Previous Revelations also in Arabic Language
-
Peace,
The problem is, that language is stuck to history. You cannot avoid that. But because of this discussion is started to read more on classic aramaic and indeed it influenced english a lot. Also some traced ALL languages of the world bakc to one single language spoken around 15.000BC. The problem here only is that you pick and choose history when you want. But like i said, i'm open to your idea when i see more proof. It is interresting to see what Shabbir says about this
26195 (In a language that is clear and easy to understand.) In the plain Arabic tongue.
(Universality of the Message 7158, 251. Ishmael, Hud, Saleh, Shoaib, all of them preached in the Arabian Peninsula. And since Aramaic and Hebrew are ancient Arabic dialects, all the Hebrew Prophets, in this sense, conveyed the Divine Message in the Arabic tongue). -
Peace,
The problem is, that language is stuck to history. You cannot avoid that. But because of this discussion is started to read more on classic aramaic and indeed it influenced english a lot. Also some traced ALL languages of the world bakc to one single language spoken around 15.000BC.
Well, you asked for traces of Arabic in English, and I showed you just that.
The problem here only is that you pick and choose history when you want. But like i said, i'm open to your idea when i see more proof.
Historical proof? I'll let you know if and when I come across it.
-
This is a common style in Arabic and in the quran. I explained it in this thread earlier with examples from the quran (page 2 of this thread)
And I explained on that same page why there are two Arabics, one with crookedness and one without it, and how the Quran confirms it and uses the one without crookedness.
verse4144
Before I attempt to explain this verse, I will just try to explain briefly how I understand AlKitab and Al Quran, and how they are related to each other.AlKitab is the book of laws and our social affairs. There is nothing miraculous about it and is easier to corrupt.
Evidence?
AlQuran, on the other hand, is the book of creation and all that relates to the universe, plus the stories of previous nations and prophets/messengers (thus it can explain history of the world).
Ok.
The way The Book (which we generally call Al Quran) is displayed is that we find in each chapter verses from the quran and verses from alkitab.
What do you mean by "The Book" here? "Al kitaab" or "al quraan"?
And are you saying that some parts of the Quran are "al kitab" and others are "al quraan"?
This is what 1037 is about"and this quran is not such as could ever be produced by other than God, but it is a credential to what is in fron t of it and a seperation of the alkitab, wherein there is no doubt, from God"
Also 413 " a book whose verses are separated in a clear quran"Well, I have explained in my previous posts why the word "arabi" does not mean "clear" or any similar meaning.
So, the quran is the miraculous part of The Book and works as a separator between the verses of AlKitab
Although both are in clear language, it was al quran which made disbelievers say it was magic. Why? because it was in clear language, yet they could not understand it (for their limited knowledge), just as some one would read a book in medicine but would not understand it
4330-31 " and when the Truth (alquran) came to them, say said This is magic and we disbelieve in it. And they said why this alquran is not sent down to some great man of the two villages/ lands (Persia and Rome)?"
The reason why people call the Truth "magic" is that they study the Truth by relying on man-written books(which include the Hadiths, Bibles, and the history books)
34/43 And when Our clear verses are recited over them, they say ?what is this except a man who intends to oppose about what your ancestors served?. And they say ?What is this except invented falsehood?. And those who reject say for al-haqq/the truth, when it comes to them, ?if this is (nothing) except a clear magic?.
34/44 And We did NOT give them the books from which they have been studying it(al-haqq/the truth)?
Now verse 4144
"and if we made it an unncomprehensible quran, they would say why not seperate its verses? (i.e put the quran verses together and alkitab verses together). How come Plain/straight and uncomprehensible?"
The verse can only be talking of either al-quran or al-kitab. Not both of them.
-
Peace all,
http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/previous-revelations-were-also-in-arabic-language/
The real motivation of the ignorance that the article in the above link spews is defending the following illogical late Abbasid era idea (I quote from the article)
Since Allah's Book is eternal and permanent, its language is Ummul alsinah (mother of all the languages).
