oldest fragments of Quran found
-
I'll try to provide something useful to this terribly mediocre tangent that this thread has gone on.
If anyone wants to read the full report of the underlying text of the San'aa manuscript, you can read it online on Scribd here.
San'aa 1 and the Origins of the Quran
Behnam Sadeghi - Stanford University
Mohsen Goudarzi - Harvard University -
If anyone wants to read the full report of the underlying text of the San'aa manuscript, you can read it online on Scribd here.
San'aa 1 and the Origins of the Quran
Behnam Sadeghi - Stanford University
Mohsen Goudarzi - Harvard UniversityThanks for this man. thumbs up
-
First, Jafar is not an Arab. He hates Arabs.
How do you know that Jafar is not an Arab? Have you ever asked him about that?
I often have disagreement with Jafar's posts, but to my knowledge, Jafar is not a racist,
and I think brother Hizbullah is also not a racist.
Please do not accuse them as racists if you still have not really know them.
Salaam.
-
I'll try to provide something useful to this terribly mediocre tangent that this thread has gone on.
If anyone wants to read the full report of the underlying text of the San'aa manuscript, you can read it online on Scribd here.
San'aa 1 and the Origins of the Quran
Behnam Sadeghi - Stanford University
Mohsen Goudarzi - Harvard UniversityThanks bro )
-
Javalatte -
Anyone who generalizes an entire group of people based on their race, or believes in conspiracy theories about a particular race, or repeatedly puts down a particular race - is a racist.And feel free to follow his posts. With time you'll notice continuous persistent attempts to place blame on Arabs for various faults with Muslims and Islam from politics to beliefs, and he will steer conversations towards criticism of Arabs when he can.
Finally, both Hizbullah and Jafar like to repeat the verse with Al-A3raabu and pretend that it is talking about all Arabs. When you try to engage them on the meaning of the word, you get nothing back, as if it isn't crystal clear that A-A3raabu is not the same word as Al-Arab. Most importantly, Al-Arab is a term that was used to refer to Arabs before Islam.
For example, the famous epitaph of Imru' al-Qays ibn Amr predates Islam by 300-400 years, and is one of the earliest known examples of Arabic writing we have today. It says that Imru' al-Qays was the king of Arabs (al-3arab).
There are also Syriac inscriptions from what's today southern Turkey, Sumatar harabesi that call the area the Seat of the governors of Arabs ('arab). This dates to the 1st century AD.
In Tel Maresha, what's today Israel, archaeologists have discovered that the area was dominated by Qedarite Arabs, Nabatean Arabs, and Idumeans.
pg. 149-151 "Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E." By Oded Lipschitz, Gary N. Knoppers, Rainer Albertz
In addition to names, the ostraca from Mareshah mention some ethnic groups, among them the Qedarites (QDRYN) and the Arabs (?RBYN).
This is from the 4th century BC. So 1000 years before the Quran.
So to make a long story short, the word 3RB is attested centuries before the Quran, and the word in the verse A3RB is a different word.
-
You're a racist and not particularly intelligent either.
First, Jafar is not an Arab. He hates Arabs.First off, Jafar is an Arab, and i can only see a moron who thinks he is so intelligent, go and look your stupid self in the mirror! so what is the problem, is he your lover??? I dont give a demn if he is but one think for sure, this is between me and him, what is it with you???
Second, there is no shadda in A3raabu. You're ranting and raving and getting every little thing wrong.
vs.
Those are two different words. You are intentionally fabricating lies about the Quran to confirm your own racism.
- The words are the same. if you dont know Arabic, just admit, MORON. Ask anyone who knows Arabic. Fabricating lies about the Quran? Where? I remember quoted from the Quran that the Arabs are stronger in disbelief and hypocrisy. ITS ALL IN THE QURAN BUT OFF COURSE YOU ARE GOING TO DENY IT. It shows clearly your are the one who are fabricating lies by directly saying that ALLAH is a liar and a racist! Instead of supporting those who support the Quran but you support those who intentionally denies the Quran. You and rlz are both hypocrites and liars.
-
First off, Jafar is an Arab, and i can only see a moron who thinks he is so intelligent, go and look your stupid self in the mirror! so what is the problem, is he your lover??? I dont give a demn if he is
Ahahahahah
- The words are the same. if you dont know Arabic, just admit, MORON. Ask anyone who knows Arabic.
