If you take it as Arabic, it would make sense because Quranic Arabic is a systematic language that provides you solid examples from which you can hypothesise meaning.
-
As Wakas points out, 41/44 that a Quran which isn't in Arabic wouldn't be detailed. Once again, we can witness how Arabic contributes to the detailing of al-quraan. This is through root and derivative links.
-
Fault is already mentioned as 'crookedness' or 'iwaaj'. Allah says that al-quraan has no iwaaj It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein) in order that they may guard against Evi (39/2. Furthermore, if Arabiyan means faultless, why would the next phrase essentially mean without fault.
looking forward to your response
-
-
peace Oben,
How would you translate 4144?
4144 And if We had made it a reading in a foreign language they would assuredly have said If only its verses were expounded? What! A foreign language and faultless? - Say unto them For those who believe it is a guidance and a healing; and as for those who disbelieve, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness for them. Such are called to from afar.
-
Peace mquran,
I see 3 points that makes your deduction shaky for me
1.The verse ends with 'la'alakum ta'qiloon'. What does eloquence or faultlessness to do with this? If you take it as Arabic, it would make sense because Quranic Arabic is a systematic language that provides you solid examples from which you can hypothesise meaning.
The God could have expressed (and in the past did) what He wanted to reveal in any other language and been just as 'systematic'. There is no superiority in the language itself.
- As Wakas points out, 41/44 that a Quran which isn't in Arabic wouldn't be detailed. Once again, we can witness how Arabic contributes to the detailing of al-quraan. This is through root and derivative links.
Wakas simply asked for a translation of 4144 which is provided above. The verse mentions the excuses of those who disbelieve - ie. that the reading was being revealed in their own tongue and they were considering it inferior perhaps to a putative text in some other tongue. And this despite the fact that they considered foreign languages to be inferior to their own - not free from fault/pure/clear etc.
- Fault is already mentioned as 'crookedness' or 'iwaaj'. Allah says that al-quraan has no iwaaj It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein) in order that they may guard against Evi (39/2. Furthermore, if Arabiyan means faultless, why would the next phrase essentially mean without fault.
I don't think 'without crookedness' and faultless are synonyms.
Crookedness implies dishonesty not faults.
Regards.
PS The original stimulus was a discussion with AhmedBahgat...
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62837#62837
and my posts following it have some other discussion on the matter.
-
Salaam truth,
The God could have expressed (and in the past did) what He wanted to reveal in any other language and been just as 'systematic'. There is no superiority in the language itself.
Please analyse the syntax again
If we had placed it as a Quran ajami, they would surely why are its verses not in detail...(41/44)
So ajami, the opposite of arabiyan, causes the reading to not be in detail. What does eloquence have to do with detail? If it was Arabic, it would make sense because as I have told you, Arabic systematically helps building meaning.
Wakas simply asked for a translation of 4144 which is provided above. The verse mentions the excuses of those who disbelieve - ie. that the reading was being revealed in their own tongue and they were considering it inferior perhaps to a putative text in some other tongue. And this despite the fact that they considered foreign languages to be inferior to their own - not free from fault/pure/clear etc.
Disagreed. Please look at this
A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;(41/3)
The detailling of al-quraan has to do with its language and those who have information.
I don't think 'without crookedness' and faultless are synonyms.
Crookedness implies dishonesty not faults.
Evidence from al-quraan please? Dishonesty in al-quraan is alluded by the terms 'ifk' and 'kazb'. Why were these 2 terms left out of this verse please ?
-
If we had placed it as a Quran ajami, they would surely why are its verses not in detail...(41/44)
So ajami, the opposite of arabiyan, causes the reading to not be in detail. What does eloquence have to do with detail? If it was Arabic, it would make sense because as I have told you, Arabic systematically helps building meaning.
You're making too many undeclared assumptions and this is what is leading to your errors.
Ajami and arabiyan are not 'opposite'. The reason is obvious from 4144 which mentions the people arguing against by saying...
