'Arabic' or Faultless/Pure/Eloquent/Clear Minded?
-
"Wa" can always mean 'and'; some translators believe it to be an 'oath' particle and translate it as "by" - however this is a side issue and another red herring.
How can it be a side issue when your argument DEPENDS on it. Your argument is only correct if 'ajami wa arabi' means 'foriegn AND distinct'!
Please explain how its a red herring.
As for 'can always mean 'and', I suppose you've not read these
2/231Wa M 'Anzala
Alaykum Mina Al-Kitbi Wa Al-ikmati Yaiukum Bihi .If 'wa' in 'al-kitaab WA al-hikmah' means 'and', why isn't it 'yaizzukum bihima' ?
8/20 If 'wa' in ''A
Allha Wa Raslahu Wa L TawallawAnhu' means 'and', why isn't it 'wa laa tawallaw anhuMA' ?I'm only going to address what is relevant to the original topic and not be bogged down in the side issues so allow me to get to the relevant part of your reply...
That's very nice of you but there are some points you omitted below which I think are relevant.
16103 again dismantles the AAarabiyan = "Arabic language" theory quite nicely.
The fact that AAarabiyan in this instance is qualified by "lisaan' which you translate appropriately as language means that in this instance the adjective AAarabiyan is referring to language and is not the name of the language itself. This is highly relevant!
So because the word 'lisaan' is there, it cannot be Arabic? So when I say 'english' you automatically take it to mean 'the english language'. I could have meant 'the english people.
The context of 16103 further proves that "AAarabiyan" means 'faultless' as already stated.
The accusation in 16103 is that a person teaches the messenger the reading - and that it is simply a parroting of that person's thoughts/speech.
The counter-argument is that the person in question is a native speaker of a foreign language, and implies therefore that the person's Arabic speech is imperfect and has faults. It cannot mean anything other than this otherwise the point is moot. If the person was a foreigner and could speak perfect Arabic then there would be no point in saying the person was foreign. It is indicating that the man in question has faulty or imperfect Arabic language skills due to his foreignness.
Thus its a proof through contradiction. Since this reading is free of faults of speech ie. it is faultless language and clear, it therefore cannot have come from the man in question.
16103 We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is foreign, and this is language that is faultless and clear.
False. The point isn't moot because since the person is foriegn, he cannot possibly be teaching the rasool the clear Arabic language. The word mubiin at the end proves this point because mubiin is an ATTRIBUTE of 'lisaanun arabiyun'. If 'lisaanun arabiyun' meant 'faultless language', then you wouldnt need to interject an 'and' in 'faultess and clear' when there isnt one. May I ask you to please desist from that because its very misleading.
Please don't lose sight of the fact that the language in question is indeed Arabic - I'm not arguing otherwise, but it's something we already know. The statement that it is "Arabic" conveys no useful information. The root meaning of 'faultless' on the other hand conveys the intended and appropriate meaning in each instance. Each of the examples we've considered fits the meaning exactly.
Arabic can be written and spoken in faulty and imperfect ways; the man in 16103 is a good example. The Arabic language itself is not faultless or imperfect but the usage and style of the language in the God's reading while obviously in Arabic, more importantly is "AAarabiyan" or faultless
.Thank you for sharing this.
Now onto the points you omitted.
-
Your translation of 'Indistinct foreign verses, and faultless?" is false. There's no foriegn verses in the actual text.
-
You have not provided evidence that FSHL means 'distinct'. Sorry but giving an english dictionaries' verdict isnt evidence in this case. We need actual quranic usage please.
-
You have not stated what 'iwaaj' means. And if means 'crooked' in a dishonest sense, can you please prove this from al-quraan.
thanks.
-
-
happy to see that you agree on the pertinence of luxenbergs theories. Proven by quran itself - and proven by philology. This makes a double proof
Sorry but I dont take it as such. If philology agrees, that's fine but irrelevant to the Quranic discourse. The quran has a set methodology of interpretation.
I don't find Luxenberg's theories pertinent but concordant. That concordance however, is irrelevant.
For those that are sure about the divine origine of quran, quran will always be enough...
It's not enough even by Quranic standards. The Quran says that signs in the horizon and in ourselves will make clear that its the ultimate truth. You can't conclude by simply reading it, you need to situate yourself in it and then find it accurately predicts our realities.
But think of all those that came to islam only because of the scientific accuracy of the quran. I say science, not history!
Well, in my opinion, this mode of arrival goes against Quranic notions. I don't know what exactly Arabs of 7th Century knew. I don't subscribe to the notion that modern science is exclusively the means to arrive at knowledge. If you've read 'Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, you'll find that that certain 'scientific realities' already was discovered but expressed in a different language. So to me, all these 'scientific accuracy' notions isnt the right way of concluding al-quraan's divine origin.