The idea that the great reading ("quran" is eternal and uncreated was invented during the period of decay of the Abbasid Empire. It was the main contention point between the Hanbalee sect and the Muatazila. In the late 9th century CE, after several years of back and forth fighting, the idea took hold after the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mutawakil (first Caliph to be murdered by his bodyguards) embraced the Hanbalee Ahl Al-Hadith dogma and declared the "uncreated quran" doctrine as official creed. Anti-rationalist inquisitions ensued and the decline of the Empire accelerated.
Of course in the mind of the ignorant Abbasid era anti-rationalist, if the great reading was eternal and uncreated then its language too must be eternal and uncreated. It is ironic that now this anti-rationalist Abbasid era idea is presented under a thin veil of rationalism in what seems like an attempt to repackage it for a modern audience.
In reality such preposterous idea demonstrates nothing but ignorance of the history of the language and ignorance of the great reading itself.
For example, in the great reading passage 712 we hear iblis saying "I am better than him, you created me from fire and created him from mud". Since this is part of the great reading, according to the anti-rationalist doctrine, the speech of iblis is also "eternal and uncreated". Similarly, there are many passages in the great reading that quote the rejecters, the descendants of Israel and other people. The implication of the idea of the "eternal and uncreated quran" is that their speech too is "eternal and uncreated".
The real motivation of the anti-rationalists was to make an idol out of the great reading. This is because when people idolize something, they stop thinking about it rationally.
In terms of ignorance of history, saying that Classical Arabic is "eternal and permanent" is as ridiculous as saying that Modern English is "eternal and permanent". In the same way that English descended from other languages, Classical Arabic too descended from other languages. In fact, compared to other Semitic languages, Arabic is relatively new to the scene. It descended from a much older language called Safaitic and thus the first Old Arabic inscriptions do not appear until the 1st century BCE. For several centuries, specifically until the 4th century CE, we see that inscriptions show Arabic features mixed with features from Safaitic and other Southern Semitic languages. It is not until the Namara inscription that is dated to 328CE that we see a full inscription in pure old Arabic.
But even then, Old Arabic is not like Classical Arabic. Thus, it is hard for people who are well educated in Classical Arabic to read Old Arabic. In fact, I guarantee that the author of the "previous-revelations-were-also-in-arabic-language" article cannot read this Old Arabic inscription
http//www.touregypt.net/featurestories/arabic1.jpg
Another fact that all defenders of the "uncreated and eternal quran and Arabic language" dogma are ignorant of is that the great reading is not in Classical Arabic. In fact, there are many passages in the great reading that are ungrammatical by Classical Arabic standards (For example, 2177, 4162, 569, 2219, 499, etc..). Also, it is clear that many chapters in the great reading were meant to be recited without Classical Arabic case endings and indeed they sound awkward when recited with the case endings. This includes chapters, such as Chapter 1, 55, etc.
Also, in the great reading we find many foreign words that were borrowed from foreign, even non-Semitic languages. For example, the word "dinar" was borrowed from Greek. Words like "istabraq" and "jund" were borrowed from Middle Persian. So saying that the Arabic language is "eternal and permanent" implies that those languages are "eternal and permanent" too.
Also, defenders of the "uncreated and eternal quran and Arabic language" ignore the fact that Classical Arabic is merely a theoretical dead language that was never spoken and is not spoken today anywhere. We can easily verify this by asking any Arabic speaker if they speak Classical Arabic. The answer will certainly be no. Even those who occasionally speak formal Arabic, they speak Modern Standard Arabic not Classical Arabic.
It is not surprising given such lack of common sense that the anti-rationalist dogmatic defenders of the "uncreated and eternal Arabic language" ignore that Arabic, like all man-made languages is merely one mode of communication. There are many other modes of communication that the god created in the universe ranging from how cells communicate through chemical "signals" to how genetic information is communicated through DNA. Certainly, those "languages" have been around long before Arabic and even before Homosapiens.
