Syriac in the Qur'an? | Grapes in Paradise? | A Qur'anic Studies Professor Explains | G.S. Reynolds
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 чер 2024
- In this video I give a short presentation on different proposals for a Syriac background for a number of Qur'anic stories. I look at the influence that the Syriac Alexander Legend, the Sleepers of Ephesus, as well as other Syriac literature have had on the Qur'an. I also evaluate some of the more controversial proposals for Syriac subtext like that of Christoph Luxenberg who argued that much of the Qur'an can be read as a Syriac text.
Can you do a full episode on Luxenberg? Maybe you could interview him and disguise his face and voice?
In an interview on an Arabic UA-cam channel, Christoph Luxenberg expressed he defends the Quran and stated that his goal is to present interpretations that align with historical and linguistic contexts. Thank you, professor; your channel is one of the best.
I thought it was a fake name because the author didnt want to made public of fear of extremist reactions? What video?
Yes, it’s not his real name. He was initially interviewed by Sami Al Deeb but later started his own UA-cam channel. You have to know Lebanese/Levantine Arabic to sort of understand his interpretations. I think the criticisms he received are his over reliance on the dictionary of Manna which is relatively modern Syriac… he massages the words too much to fit into his narrative.
@@harbinger2020 it is a fake name.
I tried posting the link but it wasn’t published possibly to prevent spam most likely. But I believe it was the video in Sami Aldeeb’s channel on "حور العين او عنب ابيضّ"
@@fay1298 هو فكهاني و بيحب الفاكهة
@@fay1298Christoph Luxenburg is a Christian apologist troll with no academic qualifications in Islamic or quranic studies and makes fun of the Quran.
Fascinating. Thanks for bringing it down to a non expert level!
People would not be surprised at the influence and similarity of the Quran to the Syriac language. Because it is a Semitic language family, like Hebrew and Aramaic. This information is not special. Unless you can prove what books were copied in that century so that the Quran could be set? Please load the detailed data i.e the author and evidence of the parts, if any, which were the basic arrangements of the Quran, then just publish those discoveries as it has been 14 centuries no one had showed
Great video as always. Your channel is an absolute stand out
Great video, Professor! I was wondering what are your thoughts on what exactly ar-Raqim it's supposed to be in the story of the companions of the cave? Could it possibly be the City of Petra, the sleepers dog or something else?
Thank you. Your series of talks and lectures has transformed the breadth of my understanding, and I have gone to read several of the books by the people who come on your series, and watched several of their other videos.
Please keep doing what you do. I am sure many thousands of people are finding them educational and sparking our curiosity to explore these topics in more detail.
Thank you for the encouragement!
Please dont be naive and swallow anything they tell you. Houris in arabic language are women from paradise not grapes . Can you get married with grapes ? you would say what! . read this verse
52 20
They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Houris (female, fair ones) with wide lovely eyes.
What is the meaning of the name Hour in the Holy Quran?
The name Hour is an Arabic name and is written in English as hoor. It is a soft and delicate name that refers to beautiful girls. The name Hour is taken from the Holy Quran. The most famous of them are Hour al-Ayn. They are white women or women with very white eyes and very black pupils, or women with wide eyes with very white and black eyes. The owner of the name Hour is characterized by beauty, kindness and tenderness. She is also an intelligent girl and has
if the word hour means grapes in syriac , but we are dealing with arabic text here not syriac . A word may have one meaning in one language , but the same word can have completely different meaning in another language . I will give you one example
the word burro in italian it means butter , but in spanish burro means donkey
@@mhamedkhattabi5863majareyhe in bismillahi majareyhe wa mursaha, in story of noh; is it arabic?
If if were not arabic could we safely assume that it was a lexicon of nuh?
If lexicon of nuh were used in the quran, could we safely assume that yusuf lexicon was used too?
Those of ibrahim and musa too?
Mmm
I greatly enjoyed this episode. I'm curious. Are there institutions that teach Syriac that you could recommend?
Thank you for this presentation.