Al-quraan lays its own foundation on how to arrive at the right belief, how to apply and how to measure your application. It defines its own terms and resists any attempts at building a false conceptual foundation into its tafseer. That's why even with Sunnis corruption, we can find its correct meaning.
-
Peace mquran,
sometime i really feel you contradict yourself. For me, the fact that scientific theories concorde with what you can proove through quaran is exactly one of the signs in the horizon...
Now for sure, science is not absolute, what we think we know today might be outruled tomorrow. Many things were already know to the ancient and are "discovered" again today... so i agree on the science part.
About quran being or not being enough i don't believe one needs quran to be a muslim in god eyes.
Elke
-
How can it be a side issue when your argument DEPENDS on it. Your argument is only correct if 'ajami wa arabi' means 'foriegn AND distinct'!
Not "foreign and distinct" but "foreign and faultless".
It cannot mean "foreign AND Arabic" as you argue, as it then contradicts the premise of the koran revealed in a foreign language mentioned at the beginning of 4144. Which part of a reading in a foreign language is in Arabic? Can you appreciate the nonsense that AAarabiyan = "Arabic" entails?
I think you therefore missed the point there.
False. The point isn't moot because since the person is foriegn, he cannot possibly be teaching the rasool the clear Arabic language. The word mubiin at the end proves this point because mubiin is an ATTRIBUTE of 'lisaanun arabiyun'. If 'lisaanun arabiyun' meant 'faultless language', then you wouldnt need to interject an 'and' in 'faultess and clear' when there isnt one. May I ask you to please desist from that because its very misleading.
Your nitpicking here is clearly irrelevant since even Yusuf Ali's translation renders it...
16103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.
Would it be more acceptable to you if I rendered it more accurately as...
16103 We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is foreign, and this is faultless language, manifest.
I think your nitpicking as above shows that you are missing the understanding I am trying to relay and substituting pedantry in place of reason.
The same applies to your criticism of my elaboration regarding 4144 in a separate post which was not central to the argument and attempted to give a sense of what was being stated in the phrase rather than an accurate final translation of the whole verse. You can find that in the reply that I posted to Wakas I directed you to earlier. We can debate fussilat = distinct (differentiated/distinguished) another time.
Peace.
-
Hi all,
The God could have expressed (and in the past did) what He wanted to reveal in any other language and been just as 'systematic'. There is no superiority in the language itself.
The verse mentions the excuses of those who disbelieve - ie. that the reading was being revealed in their own tongue and they were considering it inferior perhaps to a putative text in some other tongue. And this despite the fact that they considered foreign languages to be inferior to their own - not free from fault/pure/clear etc.Very true. I completely agree with 'Truth'
About quran being or not being enough i don't believe one needs quran to be a muslim in god eyes.
very true! A righteous person who believes in one God and believes he is answerable to God, is a muslim.
-
Elkesometime i really feel you contradict yourself. For me, the fact that scientific theories concorde with what you can proove through quaran is exactly one of the signs in the horizon
Once again, you don't prove through al-quraan. The signs on the horizon do the proving of the truth of al-quraan. Furthermore, if you notice the wording is 'fil afaaq
' or in the horizons. It's not 'fil fuad' or 'fil alameen' or 'fil qalb' even. Therefore the domain of this observation is YOUR experience. I don't share your horizon or anyone elses. Like i dont share you nafs or anyone elses.Now for sure, science is not absolute, what we think we know today might be outruled tomorrow. Many things were already know to the ancient and are "discovered" again today... so i agree on the science part.
Ok.
About quran being or not being enough i don't believe one needs quran to be a muslim in god eyes.
If the truth about al-quraan comes to you and you reject it, you're not a believer. However, if the truth never hit you, then yes, you can be saved without any text.
-
Not "foreign and distinct" but "foreign and faultless".
It cannot mean "foreign AND Arabic" as you argue, as it then contradicts the premise of the koran revealed in a foreign language mentioned at the beginning of 4144. Which part of a reading in a foreign language is in Arabic? Can you appreciate the nonsense that AAarabiyan = "Arabic" entails?
I think you therefore missed the point there.
Truth, I have shown you twice now that 'wa' isn't necessarily 'and'. Since your response is to simply overlook my examples, I'm afraid its pointless to continue.
I think your nitpicking as above shows that you are missing the understanding I am trying to relay and substituting pedantry in place of reason.
Good for you. I think you deliberately fail to address points which threaten your hypothesis. Your criteria for understanding the text is different from mine so its pointless to continue. Peace.
-
Truth, I have shown you twice now that 'wa' isn't necessarily 'and'. Since your response is to simply overlook my examples, I'm afraid its pointless to continue.
If you look at the extant translations of the verses you mention then you will find that the 'wa' in those verses is indeed present in the English as 'and', and moreover is consistent.
