What language does Allah speak?

[smaneck]

Neither Arabic or Farsi remotely compare in terms of capacity to express,, range , flexibility and most important of all the ability to recontextualise messages with English.

How well do you know Persian and Arabic that you can compare them with English? As someone who knows all three I have to say you are right about Persian, but not Arabic.

My point is not that God should reveal his holy texts in the worlds most popular, widely spoken and largest language but that the capacity to communicate the message requires the translation and recontextualisation of the message.

God reveals Himself in the language of the people to whom He made that revelation.

To insist that God has chosen to speak to us primarily in Arabic in this latest post Mohammed phase of our relationship with him sets up a tyranny of language that is more an imprisonment to a seventh century Arabic culture than a liberation into Gods truth.

The logic extension of that argument is that God should now send a Prophet who speaks English?

The Bible speaks of experiences in Egypt, Israel, Babylon, Greece, Rome and its message was inspired in a variety of contexts, times and places.

Uh, those were all the experiences of a single people, the Hebrew people at least until we get to the NT which really ought to be considered a separate book.

This inspirational flexibility is reflected in its capacity to recontextualise its messages in the modern day.

Any scripture can be recontextualized. The challenge is how do you do that without sacrificing the original intent?

By contrast Islams imprisonment to Arabic does not give the same flexibilty and therefore casts doubt on whether God could be behind the message of the Qu'ran at all. God is the God of all the earth and not just that of one culture, language and time.

That's a good argument for the need for continuing revelation, but not a good argument against the Qur'an being the Word of God.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Language in general can impose a tyranny of sorts over our thinking I guess but I really don't see the point in attacking Muslims over their desire to keep the Quran in the exact form it was thought to have been revealed in. Maybe if I was a Muslim I might try to argue for greater acceptance of the usefulness of translations (or maybe not) but as a non-Muslim the most "outrage" I can work up over it is a bland "so what... who cares ?" It's really not something that "disproves" their religion nor is it an example of oppression towards non-Arabic speakers. It's just a different perspective from yours regarding mans power of making perfectly equivalent translations.

 

[smaneck]

Maybe if I was a Muslim I might try to argue for greater acceptance of the usefulness of translations

I just realized you were a Christian. I took your screen name of Ishraqiyun as a signal that you followed that school of Islamic philosophy.

 

[Sister of Faith]

sura 89
89.1 And/by the dawn.
(Announces & swears by the morning of Jesus’ singular Resurrection)
89.2 And three nights.
(Swears by the three nights Jesus was in the earth)
89.3 And/by the two days after the sacrifice and the third day.
(Swears by the three days Jesus was in the earth; the one who was pearced with a spear)
89.4 And/by the night when He departed.
(Swears by Jesus’ empty tomb)
89.5 A profound oath, for one who possesses intelligence.
(Asks if the reader understands)
89.6 Did you not see how your Lord He has returned from the grave?
(Jesus’ singular resurrection)
89.7 A sign, Lord of the pillar.
(Jesus carrying the Cross)
89.8 Which has not been built similar to it in the city?
(Jesus crucified outside the city)
89.9 And a small round cavity whom they hewed out the rocks in the valley.
(Jesus’ grave)
89.10 And King, Lord of the wooden stakes.
(Jesus being crucified)

Sura 89.1-10 Standard translation, Khalifa
By the dawn.
And the ten nights.
By the even and the odd.
By the night as it passes.
A profound oath, for one who possesses intelligence.
Have you noted what your Lord did to `Aad?
Erum; the town with tall buildings.
There was nothing like it anywhere.
Also Thamoud, who carved the rocks in their valley.
And Pharaoh who possessed might.

http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u240595-e70284/

You have just reminded me with your Facebook. No smell of TRUTH.
The Holy Quran was saved from corruption in more than one method.

 

[EyesOfKohl]

One thing I've never understood, is that the Qur'an has Yeshua's (Jesus') sayings written in Arabic. He never spoke Arabic, he spoke Aramaic/Hebrew. Who translated his sayings into Arabic for the Qur'an?

In Surah 19 -

[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.
And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive
And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.
And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."

Likewise with all the other Prophets.

So, if Allah translated the sayings of all the prophets into Arabic for the Qur'an, then He would know Hebrew/Aramaic and all other languages.

 

[razeontherock]

One thing I've never understood, is that the Qur'an has Yeshua's (Jesus') sayings written in Arabic.