"aaAAjamiyyun waAAarabiyyun"
How can it be in a foreign language and "Arabic" at the same time when the context is given as a reading in a foreign language altogether ie.
"Walaw jaAAalnahu qur-anan aAAjamiyyan"
If it is in a foreign language as above, then the word "AAarabiyun" cannot possibly be "Arabic". This is because being in a foreign language "AAajaymiyan" AND being "AArabiyan" are obviously not mutually exclusive.
I hope you appreciate the logical difficulties due to the wrong assumptions you are using.
Disagreed. Please look at this
A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;(41/3)
The detailling of al-quraan has to do with its language and those who have information.
It has nothing at all to do with the language itself.
413 A book whose verses are detailed, a faultless Quran for a people who know.
Where is the contradiction or problem that compels you to disagree?
I don't think 'without crookedness' and faultless are synonyms.
Crookedness implies dishonesty not faults.
Evidence from al-quraan please? Dishonesty in al-quraan is alluded by the terms 'ifk' and 'kazb'. Why were these 2 terms left out of this verse please ?
A red herring.
If you believe that 'crookedness' and 'fault' are synonymous then the burden of proof is upon you as it is your contention and not mine.
Peace.
-
Peace,
To elaborate a little further let's examine the excuse given by the disbelievers...
"lawla fussilat ayatuhuaa AAjamiyyun waAAarabiyyun"
They are complaining that the verses are not "FUSSILAT" - the title of chapter 41 in tradional renderings.
The word fussilat has been translated as 'detailed' but this does not give a full appreciation of its meaning. When other verses using this root FSSL are examined the meaning that is best suited is "DISTINCT".
Something that is distinct is...
dis?tinct
a. Readily distinguishable from all others; discrete.
b. Easily perceived by the senses or intellect; clear.
c. Clearly defined; unquestionable.The disbelievers are complaining that the verses are not distinct - not clearly defined, not easily perceived.
They would show their mockery of a reading in a hypothetical foreign language by saying...
"lawla fussilat ayatuhuaa AAjamiyyun waAAarabiyyun"
"Indistinct foreign verses, and faultless?"
The "and faultless?" is a question mockingly directed against the statement in 413 where the present reading is described as faultless.
It is following on from 4143 and developing the argument in that verse further...
4143 What is being said to you is the same that was said to the messengers before you. Your Lord has forgiveness, and a painful retribution.
What is being revealed now is the SAME as what was said to messengers before - in a different language!
Thus it is dismantling the importance of language in the role of the transmission of the message. The disbelievers will concoct any and all excuses in order to continue to disbelieve.
Regards.
-
Peace Oben,
Very interesting observations, I agree with you.
-
You're making too many undeclared assumptions and this is what is leading to your errors.
Ajami and arabiyan are not 'opposite'. The reason is obvious from 4144 which mentions the people arguing against by saying...
"aaAAjamiyyun waAAarabiyyun"
How can it be in a foreign language and "Arabic" at the same time when the context is given as a reading in a foreign language altogether ie.
"Walaw jaAAalnahu qur-anan aAAjamiyyan"
If it is in a foreign language as above, then the word "AAarabiyun" cannot possibly be "Arabic". This is because being in a foreign language "AAajaymiyan" AND being "AArabiyan" are obviously not mutually exclusive.
I hope you appreciate the logical difficulties due to the wrong assumptions you are usingSorry but 'wa' doesn't necessarily mean 'and'. Look at 'wa-najm izaa hawaa' . Does it mean 'and the star when it sets' ? Its the beginning of a chapter! Further, 'al-kitaab wal-hikmah' doesn't mean 'the book AND the wisdom'. Wa has a diverse range of uses.
Therefore you're the one making an unjustified assumption here, Im afraid.
Further evidence that aajami is opposite of arabi
We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign (ajami), while this is clear Arabic. (lisaanun Arabiyun mubiin)
More on 'lisaan' below...
It has nothing at all to do with the language itself.
413 A book whose verses are detailed, a faultless Quran for a people who know.
Where is the contradiction or problem that compels you to disagree?The problem is, being 'faultless' doesnt help with detailling in the least.
