'Arabic' or Faultless/Pure/Eloquent/Clear Minded?

unknownuser

Hello, I found this comment that I posted on a sunni forum ages ago, it may repeat what I said earlier but it is ok there is more info added

The Arabic language solid knowledge is required to only realize the miracle of the Quran
every prophet was meant to be sent by Allah and was meant to be supported with miracles, Allah has planned that the miracles will be from the same subject that the people were talented in, for example Moses with sent with supporting miracle that looks like magic because at his time magic was so popular between the humans, however when the magicians realised that what mosses done is a miracle not magic because they knew well what magic is, they quickly submitted to Allah, some one like Pharaoh who knows nothing about magic will never realize the miracle done by mosses and the clear miracle looked to him as another magic trick, same with the non Arabic speakers, they will never realize the miracle of the Quran until they gain a very solid knowledge about Arabic, i will extend on this later but I would to show explain another 2 examples, Jesus was sent with supporting miracles that was about healing sick people, because medicine was moving into a new era at the time, same with Mohammad, the Arabs were brilliant in the language, so it was Allah?s plan to choose an illiterate man and reveal a book to him that is impossible to any Arabic speaker to write 3 lines in Arabic like it, and sure all the fluent Arabic speakers at Mohammad time were stunned and speechless, this is great really considering that Mohammad was illiterate, LOL I love it, it makes me laugh at the human stupidity for not understanding this very simple logic that Mohammad can not be the author of the Quran, but the Questions remain, why Allah chose Arabic?, why not another language? Is it fair to the people who do not know how to speak Arabic

But if we ask these question about why Allah chose Arabic, then to be fair we need to ask the same question about the previous scriptures which was not in Arabic, so really it is up to Allah to chose what language He wants to use for any of His messages,, but again Allah does NOT do His things randomly like for example,He will toss a coin and choose what language should be used for the next message

It was His plan that His last warning to humanity to be in Arabic, the Arabic language is one of ?if not? the richest languages in the world, I can say, it is 100% unique in its Arabic

The Quran Muhammad's strongest argument
It has often been argued that the Quran is not only the first book, and the highest linguistic achievement, of the Arabic language, but that it is also Muhammad's strongest argument against those who doubted his Message. The question that needs to be addressed here concerns the reason why a holy book, a composition of language, should be hailed as Islam's (and Muhammad's) strongest argument. The point has sometimes been made that other prophets had more tangible miracles. In the case of Muhammad, however, the miracle was not comparable to Moses' staff or Christ's healing powers, but was simply the expression in language of the Quran.

To understand why Muhammad's strongest argument or miracle was a book, the Holy Quran, it is necessary to understand the role language and linguistic composition played in the lives of the pre-Islamic Arabs. It is also important to understand the nature of the Arabic language itself during the pre-Islamic period. This understanding will help to show why the revelation of the Quran through Muhammad found attentive ears among his contemporaries, who not only were articulate users of the language but held those skilled in the arts of linguistic composition in high esteem. But again it is not the time to discuss it.

Therefore the solid Arabic knowledge is required to be able to do any of the followings

Realize the language miracle within the book
Find any grammar mistake
Try to write a sura like it

Other than that, an average Arabic knowledge is enough to read the Quran, as well referring to the explanation of the meanings by knowledgeable humans will help those average Arabic speakers if they found difficulties in knowing a meaning of a few words

For the non Arabic speakers, they can be considered as the average Arabic speakers, i.e. a translation into their language should be enough, please consider that an average Arabic speaker can actually read the meaning of the Quran in Arabic as well, i.e. was translated into a simple language he/she will understand, but again those hard verses in the Quran was to fulfil an objective by Allah, only the very knowledgeable people with the help of Allah will crack the meaning of those few verses out of thousands of verses and others that are too mutashabihat to humans to crack it and only Allah knows its true meaning, but again the Quran was designed by Allah to be easy to be remembered, consequently the majority of the Quran are easy to be remembered in fact over 90% of it are easy to understand and be remembered in any language, I had a debate with a Christian friend before and he conceded that the Quran is so easy to understand, it has to be, because Allah declared this in His Quran in numerous locations that He made it easy to be remembered, in fact He also stated that He will be in charge in explaining it