The interesting thing about that is any aspect of Christianity I've seen expressed in the Koran - they got it wrong. It's like Muhammad was only exposed to heretical Christians.

 

[mindlight]

How well do you know Persian and Arabic that you can compare them with English? As someone who knows all three I have to say you are right about Persian, but not Arabic.

There are about 300,000 words in Arabic and 1 million in English. English is more widely spoken with more native speakers and more speakers who have learnt it as a foreign language.

English language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arabic language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God reveals Himself in the language of the people to whom He made that revelation.

In the bible that revelation comes in 3 languages and so there is already a built in flexibility and way of measuring how translation might effect the recontextualisation of the message.

The logic extension of that argument is that God should now send a Prophet who speaks English?

A prophet like Elijah or one like in the New testament?

Uh, those were all the experiences of a single people, the Hebrew people at least until we get to the NT which really ought to be considered a separate book.

Was Job a Hebrew or the preflood peoples? Moses was brought up as an Egyptian prince. Jonah spoke to Ninevah. Ezekial spoke in the context of babylon as did Daniel.

Any scripture can be recontextualized. The challenge is how do you do that without sacrificing the original intent?

Having only one single original interpretative horizon and language is a limiting factor for Islam which does not exist in Judaism or Christianity

 

[karim06518]

Some of the points that I will touch upon have already been mentioned in this thread. However, I feel that it doesn’t hurt to reiterate them.

First of all, there is no such thing as a Muslim God, a Christian God, or even a Jewish God for that matter. He is one and the same, the Creator of all to be worshipped by all of mankind. Whatever name an individual chooses to use to refer to Him, we are all referring to the same Omnipotent, Merciful being.

The author of this thread asked, “What language does Allah speak?” the answer to that question, of course, is all languages. Since God is all Knowing, all Powerful, and the Creator of all, it stands to reason that He would necessarily be the Creator of all human languages that have ever existed in addition to being able to easily understand and communicate in all languages.

The author then follows the title question with the inquiry of if God only speaks Arabic (which is untrue) does it mean that most of the world cannot know Him without first learning Arabic. The answer to that inquiry would be, “No.”

And the answer to the question of why God preferred to hand down His revelations in Arabic (which is the preferred language when reading the Qur’an) if He can communicate and understand so many other human languages is really quite simple. The prophet that He chose to reveal His message to as well as the people around him (Muhammad) spoke and understood Arabic. In fact, God revealed His message throughout the history of mankind in the language that the chosen messenger of a particular community or culture clearly understood.

And as for the claim to the insistence on the use of Arabic in mosques, I’m not quite sure what point the author is trying to convey here. It is true that Arabic is used frequently when khutbahs (sermons) are given by Imams (Clergy), during salat (prayers), as well as during discussions about Islam. However, aside from the prayers, everything is translated and spoken in the common language of whatever community the mosque happens to be in. And here is the main point to this phenomenon. Unless you’re in an Arabic speaking community, all of the Arabic that is spoken is in reference to the Holy Qur’an and the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the precise meaning and context of whatever has been quoted has been completely retained, without it being altered or changed in any way. The duty of every Muslim is to deliver the message as precisely as his/her abilities allow. That means that a Muslim should quote the Holy Qur’an in Arabic if s/he understands it in Arabic and then try to translate or convey the idea of what s/he has quoted to the best of his/her abilities in a language that those around him/her can clearly understand. It is also the responsibility of every Muslim to read and understand the meaning of the Qur’an as precisely as s/he is able to. Therefore, if a Muslim doesn’t understand the Qur’an in Arabic, there exists a wide variety of translations in other languages that make it possible for speakers of other languages to discover the Message. And this brings up a very key point. Due to the fact that the Holy Qur’an exists today in the original Arabic as it was revealed to the prophet Muhammad and has not been altered or changed in any way, everyone has access to the ability to understand the precise meaning of the final revelations of God. It requires a lot of work and diligent study and is a lifelong, ongoing process but the ultimate rewards are unimaginable. Although it is possible to grasp a very good understanding of the Qur’an through various translations, which also requires a lot of hard work and study (studying a single translation will give a general understanding at best), a precise meaning would be beyond reach due to the inherent problems of translating one language into another, as most of us here are all quite aware of. As such, this is the main reason why all Muslims are strongly encouraged (insistence is a misleading way to describe it) to learn Arabic. It is the responsibility of every Muslim to read and understand the precise meaning of the Qur’an to the best of his/her abilities with all of the resources that are available to him/her. And learning the precise meaning of God’s revelations becomes realistically possible due to the fact that the Qur’an exists today unchanged and unaltered in the original Arabic as it was revealed to Muhammad over 1400 years ago. No other religion in the world can make such a claim because no other religion possesses original, unchanged, unaltered copies of scriptures in the original language. The religion of Islam stands unique in that respect.

