'Arabic' or Faultless/Pure/Eloquent/Clear Minded?
-
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.
-
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.
Yes ok, so? Kaana is the faala form and kaun would be the noun. Ibn Arabi wrote a book called 'shajaratul kaun' (disputations of being). I don't understand why you're so hung up on the infinitive here. What does this prove about the faultlessness of a language?
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".
Can you please address the question sir. Are you going to tell God, hey God, you forgot to insert 'to have' and 'quarks' and 'protons' into your book and since we humans know more now, your book must be lacking something?
My question, once again, is What does the lack of 'to have' prove?
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.
They are futile indeed if you believe al-quraan is a flawed text.
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?
What do you 'except' a snapshot ? That's one big exception. During this period, a book came down which Allah says if you bring the jinn and ins together to produce the like thereof, they cannot ,even helping each other. IRREPRODUCIBLE, says God. So lets not reduce this snapshot's importance, shall we?
However, the beauty about this book is, its medium which is Arabic can change all it likes. Even a new conceptual veil can cover its concepts but at the end of the day, when you engage the book, its true meanings can come out.
These are rhetorical questions which I don't expect you to answer. you are trying to state something that is nonsensical.
Its nonsensical to you because you don't know its language. This is by no means an aspersion to you but a statement of fact. Once you see the power of its language, you may change your mind. \
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.
Agreed. One problem though, Allah Himself told us how to percieve the language of al-quraan whereas in mathematics, terminologisation was completely arbitrary.
It is the message and not the means of expression that is faultless. The language is merely a package for the ideas.
If that's what it is to you, well what can I say? I've seen its language at work and so I'm convinced otherwise.
-
Peace be upon you,
Good debate going on here, I hope you all are keeping peaceful thoughts so this does not degrade into argument because this is helping me a lot.
I am in agreement that what is being spoken of is clear message, not the language arabic being the best language.
I think it is an error to entertain the idea of the God as some being out there that is looking down choosing a language. The God is the core of our being, it is not some object out there choosing languages.
Man, through observing the God's restrictions, achieves a level where they are inspired from within, the greatest of these men intuited the Divine Message. This human just happenned to be an arab, and since he speaks and thinks in the Arab language, the book that he writes will be Arabic. But wether arabic or not, it is only a guide to those who trust in it. No matter what language the prophets spoke, it was a clear message from the God which they wrote in thier own languages.
A lot of our trouble comes form the beief that only people in Middle East were super hero prophets instead of the understanding that it is the potential of all humans. We are being made to think that the God chooses favorites, rather than humans choosing the God and reaping the benefits of a wise choice.
-
Salaam Kyle,
All im saying is, the mark of Allah is upon the book and this shows in its language. In no way, and you know me well enough, would I say Arabic is some divine language. Al-quraan transcends this and it concepts are the complete archetypal system of mankind.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
All im saying is, the mark of Allah is upon the book and this shows in its language.
Yes, I can agree to that.
In no way, and you know me well enough, would I say Arabic is some divine language.
Good, I didnt think that you thought that but was unsure where the discussion was heading.
Al-quraan transcends this and it concepts are the complete archetypal system of mankind.
Agreed.
-
Hi Mquran,
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.
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?U mean to say God chose the Arabic language first and then a messenger from Arabia, becoz Arabic language is a perfect language?
Well, this theory does sound very absurd becoz language as such, is man made. I don?t think God chose the language first. If that was the case, why would the previous scriptures be in other languages, and not in Arabic, if Arabic is the only perfect language on earth, in which God could convey His message?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)?No, it wouldn't make sense. How do you know thats what He did though?
Well, the idea of any one wanting to convey a message to an other would be, to convey it in a way that the person receiving it, understands it clear. Whats the whole point if the people cant understand it?
If people of that time, suppose, didn?t understand complex Arabic, there?s no point conveying a message in it.
So, if message of Quran was to be conveyed, a language which the people of that place and time, understood, would have to be used.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''.
Why would Allah call to people to bring a 'sura like it' please ?
??Sura like it?? becoz the suras contain irrefutable evidence, wisdom and knowledge that no man can produce nor diasgree
-
U mean to say God chose the Arabic language first and then a messenger from Arabia, becoz Arabic language is a perfect language?
PM, can you read what I said again How do you know He didn't choose Arabic and then sent it to an Arab messenger? Evidence please
Does this sound like an assertion to you ?
Well, this theory does sound very absurd becoz language as such, is man made. I dont think God chose the language first. If that was the case, why would the previous scriptures be in other languages, and not in Arabic, if Arabic is the only perfect language on earth, in which God could convey His message?
My point is, before you make assertion about God, why not actually produce evidence from the book. So far, you speak about God without producing any evidence. I don't know how God chose Arabic. I deal with the existential evidence. The book I consider a divine book is in Arabic. I believe this book is perfect. Instead of suppositions , can you just deal with this?
Well, the idea of any one wanting to convey a message to an other would be, to convey it in a way that the person receiving it, understands it clear. Whats the whole point if the people cant understand it?
