oldest fragments of Quran found
-
What is so ironic??? We are hear to learn from each other and not to give sarcastic and rude remarks.
As an Arab he should have known the correct interpretation of the Arabic Quran better than those who are not!
And what racist are you talking about when the Quran already labelled it. And it is a fact. In the first place do you know the history of the ME? Do you know that it was the Arabs who had done so much damage to Islam with their sectarian ideology since 1400 years ago. It was the Arabs who manupulated the Quran with their garbage language in order to cause so much confusion.
Do you know that it was the Arabs who conspired with the British and her allies in order to bring down the Othemani Chaliphate and as such divided the ME, particularly the destruction of the Palestinian people?
And fyi, the correct spelling is Al A3rabu, the alif with a shadda, so yes the correct meaning is The Arabs, well Jafar is absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong.
Btw please get your facts right before blabbering nonsense!
You're a racist and not particularly intelligent either.
First, Jafar is not an Arab. He hates Arabs.
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.
-
Apparently, Mr Gallez, "the scholar/Jerry the mouse" who proves that Quran is from Judeo-Nazarene suffers from the viral infection called Islamophobia.
It's true. I went through Gallez's links that runninglikezebras keeps peddling around everywhere on this forum. It was some of the poorest scholarship I've ever seen. I wrote up a long response some days ago, and then I stopped and thought 'why??..' This person Gallez will never in a million years be taken seriously in academia as a scholar, and it shows that runninglikezebras has absolutely zero ability to critically judge his sources. Gallez is a second rate Christian apologist and anti-Islam campaigner. There's no consistency in what he's doing, no method, no reliance on reliable sources, no citations of academics, nothing published in peer reviewed journals.
Frankly I'm astounded that the University of Strasbourg has supposedly given him a position there. Says a lot about the quality of that university.
-
sun bravo yay
Mr Gallez aka Jerry the mouse rotfl
Heeheee, that's the best description I could think of after researching on him. But my most favorite question from Mr Olaf is this
Why the Qur'an he describes the inhabitants of Mecca as fishermen and farmers? How can they grow wheat, dates, olives, grapes, pomegranates in Mecca in the desert? How can lead to pasture their herds of goats, sheep, cows and camels? How can they navigate at sea on their sail boats, and eat freshly caught fish and shellfish? (see Patricia Crone, "How About did the Pagans Quranic make a living?
http//alexoloughlinintensestudy.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/smiley-die-laughing.gif?w=40
This guy doesn't even know the map of Mecca.
http//www.ftd.travel/upload/map_image/thumbs/2013-07-10-10-16-56saudi-arabia-map.jpg
Well, of course, now he can just say "red sea" didn't exist! nope
Its a lie that more than 1200 species of fish are found in it.If I as a 10 year could grow tomatoes, corn, peppers, chickpeas and much more in Dubai then the stuffs he mentioned should be totally possible by the "adult" Meccan Arabs. Sure in red sandy desert it would be difficult, but again, there is something called oasis and near river, things like those are relatively easy.
It's true. I went through Gallez's links that runninglikezebras keeps peddling around everywhere on this forum. It was some of the poorest scholarship I've ever seen. I wrote up a long response some days ago, and then I stopped and thought 'why??..' This person Gallez will never in a million years be taken seriously in academia as a scholar, and it shows that runninglikezebras has absolutely zero ability to critically judge his sources.
Although I saw that before many times, in this case, he is just attached to the topic because he translated Mr Olaf's book into English. It doesn't matter how stupid the content is, he is going to hold onto it.
Gallez is a second rate Christian apologist and anti-Islam campaigner. There's no consistency in what he's doing, no method, no reliance on reliable sources, no citations of academics, nothing published in peer reviewed journals.
Frankly I'm astounded that the University of Strasbourg has supposedly given him a position there. Says a lot about the quality of that university.
Don't forget that Richard Dawkins is emeritus fellow of Oxford and that little Bush went to Yale. Also Islamophobia is a big business. But again, he is just one of the many clergymen on a journey to prove Islam is false while more and more Christians are choosing atheism.
-
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".