Hahahah amazing.
-
Arab or not, you are so fooled by the available understanding of Arabic and you speak an invented language. I have nothing against the Arabic ancestry, but I find a lot of pitiful people living in a delusion of thinking a language is authentic while it is a language based on lies where some hypocrites formed a language entirely incorrect with totally inaccurate definitions.
People basically have nothing right, not even the known grammar.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Arab or not, you are so fooled by the available understanding of Arabic and you speak an invented language. I have nothing against the Arabic ancestry, but I find a lot of pitiful people living in a delusion of thinking a language is authentic while it is a language based on lies where some hypocrites formed a language entirely incorrect with totally inaccurate definitions.
People basically have nothing right, not even the known grammar.
Be safe
AmenuelDoes Quran or any other scholar say classical Arabic means its words have no similarities with any other words found in other languages? The thing that looks like forging has a definition called linguistic borrowing under which many different borrowing categories exist. Then we have naturalization of words. This one touches upon the topic of linguistic borrowing.
http//rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/5997/1/RAEI_10_08.pdfI don't see how Aramaic roots or words can be an issue. I only see it as a tool from Allah to understand the verses because humans have a tendency to change words with time.
Ex gay= happy vs gay=homosexualThen think about Shirlock Holmes. A time came when it was very hard to understand many of its words simply because they were not available in dictionaries. I had that trouble. My dictionaries were not helping me. But then, how did the stories become so popular among young boys when they first appeared in Strand magazine?
-
Arab or not, you are so fooled by the available understanding of Arabic and you speak an invented language. I have nothing against the Arabic ancestry, but I find a lot of pitiful people living in a delusion of thinking a language is authentic while it is a language based on lies where some hypocrites formed a language entirely incorrect with totally inaccurate definitions.
People basically have nothing right, not even the known grammar.
Yes Amenuel, 400 million Arabs speak with one another every single day in an invented language with a fake vocabulary and fake grammar, and only you in this entire planet know the truth. Ah the burdens of genius and prophethood... must be lonely.
-
Yes and I suppose the arab christians who also happen to use the word "Allah" to mean "The God" since ages are also deluded in language.
They have nothing to do with what the Quran teaches, and it teaches that the trinity is false - the christians acknowledge this and reject the Quranic stance.
And here we have someone who says - no, even the christians bought into the hijacking of the meaning of the word "Allah".
"Muslim" arabs hypothetically, for the sake of argument, might have gotten their language robbed and accepted whatever the tamperers fed them. This is a belief issue, that is the motivation for language tampering, not the other way round, Amenuel.
But other belief adherents/"non-Muslims" who use the original language supposedly being tampered with, Why should they buy into the new meanings? It's beyond absurd.
-
Does Quran or any other scholar say classical Arabic means its words have no similarities with any other words found in other languages? The thing that looks like forging has a definition called linguistic borrowing under which many different borrowing categories exist. Then we have naturalization of words. This one touches upon the topic of linguistic borrowing.
http//rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/5997/1/RAEI_10_08.pdfI don't see how Aramaic roots or words can be an issue. I only see it as a tool from Allah to understand the verses because humans have a tendency to change words with time.
Ex gay= happy vs gay=homosexualThen think about Shirlock Holmes. A time came when it was very hard to understand many of its words simply because they were not available in dictionaries. I had that trouble. My dictionaries were not helping me. But then, how did the stories become so popular among young boys when they first appeared in Strand magazine?
The point is that Arabic words form their meaning based on the letters in formation. With Arabic, and Aramaic too, you talk descriptively very much, e.g. you can say "the thing that rattles" using the primitive letters of these languages. This is how words work in the Semitic languages.
Words could gain alternative meanings using that, but fundamentally they mean just one thing, i.e. their "talking" description.
God does not use the Arabic words of Quran to convey different meanings but they say simply one thing literally, however obviously their implication on the context may vary.
I have one example of when an Arabic word is used metaphorically. (zalam) is a word that literally means 'dark', but the word can also be used in reference to evil/shadiness when talking about a person who does wrong. Yet the word should be interpreted as saying dark, e.g. if you are saying someone is committing wrongdoing/evil you say they are "doing dark".
