Is arabic a sent down language ?
-
Salaam
there is obviously a deep relation between quran and arabic
4144 And had We made it a AAJAMI revelation, they would have said ?If only its verses were made clear!?. AAJAMI and Arabic ?, say ?For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away.?
AAJAMI and Arabic, according to dictionnary have opposite meaning. Arabic mean clear, eloquent and Aajami quite the opposite.
41-44 quite says that it was not possible to sent down quran in another language than quran.
i will not deep into properties of arabic language. Just mention work like this https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minan-ur-Rahman
who even says that arabic is the mother of language.
the link is interesting for pointing on some caracteristics of arabic.
i am not sure that this is true. However, it is possible for me that humans invent a language from scratch.The question for me is what made arabic so eloquent ? from where arabic came ?
My main argument is however a theological one.
Bismillah can have double meabings- in the name of God (that mean that the messenger just tranmit words from his expeditor)
- with word choosen by God
that is quite the same, but not the same.
For example, if Allah inspire me the idea to tell someone to close a door. I that someone speaks in english, i would translate the idea in english word. if he speaks french, i will translate french and so on.
And even is words are not exactly choosen by Allah, i can say that i am a messenger sent by god to ask people to close doors.What i mean i that is a difference between inspiring idea and give words.
In arabic, the word wah'y (traduced by revelation) means in fact transmitting idea or knoowledge whatever is the way.for example
1910 He said ?My Lord, make for me a sign.? He said ?Your sign is that you will not speak to the people for three nights consecutively.?
1911 So he went out among his people from the temple enclosure, and he indicated (AWHA) to them that they should glorify Him at dawn and dusk.it is clear that Zacharia "make the revelation" to his people without using words.
it is possible for me that Allah give idea for the message to one of his messenger and let the messenger choose his own words. The Messenger, i think, is still a messenger since he still obeying to clear instruction from God.
For example, when i Read the Gathas Of Zoroaster (and also Issa for me), it is clear that is the messenger who is speaking and saying "I".But quran is not like that. Words seems to come from God.
And the thelogical question is How Quran can be word of God is word are invented by humans and choosen in a language invented by humans.
If Arabic is not a revealed language, we could say that Quran is not word of God.
There is a little contradiction in saying that quran is "sent down" in a language that came from down.As reader of Quran, i am really impressed by quran capacity to explain himself by both contextual usage of word and arabic roots.
Many "islamics scholars" try to explain quranic words by searching etymology in other languages like syriac, aramean, hebrew.How arabic can be "moubin" (clarifying) if we have to search etymology in other languages ? In Aajami languages ?
How quran can be clear if we have to study other languages, even dead labguages, to study it and to verify what "scholars in aajami dead language says" ?
How arabic can be "pure", without loans from external and aajami languages if it is not revealed language ?I would make a funny remark about the only bismillah found inside a sourate and not in the beginning.
2730 ?It is from Solomon, and it reads ?In the name of God, the Almighty, the Merciful??
2731 ??Do not be arrogant towards me and come to me as submitters??As i said in other threads (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607455.msg372527), i think that Saloman is a persian and Saba queen is arabian queen of Saba. So 27-31 can be understood as direct message from God to queen of Saba, with words chossen by God, to a queen undestanding the language (arabic of message).
27-30 can be then understood that Salomon was not "from arabia".Peace
-
Peace,
Thank you brother for this excellent post bravo
I strongly agree with the language of alQuraan is only used by Allah in His book. It was not a human created language and no words is borrowed from other languages in it as many believes. You made some very good points on this. MashaAllah.I believe that the book and its language both are from Allah and since Adam. And alTauraat, alInjeel, alZaboor and alFurqaan all are compiled in the same book called alQuraan.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Hello,
I speculate that Arabic is originating from when Quran was made written. Before Quran it was Aramaic, but there were very different dialects out there. However, Arabic is based on the Semitic (e.g. Aramaic) letter and root system so anyone skilled at Aramaic could easily learn Arabic and the other way around.