Wassalam,
Karim

 

[mindlight]

The interesting thing about that is any aspect of Christianity I've seen expressed in the Koran - they got it wrong. It's like Muhammad was only exposed to heretical Christians.

Yes and two examples of that would be the suggestion that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was Father, Son and Mary and the view that Jesus did not die on the cross.

But also the repeats of Biblical examples are often distorted.

 

[mindlight]

One thing I've never understood, is that the Qur'an has Yeshua's (Jesus') sayings written in Arabic. He never spoke Arabic, he spoke Aramaic/Hebrew. Who translated his sayings into Arabic for the Qur'an?

In Surah 19 -

[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.
And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive
And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.
And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."

Likewise with all the other Prophets.

So, if Allah translated the sayings of all the prophets into Arabic for the Qur'an, then He would know Hebrew/Aramaic and all other languages.

Noone really doubts that God can speak all languages, so why the insistence on Arabic. The Muslim answer is I suppose that this was the way God chose to do it but there are already examples of where the Koran endorses alternative examples where God previously used another language e.g. Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

My main critique of this is the capacity for recontextualisation in a world where most people do not and never have spoken Arabic. The Bible provides enough of a diversity of languages in its core texts to provide the possibility of cross checking. The Qu'ran having only one original interpretative horizon does not offer this and so there is no way of forming rules/methods/hermeneutical principles to verify the authenticity of translations from the Qu'ran itself.

 

[mindlight]

Some of the points that I will touch upon have already been mentioned in this thread. However, I feel that it doesn’t hurt to reiterate them.

First of all, there is no such thing as a Muslim God, a Christian God, or even a Jewish God for that matter. He is one and the same, the Creator of all to be worshipped by all of mankind. Whatever name an individual chooses to use to refer to Him, we are all referring to the same Omnipotent, Merciful being.

There is only one God. The degree with which each of us know Him is His call not mine.

The author of this thread asked, “What language does Allah speak?” the answer to that question, of course, is all languages. Since God is all Knowing, all Powerful, and the Creator of all, it stands to reason that He would necessarily be the Creator of all human languages that have ever existed in addition to being able to easily understand and communicate in all languages.

Of course.

The author then follows the title question with the inquiry of if God only speaks Arabic (which is untrue) does it mean that most of the world cannot know Him without first learning Arabic. The answer to that inquiry would be, “No.”

Agreed so far

And the answer to the question of why God preferred to hand down His revelations in Arabic (which is the preferred language when reading the Qur’an) if He can communicate and understand so many other human languages is really quite simple. The prophet that He chose to reveal His message to as well as the people around him (Muhammad) spoke and understood Arabic. In fact, God revealed His message throughout the history of mankind in the language that the chosen messenger of a particular community or culture clearly understood.

Gods revelation of truth is generally through a personality of a definite time and place - who may or may not be antagonistic to the society of his time. In Muhammeds case my understanding is it was reputedly a dictated text that was intended to transform a fallen society. The parallel in the bible might be Gods writing of the 10 commandments on stone in Ancient Hebrew to a newly formed nation that were still trying to shed their pagan ways acquired in Egypt.

And as for the claim to the insistence on the use of Arabic in mosques, I’m not quite sure what point the author is trying to convey here. It is true that Arabic is used frequently when khutbahs (sermons) are given by Imams (Clergy), during salat (prayers), as well as during discussions about Islam. However, aside from the prayers, everything is translated and spoken in the common language of whatever community the mosque happens to be in. And here is the main point to this phenomenon. Unless you’re in an Arabic speaking community, all of the Arabic that is spoken is in reference to the Holy Qur’an and the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the precise meaning and context of whatever has been quoted has been completely retained, without it being altered or changed in any way. The duty of every Muslim is to deliver the message as precisely as his/her abilities allow. That means that a Muslim should quote the Holy Qur’an in Arabic if s/he understands it in Arabic and then try to translate or convey the idea of what s/he has quoted to the best of his/her abilities in a language that those around him/her can clearly understand. It is also the responsibility of every Muslim to read and understand the meaning of the Qur’an as precisely as s/he is able to. Therefore, if a Muslim doesn’t understand the Qur’an in Arabic, there exists a wide variety of translations in other languages that make it possible for speakers of other languages to discover the Message. And this brings up a very key point. Due to the fact that the Holy Qur’an exists today in the original Arabic as it was revealed to the prophet Muhammad and has not been altered or changed in any way, everyone has access to the ability to understand the precise meaning of the final revelations of God. It requires a lot of work and diligent study and is a lifelong, ongoing process but the ultimate rewards are unimaginable. Although it is possible to grasp a very good understanding of the Qur’an through various translations, which also requires a lot of hard work and study (studying a single translation will give a general understanding at best), a precise meaning would be beyond reach due to the inherent problems of translating one language into another, as most of us here are all quite aware of. As such, this is the main reason why all Muslims are strongly encouraged (insistence is a misleading way to describe it) to learn Arabic. It is the responsibility of every Muslim to read and understand the precise meaning of the Qur’an to the best of his/her abilities with all of the resources that are available to him/her. And learning the precise meaning of God’s revelations becomes realistically possible due to the fact that the Qur’an exists today unchanged and unaltered in the original Arabic as it was revealed to Muhammad over 1400 years ago. No other religion in the world can make such a claim because no other religion possesses original, unchanged, unaltered copies of scriptures in the original language. The religion of Islam stands unique in that respect.

Wassalam,
Karim

We have enough copies of the original bible texts to point to attribute reliability to the translations we have. Your view appears to be that because the original dictated form of the text is retained and has not been translated this means that the original intended meaning has not been lost.

There are a number of responses to this.

1) The capacity of a revelation of God to speak into all cultures and times is limited if it is limited to one language and interpretative horizon.

2) If this message was also intended for non Arabs, as most Muslims believe, then translation is an in practice necessity, if there is to be any understanding of the meaning of the text , but the assumptions about its manner of inspiration limit the possibilities of this. In effect forcing a 7th century mould of a single Arab culture onto those who follow these words.

 

[Arthra]

Mindlight wrote:

Yes and two examples of that would be the suggestion that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was Father, Son and Mary and the view that Jesus did not die on the cross.

But also the repeats of Biblical examples are often distorted.

Mind light...

Here is my comment on your post above:

I think if you look at the word Theotokos

Theotokos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and consider veneration of icons

it's not too difficult to understand the reaction.

As to Jesus not dying on the cross mentioned in the Qur'an it is true probably most believe that is the case however there are some alternate understanding of this.. An alternate view of the Baha'is is that they could not "crucify" the Spirit on the cross.. They believed they had "killed" Him but it only appeared to them that way.

There is another verse of Qur'an that speaks to how Martyrs are viewed..that they are not "dead". You can find this in Surih 2:154 and in Surih 3:169..

And say not of those who are slain in the Way of Allah: "They are dead". Nay they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

To me there are interesting perspectives offered in Qur'an that are not found in the Bible and I don't think there has to be a mere repetition of what was earlier received to make a succeeding revelation more valid..after all, if we consider that revelation means opening up a new understanding then a variation would be expected...

Per the wiki:

revelation is the revealing or disclosing, through active or passive communication with a supernatural or a divine entity(s).

 

[smaneck]

There are about 300,000 words in Arabic and 1 million in English. English is more widely spoken with more native speakers and more speakers who have learnt it as a foreign language.

English language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arabic language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see any reference to 300,000 words in Arabic in those articles. The structure of Arabic is such that it can incorporate foreign words and nouns into is grammar fairly easily. Yes, English is quite widespread today. What of it? Is your point that God should send an English-speaking Prophet?

In the bible that revelation comes in 3 languages and so there is already a built in flexibility and way of measuring how translation might effect the recontextualisation of the message.

That doesn't make it more flexible. The NT is perhaps more amenable to translation into Indo-European languages being as Greek belongs to that language, but Hebrew and Aramaic are both closely related to Arabic.

A prophet like Elijah or one like in the New testament?

A Prophet who receives a revelation direct from God and becomes associated with a scripture.

Was Job a Hebrew or the preflood peoples?

Job is the only text not associated with the Hebrew people but I've never heard anyone suggest that he is 'preflood.'

Moses was brought up as an Egyptian prince.

He is still part of the story of the Hebrew people, as are the other figures you cite.

Having only one single original interpretative horizon and language is a limiting factor for Islam which does not exist in Judaism or Christianity

Sorry, but your argument makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[smaneck]

Thank you for your very clear and cogent explanation.

Some of the points that I will touch upon have already been mentioned in this thread. However, I feel that it doesn’t hurt to reiterate them.

 

[smaneck]

Gods revelation of truth is generally through a personality of a definite time and place - who may or may not be antagonistic to the society of his time. In Muhammeds case my understanding is it was reputedly a dictated text that was intended to transform a fallen society. The parallel in the bible might be Gods writing of the 10 commandments on stone in Ancient Hebrew to a newly formed nation that were still trying to shed their pagan ways acquired in Egypt.

I think that is more or less correct.

We have enough copies of the original bible texts to point to attribute reliability to the translations we have.

Not really. We don't really know what the original bible texts were. The existent manuscripts are, for the most part, from much later.

Your view appears to be that because the original dictated form of the text is retained and has not been translated this means that the original intended meaning has not been lost.

First off, the Qur'an has been translated numerous times. The point is that these translations are not considered the same as the original text. That is just common sense.

1) The capacity of a revelation of God to speak into all cultures and times is limited if it is limited to one language and interpretative horizon.

Again, a good argument for continuing revelation but not for the superiority of the Bible which is hardly for 'all cultures and times' given the fact that it is even older than the Qur'an. Baha'u'llah speaks to this issue:

The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 212)

The Bible is no more aimed at the needs of our present age than is the Qur'an. But contain eternal spiritual truths but the social teachings of both are problematic in our modern age. The question of translation is really irrelevant to this issue. I much prefer the Islamic approach which at least protects the integrity of the text to the approach of many Christians who imagine that the Bible was written in KJV English.

 

[Sister of Faith]

One thing I've never understood, is that the Qur'an has Yeshua's (Jesus') sayings written in Arabic. He never spoke Arabic, he spoke Aramaic/Hebrew. Who translated his sayings into Arabic for the Qur'an?

In Surah 19 -

[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.
And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive
And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.
And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."

Likewise with all the other Prophets.

So, if Allah translated the sayings of all the prophets into Arabic for the Qur'an, then He would know Hebrew/Aramaic and all other languages.

The answer is very simple!
God created every thing, including the languages. So He created languages for people to easily communicate. He said: {O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.} [49:13]

 

[SanFrank]

You have just reminded me with your Facebook. No smell of TRUTH.
The Holy Quran was saved from corruption in more than one method.

Blank statements with no substance hardly convinces anyone.

The interesting thing about that is any aspect of Christianity I've seen expressed in the Koran - they got it wrong. It's like Muhammad was only exposed to heretical Christians.

Yes, and people who accept the koran having knowledge of christian scriptures warp the latter in order to make it conform to the former.

There is only one God. The degree with which each of us know Him is His call not mine.
Of course.
Agreed so far
Gods revelation of truth is generally through a personality of a definite time and place - who may or may not be antagonistic to the society of his time. In Muhammeds case my understanding is it was reputedly a dictated text that was intended to transform a fallen society. The parallel in the bible might be Gods writing of the 10 commandments on stone in Ancient Hebrew to a newly formed nation that were still trying to shed their pagan ways acquired in Egypt.
We have enough copies of the original bible texts to point to attribute reliability to the translations we have. Your view appears to be that because the original dictated form of the text is retained and has not been translated this means that the original intended meaning has not been lost.
There are a number of responses to this.
1) The capacity of a revelation of God to speak into all cultures and times is limited if it is limited to one language and interpretative horizon.
2) If this message was also intended for non Arabs, as most Muslims believe, then translation is an in practice necessity, if there is to be any understanding of the meaning of the text , but the assumptions about its manner of inspiration limit the possibilities of this. In effect forcing a 7th century mould of a single Arab culture onto those who follow these words.

In the grand scheme of things, your response brings to mind another reason for seeing islam limited to this region of the world and these peoples. It seems like a set-up for bringing the old nations that came against israel, back to the forefront for the sake of coming against israel once again. Could this be prophetic in nature? Islam has propheticaly unified all of Israel's old enemies of the 5th and 6th centuries BC!!! I further attest that this unification would not have been possible without islam.

Some German scholars made interesting finds on the arabic language, chapter 6, pre-islamic arabic, by Karl-Heinz Ohlig, The Hidden Origins of Islam. These languages are incredibly difficult to understand especially since no lexicon exists for arabic words. Many of those words are known to originate from Syriac and Aramaic, but there are limited lexicons on those languages as well.

I wish to bring to your attention an example where an ayah was exegete wrong. Sura 19.23-28 is on Mary. The standard qur'an has the quranic god telling her that a "stream was provided under her feet." However, the syro-aramaic rendering reads "your child is not illegitimate." This reading allows the ayah to fit the context of the surrounding ayat (verses).

(The syro-aramaic rendering comes by looking for the root word of the arabic word in question (in syro-aramaic), finding and using that word's meaning). Of course, no one does this and you will not find a qur'an taking this approach.
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u240595-e70285/

Conclusion: What good is the qur'an if even the muslim world and all of Arabia, have an incorrect arabic rendering?
.

 

[smaneck]

Blank statements with no substance hardly convinces anyone.

Some German scholars made interesting finds on the arabic language, chapter 6, pre-islamic arabic, by Karl-Heinz Ohlig, The Hidden Origins of Islam.

You've got to kidding!

I don't know of a single scholar who takes this collection of essays seriously. The book argues for early Islam as a rebellion of extremist Syrian Christianity against Nestorian Christianity. Muhammad was supposedly an honorific title for Jesus and the Muhammad of the Sirat never existed!

In other words, this is Hagarism run amuck.

Their evidence? Some Arab coinage still containing Byzantine symbols with the letters MHMT. It seems not be recognized that in the early days of the Islamic Empire, Muslims just reminted existing coinage adding to them Muslim inscriptions. The same thing was done with Sassanian coins, but that doesn't prove Muhammad was really a title for Zoroaster! They also point to Christian symbols on the Dome of the Rock such as crosses as evidence and some minor differences in the inscriptions from the Qur'anic text that the Dome was built prior to the composition of the Qur'an. More likely, the inclusion of crosses indicates that early Muslims did not interpret Surah 4:157 as denial of the crucifixion at this early period.

I wish to bring to your attention an example where an ayah was exegete wrong.

And you know it was wrong how?

Conclusion: What good is the qur'an if even the muslim world and all of Arabia, have an incorrect arabic rendering?
.

Except they don't.

 

[karim06518]

Originally posted by Karim06518
And as for the claim to the insistence on the use of Arabic in mosques, I’m not quite sure what point the author is trying to convey here. It is true that Arabic is used frequently when khutbahs (sermons) are given by Imams (Clergy), during salat (prayers), as well as during discussions about Islam. However, aside from the prayers, everything is translated and spoken in the common language of whatever community the mosque happens to be in. And here is the main point to this phenomenon. Unless you’re in an Arabic speaking community, all of the Arabic that is spoken is in reference to the Holy Qur’an and the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the precise meaning and context of whatever has been quoted has been completely retained, without it being altered or changed in any way…

Originally posted by mindlight
There are a number of responses to this.

1) The capacity of a revelation of God to speak into all cultures and times is limited if it is limited to one language and interpretative horizon.

2) If this message was also intended for non Arabs, as most Muslims believe, then translation is an in practice necessity, if there is to be any understanding of the meaning of the text , but the assumptions about its manner of inspiration limit the possibilities of this. In effect forcing a 7th century mould of a single Arab culture onto those who follow these words.


What???

 

[steve_bakr]

Originally posted by Karim06518
And as for the claim to the insistence on the use of Arabic in mosques, I’m not quite sure what point the author is trying to convey here. It is true that Arabic is used frequently when khutbahs (sermons) are given by Imams (Clergy), during salat (prayers), as well as during discussions about Islam. However, aside from the prayers, everything is translated and spoken in the common language of whatever community the mosque happens to be in. And here is the main point to this phenomenon. Unless you’re in an Arabic speaking community, all of the Arabic that is spoken is in reference to the Holy Qur’an and the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Therefore, the precise meaning and context of whatever has been quoted has been completely retained, without it being altered or changed in any way…

Originally posted by mindlight
There are a number of responses to this.

1) The capacity of a revelation of God to speak into all cultures and times is limited if it is limited to one language and interpretative horizon.

2) If this message was also intended for non Arabs, as most Muslims believe, then translation is an in practice necessity, if there is to be any understanding of the meaning of the text , but the assumptions about its manner of inspiration limit the possibilities of this. In effect forcing a 7th century mould of a single Arab culture onto those who follow these words.

What???

One answer to #2 would be to say that--while revelation takes place in a specific time and place--the effects of revelation transcend temporal and spacial limitations.