Both Aramaic and Arabic are basically from the same family of languages, from two divided family parts of Shem (hence the word S(h)emitic) where Ismail went south and formed what came to be the Arabs and Isaac stayed in the north and formed what was to be called Aram. Obviously both Ismail and Isaac once spoke the same language. That was about 4000 years ago, approximately, I do not have the exact dates, but you can estimate it depending on one's ability to know which Pharaoh (King) in Mesr the Mosaic lore refers to. Both branches of Semitic share the same root system where the roots mean the same but different grammar emerged and with words differentiating albeit always formed using the ancient letter system which is a characteristic of the Semitic languages.
Since originally the Semitic letters had a very basic and primitive meaning you cannot totally pervert the languages without the perceptive seeing that, but you can obviously throw dirt upon the common understanding (kafar = delude or have a cover up around you).
But Arabic (of Quran) does not have any linguistic borrowing and the language is based on the original language of Shem which is many thousands of years old. Rather many languages around the Earth borrow from these languages' letter or phonological sounds to deep down convey the same albeit in a different manner and combination of sounds.
Be safe
Amenuel -
And here we have someone who says - no, even the christians bought into the hijacking of the meaning of the word "Allah".
"Muslim" arabs hypothetically, for the sake of argument, might have gotten their language robbed and accepted whatever the tamperers fed them. This is a belief issue, that is the motivation for language tampering, not the other way round, Amenuel.
Depending on what you make of what you refer to God, Allah does refer to God, but not in the way people think. The one who is it, is Allah (is as such). Rabb is the accurate word for the unit God, which means Foundation basically, "(something which) gives/provides a foundation" literally for the two letters Ra-Ba.
Allah is not a "robbed" word but exists also in Aramaic and does not have an Arabic origin and the word does mean something and is not a proper noun which it cannot be carrying the AL grammatical prefix and in fact it is not even a noun but a kind of adjective meaning "such is" or even a verb when it is used with its full root such as in Allah together with the (heh) third person singular suffix, so one can say simply "who is" to not make it too complicated. You can compare it to Shakespeare's "to be or not to be, is the question" where "who such is" is the positive aspect of this. I can agree that Elah/Allah is a hijacked word by Pagans however to create some separate god entity with a word that does not have such implication. It is as symbiotic/assimilated as it can get.
The trap with Arabic is that it does virtually never refer to distinct objects unless it is supported by grammar, for example with words ending with for plural and for singular, and also then they do not always refer to physical objects. If Allah was a direct object reference (i.e. a god) then it would be written and it is not. However, Rabb is used in Quran as a name and is often address by "Ya Rabb". No one in Quran ever says "Ya Allah", for a reason you can make out yourself if you accept the argument that I presented above (since allah is used merely grammatically throughout the whole scripture).
People who know Arabic grammar ought to know that an AL-prefixed word would not ever be used as a proper noun but as an adjective, e.g al-hakiim "(AL = such is) wise". Rabbakum al-hakiim = Your wise Sustainer. Emanuel al-hamid = Emanuel - the commendable.
You can make an adjectival noun of words too with for example AL-Hakmateh (ة simply meaning 'Wisdom', i.e. (such is) - wise - dom with being the objectifying marker in singular.
Be safe
Amenuel -
The point is that Arabic words form their meaning based on the letters in formation. With Arabic, and Aramaic too, you talk descriptively very much, e.g. you can say "the thing that rattles" using the primitive letters of these languages. This is how words work in the Semitic languages.
Words could gain alternative meanings using that, but fundamentally they mean just one thing, i.e. their "talking" description.
God does not use the Arabic words of Quran to convey different meanings but they say simply one thing literally, however obviously their implication on the context may vary.
But God has to use words that the people for whom the message is can understand. In this case, its the Arabs. Words get naturalized with sometimes completely changed meanings. It is true in every language.
Allah is not a "robbed" word but exists also in Aramaic and does not have an Arabic origin and the word does mean something
But it looks like Allah has been naturalized to mean God in Arabic. That said, it is not a secret that Allah is not the only name of the creator.
I can agree that Elah/Allah is a hijacked word by Pagans however to create some separate god entity with a word that does not have such implication. It is as symbiotic/assimilated as it can get.