?And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will mind??
{ The Quran ; 5422 }

The inimitability of the Quran is not limited to its content. In fact, the Holy Book of Islam is held by Muslim scholars to be inimitable not only in its content but also in its language. The Quran, it has been constantly maintained, embodies linguistic and literary beauty which exceeds anything of human origin. This is borne out by the fact that no-one has ever been able to compose anything remotely resembling it in its linguistic, literary, or conceptual elegance. This point is repeatedly emphasized in the Holy Book itself. Thus the Quran says

"If the whole of mankind and the jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed each other up."
{ The Quran ; 1788 }

The inimitable nature of the Quran was recognized by generation after generation of scholars. Al-Tabari (d. 923) dealt with this subject in his voluminous study of the Holy Book. Al-Zamakhshari elaborated on this theme in his famous al-Kashshaf, [ as did Baydawi in his Tafsir. AlBaqillam, a prominent scholar, wrote a book which he devoted entirely to this subject and to which he gave the title I'jaz al-Quran (The Inimitability of the Quran). Here he wrote

The Quran is so wonderfully arranged and so marvellously composed, and so exalted is its literary excellence that it is beyond what any mere creature could attain.

Al-Jawziyya, also a noted scholar, added that

Whoever knows Arabic and is acquainted with lexicography, grammar, rhetoric, and Arabic poetry and prose recognizes ipso facto the supremacy of the Quran.

Ibn Khaldun also dealt with certain aspects of the style of the Quran

The inimitability of the Quran consists in the fact that its language indicates all the requirements of the situation referred to, whether they are stated or understood. This represents the highest degree of speech. In addition, the Quran is perfect in the choice of words and excellence of arrangement.

Peace

Thanks for reading

ayman

Peace Oben,

I don't really know that 'lisaan' is necessarily meaning 'language' in its complete sense of written/spoken system of communication including all the other features required which would be complete grammar/spelling/script etc.

I agree with you and I didn't say otherwise. All human languages started out as spoken languages and then people later selected a script for writing it and formalized its grammar and structures. No language that I know of started out by people making a grammar and then deciding about the script and then speaking it. So speech is the primary aspect of human language.

I do think that 'lisaan' relates more to the 'speech' of someone. Like one of the meanings of 'quran' is recitation - something spoken. And in this sense faultless speech is definitely a concept that 4144 expands upon making 'lisaan' quite clearly mean the speech of a person rather than a systematised language and all its features which we understand today.

Notice that in 4144, "a3jami" is contrasted to "3arabi". The God says that had it been made an "a3jami" reading then people would say "if only its signs were detailed "a3jami" and "3arabi"".

Now according to your interpretation "a3jami" would mean the opposite of "faultless", i.e. full of faults. Why would people ask for a reading full of faults and faultless at the same time? Moreover, why would The God make a reading "full of faults" as per the first part of the passage?

I think that the best interpretation is that there are two types of speech, the "3arabi" speech is intelligible to the audience, while the "a3jami" is unintelligible. Hence, they would have wanted a translation in "3arabi" to accompany the "a3jami" text.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

truth

Peace,

Truth
but here is a quick note

I'm not saying the arabic is a perfect language, in fact it seems you have contradicted your self,

you said "Arabic" means faultelss, while you proved later that any language has faults, and I agree with you that any langugaes has faults

I have not said that the language system "Arabic" is perfect or faultless. I have stated that the usage of a language can be faultless and that is what the adjective "AAarabiyan" is referring to. It's not stating a name for the language, but rather describing the quality of the language used.

Also I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.

But within the limitations of the language, using its rules, and the choice of words available etc. one can construct a faultless message.

