Previous Revelations also in Arabic Language

Samia

Verse 3928 would mean "clear without crookedness". So what would be "clear WITH crookedness" ?

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)

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. 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). 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. 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"

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)?"

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?"

NB A3jami nonesense, uncomprehensible, dumb - 3ajmaa' (f) beast
3ajami non-Arab

Fahad1

The problem is that 'arabi mubeen' is the language of the Quran. And the language of the Quran was used in "books of former people" too.

And if 'arabi' means 'clear' then...

Verse 3928 would mean "clear without crookedness". So what would be "clear WITH crookedness" ?

arabi inclines more to errorness and distinct. A lot of arabian dialects had contradicting meanings for words, apparently the Quran dialect not.

What do you mean by "arabian"? Do you mean "Arabian"? If so, then Quran uses the Arabic without crookedness. It only makes sense.

To show you the quality of the language chosen so you know it is clear.

???

Any contradictions in the meaning of words are thus man-made. For example, almost all words coming from the root hajja are linked with the meaning to argue/debate/discuss, and suddenly hajj means only pilgrimage? So when using the overall meaning it shows that hajj is connected with debate/discussion as its main meaning.

Right! And words like "hajja" are words of Arabic language. And you are right that thats how Quran confirms Arabic language (not "arabic/clear/errorfree" language), to shows its main meaning.

That is how Quranic Arabic is without crookedness. While the outside Arabic can contain crookedness.

Whats the point of verse 4144?

when you translate arab with distinct it becomes more clear i believe.

Hardly. Whats the point of saying 'if it we had made it clear/error-free/distinct it would have lacked details'?! Just like there is no point saying "clear without crookedness".

The verse is telling about the property of Arabic language to provide details. It is evident that the Quran being such a small book provides the details of everything necessary.

If a different dialect was used, then there would have been more confusion as they were probably not so easy to figure out as the Quranic dialect.

But you said that different dialects which were used in previous books (according to you) were also clear and easy to figure out as the Quranic dialect?! Then howcome you are saying that different dialects would have caused confusions?! It makes no sense at all, sorry.

Then why didn't I receive the Quran in the language of my country?

Because He chose the final Revelation to be in this language, as He believes it is clear enough for all of humanity to find out it seems.

Why couldn't He believe that Arabic was clear enough for all of humanity of the pre-Quranic generations? Because it does not sit well with the man-written history?!

And if He chose a single language of revelation for all of humanity, then this is a change in Allah's way of handling, because you said every time He chose the best dialects of the countries to convey the message

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.

And by the way, Allah sends the messengers in the language of the people/country, not the book.(144)

So many problems in the "error-free/clear" meaning, you see. The "Arabic" meaning fits perfectly in the Quran. The only problem it has is with man-written history.

Fahad1

And that is based on what? Dictionaries will give several meanings for arabi, the 600AD meaning, the 800-900AD meaning. Still you choose to approach the word arab as a title, so you still choose a meaning out of several. This comment has no warrant to say you accept the meaning of now, as the meaning of now is a mishmash of several meanings which has developed in the last 2000 years. You NOW pickup a dictionary, and you will lookup jahannam, it will give 2 meanings, the 500BC valley meaning and the 50BC hell meaning. Which one do you choose? Does this has anything in the least has to do with NOW? I don't believe so.....

I choose the meaning that fits in the Quran. The "error-free/clear" meaning does not fit as I have shown in my previous post.

And I choose the "Arabic" title meaning because it is very clear/mubeen that the Quran uses Arabic language/lisaan arabi. No wonder why it is called 'lisaan arabi mubeen'. It is very clear/mubeen even without studying the Quran or its language, that it uses Arabic language/lisaan arabi. Because Arabic language is easily recognizable. You don't even need to understand the Quran to know that it is Arabic. That how clear/mubeen Arabic language/lisaan arabi is. This meaning fits perfectly in the Quran.

On the other hand, the "error-free/clear/faultless" meaning will only become clear/mubeen when you study the Quran and its language. Not so mubeen. Doesn't fit.