On a positive note, one thing that this discussion may spur is an effort to try to achieve a better understanding of the word "3arabi" as used in the great reading. There are two possibilities
- This is the name of a language.
- It is a common noun.
As of yet, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it means the name of a language.
Samia has thoughtfully proposed some possible meanings for the word "3arabi". I will also try to propose some possible meanings. In 5637 we hear the word "3uruba" used to mean something akin to "romantic" or "naturally loving". The "a3rab" are contrasted to people who live in the city. So this indicates that it could mean "people who live in nature or the untamed wilderness". Ironically, we hear in Lisan Al-3arab, the following meaning for "3arabah"
.
This means something akin to "crude talk". I think that this perhaps has its origin in "unsophisticated talk".I think that the sense that we get from all the meanings is that "3arabi" when referring to a language would be talking about an informal language. No wife will speak romantically to her husband in a business-like formal way. Similarly, people who come from the wilderness speak informally and in an unsophisticated way.
This is perfectly natural. The religious clergy usually use formal "religious" languages that are incomprehensible to common people. For example, the Catholic Church still uses Latin as its formal language. Such language would be "a3jami" to a common Catholic. Such language barrier enables the church to have more control over its followers. We know that the language of the great reading in the 6th century CE was not that used by the people of the book (see http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htm ). The great reading destroyed the language barrier and empowered the common people.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Brother Ayman!
VERY good post! -)
But, I'm really worried when you say that the quran is not written in Classical Arabic. I'm trying to learn classical arabic in an effort to read the quran. I've even agreed with my school so that I can take exam in it. And now, I find out, it's all in vain?
What language is the quran in, and how do I learn it?
Nadeem
-
Salaam Nadeem
What you will be taught is, most probably, Modern Standard Arabic, not classical. I would say that the quran is nearer to a spoken version of MSA; i.e no strict grammatical rules as studied in the written version. This is how educated (I mean generally those who learned MSA) Arabs from different Arab countries - and thus different colloquial Arabic- communicate between them (through MSA with relaxed grammar).
You may also learn the root system which is a good help to learn the connection between otherwise alien words.
So, don't worry. Go ahead and learn it.
-
Salaam sister Samia,
The thing is, I'm not being taught anything. Instead of spanish or german, which are defaults, I've been given permission to study Classical Arabic on my own. You are the only teacher I have in arabic. I stressed to the principal that there is a difference between Classical and Modern arabic, and she said she understood that fully.
I must ask, Sis Samia, when you corrected my homework (thanks again), did you correct it according to MSA or CA?
The book I've bought, is called "arabic through the quran". The author also stresses the difference between MSA and CA. He has even discouraged the use of modern dictionaries for understanding the quran, such as Hans Wehr's.
What do you think of Aymans claims regarding the quran not being in Classical Arabic?
Nadeem
-
Peace Ayman.
I disagree with Dr. Kamal Omar's idea about al-quran being eternal. Because kitabillah/Allah's book is not al-quran. Kitabillah is al-kitaab. And al-kitab/kitabillah IS eternal.
So while you may be very knowledgeable in history, as is evident from your post, this very basic misconception(about al-quran being kitabillah) displays your ignorance of al-quran and renders your whole post pointless.
peace.
Peace all,
The real motivation of the ignorance that the article in the above link spews is defending the following illogical late Abbasid era idea (I quote from the article)
Since Allah's Book is eternal and permanent, its language is Ummul alsinah (mother of all the languages).
The idea that the great reading ("quran" is eternal and uncreated was invented during the period of decay of the Abbasid Empire. It was the main contention point between the Hanbalee sect and the Muatazila. In the late 9th century CE, after several years of back and forth fighting, the idea took hold after the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mutawakil (first Caliph to be murdered by his bodyguards) embraced the Hanbalee Ahl Al-Hadith dogma and declared the "uncreated quran" doctrine as official creed. Anti-rationalist inquisitions ensued and the decline of the Empire accelerated.