There is no need for an exception to the rule that 'wa' means 'and' when it is plainly understandable and consistent with the meaning 'faultless' as presented.
Good for you. I think you deliberately fail to address points which threaten your hypothesis. Your criteria for understanding the text is different from mine so its pointless to continue. Peace.
I have addressed every relevant point and avoided becoming lost in discussion of side issues and red herrings not relevant to the topic.
Every verse we've discussed containing "AAarabiyan" is consistent with and supports the meaning 'faultless'. In fact it became apparent that in the case of 4144 it is necessary in order to avoid a contradictory situation given the premise.
I do not think it is pointless to continue, but I agree it's unnecessary to discuss further given that verses relevant to the topic have been addressed in detail and found to be consistent with the hypothesis.
Regards.
-
Peace All,
Oben/truth, I also tend to agree with you. Words, languages are just a vehicle for passing a message which has to be pure and clear. So this makes sense.
Elke
Peace Elke,
I remember reading about Luxenberg's theories in the Atlantic Monthly article some time ago. It was presented on some anti-Islamic sites to mock the traditionalist understanding of 'hoor'. I remember the dismay of the mockers when I replied that it was plausible and did not constitute a problem for a believer in the God.
Anyone who believes that the Arabic language is wholly independent of other languages is agenda driven. It is quite obviously in the Semitic group of languages and there is no doubt that these languages have developed organically from proto-languages or ancestors common to the languages within that family through linguistic evolution.
To believe that Arabic is somehow created out of thin air, and is independent of this process of evolution is an untenable argument.
Please see...
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Proto-Semitic_stems
Regards.
-
Anyone who believes that the Arabic language is wholly independent of other languages is agenda driven. It is quite obviously in the Semitic group of languages and there is no doubt that these languages have developed organically from proto-languages or ancestors common to the languages within that family through linguistic evolution.
To believe that Arabic is somehow created out of thin air, and is independent of this process of evolution is an untenable argument.
Therefore, if some person comes up with a theory that 'salaat' in a proto-neo-pseudo Arabic language based on stones he found in the middle east actually means dancing, you'd accept it? D
The above question was rhetorical but this isn't why would you reject it?
Phenomenologically, Arabic must have come from somewhere. But does this give any language carte blanche to launch incursions into Arabic etymologies?
-
Therefore, if some person comes up with a theory that 'salaat' in a proto-neo-pseudo Arabic language based on stones he found in the middle east actually means dancing, you'd accept it? D
The above question was rhetorical but this isn't why would you reject it?
The only fault would be to reject or accept something blindly and without study.
The nature of etymology is to look at the wider origin of words and it's a fascinating subject. By its nature however, the subject is dependent much of the time on speculation. It is also susceptible to agenda driven thought and as you rightly point out, caution is required in examining findings.
Peace.
-
The only fault would be to reject or accept something blindly and without study.
The nature of etymology is to look at the wider origin of words and it's a fascinating subject. By its nature however, the subject is dependent much of the time on speculation. It is also susceptible to agenda driven thought and as you rightly point out, caution is required in examining findings.
That's why, in my view, al-quraan rejects the linguistic free-for-all by pegging its language to Arabic. I know you disagree and that's fine, but if you'll allow me to say so, when Al-quraan does this, the most powerful concepts i've ever seen emerge. This is why to me, it was expedient for certain people to mask original Arabic etymologies in hebrew and other languages to the point that even Parwez himself relied on these sources! To me, that was agenda driven.
I'm very cautious of 'modern science' and 'modern epistemologies'. Anything beyond al-quraan to me is beyond absolutes.
-
Peace mquran
You wrote
Once again, you don't prove through al-quraan. The signs on the horizon do the proving of the truth of al-quraanAgreed, my wording was unappropiate, but i do confirm. Lets put it otherwise
Scientific facts concording with what is stated in quaran is one of the signs in the horizon...LK
-
Peace be upon you,
A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;(41/3)
The universal law (al kitaab) , its signs are explained in detail, a clear reading for people who understand.
It is the universe that we are reading, not a physical book that comes and goes, that was not always around. These physical books are human attempts to explain life which become idolized and cause seperation. So we are told to trust in what descended upon us and those before us.
So if we disconnect the word "quran" with THIS particular book called "koran", things will become more clear.
-
Peace all,
I'm putting this up separately even though it was stimulated by a reply to a different post.
122 We have revealed it an Arabic Quran, that you may understand.
It is blindingly obvious that the reading is in the Arabic script and language; whether the text mentions it or not.
However this should arouse another question. Why would this word "AAarabiyan" then mean Arabic when it is absolutely obvious that it is.
The reason should be clear if it isn't already.
It's because the meaning of "AAarabiyan" does not mean Arabic the language but rather related to the root meaning 'Aruba Ain-Ra-Ba
To express one's mind clearly, to be pure and free of faults, eloquence, pure .