Being Arabic does and in my experience, the quality of being detailed, Arabic and for people with information makes a perfect combination for a systematic study. However, seeing that you believe the Quran is for oratorical purposes as opposed to applicational, you may not agree with me.A red herring.
If you believe that 'crookedness' and 'fault' are synonymous then the burden of proof is upon you as it is your contention and not mine.
Unintentional. My apologies for misreading your original comment. I will rephrase
Please prove that 'iwaaj' means 'crookedness' in the dishonest sense of the word. This was your allegation of the implication, was it not?
The word fussilat has been translated as 'detailed' but this does not give a full appreciation of its meaning. When other verses using this root FSSL are examined the meaning that is best suited is "DISTINCT".
Can you please prove this? 'does not give a full appreciation' must be relative to a party's opinion. Can you please name these references.
Something that is distinct is...
Quotedis?tinct
a. Readily distinguishable from all others; discrete.
b. Easily perceived by the senses or intellect; clear.
c. Clearly defined; unquestionable.Thank you. This information will be useless though, until we prove that 'distinct' is what fshl refers to.
"lawla fussilat ayatuhuaa AAjamiyyun waAAarabiyyun"
"Indistinct foreign verses, and faultless?"
The "and faultless?" is a question mockingly directed against the statement in 413 where the present reading is described as faultless.
If you translated it correctly, I might be inclined to agree but you didn't. 'AAjami' is not an attribute of ayaatuhu 'Lawlaa fussilat ayaatuhu is the statement. Aajami wa Arabi is the question. Its Aajami , not Ajami! Therefore 'foriegn verses' in your translation above doesn't exist.
Thus it is dismantling the importance of language in the role of the transmission of the message. The disbelievers will concoct any and all excuses in order to continue to disbelieve.
Im afraid not because your translation was wrong. Furthermore, I'd like to bring in 16/103
We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign (ajami), while this is Arabic, pure and clear.(lisaanun arabiyoon mubin).
Arabiyoon here is described as a LISAAN, a language. 30/22 uses the word alseena to describe the various languages in the world. Therefore, Arabi must be one of the languages as opposed ajami, other languages.
-
Peace All,
Oben/truth, I also tend to agree with you. Words, languages are just a vehicle for passing a message which has to be pure and clear. So this makes sense.
Mquran you wrote
Quote
It is blindingly obvious that the reading is in the Arabic script and language; whether the text mentions it or not.To you, me and some others, sure. There are people who actually overlook this and seek out etymologies from Aramaic! Without statements such as these, it would be a free-for-all, linguistically. This statement repudiates such exercises.
I don't agree on this or at least partly. Sure, the language is arabic. But the languages come from somewhere , don't just develop out of nowhere. Why shouldn't arabic be influenced by the earlier syroarama?c used in sensibly the same region? And who can say today that the meaning of words are those they were at the beginning - even though they are arabic words. Just think of salat. To me the analysis by Luxenberg - if this is what you are hinting at - makes great sense and clears the message of some pollution. Understand me well - i'm not saying the quran was "polluted" but the understanding that has come out of it because of the given interpretation (the hoor al ayn for example).
Elke
-
Sorry but 'wa' doesn't necessarily mean 'and'. Look at 'wa-najm izaa hawaa' . Does it mean 'and the stars when they set' ? Its the beginning of a chapter!
"Wa" can always mean 'and'; some translators believe it to be an 'oath' particle and translate it as "by" - however this is a side issue and another red herring.
The 'wa' in question is not at the beginning of a chapter (not that it is relevant anyhow) and nor is it an oath.
I'm only going to address what is relevant to the original topic and not be bogged down in the side issues so allow me to get to the relevant part of your reply...
16103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign (ajami), while this is Arabic, pure and clear.(lisaanun arabiyoon mubin).
Arabiyoon here is described as a LISAAN, a language. 30/22 uses the word alseena to describe the various languages in the world. Therefore, Arabi must be one of the languages as opposed ajami, other languages.