Of course in the mind of the ignorant Abbasid era anti-rationalist, if the great reading was eternal and uncreated then its language too must be eternal and uncreated. It is ironic that now this anti-rationalist Abbasid era idea is presented under a thin veil of rationalism in what seems like an attempt to repackage it for a modern audience.
In reality such preposterous idea demonstrates nothing but ignorance of the history of the language and ignorance of the great reading itself.
For example, in the great reading passage 712 we hear iblis saying "I am better than him, you created me from fire and created him from mud". Since this is part of the great reading, according to the anti-rationalist doctrine, the speech of iblis is also "eternal and uncreated". Similarly, there are many passages in the great reading that quote the rejecters, the descendants of Israel and other people. The implication of the idea of the "eternal and uncreated quran" is that their speech too is "eternal and uncreated".
The real motivation of the anti-rationalists was to make an idol out of the great reading. This is because when people idolize something, they stop thinking about it rationally.
In terms of ignorance of history, saying that Classical Arabic is "eternal and permanent" is as ridiculous as saying that Modern English is "eternal and permanent". In the same way that English descended from other languages, Classical Arabic too descended from other languages. In fact, compared to other Semitic languages, Arabic is relatively new to the scene. It descended from a much older language called Safaitic and thus the first Old Arabic inscriptions do not appear until the 1st century BCE. For several centuries, specifically until the 4th century CE, we see that inscriptions show Arabic features mixed with features from Safaitic and other Southern Semitic languages. It is not until the Namara inscription that is dated to 328CE that we see a full inscription in pure old Arabic.
But even then, Old Arabic is not like Classical Arabic. Thus, it is hard for people who are well educated in Classical Arabic to read Old Arabic. In fact, I guarantee that the author of the "previous-revelations-were-also-in-arabic-language" article cannot read this Old Arabic inscription
http//www.touregypt.net/featurestories/arabic1.jpg
Another fact that all defenders of the "uncreated and eternal quran and Arabic language" dogma are ignorant of is that the great reading is not in Classical Arabic. In fact, there are many passages in the great reading that are ungrammatical by Classical Arabic standards (For example, 2177, 4162, 569, 2219, 499, etc..). Also, it is clear that many chapters in the great reading were meant to be recited without Classical Arabic case endings and indeed they sound awkward when recited with the case endings. This includes chapters, such as Chapter 1, 55, etc.
Also, in the great reading we find many foreign words that were borrowed from foreign, even non-Semitic languages. For example, the word "dinar" was borrowed from Greek. Words like "istabraq" and "jund" were borrowed from Middle Persian. So saying that the Arabic language is "eternal and permanent" implies that those languages are "eternal and permanent" too.
Also, defenders of the "uncreated and eternal quran and Arabic language" ignore the fact that Classical Arabic is merely a theoretical dead language that was never spoken and is not spoken today anywhere. We can easily verify this by asking any Arabic speaker if they speak Classical Arabic. The answer will certainly be no. Even those who occasionally speak formal Arabic, they speak Modern Standard Arabic not Classical Arabic.
It is not surprising given such lack of common sense that the anti-rationalist dogmatic defenders of the "uncreated and eternal Arabic language" ignore that Arabic, like all man-made languages is merely one mode of communication. There are many other modes of communication that the god created in the universe ranging from how cells communicate through chemical "signals" to how genetic information is communicated through DNA. Certainly, those "languages" have been around long before Arabic and even before Homosapiens.
On a positive note, one thing that this discussion may spur is an effort to try to achieve a better understanding of the word "3arabi" as used in the great reading. There are two possibilities
- This is the name of a language.
- It is a common noun.
As of yet, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it means the name of a language.
