Previous Revelations also in Arabic Language
-
God's plan does involve arabic, as well as the language of the people. The book in arabic, and the messenger in the language of the people to clarify for them.
There are two places where I think your argument falls apart logically.
- The messengers and the message are not different. They are one and the same. The message comes from the messenger.
The rasool/messenger and the kitab/book are not the same.
The quran is in arabic because the messenger was in arabia. If he was in Europe, it would've been in Latin or German or Italian.
Why don't you address the verses in my original article and show me how the book would have been in any other language.
God didn't create a special language and then send special messengers to explain it to them. That seems quite ridiculous.
Now you are calling the Quran ridiculous. If you want to prove that you are only calling my understanding ridiculous, then address my original article point by point, and show me that my understanding is different than what the Quran is saying.
And if that were true, you shouldn't be trying to understand the Quran since only a messenger has that ability.
Where does the Quran say that? The messenger is sent to clarify for those who speak a different language. Not for those who can already understand it.
And so you have to follow the hadith because that's where you'll find the messenger's explanations...
LOL! THIS is what you've learned on this forum so far?! Parrots are better learners than phoenixes, no doubt, hehe. But phoenixes don't exist right? Maybe you don't exist either! Maybe you're a spam bot!
I think the forum moderators should take notice.
-
'that people living outside arabia cannot understand a book based on 2000 words. That people outside arabia can go to schools, colleges, universities, they can master subjects and many languages at once, but they cannot understand the Quran, a small,resembling and repeating book. God is unfair to the non-arabic people that He revealed an arabic book which contains double the size of a parrot's vocabulary!'
Exactly. Thank you.
But just one thing I would fix in that. Not all people can afford to go to colleges and universities just to learn a foreign language. Not only that, not all colleges and universities teach arabic.One does not need colleges and universities to understand the Quranic Arabic. The time people spend daily to recite the Quran without understanding a word of it and other useless stuff, if they spend a small part of that time to understand the Quran, they can.
Unless they are parrots. Parrots haven't exceeded 1000 words yet, i think? But they will overtake you if you don't keep up with them. So watch your back.
How many members, out of the 1500, actually have a good understanding of arabic? good enough that they don't have to rely on others to understand it? You are delusional if you think memorizing 2000 words will instantly make you a scholar in classical arabic. Sorry, but it's not that simple.
You don't have to sit down and memorize every word. The Quran has been made easy to remember because it is a book that resembles and repeats itself. Like I said, it does not get easier than that.
-
Like I told you before, you are on the wrong forum. The Quran is the fact.
No, the Quran is not the fact. We are studying, examining, and criticizing the quran. We are not blindly believing everything we think it says.
I have already done my examining. If you want to examine and criticize the Quran, restrict yourself to the 'Quran Divinity' section.
The Quran might be fact, but what you think it says doesn't have to be.
You have to show me why the Quran is not saying what I think it says.
Also, you can't deny proven FACTS just because you think the quran says something else. Maybe something we havn't proven yet you can deny. But to ignore the truth just because it doesn't go along with your understanding is, well, ignorant. If your interpretation goes along with facts and logic, then fine. But so far, you've been avoiding those questions.
I have already shown you your twisted logic and facts.
This your reality, your logic and your facts.
Yes, that's my reality since I have verified it. What is your reality? that God created a special language, then created special people who understand that message, then spread the same book in seperate places in different times.
No special people. Just normal people who will feel ashamed if the parrots beat them to it.
If that is reality, where is your evidence? Why aren't there more arabic scriptures?
The Quran is the evidence. If you do not accept the Quran is the evidence, that is your problem.
Why didn't God just preserve the first one?
He does as He wills.
If only messengers could understand the language, why are you even trying?
Who said that only messengers could understand the language?
-
Why can't God just give the people His message in their language? is that too hard for him?
The message IS given in their own language through the messenger, I have told you before too. Can't you even understand simple english(not Simple english) too?!
Why do we have the same message as in the quran in different books in different languages if God's message can only be explained in one pure language?
God's message CAN be explained in different languages! That is what the messengers do!
I think the rumors are true. You ARE a spam bot.
Why does the quran contain stories from other scriptures that were in different languages? why does the quran have words from other languages like jahannum and the messenger's names?