If people of that time, suppose, didnt understand complex Arabic, theres no point conveying a message in it.
So, if message of Quran was to be conveyed, a language which the people of that place and time, understood, would have to be used.Ok, well I never met people of those times so I don't know far they understood al-quraan. I only have the here and now.
Sura like it becoz the suras contain irrefutable evidence, wisdom and knowledge that no man can produce nor diasgree
How is wisdom and knowledge transmitted? Through a faulty medium?
-
Hi mquran,
U mean to say God chose the Arabic language first and then a messenger from Arabia, becoz Arabic language is a perfect language?
PM, can you read what I said again How do you know He didn't choose Arabic and then sent it to an Arab messenger? Evidence please
Does this sound like an assertion to you ?Well, If God was going to send His message through an arab messenger to the people of Arabia, God wouldn?t convey it in Chinese(say, Chinese was the perfect language), Would He?
The language had to be one that the people understood. The form of the language would also have to be one that people understood. Else, the message would not get conveyed clearly. So, its not the ?Arabic? that?s faultless, pure. Its Allah?s message which is faultless and clear and conveyed in a manner/ way the people of that time and place could understand clearly.Well, this theory does sound very absurd becoz language as such, is man made. I don?t think God chose the language first. If that was the case, why would the previous scriptures be in other languages, and not in Arabic, if Arabic is the only perfect language on earth, in which God could convey His message?
My point is, before you make assertion about God, why not actually produce evidence from the book. So far, you speak about God without producing any evidence. I don't know how God chose Arabic. I deal with the existential evidence. The book I consider a divine book is in Arabic. I believe this book is perfect. Instead of suppositions , can you just deal with this?I believe Allah?s message divine too. And to understand, why Allah didn?t choose any other language to convey a message to people of Arabia, doesn?t require any evidence but just some use of common sense. The people of that place and time could have only understood Arabic. They would not have understood Chinese or French or Italian Quran.
Well, the idea of any one wanting to convey a message to an other would be, to convey it in a way that the person receiving it, understands it clear. Whats the whole point if the people cant understand it?
If people of that time, suppose, didn?t understand complex Arabic, there?s no point conveying a message in it.
So, if message of Quran was to be conveyed, a language which the people of that place and time, understood, would have to be used.
Ok, well I never met people of those times so I don't know far they understood al-quraan. I only have the here and now.Again, common sense. U dont have to meet those people to understand something this simple.
'Sura like it?? becoz the suras contain irrefutable evidence, wisdom and knowledge that no man can produce nor diasgree
How is wisdom and knowledge transmitted? Through a faulty medium?What is a faulty medium?
A medium of communication is faulty when the message can not be adequately and exactly conveyed. So, Arabic would be a faulty medium to use, to communicate with a deaf person. Sign language would be the correct medium.
Similarly, to convey a message such as Quran in French to arab people would make it a faulty medium. That?s why Arabic was used instead. -
Peace
you all know when you talk to others in english and they don't bloody understand lol
what you tell them?
"I'm talking in clear English"
we do the same in arabic countries , oops i don't mean faultless countries, I know most arabic countries are faulty, possibly All lol
so I reckon that is what Allah was telling the pagan arabs who were ignornat and arrogant to Mohammad strongest argument "The Arabic Quran"
"I'm talking in clear Arabic"
just a thought
peace to all
-
Hi AhmedBahgat
Peace
you all know when you talk to others in english and they don't bloody understand lol
what you tell them?
"I'm talking in clear English"
we do the same in arabic countries , oops i don't mean faultless countries, I know most arabic countries are faulty, possibly All lol
so I reckon that is what Allah was telling the pagan arabs who were ignornat and arrogant to Mohammad strongest argument "The Arabic Quran"
"I'm talking in clear Arabic"
just a thought
peace to all
U r quite good at this. rotfl Loud and clear!
-
Hello peacfulmuslim
mate, I honestly believe that the above is one of reasons Allah said it many times in the Arabic Quran, while everyone can see clearly that it is an Arabic book
peace mate
-
Well, If God was going to send His message through an arab messenger to the people of Arabia, God wouldnt convey it in Chinese(say, Chinese was the perfect language), Would He?
Once again, you have failed to understand what Im trying to get at. I will repeat one more time and then lets call it a day, ok?
You said God chose an Arab messenger and therefore sent his message is in Arabic.
Im asking How do you know God didn't choose the Arabic language AND THEN chose an Arab messenger?
I don't know how God went about choosing these things. I don't deal with suppositions, I deal with existential facts.
The language had to be one that the people understood. The form of the language would also have to be one that people understood. Else, the message would not get conveyed clearly. So, its not the Arabic thats faultless, pure. Its Allahs message which is faultless and clear and conveyed in a manner/ way the people of that time and place could understand clearly.
Its not just the language, mind you. There's a potentially mental resistance to the message. Look at the democracy issue. Although its clearly not in the book, no matter what language its in, you wont accept it. So while people understood the language, they may have had a mental resistance towards the contents.