One of the reasons I choose the title meaning.

arnoldyasin

arabi inclines more to errorness and distinct. A lot of arabian dialects had contradicting meanings for words, apparently the Quran dialect not.

What do you mean by "arabian"? Do you mean "Arabian"? If so, then Quran uses the Arabic without crookedness. It only makes sense.

I should have used the Hijaz dialects instead of 'arabian' dialects, as you cannot or will not distuingish the 600AD meaning from the 800-900meaning. My fault.

Right! And words like "hajja" are words of Arabic language. And you are right that thats how Quran confirms Arabic language (not "arabic/clear/errorfree" language), to shows its main meaning.

That is how Quranic Arabic is without crookedness. While the outside Arabic can contain crookedness.

No the outside Quranic dialect can contain crookedness. There was no 'arabian' dialect, there were several tribe dialects, where some were more distinct then others. The Quranic dialect has a consistency in meaning of words coming from the same root, probably other dialects were not that consistent with the root meaning.

when you translate arab with distinct it becomes more clear i believe.

Hardly. Whats the point of saying 'if it we had made it clear/error-free/distinct it would have lacked details'?! Just like there is no point saying "clear without crookedness".

It refers to the consistency of the meaning of words connected with their root. So arab=distinct errorfree speech refers to a dialect that is used which is consistent in its meaning where the words cannot deviade from its rootmeaning.

But you said that different dialects which were used in previous books (according to you) were also clear and easy to figure out as the Quranic dialect?! Then howcome you are saying that different dialects would have caused confusions?! It makes no sense at all, sorry.

Because you are confusing two things. When i talk about older revelations, yes they had the same qualities as the Quran when it came to language, clear and consistent in meaning of words.

When i said different dialects would have caused confusion i was talking AT THE TIME OF THE QURAN'S REVELATION, not about the older Revelations. For example, in the time of the Injeel there were 10 different dialects, 1 was chosen for its clear and consistent meaning of words and the other 9 were not because they were not consistent enough of dominant/well-known enough to correctly spread the message throughout the land.

In the time of the Quran, there were at least 40 different dialects in the Hijaz(the land we now call Arabia). From these 40 dialects, one was chosen to be used for the Quran, as it was consistent in its meaning and thus the best one. It was clear, errorfree, distinct and easy to understand. The other dialects were probably to inconsistent to be used for the Revelation.

Because He chose the final Revelation to be in this language, as He believes it is clear enough for all of humanity to find out it seems.

Why couldn't He believe that Arabic was clear enough for all of humanity of the pre-Quranic generations? Because it does not sit well with the man-written history?!

Because He sended messnegers to all nations of the world, and Arabic was not spoken in America or China otherwise we would have found traces of it in the later languages. You can change a language, but you cannot let it completely change that the original language's influence is not seen back in the current language. It not only contradicts history, it contradicts todays languages origins as far as we know.

And if He chose a single language of revelation for all of humanity, then this is a change in Allah's way of handling, because you said every time He chose the best dialects of the countries to convey the message

And by the way, Allah sends the messengers in the language of the people/country, not the book.(144)

If we follow your logic, indeed it does contradicts and confuses with to many things. I'm open to your idea, but it contradicts to many things. Logic, history, origins of language and so on. I understand your arguments, but for me, the Arab meaning also doesn't really fit. Although most Revelations we know are a form of 'Arabian' dialect, as Hebrew and Aramaic come from the same origins. But this would mean only the Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabian speaking people would have had recieved Revelations, as the 'Arab' language clearly is not found in America or China. And those language do not contain a single word, which can be found in the Quranic dialect. It is almost impossible that not a word can be found in those languages, as you can change a language, but you can not cut it completely off from its origins. This means a language must be completely replaced by another.

Fahad1

What do you mean by "arabian"? Do you mean "Arabian"? If so, then Quran uses the Arabic without crookedness. It only makes sense.

I should have used the Hijaz dialects instead of 'arabian' dialects, as you cannot or will not distuingish the 600AD meaning from the 800-900meaning. My fault.

So that dialect was 'clear WITH crookedness'?!