Unless you can answer those questions, your theory isn't even a theory.
)It does not contain stories from other scriptures! Or are you saying that the Quran has been copied from other scriptures?!
-
No. What should end the debate on the spot are verses of the Quran. But some people on this forum just don't accept the Quran as the authority.
peace
I'm not actually debating the Quran (not on this thread at least). I'm debating your understanding of it.Here is my understanding http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/previous-revelations-were-also-in-arabic-language/ .
Debate the verses I have quoted in my article. Show me how my understanding of those verses is incorrect.
The verses of the Quran are not a good starting point for learning or understanding something, because they are open to debate. What the verses say to you, they might not say to someone else.
Tell me what these verses say to you http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/previous-revelations-were-also-in-arabic-language/
Samia doesn't agree with your understanding of arabic.
I have replied to sister Samia. She has not replied yet about whether she disagrees or not.
And to make sure that we are following a good understanding of the verses is to make sure our understanding goes along with facts and logic.
Your "facts" and "logic"!
-
peace Fahad.
No, I am not a spam bot. Although that would be an interesting profession (I still wouldn't be a "bot" though).
Anyway, I won't get into debating the verses too much, because as I said, my arabic knowledge is very limited.
I think that Al-kitab is the universe. It is the source of every kind of knowledge and scripture. The universe contains all of God's signs (ayahs). That's how I see it. All the scriptures, written in whatever language, have knowledge already contained in this universe.
I never really thought much about the Quran being in arabic. I'm not saying it's not in arabic. I think that it's logical that the quran is in arabic because it was written in an area where arabic was spoken. If it was in any other language, people wouldn't understand it.
I will wait for Samia (or someone else) to respond and give their thoughts before I reach an understanding.But the main argument I have against what you are saying is that your understanding doesn't go along well with logic. And niether do we have any evidence that there were previous scriptures in the arabic language.
It does not contain stories from other scriptures! Or are you saying that the Quran has been copied from other scriptures?!
Yes it does! it contains stories from ancient Egypt. The same stories are there in the Bible and Jewish scriptures. I'm not saying the Quran was copied, but I'm saying that these stories can be told in languages other than arabic.
The Quran is the evidence. If you do not accept the Quran is the evidence, that is your problem.
As I said, the Quran says different things to different people. Simple thinks your understanding is wrong. So to make sure we have the right understanding, we need to set it against established facts and truths to verify it.
He does as He wills.
This answer has been used to support a lot very ridiculous claims. So it's not good enough for me.
Who said that only messengers could understand the language?
That's what you're saying, right?
If an arabic book was "revealed" in Denmark, and a messenger was sent with it to explain the book, wouldn't he be the only one (or one of the very few, unless the quran's message is special) to understand that language?I have nothing against you, Fahad. And I applaud your efforts in trying to understand the Quran yourself. But I've found that what you are saying has a few logical fallacies that have to be resolved, and you need at least some archeological evidence to prove your point.
I will take a look at the verses and see if I find anything fishy.
peace. -
Peace Fahad
If your theory is correct any of the people who received previous revelation can not be called "People of the Book". Since the books were not in their language they would have to rely on the Messengers verbal instructions or written down accounts of messengers instructions like Hadeeth. And those people can not be accountable for changing the book they received since the book was in a language they did not understand.
Please clarify.
-
Peace Fahad
If your theory is correct any of the people who received previous revelation can not be called "People of the Book".
Ahlal Kitab are not the people of "previous scriptures".
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7069.0
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6787.0
Since the books were not in their language they would have to rely on the Messengers verbal instructions or written down accounts of messengers instructions like Hadeeth.
The clarifications/explanations that the messenger gives are from the Quran, not additional details.
And those people can not be accountable for changing the book they received since the book was in a language they did not understand.
Please clarify.
They did not change the book they received from Allah. Quran does not support this idea.
-
peace Fahad.
No, I am not a spam bot. Although that would be an interesting profession (I still wouldn't be a "bot" though).Got you here! http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7115.msg107324#msg107324
Anyway, I won't get into debating the verses too much, because as I said, my arabic knowledge is very limited.