Samia has thoughtfully proposed some possible meanings for the word "3arabi". I will also try to propose some possible meanings. In 5637 we hear the word "3uruba" used to mean something akin to "romantic" or "naturally loving". The "a3rab" are contrasted to people who live in the city. So this indicates that it could mean "people who live in nature or the untamed wilderness". Ironically, we hear in Lisan Al-3arab, the following meaning for "3arabah"
.
This means something akin to "crude talk". I think that this perhaps has its origin in "unsophisticated talk".I think that the sense that we get from all the meanings is that "3arabi" when referring to a language would be talking about an informal language. No wife will speak romantically to her husband in a business-like formal way. Similarly, people who come from the wilderness speak informally and in an unsophisticated way.
This is perfectly natural. The religious clergy usually use formal "religious" languages that are incomprehensible to common people. For example, the Catholic Church still uses Latin as its formal language. Such language would be "a3jami" to a common Catholic. Such language barrier enables the church to have more control over its followers. We know that the language of the great reading in the 6th century CE was not that used by the people of the book (see http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htm ). The great reading destroyed the language barrier and empowered the common people.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Well, you asked for traces of Arabic in English, and I showed you just that.
Historical proof? I'll let you know if and when I come across it.
Peace,
Fahad, i didn't ask for traces of arabic in english. I asked for traces of arbaic in aboriginial, Americain Indian, Inca, Aztek, Toltek, African and Keltish languages. As for the enlish proofs you gave me. There is one major fault in them. Almost all science books between 800 and 1700AD were translated Muslim books who used arabic terms for things which could not be translated and is why they just kept the arabic word for it and assimilated it into the english language. English has no arabic roots, or aramaic. It has only adopted words from it, but did not originate from it.
-
Salam.
Peace,
Fahad, i didn't ask for traces of arabic in english. I asked for traces of arbaic in aboriginial, Americain Indian, Inca, Aztek, Toltek, African and Keltish languages.
Ok. I'll let you know if I come across it.
As for the enlish proofs you gave me. There is one major fault in them. Almost all science books between 800 and 1700AD were translated Muslim books who used arabic terms for things which could not be translated and is why they just kept the arabic word for it and assimilated it into the english language. English has no arabic roots, or aramaic.
I wasn't saying that english has arabic roots. I don't know about that.
The messenger sent in the language of the people also doesn't translate the terms, he explains them. That could also be the reason, at least according to the Quran, for keeping the arabic word. Remember, the book is NOT sent in the language of all people. The messengers are.
It has only adopted words from it, but did not originate from it.
I meant just that.
-
Peace Fahad,
I disagree with Dr. Kamal Omar's idea about al-quran being eternal. Because kitabillah/Allah's book is not al-quran. Kitabillah is al-kitaab. And al-kitab/kitabillah IS eternal.
So while you may be very knowledgeable in history, as is evident from your post, this very basic misconception(about al-quran being kitabillah) displays your ignorance of al-quran and renders your whole post pointless.I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that while the language of the "quran" is not eternal, the language of "al-kitab" is eternal. One is Arabic and the other is not??!
As far as I know "al-kitab" means the book and "al-quran" means the reading. The relationship between the book and the reading is an indisputable common sense matter that even young children know. Everyone who has read a book knows that the relationship is that a book is to be read. To say that the book is one part of the great reading while another part is not the book defies this common sense and is a baseless haphazard division that is not grounded in reality.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Nadeem,
VERY good post! -)
But, I'm really worried when you say that the quran is not written in Classical Arabic. I'm trying to learn classical arabic in an effort to read the quran. I've even agreed with my school so that I can take exam in it. And now, I find out, it's all in vain?
What language is the quran in, and how do I learn it?Sister Samia kindly provided the answer. I agree with her thoughtful assessment.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman.
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that while the language of the "quran" is not eternal, the language of "al-kitab" is eternal. One is Arabic and the other is not??!