Right! And words like "hajja" are words of Arabic language. And you are right that thats how Quran confirms Arabic language (not "arabic/clear/errorfree" language), to shows its main meaning.

That is how Quranic Arabic is without crookedness. While the outside Arabic can contain crookedness.

No the outside Quranic dialect can contain crookedness. There was no 'arabian' dialect, there were several tribe dialects, where some were more distinct then others. The Quranic dialect has a consistency in meaning of words coming from the same root, probably other dialects were not that consistent with the root meaning.

You yourself showed how Quran confirms Arabic. I don't know what it has to do with those 'tribal dialects'.

when you translate arab with distinct it becomes more clear i believe.

Hardly. Whats the point of saying 'if it we had made it clear/error-free/distinct it would have lacked details'?! Just like there is no point saying "clear without crookedness".

It refers to the consistency of the meaning of words connected with their root. So arab=distinct errorfree speech refers to a dialect that is used which is consistent in its meaning where the words cannot deviade from its rootmeaning.

So are there those dialects as well which are 'distinct/errorfree' where words CAN deviate from its meaning i.e. crookedness?

But you said that different dialects which were used in previous books (according to you) were also clear and easy to figure out as the Quranic dialect?! Then howcome you are saying that different dialects would have caused confusions?! It makes no sense at all, sorry.

Because you are confusing two things. When i talk about older revelations, yes they had the same qualities as the Quran when it came to language, clear and consistent in meaning of words.

When i said different dialects would have caused confusion i was talking AT THE TIME OF THE QURAN'S REVELATION, not about the older Revelations. For example, in the time of the Injeel there were 10 different dialects, 1 was chosen for its clear and consistent meaning of words and the other 9 were not because they were not consistent enough of dominant/well-known enough to correctly spread the message throughout the land.

This 'at the time of Quran's revelation, not about older revelation' is not coming from the Quran.

In the time of the Quran, there were at least 40 different dialects in the Hijaz(the land we now call Arabia). From these 40 dialects, one was chosen to be used for the Quran, as it was consistent in its meaning and thus the best one. It was clear, errorfree, distinct and easy to understand. The other dialects were probably to inconsistent to be used for the Revelation.

Frankly, I am not very sure how to discuss this with you, because my approach is very different than yours. -\

You keep referring to history, while you know that I won't give a rat's ass. )

Why couldn't He believe that Arabic was clear enough for all of humanity of the pre-Quranic generations? Because it does not sit well with the man-written history?!

Because He sended messnegers to all nations of the world, and Arabic was not spoken in America or China otherwise we would have found traces of it in the later languages. You can change a language, but you cannot let it completely change that the original language's influence is not seen back in the current language. It not only contradicts history, it contradicts todays languages origins as far as we know.

So the only reason is history, right?

And sending messenger in their language doesn't mean that their language will be replaced. I am not sure what you mean here.

And if He chose a single language of revelation for all of humanity, then this is a change in Allah's way of handling, because you said every time He chose the best dialects of the countries to convey the message

And by the way, Allah sends the messengers in the language of the people/country, not the book.(144)

If we follow your logic, indeed it does contradicts and confuses with to many things.

Many things except the Quran.

I'm open to your idea,...

Thanks.

but it contradicts to many things. Logic, history, origins of language and so on.

"logic", history , origins, yes.

I understand your arguments, but for me, the Arab meaning also doesn't really fit. Although most Revelations we know are a form of 'Arabian' dialect, as Hebrew and Aramaic come from the same origins. But this would mean only the Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabian speaking people would have had recieved Revelations, as the 'Arab' language clearly is not found in America or China. And those language do not contain a single word, which can be found in the Quranic dialect. It is almost impossible that not a word can be found in those languages, as you can change a language, but you can not cut it completely off from its origins. This means a language must be completely replaced by another.

From what I have read, I think traces of Arabic language can be found in English, though I don't know about Chinese.

Here

http//www.thedivinebook.org/language.asp

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic#The_influence_of_Arabic_on_other_languages

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin

arnoldyasin

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).

Fahad1

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.

Fahad1

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.

ayman

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&quot 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

nadeem

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

Samia

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.

nadeem

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

Fahad1

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.