This is really good- thank you
On the question of the Syriac origin of stories in the Quran, I contend that just because a story was told after a pre-existing story about the same incident or person, it does not necessarily mean the later story owes its origin to an earlier narrative. Allow me to use an analogy to illustrate my point.
Imagine someone wrote a biography of my grandfather, which I read and became aware of. The published biography included some stories of my grandfather that I personally knew, as I had witnessed them firsthand. A friend of mine also happened to read my grandfather's biography. One day, my friend asks me about a story mentioned in the biography. The version in the biography was told slightly differently from what I knew, so I narrated my version of the story from my perspective.
My retelling of the story was influenced by the fact that I was responding to the version told in the biography. Therefore, my retelling aimed to set the record straight of parts I found to be incorrect and to add more details and emphasis on parts that were lacking in the published version. Chronologically speaking, my version of the story came after the published version. However, it is obvious that the published biography is not the source of my story. I am the source of my own telling of the story, even if there are clear allusions to the published version.
I believe a similar case can be made for Quranic stories. Though they are chronologically told later and make allusions to earlier narratives, they might not be derivatives of any previously told stories. Thus, the insistence that Quranic stories owe their origin to earlier narratives seems uncharitable to the Islamic viewpoint, as it denies the possibility of independent divine origin.
"Thus, the insistence that Quranic stories owe their origin to earlier narratives seems uncharitable to the Islamic viewpoint, as it denies the possibility of independent divine origin."
In this video Reynolds is teaching from an academic standpoint. In academic religious studies, the question of the supernatural is not touched, not because it automatically assumes it wrong (edit: as is often mistakenly said), but simply because it is not within its purview.
@steve My friend, your example is very lame! just lime Muslim quran! I understand that your grand father was a pagan and whatever he did or seen by the eyes of pagan Ok? You cannot tell me Mhmd did not copy pasted the story of Issa (Jesus) in his Quran which is NOT real Jesus and yet there are similarity like born of virgin Mother Mary, He did miracles of healing people etc so Mhmd can use those statements of his quran and say to Christians of his time, "See I believe in Jesus, Who was born of virgin Mother Mary and he did miracles etc" to deceive the people so those who do not have any idea about Islam will join his gang. Keep reading your Quran because you want to make a case for Quran Ok? You believe in a man who was 51 y/o age who married 6 y/o child Aisha. This is the first reason to doubt that Mhmd is NOT a prophet! And if you read about his life, he was also homo sexual person So please investigate first Ok?
@@jeremias-serus Your point is well taken. An appeal to the supernatural cannot be considered within an academic setting. However, for someone who considers the supernatural to be real, what I said may well explain the Quranic references to earlier stories without having to say Quranic stories are simply derivatives of earlier ones.
@@stevesmith4901 You seem to forget the fact that even contemporates of Muhammah had the impression he was telling old stories. Have you ever looked at the content stemming from jewish rabbinic literature in the Quran?
Thanks for the comment. You phrased it very elegantly and I appreciate your desire to be sympathetic to the Muslim viewpoint. This is important, in my opinion, because it allows Muslim viewers to enjoy this content and learn from it without being made to feel uncomfortable by discussions that assume a non-divine origin.
Your analogy aligns with a Muslim conception of what the Quran is doing. Muslims believe that the Quran is a final confirmation and correction of previous messages that were also inspired by God, such as what Jesus and other prophets preached. Therefore, if there were any other stories already in circulation, then maybe they, too, indeed came from God, or at any rate God certainly witnessed them. Therefore, the Quran, which Muslims believe is the word of God, is indeed speaking from the viewpoint of the grandson in your analogy. It might be referring to pre-existing stories, but not so as to imitate them but rather to correct them or draw upon them for the purpose of imparting spiritual teachings, from the perspective of a narrator who witnessed the circumstances giving rise to the stories themselves and is therefore equipped to correct their retellings.