Both languages are "divine languages", i.e. God was involved in their implementation. And I argue no one has known Arabic for at least 1500 years if even ever no matter how bold it sounds to state it. The Arabic spoken today is a disgrace to Quran and the Semitic origin, invented by scholars who tried to interpret Quran which was a book simply "made written" based on the Aramaic root system but as a new language, as usual to mislead the hypocrites who made their own sectarian doctrine based on their imaginative interpretation.
No one has for over thousand years even bothered to try to falsify the available interpretations and the language at all and it is very easily done. Ancient lexical definitions quite easily shows different alternatives for interpretation which generates a very different rendition and the "sole letters" of 14 chapters have been added to show the clever student that Arabic has meanings all the way down to the very letter.
Basically nothing is right with the traditional classical Arabic, not even the word for 'no' which is not 'la' but 'ma'.
For your information, if you study ancient history you can quite easily see that Aramaic was spoken in most places in Arabia up until the so-called Islamic Age. Then all of a sudden Arabic became dominant. And I am sure no one at that "Quran factory" in Sana'a even knew what they were doing, they tried to make sense of what little they could decipher and even changed words where it did not make sense to them for what they were to present to the world. It shows they only tried to confirm their sectarian religion in their delusion.
The reason why (the fake) Arabic became spread was by the violent conquest by the Muslim marauders sanctioned by religious ideals.
This is something that makes me slightly annoyed actually. A fake language and no one sees it yet the real language is right underneath it telling a different story; one that is much in line with what Jesus teaches and that one is to struggle to become a "child of God" and the Body is our worst enemy by the instinctive drive (Satan) and what must be discovered is our true divine selves by the Spirit and then live a holy life.
Sorry for all you deluded people who get upset by the above text. If you only saw I actually try to help you see.
Be well
Emanuel -
Salaam Man of faith
I see no reason to say that aramaic is "divine" language.
my main theological argument is that if Allah use his words, then it should be also in his language.i have no aramaic text between my hands coming from God, with clear "words of god"
On the other hand, what is called arabic letters has nothing to do with arabic language
it is even more likely that arabic was firts written in an alphabet like this
https//sultantype.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/sultn-musnad-high.png?w=595&h=595in fact, later added diacritic points quite testimony that actual arabic alphabet didn't fit at beginning the needs of arabic language.
musnad script, in wich old arabic text was written according to brother ayman, was more adapted.my interpretation is actual arabic is inherited from the region where Nabi Muhammad emigrated and where quran was first written by scribes.
but the language is from another region.Peace
-
On the other hand, what is called arabic letters has nothing to do with arabic language
it is even more likely that arabic was firts written in an alphabet like thishttps//sultantype.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/sultn-musnad-high.png?w=595&h=595
South Arabian... yea, I think there's possibility that the original Qur'an was written in that alphabet.
I'm still not 100% sure about it, but somehow I like the South Arabian alphabet and interested to study this issue.
Peace.
-
Hello No shirk,
There are, but they are seriously distorted and misunderstood and mixed with falsehood. However, this is also the case with Arabic. Quran is not even remotely close to conveying the right message with the interpretations people have.
Arabic virtually uses the same letters as Aramaic, but it is a different language yet retaining the same letter meanings of the Semitic languages. I have heard of the South Arabian script, but the point is something is not right. Most of Arabia used Aramaic as the common language before the Islamic onslaught.
The letters you have in Arabic are thousands of years old yet the "modern" Arabic script is only about 1500-1600 years old. There is written evidence of Aramaic up to at least 3500 years ago.
For your information, the root to the word Aramaic (Aramaya) uses the same root as the one used for Maryam's name. Ramam (Ra-Miim-Miim) and means "from where foundation comes" and Arabic definitely contains Rabb in it as part of a grammatical formula and could be said to imply "gain (your) foundation with".
Aramaic is more than likely a predecessor to Arabic and uses the same roots and letter meanings albeit restructured grammar setup with other prepositions etc.
Aramaic was exposed to corruption just like Arabic and there are illegitimate offshoots such as Hebrew and dialects which chose a different meaning to what the word really should mean.
Just like with Quran if you deciphered the Bible/Torah with the real way of understanding Aramaic you would discover another message, at least if you filter all the garbage.
