'Arabic' or Faultless/Pure/Eloquent/Clear Minded?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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)? -
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.
-
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)? -
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'.
-
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 ?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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'' -
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.
-
God is capable of conveying His clear message, in a clear manner in any language.
Capable, yes.
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)
Assumption. How do you know He didn't choose Arabic and then sent it to an Arab messenger? Evidence please.
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.
No, I wouldnt say 'only because'. Quranic Arabic also has elements such as nouns, verbs, pronouns etc. These elements could be used to ascertain what the perfect human language could be like.
It doesnt make the language 'arabic' holy, faultless or pure.
Lets leave the word 'holy' out of this. Im not referring to standard Arabic spoken in the world. Im speaking of Quranic Arabic. Thats what I believe to be faultless.
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''Agreed. If the Quran came down in English, I would say Quranic English contains the best linguistic system we can ever come up with.
-
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".
Come off it, man )
You didn't once mention any infinitive.The fact of the matter is, you don't know the language (your 'fautless and foriegn' debacle proves that). Not knowing the language isnt an issue in itself but when you start claiming its 'lacks' , then the false allegations emerge.
How about the infinitive of the verb "to Have" in Arabic?
I don't know the equivalent, I'm afraid but I'd like to ask you, what is your criteria to determine that a language is 'faulty' when it doesn't have this verb?
-
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)
Assumption. How do you know He didn't choose Arabic and then sent it to an Arab messenger? Evidence please.
U got it wrong. I meant God choose the language of arabic to convey Quran becoz He was conveying through Prophet Mohammed to the people of arabia who understood arabic.
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.
No, I wouldnt say 'only because'. Quranic Arabic also has elements such as nouns, verbs, pronouns etc. These elements could be used to ascertain what the perfect human language could be like.
ok, say God created Quran in arabic with the best use of the language,
would it make sense to the people who recieve it, if they didnt undertand the complex use of the language(with all the syntax, diction etc)?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''Agreed. If the Quran came down in English, I would say Quranic English contains the best linguistic system we can ever come up with.
If Quran came down in English, it would be in the kind of english which is clear, and easily conveys the message, that needs to be conveyed to the people recieving it. The idea being ''to convey the message so that people understand'' and not ''to create the best English(the language) book ever''.
So, Quran is impure, clear and faultless becoz of ''Allah and His message'' and not ''arabic''
-
U got it wrong. I meant God choose the language of arabic to convey Quran becoz He was conveying through Prophet Mohammed to the people of arabia who understood arabic.
Imagine God is looking down on us from the sky. He thinks to himself 'ah, we should send a new message now' and sees the Arabic language and thinks 'aha, thats a good language to use and show how perfect it can be'. How do u know this wasn't the case?
All im saying is, dont assume what its in God's mind. Let Him speak for Himself about Himself.
ok, say God created Quran in arabic with the best use of the language,
would it make sense to the people who recieve it, if they didnt undertand the complex use of the language(with all the syntax, diction etc)?No, it wouldn't make sense. How do you know thats what He did though?
If Quran came down in English, it would be in the kind of english which is clear, and easily conveys the message, that needs to be conveyed to the people recieving it. The idea being ''to convey the message so that people understand'' and not ''to create the best English(the language) book ever''.
Why would Allah call to people to bring a 'sura like it' please ?
So, Quran is impure, clear and faultless becoz of ''Allah and His message'' and not ''arabic''
Once again, agreed.
-
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?
well, if the words meant to be a miracle in addition to the guidance then it depends on the limitations that Allah has put into that language
in any language, the Quran will be faultless but will its Igaz will be limited to the structure of that language that was created by Allah
peace
-
Peace,
Come off it, man
You didn't once mention any infinitive.The fact of the matter is, you don't know the language (your 'fautless and foriegn' debacle proves that). Not knowing the language isnt an issue in itself but when you start claiming its 'lacks' , then the false allegations emerge.
In English when we write "to <blah>" that is called the infinitive of the verb.
Not only does Arabic lack the present tense of the verb "to be" it actually lacks infinitive verbs altogether.
How about the infinitive of the verb "to Have" in Arabic?
I don't know the equivalent, I'm afraid but I'd like to ask you, what is your criteria to determine that a language is 'faulty' when it doesn't have this verb?
In this case there is no equivalent at all. Not only is there not an infinitive, there actually is no verb "to have" at all in Arabic.
The concept of "to have" is formed through a "kludge".
Translation to languages without an infinitive
In languages without an infinitive, the infinitive is translated either as a that-clause or as a verbal noun. For example, in Literary Arabic the phrase "I want to write a book" is translated as either ur?du an aktuba kit?ban (literally "I want that I should write a book", with a verb in the subjunctive) or ur?du kit?bata kit?bin (literally "I want the writing of a book", with the masdar or verbal noun), and in Demotic Arabic biddi aktob ikt?b (subordinate clause with verb in subjunctive).
From wikipedia.
These are not 'faults' in the language itself. I asked you above what you meant by a 'fault' in a language or what a 'faultless' language was even though you believe that Arabic is one. Though I think that discussion along those lines is futile.
Regards.
-
Peace,
Im not referring to standard Arabic spoken in the world. Im speaking of Quranic Arabic. Thats what I believe to be faultless.
What is "Quranic Arabic" except a snapshot of the evolution of that language at a certain point in time?
Why is that snapshot any better than at any other time before or after, or better than any other language?
These are rhetorical questions which I don't expect you to answer. you are trying to state something that is nonsensical.
I'll tell you why in case you are wondering what I mean. And you have missed this point throughout.
For example, in mathematics, there is a set of symbols used to express ideas - this is a language in a sense. Instead of the usual symbols and expressions you can frame it up in quite a different way and use alternate symbols etc. but the ideas and message are the same. There are universal truths that transcend the labels one uses.
It is the message and not the means of expression that is faultless. The language is merely a package for the ideas.
I hope you understand now.