I believe Allahs message divine too. And to understand, why Allah didnt choose any other language to convey a message to people of Arabia, doesnt require any evidence but just some use of common sense. The people of that place and time could have only understood Arabic. They would not have understood Chinese or French or Italian Quran
Once again, how do you know God chose an Arab messenger first? How do you know he didn't choose Arabic AND THEN , BECAUSE OF THIS, sent to an arab messenger? I don't know either way.
Again, common sense. U dont have to meet those people to understand something this simple.
Its good that you can hide behind 'common sense' and pretend to know the unseen. I'd rather not assume anything because God tells me not to.
What is a faulty medium?
A medium of communication is faulty when the message can not be adequately and exactly conveyed. So, Arabic would be a faulty medium to use, to communicate with a deaf person. Sign language would be the correct medium.
Similarly, to convey a message such as Quran in French to arab people would make it a faulty medium. Thats why Arabic was used insteadTherein lies our difference. You think the Quran can be summed up by saying 'God is one' and logic would carry the rest. I don't believe this. I believe the Quran's as Allah says 'hikmatu baligha' so unless the language is faultless, it cannot deliver this message.
-
deleted due to repetition.
-
Hi mquran,
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.
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?
Once again, you have failed to understand what Im trying to get at. I will repeat one more time and then lets call it a day, ok?Let me repeat what u said. ??God chose the Arabic language first (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'.) and then chose an arab messenger??
So, according to u the language was chosen first and then the people who would understand the language(arab people), and among them a messenger(arab messenger). The language being the first preference and the people getting the message and messenger , being the 2 nd decssion? Is this what u r saying?
144 We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.
622 It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error
4144 Had We sent this as a Qur'an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger an Arab?" Say "It is a Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes) They are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!"
The language had to be one that the people understood. The form of the language would also have to be one that people understood. Else, the message would not get conveyed clearly. So, its not the ?Arabic? that?s faultless, pure. Its Allah?s message which is faultless and clear and conveyed in a manner/ way the people of that time and place could understand clearly.
Its not just the language, mind you. There's a potentially mental resistance to the message. Look at the democracy issue. Although its clearly not in the book, no matter what language its in, you wont accept it. So while people understood the language, they may have had a mental resistance towards the contents.
I am talking of the language here. The language should be one that?s understandable.
And as for mental resistance, certain people of those days had mental resistance(who denied the message as false). They understood it but did not believe it. but that?s not the point here.
And as for the democracy issue, am not gonna discuss it with u here. U had totally abused the thread.
I guess the difference in our views on that thread, lie coz of the fact, that to u ??all that?s mentioned in Quran is true, good and wise. Nothing else is. Any( good, righteous, wise, sensible, correct) thing that?s not specifically mentioned in Quran is false, wrong and sinful.??
To me ?? all that?s mentioned in Quran is true, good and wise. But wisdom, knowledge and truth doesn?t end there. Truth and signs of Allah are there everywhere around me, and not just in Quran. And Allah is the source of all wisdom, knowledge and truth in and out of Quran.?? Anyway, we are already discussing this in another thread. So, lets not go there.Again, common sense. U dont have to meet those people to understand something this simple.
Its good that you can hide behind 'common sense' and pretend to know the unseen. I'd rather not assume anything because God tells me not to.
I don?t hide behind ?common sense?, Its called using common sense. And that?s one of the reasons why we are the most supreme creation of Allah.
What is a faulty medium?
A medium of communication is faulty when the message can not be adequately and exactly conveyed. So, Arabic would be a faulty medium to use, to communicate with a deaf person. Sign language would be the correct medium.
Similarly, to convey a message such as Quran in French to arab people would make it a faulty medium. That?s why Arabic was used insteadTherein lies our difference. You think the Quran can be summed up by saying 'God is one' and logic would carry the rest. I don't believe this. I believe the Quran's as Allah says 'hikmatu baligha' so unless the language is faultless, it cannot deliver this message.
I?d understand ?God is one? with or without Quran. It makes sense to me. It fits into all those questions that one has about creation and creator. So, Even if there was no Quran, I would have believed ??God is one??(btw, the idea was confirmed in previous scriptures as well). Quran is a good confirmation of the same. Quran is a confirmation of the truth that people failed to see. Quran is God?s message to people, spelling out truth.
And a faulty language is one thats not understandable. Any language can be faulty if used among people who do not understand the particular language.
-
Are u playing with words here? Let me repeat what u said. God chose the Arabic language first (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'.) and then chose an arab messenger
So, according to u the language was chosen first and then the people who would understand the language(arab people), and among them a messenger(arab messenger). The language being the first preference and the people getting the message and messenger , being the 2 nd decssion? Is this what u r saying?
Just forget it please. Peace.
-
Hi Mquran,
Peace to u too! -
Peace be upon you all,
I'm glad you guys chose peace rather than go back and forth Good example.
For the record, The God does not write books, inspired men write books. Thsi inspired human was Arab and wrote in Arabic.