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
As far as I know "al-kitab" means the book and "al-quran" means the reading. The relationship between the book and the reading is an indisputable common sense matter that even young children know.
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
Everyone who has read a book knows that the relationship is that a book is to be read. To say that the book is one part of the great reading while another part is not the book defies this common sense and is a baseless haphazard division that is not grounded in reality.
If you consider the 114 chaptered book to be al-kitab, at least show a single verse where the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. Then we can know whose understanding is baseless.
-
Peace Fahad, all,
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
This doesn't answer the question. You seem to be claiming that only what you named Al-Kitab is eternal and uncreated and so is its Arabic language while what you named Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated (and neither is its Arabic language???). You lost me here as a result of your confusion. Please tell everyone here exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated but its Arabic language is eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated and its Arabic language is not eternal and uncreated.
Please tell us exactly which it is that you are claiming.
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
2775 is clearly talking about "a book" that contains all hidden information. Simple minded uneducated Abassid era anti-rationalists might have been confused because they ignored the obvoius fact that there are other modes of recording information in the universe. For example, DNA can be considered a book (a record) of genetic information. Perhaps Abassid era people had ignorance about science and the history of Arabic as an excuse, on the other hand I don't understand why some people here are still confused.
People, let's progress beyond Abassid era nonsensical notions. The whole of Classical Arabic is captured in a few Classical Arabic dictionaries written with a meager bucket of ink, on the other hand the god doesn't run out of words even if the oceans were his ink. So clearly his words are not restricted to Classical Arabic or one human language or the other. His words can be seen in the whole universe, in our DNA, in atomic particles, in cosmic laws, etc.... The god tells us that the whole universe is like books in 21104.
If you consider the 114 chaptered book to be al-kitab, at least show a single verse where the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. Then we can know whose understanding is baseless.
Fahad, everyone who has read even a couple of pages of the great reading knows that right at the beginning in 22 the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. It is a book that is to be read and thus it is a reading. There is no great hidden mystery, the language is clear and we don't need to attach connotations to those words that are not there and confuse ourselves.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Nadeem
I must ask, Sis Samia, when you corrected my homework (thanks again), did you correct it according to MSA or CA?
It was according to both. MSA does not have grammar of its own, but its grammar is based on CA's.
CA contains the MSA grammar, but also other grammar linked to some expressions which are no more used in MSA (although they might be understood, but are really meaningless or outdated). Its complicated and long sentence structre, together with some unfamiliar words, makes it more difficult to understand and less fun to read.
The author also stresses the difference between MSA and CA. He has even discouraged the use of modern dictionaries for understanding the quran, such as Hans Wehr's.
Although Hans Wehr's search is root-based, but, yes, all the modern dictionaries take the meaning of words from "tafseer", without giving the origin and history of the word, or all its possible meanings in a past environment. They generally deal with the "today" usage of a word.
What do you think of Aymans claims regarding the quran not being in Classical Arabic?
I fully agree with him. The quran is definitely not in CA.
-
Arabic is the language that provides the details of al-kitab. And al-kitab was revealed with all the prophets(2213).
This doesn't answer the question. You seem to be claiming that only what you named Al-Kitab is eternal and uncreated and so is its Arabic language while what you named Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated (and neither is its Arabic language???). You lost me here as a result of your confusion. Please tell everyone here exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated but its Arabic language is eternal and uncreated.
- Al-Quran is not eternal and uncreated and its Arabic language is not eternal and uncreated.
Please tell us exactly which it is that you are claiming.
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.
-
Peace Samia, Ayman,
If al-qur'aan is not in Classical Arabic, then can we use Classical Arabic dictionaries to study its meanings ? Is it so that primarily al-qur'aan is its own dictionary and CA dictionaries are used just as secondary tools to study it ?