It isn't hijacked, but simply naturalized by pagans to make it a deity. For them, back then, it was the moon God.
The trap with Arabic is that it does virtually never refer to distinct objects unless it is supported by grammar, for example with words ending with for plural and for singular, and also then they do not always refer to physical objects.
Sometimes the mess occurs when grammar of one language is used to understand the sentences of another language.
If Allah was a direct object reference (i.e. a god) then it would be written and it is not.
We find it in Quran, don't we?
However, Rabb is used in Quran as a name and is often address by "Ya Rabb".
Because Rabb means sustainer and when it is used in dua, it assumes that you want him to sustain something? This is actually cultural.
Let me give you example of how people of other regions and religions use it.
We know shiva to be one of the main gods of hindus. When they ask him for something in their "dua" they don't call him shiva, but bholenath. The idea is that he is kind and innocent enough to listen to everyone's dua without caring about their personality. When they are happy with him they call him mahadev, meaning greatest god.
Here is something even far more complicated
Try looking for the meaning of satan in sanskrit and you will see it means "truth".
A little bit of digging would lead you to satan=eternal truth.
Does that mean our God is a lie? -
I know this thread has again steered off in a weird tangent as usually topics seem to behave these days but quickly
The word Allah is a name that translates as the perfect being who exists necessarily by itself, in other words, the true God. It is not and can never be a reference to a human being or a collection of beings that are themselves created, at all. It is essentially a reference to nothing other than to a perfect being, i.e. God. Exactly like the Farsi word "Khuda" and older Farsi "Xavatadh" / "Xvatay" (reminder a being that exists by itself (nothing else created it). It has absolutely nothing to do with Khod meaning "self" or Khodam meaning "myself/I", other than the common root "Khay".
That's like saying Khor a word used to refer to a small bay or a narrow gulf has something to do with the word Khod or even Khuda meaning "God" just because they share the same root(s).
17110 Say, "Invoke Allah or invoke the Mighty. By whatever you invoke, to It (God) the Most Beautiful Names. And not be loud in your prayers and not be silent therein, but seek between that a way."
Al-Rehman is also a reference to The God with a particular attribute "Might" and Al-Rahim like wise is the same with a particular attribute "Mercy". Allah is a named reference to this being to whom belong all of these numerous attributes simultaneously. All these attributes can only really simultaneously belong to that which is unlike any other i.e. - The one and only true God.
Also, I wanted to point out that it was "al-Lat" who was a fabricated moon goddess along with "Manat and "al-Uzza".
-
The so called Arab prophet was born in the 570 CE. This parchment was written sometime between 568 and 645. C14 test has an accuracy of 95%.
Furthermore Hijazi aka Jazm script had been used since 5th Century CE. It was later change to Kuffic Script by the Abbasiyah , when they took over the Caliphate in the 7th Century. This proof that the history of the sectarian Islam are a big lie.
THE QURAN THAT WAS SENT TO THE LAST PROPHET WAS MUCH OLDER THAN WHAT WE THAUGHT!
peace
Where exactly do you get your assumption that the Quran is older than we thaught? if anything it confirms that the Quran came when it is generaly excepted that it did to the Prophet Muhammad
-
Thanks for your input A.W.
Unfortunately you do not really contemplate the grammatical implications or you would not argue as you do.
Regarding Khoda I am well aware of what I have been talking about.
Be safe
Amenuel -
But God has to use words that the people for whom the message is can understand. In this case, its the Arabs. Words get naturalized with sometimes completely changed meanings. It is true in every language.
Yes, that is a kind of perversion of the language which sadly occurs. That means the word is not used as it once was and with Arabic and the Semitic languages it is relatively easy to expose such distortion due to their "innate letter meanings".
With Arabic this language is a bit special and no one understood Quran at its time, but there were hypocrites who claimed they could and whose interpretation you have today 2015. These people invented some kind of fake Arabic which one you have today, so Arabs actually speak an incorrect form of Quranic Arabic based on the invention of the clerics. No matter "naturalization", it is not possible to "naturalize" a word into no (la ا from meaning "to be" or "which is"; that is an obvious incapability to comprehend the language in the first place. Additionally, it would be far-fetched to assume the real word for no (ma ا would possible mean different things depending on context since that clearly opens up for misunderstanding. Finally it is absurd that a language has like 4-5 ways of saying no/not in a formal writing using bilateral words.