The way of discovering the background to the Abrahamic faith is in the letters themselves and letting those speak for themselves.
Anyway, Quran is sufficient to know the truth because it reveals what one needs to know. It has been interesting to decipher it even if I have only done about 300 verses so far on my project. It is time consuming. Yet those 300 alone reveals what you need to know. But God was very kind to release thousands of these enlightening passages.
Be safe
Emanuel -
I see no reason to say that aramaic is "divine" language.
my main theological argument is that if Allah use his words, then it should be also in his language.I agree that there isn't any such thing as "verbal language of the divine" and / or "divine language".
The Arabic language as we know today is the results of evolution from another language which mixed with another languages and the process is still continuing up until today.If "Allah" is the true God, Maintainer of the entire universes..
He doesn't need any verbal language to communicate.
Or there's a need to "write a book".In fact He doesn't need to communicate at all..
With any beings, animated or non-animated..living or dead.. within or outside of this universe.
All things moves in the exact manner as He has wished..
All are abide to His will.. -
Since there is no Quran in musnad (south arabian) script, one can only conclude south-arabia was not the milieu of the Qurans writing. The script used in the oldest preserved versions of Quran is northern-arabic. The majority of the loanwords in Quran is Syro-aramaic. All of this fits the thesis that Quran was a judeo-nazarene revelation transmitted to the arabs of Syria (Latakia region, home of the Qoreshites).
http//i.imgur.com/2YwgORC.png
These languages are not divine. They were only a platform that would make them accessible (and clear) to those they were intended for. The lingua franca for transmitting a judeo-nazarene tradition to arabs was aramaic, understood by the majority in that time. This arab language existed before Qurans revelation and existed together with the Aramaic language.
In my understanding the OP's confusion can be resolved easily. The origin of the Primo-Quran was not to Arabs, nor in an arab language. The original revelation was in Aramaic and Hebrew entirely. Judeo-nazarene priests (such as Waraqa ) translated this revelation into Arab to indoctrinate the Syrian Arabs with. As such, I do not consider Muhammad to be a prophet. Nor do I consider the Uthmanic Quran to be a good representation of the original revelation. This is perfectly illustrated by the fact there are at least two other versions of the first surah (al fatiha).
As a language Arabic is simply a branch in the semitic/phoenician language tree. There is nothing divine about it (or at least not more than any other language).
http//i.imgur.com/rOX9JSs.png
http//www.academia.edu/7684935/Aramaisms_in_the_Qur_%C4%81n_and_Their_Significance
I highly recommend above link.
Waraqah is often wrongly identified as an Ebionite. In fact he was Judeo-Nazarene (quranically referred to as nasari)
-
Salam,
The South Arabian alphabet was used primarily in the Southern edge of the Arabian Peninsula. The South Arabian alphabet proper appears around 500 BCE, and continued to be used until around 500 CE, at which time, of course, the entire Arabian Peninsula has converted to Islam and Arabized. Arabic was invented at this point of time and became the most important language. Its morphology and phonetics derived from Manichean, a language which is the prestige tongue of the Last Prophet of ALLAH, where the Original Quran was written with. 6 consonants that belongs to the Manichean script was borrowed and indoctrinated into arabic
Ethiopic is an offshoot of the South Arabian script, as shown by similarities in the forms of the letters, and in the order of the letters. This script was transported across the Red Sea to Ethiopia, where it transformed into classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez) and modern-day Amharic. This was around the 4th century CE, the era where the Jews of Arabia migrated to Ethiopia. The original morphology and phonetics of South Arabian is exactly what we hear out of the present Ethiopic. In fact, the earliest inscriptions in Ethiopia were in the South Arabian script.
Thereafter, a new feature was developed that distinguished it from South Arabian. Vowels were "written" by adding strokes to the consonant following somewhat regular patterns, but it is equally likely that the system was developed in situ especially since many other Semitic scripts were already experimenting with marking vowels.
Another feature that distinguishes Ethiopic from other Proto-Sinaitic-derived scripts is that it is written from left to right rather than right to left as in Arabic. Ethiopic originally followed the right-to-left convention of Semitic scripts, but it switched to a left-to-right direction under influence from Greco-Roman.