Based on the way that scholars speak, they tend to sound like they're assuming a non-divine origin and this can put some Muslim viewers off. For instance, phrases like "the sources the Quran is drawing from". This is a rough example - per your analogy, it could indeed be drawing from those stories but that doesn't mean the narrator didn't know the truth about them already. The point is, in places where it feels insinuated that the Quran has a non-divine origin, this can be off-putting and stressful for Muslims who are interested in seriously learning what historians have to say about the Quran.
So, I appreciate your efforts to make this point. You were smart enough to arrive, by your own reasoning, at logic that nicely reconciles the Muslim belief in divine origin with the possibility that the Quran is in some capacity drawing from a historical context in which certain stories were floating around.
Another fascinating lecture! Thanks, Gabriel 🙏. I haven't read Luxembourg's work, but the proponents of his work argue that his method can help make sense of about 25% of the quranic text known as the dark passages. I mean those verses that don't have a clear arabic meaning, and one needs to rely on exegesis to understand them. However, the only thing I keep hearing is his argument about virgin vs. grape. Would be nice to discuss some other examples of the verses that he claims can be read in syriac.
Qur'an clearly states azwajun mutahharatun in 2:25, 4:57 meaning purified spouses. Your reference to grape is the word hoor, where in Hadith literature their beauty is described. So, to think about someone is describing the beauty of grapes is hilarious. And the stratagem used to overcome the the obstacle of Qur'an mentioning getting married to grapes, makes it look like a new kind of deception rather than pure academic pursuit.
I agree 😀. People like him are clueless about Quran.
Its just wishful thinking of this channel podcaster !
Where can I find a copy online of As-Suyuti's Itqan? Complete please
Thank you Professor. An excellent presentation.
i love this channel
Interestingly western scholars since over 100 years saw a remarkable similarity in the rhyme-pattern od early meccan surahs and syriac christian hymns because they could draw comparisons based on the knowledge of old middle eastern languages including arabic and syriac. So one of the questions was, whether early meccan surahs could be based on christian source material. This is a total "no-go-area" for muslim scholars because it goes against the two central assumptions (a,b) that the quran was (a) revealed (b) in pure arabic. Lüling did a reconstruction of surah 74 verse 1-30 in syriac which comes to the following text: „O thou hesitating one!
Arise and solemnly promise!
And say that thy Lord is great!
And thy garment purify!
And defilement flee!
And bestow not favour to gain many!
And for thy Lord wait patiently!
And when the trumpet will be sounded,
That day will be a harsh day,
for the unbelievers not easy.
He [God] has created me and whom He created as a unique being.
And He [God] made him [Christ] a property, obedient to his will
And He testified him by witnesses.
And he paved him the way.
Then he [Jesus Christ] desired that he [Jesus] might be increased.
Not at all that he was rebellious against His signs [= commandments].
Finally he made him pass through death to the height.
Behold him! He was tortured and despised.
So he [Christ] was killed as it was decided.
He accomplished. He was kille das it was decided.
He stopped looking around reflectively.
He stopped scowling and making a stern face.
He stopped disputing and said „God is great“.
And he said: „What else is this but the seducer, who desires?
What else ist this but the voice of the transitory flesh.
So He {God] has finally transferred him to the underworld [saqqar].
And what has let thee know, what saqqar is?
It doesn’t let remain and doesn’t let go.
Indeed an oasis for the transitory flesh.
On it are seven gates.“
For reference G. Lüling, „A Challenge to Islam for Reformation“ p. 511ff.)
Great work very impressive information! Thanks
Great discussion
Really interesting stuff. Love to see that those syriac sources that add more info to the Qur'anic stories. I dunno about the grapes argument, I just feel like being promised 70 super delicious grapes doesn't sound like it would motivate an early Muslim convert to risk his life in battle.
😂 good one… I think the number 70 was added later by som sheikhs. It’s interesting from a numerology perspective as I think it might have come from Judaic tradition?
have you seen some of those crazy japanese grapes though?...they cost an arm and a leg...🤑
The promise in the Quran whether grapes or virgins has nothing to do with risking life in battle. Your mixing stories from Hadith with Quran including the number 72 which also is not in the Quran
Please dont be naive and swallow anything they tell you. Houris in arabic language are women from paradise not grapes . Can you get married with grapes ? you would say what! . read this verse
52 20
They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Houris (female, fair ones) with wide lovely eyes.