16103 again dismantles the AAarabiyan = "Arabic language" theory quite nicely.
The fact that AAarabiyan in this instance is qualified by "lisaan' which you translate appropriately as language means that in this instance the adjective AAarabiyan is referring to language and is not the name of the language itself. This is relevant.
The context of 16103 further proves that "AAarabiyan" means 'faultless' as already stated.
The accusation in 16103 is that a person teaches the messenger the reading - and that it is allegedly a parroting of that person's ideas/speech.
The counter-argument is that the person in question is a native speaker of a foreign language, and implies therefore that the person's Arabic speech is imperfect and has faults. It cannot mean anything other than this otherwise the point is moot. If the person was a foreigner and could speak perfect Arabic then there would be no point in saying the person was foreign. It is indicating that the man in question has faulty or imperfect Arabic language skills due to his foreignness.
Thus its a proof through contradiction. Since this reading is free of faults of speech ie. it is faultless language and clear, it therefore cannot have come from the man in question.
16103 We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is foreign, and this is language that is faultless and clear.
Please don't lose sight of the fact that the language in question is indeed Arabic - I'm not arguing otherwise, but it's something we already know. The statement that it is "Arabic" conveys no useful information. The root meaning of 'faultless' on the other hand conveys the intended and appropriate meaning in each instance. Each of the examples we've considered fits the meaning exactly.
Arabic can be written and spoken in faulty and imperfect ways; the man in 16103 is a good example. The Arabic language itself is not faultless or imperfect but the usage and style of the language in the God's reading while obviously in Arabic, more importantly is "AAarabiyan" or faultless.
Regards.
-
I don't agree on this or at least partly. Sure, the language is arabic. But the languages come from somewhere , don't just develop out of nowhere. Why shouldn't arabic be influenced by the earlier syroarama?c used in sensibly the same region? And who can say today that the meaning of words are those they were at the beginning - even though they are arabic words. Just think of salat. To me the analysis by Luxenberg - if this is what you are hinting at - makes great sense and clears the message of some pollution. Understand me well - i'm not saying the quran was "polluted" but the understanding that has come out of it because of the given interpretation (the hoor al ayn for example).
Peace Elke,
I disagree because I don't believe in history. Izutsu, who wrote the book 'Semantics of the Quranic Weltanschauung' divides Arabic literature to pre-quranic and post-quranic. The problem is, we all live in a post-quranic era. So if someone comes and says 'this is the language before the Quran', I'd have a difficult time believing him.
My method is, if the source talks about Arabic, bring it forward and allow al-quraan to validate it via its own use. Al-quraan to me has an interdependent position in determining its own meaning. Luxumberg's theories has been proven by our Yaseen-q using the Quran and clear Arabic language. There was no need to go to Syro-arabic or whatever he was referring to.
-
Peace mquran,
happy to see that you agree on the pertinence of luxenbergs theories. Proven by quran itself - and proven by philology. This makes a double proof wink
For those that are sure about the divine origine of quran, quran will always be enough...
But think of all those that came to islam only because of the scientific accuracy of the quran. I say science, not history!
LK -
"Wa" can always mean 'and'; some translators believe it to be an 'oath' particle and translate it as "by" - however this is a side issue and another red herring.
How can it be a side issue when your argument DEPENDS on it. Your argument is only correct if 'ajami wa arabi' means 'foriegn AND distinct'!
Please explain how its a red herring.
As for 'can always mean 'and', I suppose you've not read these
2/231Wa M 'Anzala
Alaykum Mina Al-Kitbi Wa Al-ikmati Yaiukum Bihi .If 'wa' in 'al-kitaab WA al-hikmah' means 'and', why isn't it 'yaizzukum bihima' ?
8/20 If 'wa' in ''A
Allha Wa Raslahu Wa L TawallawAnhu' means 'and', why isn't it 'wa laa tawallaw anhuMA' ?I'm only going to address what is relevant to the original topic and not be bogged down in the side issues so allow me to get to the relevant part of your reply...
That's very nice of you but there are some points you omitted below which I think are relevant.
16103 again dismantles the AAarabiyan = "Arabic language" theory quite nicely.
The fact that AAarabiyan in this instance is qualified by "lisaan' which you translate appropriately as language means that in this instance the adjective AAarabiyan is referring to language and is not the name of the language itself. This is highly relevant!
So because the word 'lisaan' is there, it cannot be Arabic? So when I say 'english' you automatically take it to mean 'the english language'. I could have meant 'the english people.
The context of 16103 further proves that "AAarabiyan" means 'faultless' as already stated.
The accusation in 16103 is that a person teaches the messenger the reading - and that it is simply a parroting of that person's thoughts/speech.
The counter-argument is that the person in question is a native speaker of a foreign language, and implies therefore that the person's Arabic speech is imperfect and has faults. It cannot mean anything other than this otherwise the point is moot. If the person was a foreigner and could speak perfect Arabic then there would be no point in saying the person was foreign. It is indicating that the man in question has faulty or imperfect Arabic language skills due to his foreignness.
Thus its a proof through contradiction. Since this reading is free of faults of speech ie. it is faultless language and clear, it therefore cannot have come from the man in question.
16103 We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is foreign, and this is language that is faultless and clear.
False. The point isn't moot because since the person is foriegn, he cannot possibly be teaching the rasool the clear Arabic language. The word mubiin at the end proves this point because mubiin is an ATTRIBUTE of 'lisaanun arabiyun'. If 'lisaanun arabiyun' meant 'faultless language', then you wouldnt need to interject an 'and' in 'faultess and clear' when there isnt one. May I ask you to please desist from that because its very misleading.
Please don't lose sight of the fact that the language in question is indeed Arabic - I'm not arguing otherwise, but it's something we already know. The statement that it is "Arabic" conveys no useful information. The root meaning of 'faultless' on the other hand conveys the intended and appropriate meaning in each instance. Each of the examples we've considered fits the meaning exactly.
Arabic can be written and spoken in faulty and imperfect ways; the man in 16103 is a good example. The Arabic language itself is not faultless or imperfect but the usage and style of the language in the God's reading while obviously in Arabic, more importantly is "AAarabiyan" or faultless
.Thank you for sharing this.
Now onto the points you omitted.
-
Your translation of 'Indistinct foreign verses, and faultless?" is false. There's no foriegn verses in the actual text.
-
You have not provided evidence that FSHL means 'distinct'. Sorry but giving an english dictionaries' verdict isnt evidence in this case. We need actual quranic usage please.
-
You have not stated what 'iwaaj' means. And if means 'crooked' in a dishonest sense, can you please prove this from al-quraan.
thanks.
-
-
happy to see that you agree on the pertinence of luxenbergs theories. Proven by quran itself - and proven by philology. This makes a double proof
Sorry but I dont take it as such. If philology agrees, that's fine but irrelevant to the Quranic discourse. The quran has a set methodology of interpretation.
I don't find Luxenberg's theories pertinent but concordant. That concordance however, is irrelevant.
For those that are sure about the divine origine of quran, quran will always be enough...
It's not enough even by Quranic standards. The Quran says that signs in the horizon and in ourselves will make clear that its the ultimate truth. You can't conclude by simply reading it, you need to situate yourself in it and then find it accurately predicts our realities.
But think of all those that came to islam only because of the scientific accuracy of the quran. I say science, not history!
Well, in my opinion, this mode of arrival goes against Quranic notions. I don't know what exactly Arabs of 7th Century knew. I don't subscribe to the notion that modern science is exclusively the means to arrive at knowledge. If you've read 'Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, you'll find that that certain 'scientific realities' already was discovered but expressed in a different language. So to me, all these 'scientific accuracy' notions isnt the right way of concluding al-quraan's divine origin.
Al-quraan lays its own foundation on how to arrive at the right belief, how to apply and how to measure your application. It defines its own terms and resists any attempts at building a false conceptual foundation into its tafseer. That's why even with Sunnis corruption, we can find its correct meaning.