I have translated them. You can compare it with the translators you trust.
I think that Al-kitab is the universe. It is the source of every kind of knowledge and scripture. The universe contains all of God's signs (ayahs). That's how I see it. All the scriptures, written in whatever language, have knowledge already contained in this universe.
What al-kitab is , can be discussed here http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7069.0
I never really thought much about the Quran being in arabic.
What is there to think about the Quran being in arabic?
I'm not saying it's not in arabic. I think that it's logical that the quran is in arabic because it was written in an area where arabic was spoken. If it was in any other language, people wouldn't understand it.
I live in an area where people speak urdu. It does not mean that I cannot understand any other language.
I will wait for Samia (or someone else) to respond and give their thoughts before I reach an understanding.
Ok.
But the main argument I have against what you are saying is that your understanding doesn't go along well with logic.
Your "logic" does not go well with logic.
And niether do we have any evidence that there were previous scriptures in the arabic language.
My article is not about extra-Quranic evidence. My article is about what the Quran says about the topic. And whether you find external evidence or not, it will not change what the Quran is saying.
It does not contain stories from other scriptures! Or are you saying that the Quran has been copied from other scriptures?!
Yes it does! it contains stories from ancient Egypt. The same stories are there in the Bible and Jewish scriptures. I'm not saying the Quran was copied, but I'm saying that these stories can be told in languages other than arabic.
The stories in the bible and jewish scriptures have been copied from al-kitaab.
The Quran is the evidence. If you do not accept the Quran is the evidence, that is your problem.
As I said, the Quran says different things to different people. Simple thinks your understanding is wrong.
I don't think Simple thinks twice before posting. He is still insisting that the Quran is not in Arabic language! He deletes his post every few days. AND he relies on any ten men picked randomly from any street to decide his understanding for him.
So don't rely on him.
Who said that only messengers could understand the language?
If an arabic book was "revealed" in Denmark, and a messenger was sent with it to explain the book, wouldn't he be the only one (or one of the very few, unless the quran's message is special) to understand that language?
He does not have to be the only one. Can't people understand arabic in Denmark?
I have nothing against you, Fahad. And I applaud your efforts in trying to understand the Quran yourself. But I've found that what you are saying has a few logical fallacies that have to be resolved, and you need at least some archeological evidence to prove your point.
Archaeological evidence will not change what the Quran is saying. What the Quran says, is what my article is about.
I will take a look at the verses and see if I find anything fishy.
peace.I am waiting.
Peace.
-
Salaams Fahad,+
to translate word-to-word. Because thats impossible. I have told you this before too.
So you agree to translate something from one language into another will never be faultless , that it will always be somewhat corrupted?
And isn?t Allah talking about that in here.
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say, "Thou art but a FORGER?????..
Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy lord???
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.
When a foreigner tries to teach a story to you ,so you may translate it and re-tell it in your language would it be easy to get the entire message across or would there be faults in the new story in the other language?
And isn?t that what the above ayah?s are talking about?
Telling the unbelievers that it is a revelation from the lord and not a forgery of revelation from another language?26192 this revelation / what is sent has come from Allah.
26195 In a Arabic language uncorrupted.
26 196 It is in the books of former peoples.26196 is talking about the knowledge/the revelation which came to other messengers aswell ?It is in the books of former peoples
-
peace Fahad,
OK, I understand what you are saying.
But let me clear something up, although can speak more than one language (because of you have modern resources such as schools, books, internet), people thousands of years ago couldn't. The world was a lot larger than it is now. People just didn't have the resources to learn a different language even if they wanted to.
The world of previous civilizations isn't the same as today.
I still have to take a look at the verses. -
peace Fahad,
OK, I understand what you are saying.
But let me clear something up, although can speak more than one language (because of you have modern resources such as schools, books, internet), people thousands of years ago couldn't.The world was a lot larger than it is now. People just didn't have the resources to learn a different language even if they wanted to.
The world of previous civilizations isn't the same as today.-
It does not change what the Quran is saying.
-
Even back then, people could even understand the bird speech(2716), let alone foreign languages(16103).
-
For those who cannot understand, the messenger is sent to clarify.
I still have to take a look at the verses.
Ok.