What is the meaning of the name Hour in the Holy Quran?
The name Hour is an Arabic name and is written in English as hoor. It is a soft and delicate name that refers to beautiful girls. The name Hour is taken from the Holy Quran. The most famous of them are Hour al-Ayn. They are white women or women with very white eyes and very black pupils, or women with wide eyes with very white and black eyes. The owner of the name Hour is characterized by beauty, kindness and tenderness. She is also an intelligent girl and has
if the word hour means grapes in syriac , but we are dealing with arabic text here not syriac . A word may have one meaning in one language , but the same word can have completely different meaning in another language . I will give you one example
the word burro in italian it means butter , but in spanish burro means donkey
@@mohamad-alitrad2511 It is seventy two, not seventy. Quran does not say anything about 72 virgins. For other sources one must turn to the six (recognized) books of Hadith, among which Malik’s Muwatta and Bukhari are more reliable. But neither Malik nor Bukhari considered their compilations perfect. Out of the other four Hadith books, Tirmidhi is the main source for the belief that martyrs may get up to 72 Houris. It was only in the sixth century A.H. that Tirmidhi’s “Jami'” was accepted as one of the canonical books on Hadith. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud and Sunan Nasai all received acceptance before Tirmidhi’s Jami’. The other source is Ibn Khatir’s “tafseer” (commentary) on the Quran. In a recent translation of his work, one can find a note from the publisher saying, “We are aware that Ibn Kathir’s original work does contain some weak narrations as well as a number of Traditions related from the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians}.” Therefore, one can say that if a theological issue only has to rest on Tirmidhi and Ibn Khatir’s commentary, it probably wouldn’t be considered as very reliable. [By the way, the number 72 was a significant number in Jewish mysticism and among Christian Gnostics, and that’s probably how it got into Hadith literature. But that’s another topic].
Great work.
very informative. Seems like its impossible to deny the existence of Syriac influence.
I am sorry but this is just silly. Quran plainly says كَذَٰلِكَ وَزَوَّجْنَٰهُم بِحُورٍ عِينٍ , which means, "So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes." I fail to see how one can be married to raisins, as you claim.
Neo-Orientalism is funny like that.
Are there any Sumerian/Babylonian and Ancient Greek influences for the number 72? At some time people seemed to be using 72 constellations, and in the Hindu system there are 27 houses of the moon(?). + even Christ referring to wine as his blood seems rather Pagan and more appropriate to Dionysus. Thank you for discussing Christoph Luxenberg's book.
Alexander lived in the 300's BC. Christianity was born in the 1st century AD. Christianity had almost 6 centuries head-start on Mohammad and Islam; who were also 8 centuries removed from Alexander. The Syriac Christians, therefore, had all the time to brew fables like this one.
Why wait for Muhammad's version to copy it while they had all the facts and time, way ahead of him, to formulate their own? It doesn't add up. I agree with you, the older version is always understood to be more of the original. In this case, it has to be the Syriac one. Plus, what is the point of having a divine revelation that comes later, and is contesting with common fables for genuineness?
There are instances where the talmud has even been updated with phrases influenced by the quran in the 10th century! 600 head start means absolutkey nothing, especially when the religion of Abraham and Noah was neither Jewish or christian
Cool information! Thanks! Saves me a trip down the Wikipedia rabbit hole
Thanks so much Dr Reynolds for this livestream highlighting Syriac in the Quran and its richness in Literature, Poetry, History, Theology the list is long and exhaustive.last but not the least the strong impact & influence on the Quranic texts, and who can forget the Legends of the Seven Sleepers, Dhul Qarnain.What is interesting is that the Quran does not deny the accusations of the disbelievers about Apocryphal tales in the Quran but as being sent down to Muhammad Sura 25: 4-6.Yes Christoph Luxemburg's work surely stirred a busy hornets nest when he points out that the idea of the heavenly virgins contradicts the Quranic promise that the blessed will enter paradise with their wives sura 43:70 unless the earthly wives are supposed to seethe in rage & sorrow as their husband's cavort with the heavenly virgins.But hur doesn't mean virgin as even arabic philologists acknowledge but is the plural form of an Arabic feminine adjective that means White.Luxemburg argues that it contradicts arabic usage and does not make sense as a sign of beauty.No where it is heard about beautiful white eyes but we find it taken as an expression of the beauty of those virgins as " wide eyed or large eyed.Sadly sura 12:84 also says the eyes of Jacob went white crying over his Son Joseph( Yusuf) however arabic commentators have a way of explaining that the white in reference to the virgins emphasizes the beauty of big black eyes, surely an invented makeshift explanation.Luxemburg shows that the word Paradise can be traced to the Syriac word for garden which stands to reason , given to the common identification of the garden of Adam& Eve with Paradise.Luxemburg makes metaphorical references to bunches of grapes that are consonant with Christian homilies expatiating on the refreshments that greeted the blessed in Paradise.He cites the 4th century hymns of St Ephraem the Syrian and the Syriac word St Ephraem used for grapevines was feminine which led the the Arab exegetes of the Quran to this erotic assumption that the quranic texts refer to sexual pleasures in exotic jannah...LORD have mercy.Misleading also are the verses regarding the boys of Paradise particularly sura 76:19 which Luxemburg references to iced fruits that resemble pearls that are translucent and one can imagine and gauge the extent to which the quranic exegesis has become estranged via the Original Christian Symbolism of the wine of Paradise.To conclude The Quran is Misinterpreted, Mistranslated & Misread as is the title of Dr Gabriel Sawma's brilliant book.God bless & keep up the good work...Ameen.
Wonderful presentation. Thank you very much for sharing this with the world.
It's so interesting how stories and myths evolve and even rise to the level of religious text. I'm intrigued by the Pegasus/Buraq motif. Do you know of any academic work into this, professor Reynolds?
The invention and development of the Quran is really fascinating.
Looks like there was a lot more syriac influence involved in thr Qur'ans development.
I'm curious to know if the 7 sleepers of Ephesus is also a syriac myth that made it's way into the Qur'an?
يا أخي والله القران هو كلام ربك ومافي أحد من البشر له علاقة بتنزيله
ربنا رحمنا بهذا الكتاب الى قيام الساعة
لا تقل تطويره بل هو كما أنزل من عند الله عز وجل
أرجع الى الله وأندم على ماقلته قبل يوم القيامة
@@Omaromaromar-db9cd No my friend, there is no Allah involved in the Qurans. This is the works of men, and their imaginations are fascinating
Hi Gabriel, Islamic scholars claim that the oldest document of the Srouji version of the Ephesus was written after the qoran, and hence they claim that it was actually taken from the Qoran. The Inara guys and Luxemburg argue that the qoranic context was to mention the story not as to confirm it but to address Christian theological debates at the time. Basically implying that there were several circulating versions. The qoran was like saying that little variations in details of the story do not matter it’s more about the theme…. What’s your stand on this?
The "Inara" guys argument does not prove that the Srouji version predates the Quran.
I understand it as the white (pure) grapes of knowledge, meaning the understanding. If substitute makes sense to me, as the biggest reward of paradise
Our church liturgy is Syriac but our language we speak at home is Assyrian
حُورٌ مَقْصُورَاتٌ فِي الْخِيَامِ
what does mean in syriac ?
So, you are surprised to see the similarities between the Quran and Syriac Christian littérature, though Muhammad himself came from Judio/Porto-Christian heritage, and he stated that the stories in the Quran are the stories of ancient Jewish and Christians
Dr. Reynolds,
What is the point of this video? Does it bear the implication that the Qur'an is false because it contains Syriac (and/or other) legends? Or is it just an "academic" pursuit, - which it appears not from the approach taken (e.g. academics do not call things "done deal" in order to leave room for future research). It seems the implication at the bottom is: (a) since the Qur'an contains ancient legends, therefore, it cannot be from an all-knowing God, and (b) since the Christians of Late Antiquity were already reading and narrating such legends in the Syriac language, therefore, the Christian antecedence in this case must put the truth with Christianity. If that is the case, which it seems it is, today's presentation banks upon a circular logic that though sheds light on both the cause and effect in relation to Islamic thought's formation but does forget to discuss the cause itself being an effect to yet another cause, the Jewish antecedence.
You have already provided these details in the books you have edited, which appear to be a much better academic work in nature versus this video, a critique of the video is thus in order. It is a general understanding among historians that the world of antiquity did not make much of a distinction between myth and history, and therefore their writings - even religious scriptures - would contain materials that might not qualify as purely 'historical.' The scriptures of all religions, therefore, are 'tainted' with the sociological phenomenon now known as myth and legend. The God of the Qur'an, for instance, does not know the true identity (faith-orientation?) of Dhul Qarnayn or the historicity of the sleepers of the cave or the origin of the myth of Gog Magog, or even the Syriac origins of many Qur'anic terminology and phraseology; does that compromise the Qur'anic claim of divine origin? According to the rules of logic, the answer should be a "YES." The God in the role of Father in the New Testament, on the other hand, does not appear to have been familiar with the fact that Matthew 28 puts many dead people out on the street, out and about, alive and vigorous. The author of Matthew’s Gospel does not seem to allude that this event was listed as one allegorical rather than historical. Therefore, what is the verdict of an academic scholar, such as yourself, who tends to all religious history through the same (i.e. objective) lens? We all know that people do not come back from the dead, be it Lazarus, Jesus himself and/or any of the saints, for that can only happen in a mythical realm but does not and cannot by any standard of historical criticism form a principle of history. And above all, could the virginal birth of Jesus be a historical event? What if the Talmudic accusation of Mary being an adulteress were true? After all the Jews believed the Talmud to be divinely inspired. What kind of a shadow would it cast on the New Testament?
Lastly, going back to the cause of all causes that triggered all of the these effects of biblical tradition, the Hebrew Bible, what if the Book of Genesis were an imitation of ancient Egyptian or other Near Eastern pagan religions? What if the flood story were borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh? What if the Tower of Babylon were only a legend? What if the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were in fact mythical beings? What if the Leviathan of Psalm 74:14 and Isaiah 27:1 were imagined by the Psalter and the Prophet Isaiah as an actual creature of the ocean? Would the all-knowing God of the Hebrews, Yahweh, not know that such creatures were only mythical? And if the inclusion of myth and legend into a religious scripture taints its divine status, how shall we go about the entire biblical tradition? There may certainly be human truth to such a tradition, but, of course, the divine truth will be as far removed from it as it is claimed by the condescending Western tradition to have been removed from the Hindu Scriptures, Buddhist Scriptures or Zoroastrian Scriptures.
I wonder if that was the purpose of this video as hinted by you, I am forced to think about the only "ONE" revelation, Evangel or Injeel, received by Jesus in "Aramaic" (middle eastern) which has been completely lost and replaced by "FOUR" so called original Gospels in Greek language, (European) a language of the enemies of Jesus, the Romans. It is obvious that Jesus could have never received a revelation about his trials, crucifixion and so called death. So what was the real gist of the gospel he received from Almighty and preached.
12 : 1-2
Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the clear Book.
Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. .
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
"Semitic" is just mumbled Arabic, really. Imagine English with a third of its letters removed and simplified grammar. That's Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. For example, combine T and D into just T; there's no need to have 2 letters. The same goes for i, e, y - they should all be just y from now on, etc., etc. Arabic is the only corollary to proto-Semitic. In fact, the whole classification of Semitic languages is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning brain. Hebrew, Aramaic, and the rest of these made-up dialect continua only have 22 letters out of the 29 proto-Semitic letters. Arabic has all 29. The difference between Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as the difference between Latin and pig Latin or Italian. "Phoenician" is an Arabic dialect continuum, and not only that, it is pidgin. It is simplified to the point of stupidity. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Arabic would see this clearly. What happened was that Arabic handicapped "scholars" saw the equivalent of Scottish Twitter spelling, with added mumbling due to phonemic mergers (22 letters, not 29), and mistakenly thought they were seeing a different language."
