Previous Revelations also in Arabic Language
-
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?
-
Peace,
As this contradicts the history of the word. There was no 'arab' language. Every tribe had their dialect, and was called after their tribe. There was no 'arab' tribe. Only after the Quran did the Quraish dialect became the dominant dialect, and became it a common language. Only then did the attribute, it being an errorfree speech=arab, only then did the dialect attribute become also its title. And centuries after started people calling themselves after the language. So the term arabi moved from attribute which any language could have, to become a title of the Quranic dialect and later on a title of a people.
You maybe will reject the history of the word, but this in itself is contradicting as any word has a history of where its meaning was taken from. For example you can reject jahannam coming from the ancient hebrew meaning ja=valley of hannom, and you will only accept the meaning hell. But the meaning hell also comes from history. So it depends were you stop in the acceptance of the history of the word. Jahannam coming from the valley name is the 500BC meaning, hell is the 50BC meaning. Why prefer the 50BC meaning over the 500BC meaning?
The same holds for choosing arabi as a title. In 600AD, it only meant errorfree speech and could be used for any clear dialect. In 800-900AD it became the title of the Quranic dialect, and after 1000AD it became a title for a people. Why do you choose the 800-900AD meaning and not the 600AD meaning?
-
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.You see no change in Allah's way of handling. The Quran is in a clear language, so everytime Allah chose the best dialects of countries to convey the messages.
-
Peace,
As this contradicts the history of the word. There was no 'arab' language. Every tribe had their dialect, and was called after their tribe. There was no 'arab' tribe. Only after the Quran did the Quraish dialect became the dominant dialect, and became it a common language. Only then did the attribute, it being an errorfree speech=arab, only then did the dialect attribute become also its title. And centuries after started people calling themselves after the language. So the term arabi moved from attribute which any language could have, to become a title of the Quranic dialect and later on a title of a people.
You maybe will reject the history of the word, but this in itself is contradicting as any word has a history of where its meaning was taken from. For example you can reject jahannam coming from the ancient hebrew meaning ja=valley of hannom, and you will only accept the meaning hell. But the meaning hell also comes from history. So it depends were you stop in the acceptance of the history of the word. Jahannam coming from the valley name is the 500BC meaning, hell is the 50BC meaning. Why prefer the 50BC meaning over the 500BC meaning?
The same holds for choosing arabi as a title. In 600AD, it only meant errorfree speech and could be used for any clear dialect. In 800-900AD it became the title of the Quranic dialect, and after 1000AD it became a title for a people. Why do you choose the 800-900AD meaning and not the 600AD meaning?
Of course it contradicts history, and of course I reject it. Al-kitaab has been kept hidden throughout the history you are talking about, by those from whom God had taken the covenant to disclose it to people(3187). The book of God wiped out from history, and replaced by their own versions of THE book, and their languages.
So no 'Quranic' reasons?
-
Peace,
No answer the question; who do you choose the 800-900AD meaning of the word arabi when it became a title, and not the 600AD meaning when it was a word with meaning?
-
Peace,
No answer the question; who do you choose the 800-900AD meaning of the word arabi when it became a title, and not the 600AD meaning when it was a word with meaning?
I was not present either in 800-900 AD , or in 600AD. I accept the meaning which the Quran gives me NOW. I will not be relying on man-written history to shape my understanding of Quran.