The truth with Arabic is that it is only (ma) that means no/not, and that is in all occasions of the word. It says itself that the ancient interpreters only worked hard to fill a religious doctrine into their work on "deciphering" it, and it is clear when we take into consideration what the sectarian Quran wants to convey with all its rituals, rites and exaggerated hatred and aggression of the god. Beneath that hoaxed interpretation is hidden a totally different narration, which I have partially revealed during my research and which is stored on my Personal Computer plus sent to select people around the World.
But it looks like Allah has been naturalized to mean God in Arabic. That said, it is not a secret that Allah is not the only name of the creator.
Yes, but that does not say it is correct. Because they could not understand Quran or the usage of it from the past they have "Paganized" it into God. "Rabb" is the accurate word for God in Arabic actually, i.e. the word that best translates the English god word. The misconception is because some people simply could not understand.
Allah is actually not even a noun but a verb with an attached third-person pronoun and should be used as such within a linguistic context, but can be used standalone to mark that "one is", i.e. is alive or existent, however that thanks to the attached pronoun. Like I have said 9385687528 times, Allah is a construct of A L L which root is also used when you add the prefix AL to words to create an adjectival word (such be + attribute), but in the case of allah it forms a verb plus attached pronoun reference (ه which word would come first in an English rendition most of the time.
Had the word referred to an object reference by the word itself, the word would have been written (Allateh), but these grammar rules people seem to disregard, not to mention you would not make a name of a word attached with AL without making a separation between AL and the name. You have an example with Pharaoh which is treated as a proper noun in Quran and is written , i.e. with AL separate from the name and in this case it is because the context makes a sample reference to Pharaoh to say "such as Pharaoh". Using that kind of grammar you would write for allah if you would follow this fact. Now you do not write as such to give a direct reference to a person because the attached AL would make a sample reference as "such as" about the person mentioned. A difference would be if you instead said (ahl) which is also a construct using AL but with attached in the word, e.g. ahl Musa which would imply that like-minded people "such like" Moses who are with him.
You will not see Quran use AL-Rabb for example for a reason, because it is simply linguistically incorrect.
Despite highlighting fallacies like these, people of this forum do seem to cling unto their fallacious perception despite multiple errors in their linguistic usage when they say about the word allah what it is not as explained above, because they are very insistent on making allah a word for God.
See this checklist of various forms that would be acceptable to make an object out of the word properly
allah - Cannot be used as a proper noun because it is linguistically incorrect and also impossible to make into an object alone too (no , see below).
allateh - the only way to make a direct object reference of the AL marked word. Can still not be used as a proper noun, and in fact the word turns into an adjectival noun.
lah - the word could theoretically be used as a proper noun, but it would be very unspecific and lacking in meaning and Semitic words are supposed to carry a Spiritual meaning.
AL Lah - could be used like the previous example in reference to a proper noun, but the AL gives sample reference to the person lah. A usage in Quran would clearly write AL and LAH apart from each other.But because we know better we know that allah means "who is" and is a verb in the language, and at best one can claim that the word is a pronoun substitute for a proper noun if one likes to keep arguing, but yet the "name" predicate is in the last letter alone.
Busting a myth is difficult business, especially when it is imprinted into the skull bones of people and part of an indoctrinated doctrine. Not making it easier is that people possess an invented language too and are deluded into believing that this is authentic and truthfully representing an ancient scripture speaking of something vastly different.
It isn't hijacked, but simply naturalized by pagans to make it a deity. For them, back then, it was the moon God.
You can actually say it is also hijacked, because these Pagan clerics took Quran and then used it for such doctrine. They used it to "confirm" their dogma. The word Elah/Allah is a very very very old word that is thousands of years old and obviously misconception has also branched out from the trunk and AL as two letters means just "Such as" or even THAT (the SUCH) and ALEH "the such is", i.e. "what simply is". They made the God phenomenon exclusive and degraded themselves into slaves while God actually seeks associates, i.e. maleikat (angels). These madmen actually kill people who likes to become associated with God because they claim that they are blasphemers in their delusion, and this is a reason they executed Jesua (Jesus).