-
Didn?t young children tell you that al-quran is a kitab? (271, 2775-76)
2775 is clearly talking about "a book" that contains all hidden information. Simple minded uneducated Abassid era anti-rationalists might have been confused because they ignored the obvoius fact that there are other modes of recording information in the universe. For example, DNA can be considered a book (a record) of genetic information. Perhaps Abassid era people had ignorance about science and the history of Arabic as an excuse, on the other hand I don't understand why some people here are still confused.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
People, let's progress beyond Abassid era nonsensical notions.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
The whole of Classical Arabic is captured in a few Classical Arabic dictionaries written with a meager bucket of ink, on the other hand the god doesn't run out of words even if the oceans were his ink. So clearly his words are not restricted to Classical Arabic or one human language or the other. His words can be seen in the whole universe, in our DNA, in atomic particles, in cosmic laws, etc.... The god tells us that the whole universe is like books in 21104.
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
-
Fahad, everyone who has read even a couple of pages of the great reading knows that right at the beginning in 22 the book refers to itself as ?al-kitab?. It is a book that is to be read and thus it is a reading.
2/2 zaalika al-kitab / that is the book.
Which part is referring to itself?
The book can refer to itself as "haaza/this al-quraan" or "haaza/this kitaab", but not as "zaalika/that al-kitab". So in verse 22, the book is referring to another book, and not to itself.
There is no great hidden mystery, the language is clear and we don't need to attach connotations to those words that are not there and confuse ourselves.
Right back at you.
-
Peace Fahad,
Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic. No other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic can. The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
This also answer Phoenix1's and Simple's question 'why did Allah reveal the Quran in arabic? why not any other language?'.
And al-kitab is eternal. So it was detailed for previous generations in 'lisaan arabi mubeen' as well.You are saying that "Arabic is not the language of al-kitab, but al-kitab's details are provided by (quranic)arabic." This is contradictory. This is like saying "English is not the language of this post but the details of the post are provided by English".
Also, since you are saying that al-kitab (the whole) is eternal and uncreated, then it follows that its detail (the parts) must be eternal and uncreated too. If as you say, "no other language can provide the details of kitabillah like quranic arabic" then this implies that Arabic must be eternal and uncreated as well. Your logic is the same line of logic as Abassid era anti-rationalists. Your claim is the first one on the list that I had given, namely
- Al-Kitab and thus its Arabic language are eternal and uncreated.
The translations of the al-quran are a good example. They always contain contradictions. The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language.
Translation reflects interpretation. The interpretation of Ibn Kathir is in Arabic and yet it contains more contradictions than any English translation. Clearly this proves that Arabic is irrelevant to whether something contains contradictions or not.
This very discussion that we are having proves that Arabic is irrelevant. You and I have contradicting intepretations based on the same passages of the book. I don't know about you, but I am reading the book in its original Arabic. If you too are reading the book in Arabic, then Arabic hasn't alleviated the problem of contradicting interpretations, which is the same exact problem with translations. This is why most translations are far better than Ibn Kathir's Arabic interpretation.
Kitabun mubeen is al-quraan, and the verse is not talking about genetic information, but information related to guidance. DNA is not kitabun mubeen.
2775 is talking about a book that contains a record of ALL the hidden things in the universe. This is clearly not the book that you call "al-quraan". If it were then it would have all hidden information, including our hidden thoughts such as what I am thinking I will eat for breakfast this morning.
How can people progress if they are stuck in history?!
Exactly. So please don't get stuck in promoting Abassid era anti-rationalist ideology.
I am not saying that God's words are limited to Arabic language.
Here is what you are saying "The details of kitabillah cannot be given perfectly in any other language." So you are essentially saying that the god's "perfect" words are limited to Arabic language but his imperfect words are not!!!!??
Since all the god's words are perfect, then according to your statement, the god's words are limited to Arabic language.
And the universe is not like kitabun mubeen either.
So what kind of book do you think the universe like? Do you think it is not like a clear book but is like a badly written book?
Peace,
Ayman