It is a description not of which language it is in, but its quality as the surrounding statements always highlight. It is obvious what language it is - it would be pointless me saying that this post is in the English language - would it not?
122 We have revealed it a faultless Quran, that you may understand.
Peace.
Hello bro
I disagree
it was mentioned in the Quran numerous times to highlight the language miracle used in the Quran that it is arabic
I can show you a language that you will think it is arabic but in fact it is not
hence not anyone who will look at the arabic will think it is arabic, but this is not the issue, because the purpose was to highlight its arabic miracle "not arabic language" as it was challenging the pagan arab at the time to write three letters like it
this is not a discrimination by Allah for choosing arabic and not other languages because the previous messages were sent in different languages
peace
-
Hello all
now this is the most wild insight I have ever read
which is "Arabi" means "Faultless"
well according to the above logic, any arabic word then can mean anything as the interpetor wishs
this is a huge flaw and blow in understanding the arabic language
I might go back to school and learn arabic again, I was deceived for bloody 40 years since i was born lol
peace
-
Hello all
now this is the most wild insight I have ever read
which is "Arabi" means "Faultless"
well according to the above logic, any arabic word then can mean anything as the interpetor wishs
this is a huge flaw and blow in understanding the arabic language
I might go back to school and learn arabic again, I was deceived for bloody 40 years since i was born lol
peace
Peace Ahmed,
To find an insight to be challenging conventional wisdom does not automatically make it wrong or open to ridicule.
I've presented consistent arguments which show that this original root meaning is what is meant in the reading. It's not an invented meaning - it is inherent in the root.
In fact on Wikipedia I found the following interesting paragraph...
One meaning of the word Arab in Arabic is clear; clear as in comprehensible rather than as in pure. Bedouin elders still use this term with the same meaning; those whose speech they comprehend (ie Arabic-speakers) they call Arab, and those whose speech is of unknown meaning to them, they call Ajam (ajam or ajami). This is similar to how the ancient Greeks used the term Barbarian to desribe non-Greeks - Barbarian essentially meant that when they spoke their speech sounded like "Bar Bar Bar", ie. incomprehensible. In the Persian Gulf region, the term Ajam is often used to refer to the Persians.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab
So the comprehensibility - ie. faultless speech = Arab; and speech that is faulty or unintelligible is Ajam.
So even this present usage supports the meaning that I have presented.
Peace.
-
Peace truth
I'm sorry truth as I can't help it bro, what you said about the meaning of "Arabic" is very ridicules, it just does not make sense whatsoever and has no merit indeed
Sorry that was my honest opinion
also this root lock up way of knowing the meaning of the Quran is not an accurate way it is just there to help the non arabic speakers who will always look for word by word, not the context of a sentense
now I know that an arabic person is called "Aarabi" and was called as such in the Quran, would the make him Faultless? or perfect?, you see it does not make sense whatsoever, sorry
peace
-
Peace truth
I'm sorry truth as I can't help it bro, what you said about the meaning of "Arabic" is very ridicules, it just does not make sense whatsoever and has no merit indeed
Sorry that was my honest opinion
also this root lock up way of knowing the meaning of the Quran is not an accurate way it is just there to help the non arabic speakers who will always look for word by word, not the context of a sentense
now I know that an arabic person is called "Aarabi" and was called as such in the Quran, would the make him Faultless? or perfect?, you see it does not make sense whatsoever, sorry
peace
The 'people' when referred to are "al-aAArabi"; always with the article see 999,101,120 - 3320 - 4811 - 4816 - 4914.
The root meaning for the word does in fact imply faultless - but as you can see from above the Bedouins classified "Arab" as referring to someone whose speech was fully intelligible - faultless to them. The term is applied based on the speech; expression of language.
Keep in mind the following...
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer - German philosopher (1788 - 1860)Peace.
-
Peace brother Oben,
The 'people' when referred to are "al-aAArabi"; always with the article see 999,101,120 - 3320 - 4811 - 4816 - 4914.
The root meaning for the word does in fact imply faultless - but as you can see from above the Bedouins classified "Arab" as referring to someone whose speech was fully intelligible - faultless to them. The term is applied based on the speech; expression of language.
I agree that one of the meanings could be "faultless" (also could be loving?/romantic?) or something similar as per 5637.
However, when one considers that the word "3arabi" is attached to "lisan", which I see that you take as language, then the description of "faultless" doesn't make any sense. Although the message of the great reading is "faultless", the language of the great reading has strengths and weaknesses like any human language. This is one of the amazing things about the great reading.
The language existed before the great reading was revealed and this is well documented in physical epigraphical evidence. The God took this existing imperfect human language and composed a faultless powerful message whose style and substance cannot be immitated.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman