'Arabic' or Faultless/Pure/Eloquent/Clear Minded?
-
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.
-
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.