-
-
Salaams Fahad,+
to translate word-to-word. Because thats impossible. I have told you this before too.
So you agree to translate something from one language into another will never be faultless , that it will always be somewhat corrupted?
Quran's translations can have many faults, yes. But Quran's EXPLANATION can be faultless.
And isn?t Allah talking about that in here.
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say, "Thou art but a FORGER?????..
Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy lord???
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.
When a foreigner tries to teach a story to you ,so you may translate it and re-tell it in your language would it be easy to get the entire message across or would there be faults in the new story in the other language?
And isn?t that what the above ayah?s are talking about?
Telling the unbelievers that it is a revelation from the lord and not a forgery of revelation from another language?I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. The Quran does not approve of the unbelievers' saying that the Quran is taught by that man.
26192 this revelation / what is sent has come from Allah.
26195 In a Arabic language uncorrupted.
26 196 It is in the books of former peoples.26196 is talking about the knowledge/the revelation which came to other messengers aswell ?It is in the books of former peoples
The revelation is 'WITH the clear arabic language/ BI lisaanin arabiyin mubeen'. So it is also talking about the language.
-
Peace,
Arabi means clear language, it did NOT refer to a specific language but to the quality of it. The term arabic language is very misleading as it is not the title of a specific language, but only refers to the quality of it. In the Hijaiz, what we now call Arabia, you had different tribes who spoke different dialects, and every dialect had the title of their tribe. And the most excellent of these dialects were called Arabi because they were so clear and pure in speech and understanding.
So this whole thread is based on a mistake on the meaning of the word Arabi.
Ayn-Ra-Ba=Clear/plain/distinct speech free from error/incorrectness
So for example, it should be translated as such
26192 this revelation / what is sent has come from Allah.
26195 In a distinct and errorfree language uncorrupted.
26 196 It is in the books of former peoples.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 errorfree speech, pure and clear.
-
Peace,
Arabi means clear language, it did NOT refer to a specific language but to the quality of it. The term arabic language is very misleading as it is not the title of a specific language, but only refers to the quality of it. In the Hijaiz, what we now call Arabia, you had different tribes who spoke different dialects, and every dialect had the title of their tribe. And the most excellent of these dialects were called Arabi because they were so clear and pure in speech and understanding.
So this whole thread is based on a mistake on the meaning of the word Arabi.
Ayn-Ra-Ba=Clear/plain/distinct speech free from error/incorrectness
So for example, it should be translated as such
26192 this revelation / what is sent has come from Allah.
26195 In a distinct and errorfree language uncorrupted.
26 196 It is in the books of former peoples.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 errorfree speech, pure and clear.
Peace.
EVEN IF the word "arabi" means "clear", the word will still be referring to the language used in the Quran, the same language which was used with the previous messengers.
So it will not change anything at all.
-
Peace,
Yes, but it doesn't refer at all, that the same kind of language was used. Only the same qualities were shared by the languages, but not the same kind of words, tones and so on. The languages were all clear, errorfree, distinct. But it doesn't refer at all that they all used 'bayt' for 'house', or 'saum' for 'selfrestraint'.
Sharing qualities in the qualities is not the same as having the same exact words for things.
-
Peace,
Yes, but it doesn't refer at all, that the same kind of language was used. Only the same qualities were shared by the languages, but not the same kind of words, tones and so on. The languages were all clear, errorfree, distinct.
Quran only calls its own language "mubeen/clear" and "error-free", and not other languages. The same quality is not shared by other languages.
So yes, the same language was used.
-
Peace,
Yes i have read it, and like i said, it because you approach the word 'arabi' as a title and not as a description. The Quran, which is part of Al-Kitab, as all Revelations were and are part of Al-Kitab, is revealed in a clear and errorfree=arab speech. And all Revelations were revealed in an errorfree clear speech.
-
Peace,
Yes i have read it, and like i said, it because you approach the word 'arabi' as a title and not as a description. The Quran, which is part of Al-Kitab, as all Revelations were and are part of Al-Kitab, is revealed in a clear and errorfree=arab speech. And all Revelations were revealed in an errorfree clear speech.
Why should I not approach 'arabi' as a title, when I can clearly see that the language of the Quran is Arabic? Any reasons?