In computer programming there are languages - none of them are perfect - but you can create a faultless program in them by choosing the correct keywords and proper syntax. You can even have a variety of programs that do exactly the same thing. One way might be ugly and roundabout and use one hundred lines - the other may be concise, direct and have elegance or beauty.

I hope you understand.

truth

Peace Ayman,

Peace Oben,

Now according to your interpretation "a3jami" would mean the opposite of "faultless", i.e. full of faults. Why would people ask for a reading full of faults and faultless at the same time? Moreover, why would The God make a reading "full of faults" as per the first part of the passage?

I don't believe the two terms are opposites or antonyms. From 4144 we can see that the two are not opposite because the excuse to disbelieve in the 'quranan aajamiyan' is to say that it is ' aajamiyan wa aarabiyan' - this cannot be "non-Arabic and Arabic".

In fact it cannot be any pair of opposites. The assumption that they are opposites is like commiting the logical fallacy of the false dilemma - that it must be one or the other.

Like you point out correctly, the God would not make any of His messages 'full of faults' he would similarly not make them 'unintelligible' - so the translations of 'foreign' for AAjami and 'faultless' for AArabiyan is more correct. The two terms are not opposites and this is key.

However your suggestion "intelligible" is definitely compatible with the general group of meanings as 'faultless/expressed with clarity/eloquent' within the root for 'AAarabi'.

Regards.

unknownuser

Peace,

Truth
but here is a quick note

I'm not saying the arabic is a perfect language, in fact it seems you have contradicted your self,

you said "Arabic" means faultelss, while you proved later that any language has faults, and I agree with you that any langugaes has faults

I have not said that the language system "Arabic" is perfect or faultless. I have stated that the usage of a language can be faultless and that is what the adjective "AAarabiyan" is referring to. It's not stating a name for the language, but rather describing the quality of the language used.

Also I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.

But within the limitations of the language, using its rules, and the choice of words available etc. one can construct a faultless message.

In computer programming there are languages - none of them are perfect - but you can create a faultless program in them by choosing the correct keywords and proper syntax. You can even have a variety of programs that do exactly the same thing. One way might be ugly and roundabout and use one hundred lines - the other may be concise, direct and have elegance or beauty.

I hope you understand.

Yeh I undersatand

you use Basic to write a program in Basic

or Visual Basic to wtite a program in Visual Basic

or C++ to create a program C++

you can't create a program in C++ and you claim it was written using Pascal

also the Quran used many words to express that it is perfect, the puzzle and confusion that you come alonge with many others and claim "Arabic" means Perfect, while all of don't speak arabic

how come? and what we call the arabic language then?

you see you argument is baseless and I hope you understand

unknownuser

Hi AhmedBahgat,

One question for u If Allah had created Quran in an other language, other than Arabic, would it have been faulty, impure and unclear?

mquran

TruthAlso I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.

Truth, you're a smart guy so I cannot how you can be so sure of yourself here when you didn't even know that Arabic did have a verb for 'to be'. Why don't you research it some more instead of knee-jerk post-modernist reaction?

If the message is perfect and mode of communication is flawed, what's the point of the message being perfect?

unknownuser

If the message is perfect and mode of communication is flawed, what's the point of the message being perfect?

Are u saying, Quran would have been imperfect,unclear, faulty, impure if Allah had created it in another language other than arabic?

mquran

Are u saying, Quran would have been imperfect,unclear, faulty, impure if Allah had created it in another language other than arabic?

No.

unknownuser

So, U agree Allah is capable of conveying his message (Quran) in any language in a faultless, clear manner that could be comprehended by the people who recieve it?

mquran

So, U agree Allah is capable of conveying his message (Quran) in any language in a faultless, clear manner that could be comprehended by the people who recieve it?

Potentially yes.

I don't think you're getting my point though.

My point is, at present, there's one book which is the divinely inspired text. That is Al-quraan. The language of al-quraan is perfect and it coveys the perfect syntax, morphology and diction to convey the essence of man. It's the perfect programming language, to use a computing metaphor. Arabic by itself is not perfect but Quranic Arabic is.

unknownuser

So, U agree Allah is capable of conveying his message (Quran) in any language in a faultless, clear manner that could be comprehended by the people who recieve it?

Potentially yes.

I don't think you're getting my point though.

My point is, at present, there's one book which is the divinely inspired text. That is Al-quraan. The language of al-quraan is perfect and it coveys the perfect syntax, morphology and diction to convey the essence of man. It's the perfect programming language, to use a computing metaphor. Arabic by itself is not perfect but Quranic Arabic is.

I agree with u partly.

When is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?

mquran

I agree with u partly.

When is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?

I think first we need to remind ourselves as to what al-quraan talks about. Al-quraan deals with the hudan/guidance of humankind. That is how humankind should live on earth and what happens to them after this life. This is important subject to humankind and for this purpose, Al-quraan is perfect which means it conveys its message through mankinds primordial language and describes concepts which mirrors this primordiality.

unknownuser

I agree with u partly.

When is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?

I think first we need to remind ourselves as to what al-quraan talks about. Al-quraan deals with the hudan/guidance of humankind. That is how humankind should live on earth and what happens to them after this life. This is important subject to humankind and for this purpose, Al-quraan is perfect which means it conveys its message through mankinds primordial language and describes concepts which mirrors this primordiality.

Again, I agree partly.
But tell me, when is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?

mquran

Again, I agree partly.
But tell me, when is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?

Why are your options exclusive? The fact that's its perfectly used makes it perfectly understandable. It's not 'or' but 'and'.

unknownuser

Again, I agree partly.
But tell me, when is a language clear?
when it is understandable by the person recieving it or when its perfectly used(with syntax, morphology, diction)?

Why are your options exclusive? The fact that's its perfectly used makes it perfectly understandable. It's not 'or' but 'and'.

Say, Quran was written in arabic and the best of arabic to describe the message in a clear and faultless manner, and was given to people who do not know arabic(say, the messenger lived in china), would the message be clear to the people(of china) who recieved them ?

mquran

Say, Quran was written in arabic and the best of arabic to describe the message in a clear and faultless manner, and was given to people who do not know arabic(say, the messenger lived in china), would the message be clear to the people(of china) who recieved them ?

No. One would need to know Arabic in order to recognise the faultlessness.

May I ask what you're trying to prove here?

unknownuser

And again, the best use of the language(the syntax, ,morphology, diction etc) would make no sense to the people who recieve if they did not understand the complex use of a language. So, the language used and the way it is used, would be to convey the 'clear message' in a way the people who recieve, understand it clearly.

unknownuser

My points are

God is capable of conveying His clear message, in a clear manner in any language.
God has used the arabic language in the best way possible to convey His clear message in Quran, coz it was given to the people of Arabia and had to be understood by them(including the syntax, morphology, diction)

At the end of the day, the purpose is to convey the message of the book and not create a perfectly written arabic book which people do not understand.

So, the 'arabic' in Quran is of significance only becoz it came to the people of the arabia and arabic was a language they understood.
It doesnt make the language 'arabic' holy, faultless or pure.

God would have conveyed the same(the clear) message very clearly, in a faultless manner with the best use of english, if He were to give it to English speaking people.
So, Quran is impure, clear and faultless becoz of ''Allah and His message'' and not ''arabic''

truth

TruthAlso I did not state that every language has 'faults' - mquran said he believed that the Arabic language is faultless which I rejected. I said every language has features, limitations, peculiarities and deficiencies including the Arabic language.

Truth, you're a smart guy so I cannot how you can be so sure of yourself here when you didn't even know that Arabic did have a verb for 'to be'. Why don't you research it some more instead of knee-jerk post-modernist reaction?

If the message is perfect and mode of communication is flawed, what's the point of the message being perfect?

Let me express it more precisely so you do not misunderstand what was asked. I asked for the infinitive of the verb "to Be" as in the famous English phrase "To be or not to be".

How about the infinitive of the verb "to Have" in Arabic?

Regards.