If they seek for God they have it in the word Rabb and that means Foundation-Provider literally and people are "within that sphere", so to say. It is like a singularity, i.e. a phenomenon with immense content yet not taking any space (allegorically speaking).
Sometimes the mess occurs when grammar of one language is used to understand the sentences of another language.
You could have told that to the Persian clerics who had a hand in the interpretation of Quran, but they would probably have branded you as a blasphemer and stoned you.
Because Rabb means sustainer and when it is used in dua, it assumes that you want him to sustain something? This is actually cultural.
You do not comprehend the full magnitude of its implication. It is not cultural but the Rabb who made Quran written refers to the word's literal meaning of "Foundation-Provider", i.e. "the phenomenon that gives a foundation". The whole existence including the World is dependent on Rabb, this is why God is called Rabb linguistically. The World itself is the Rabb it can be said. 'Ra' as a letter is the actual "foundation" marker and is also used in words such as "eaRth" in English which is a direct loanword from aRdh in the Semitic languages. Ardh means "the visible foundation" morphologically. It is not the planet alone that is ardh, but everything visible is ardh. It is the word for (this) world in Quran.
On this level it does not have to do with belief but this is factual information from your Creator.
Rabb is obviously descriptive of God's role in the Existence just like aware people name themselves appropriately according to their destiny as well. My name is Amenuel which means "Be Of Integrity Such As" which is a symbiotic reference to Rabb and the allah unity. This is a little saga or drama that God created to make Existence a little fictionalized. Our whereabouts here is filled with divinely influenced signs actually which the perceptive can see by reading the ancient lore, if they can read between the lines where there are nonsensical insertions.
Also besides the Lore there is God's amusing imagination because A ' rabb (the people) obviously have to do with Rabb as a word just as A ' ramm have to do with another aspect of God and Miryem (virgin Mary "Mi - rayem" have something to do with it.
Let me give you example of how people of other regions and religions use it.
We know shiva to be one of the main gods of hindus. When they ask him for something in their "dua" they don't call him shiva, but bholenath. The idea is that he is kind and innocent enough to listen to everyone's dua without caring about their personality. When they are happy with him they call him mahadev, meaning greatest god.
The symbiotic 'Higher Intelligence' obviously knows about the human tendency to make gods but rabb is not meant to be objectified that way but it is a function description and reference. God is everything and in you, in me, and in that fool who cannot perceive it too.
If you say "ya Rabb" you call upon the Foundation itself, which means you call upon everything, if you understand the word's meaning. In English you could say God as well, it does not matter and this is not what I meant. In Arabic and other Semitic languages, Rabb is the best choice linguistically, but then that they have ignorantly turned other words which suit it poorly is their choice where Allah probably is the worst choice not even being an object reference but a verb with pronoun.
I think you misunderstood that I gave exclusivity to Rabb for the whole World, but that is not correct. You can choose any appropriate word in any language, but it would be wise if the word well describes the function of God. Personally if I used an English word I could say "My Foundation", or "Sustainer" which sounds more natural, or if I want a really long and the most accurate word I could say "My Foundation-Provider". Like I wrote, you need to be aware that Arabic exclusively conveys its meaning descriptively for what kind of function or features something has.
Here is something even far more complicated
Try looking for the meaning of satan in sanskrit and you will see it means "truth".
A little bit of digging would lead you to satan=eternal truth.
Does that mean our God is a lie?Satan means "Charge/apply Judgment BY Integrity" (in a morphological breakdown) which would mean to follow sincerely what you see before you without thinking deeper. It is the most natural choice but that choice is a delusion created by God. If you like to make Satan an easy-to-understand word you could use "instinct" in English.
a natural tendency to behave in a particular way or a natural ability to know something, which is not learned
In ways it is the truth that you know without digging deeper. The Sanskrit definition may not be incorrect, but you need to also reflect upon how it should be interpreted. If you just give in to the World sincerely as it is designed then that is to follow Satan, and "truth" may not be entirely wrong, but I think "eternal truth" is not the correct definition from the Sanskrit version of Satan.
If you see my morphological Semitic breakdown of Satan you see it is to "(naively) judge the world by its appearance". If you contemplate then you see that we are not supposed to follow the "programming" of our Bodies, i.e. the instinct. The instinct is our most ardent enemy and stumbling block.
Be safe
Amenuel