Arabic three cases for nouns (nominative, accusative, and genitive), Akkadian has only two cases (nominative, genitive-accusative) and Hebrew, Aramaic have no case endings at all.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "die Semitische"
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Languages degrade, they do not "evolve", they're a tool for thinking, not communication. The reason why translation is even possible in the first place is because they all stem from a single language. Orcas for example cannot vocalise to other orcas from other pods, even if they are adopted young, they can only track the new host pod visually.
|Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects |
| Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects |
| Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian |
Arabic is the only corollary to proto-semitic, infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning mass between their ears. hebrew, aramaic, rest of madeup dialect continua only have 22 letters of the 29 protosemitic letters Arabic has all 29. The difference betweeen Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as that between Latin and pig latin or italian.
Arabic is written in an alphabetic script that consists of 28 consonants and three long vowels. For example:
قرأ زيد كتابا
qaraʾa zayd-un kitāb-an
Zayd read a book
This sentence is composed of three words: qaraʾa (he read), zayd-un (Zayd), and kitāb-an (a book). The word order is verb-subject-object, which is different from English but similar to Proto-Semitic and Akkadian. The word zayd-un has a suffix -un that indicates the nominative case, which is equivalent to "the" in English or "-u" in Akkadian. The word kitāb-an has a suffix -an that indicates the accusative case, which is equivalent to "a" in English or "-a" in Akkadian.
Proto-Semitic is the reconstructed ancestor of all Semitic languages. It is not written in any script, but linguists use a system of symbols to represent its sounds. For example:
ʔanāku bēlīya ʔašū
I am his lord
This sentence is composed of three words: ʔanāku (I), bēlīya (my lord), and ʔašū (he). The word order is subject-object-verb, which is different from English but similar to Arabic and Akkadian. The word bēlīya has a suffix 'ya' that indicates possession, which is equivalent to "my" in English or "-ī" in Arabic. The word ʔašū has a prefix ʔa- that indicates the third person singular masculine pronoun, which is equivalent to "he" in English or "huwa" in Arabic.
I'll compare Arabic with Proto-Semitic and show how Arabic preserves features that are lost or changed in other Semitic languages.
Let's start with a simple sentence:
## The house is big
Arabic:
البيتُ كبيرٌ
al-bayt-u kabīr-un
Proto-Semitic:
*ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u
Hebrew:
הבית גדול
ha-bayit gadol
Akkadian:
bītum rabûm
Amharic:
ቤቱ ገደሉ
betu gedelu
As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-).
But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include:
- The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian.
- The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber.
- The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian.
- The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber.
Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen.
Arabic:
كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ
kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i
Proto-Semitic:
*kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i
Hebrew:
המכתב נכתב בעט
ha-michtav niktav ba-et
Akkadian:
šipram šapāru bēlum
Egyptian:
sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t
Berber:
tturra-t tibratin s uccen
Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum).
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
All this in a "clear book" huh? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.
Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
[James 1:13) God cannot be tempted
(John 1:29) Jesus was seen
(1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God
(Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
(Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man
(Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
(Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn
(1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
(1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die
(Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
(Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation
(Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
(Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep
(John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful
(Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful
(Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing
(Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3).
2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain.
It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings.
How can one beieve that the One that decrees that which is a 'sin' and that which is good "die for their sins" ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? - No. None are greater than He.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity:
"And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church"
-Homily 17 Section XIX
On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said
"For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.”
-Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he
" gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere.
The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.", "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."
This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions.
Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation.
The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission.
Christendom was always an empirial religion, born under the auspices of constantine, the subjects were converted at the edge of the sword and rendered into slaves for his majesty, often referring to him as their lord. In Islam such slavery is unthinkable. The only lordship is that of the creator, no station into which man was brought into the lands of Islam was to any degree as bad as the repugnant chattel slavery brought by the primitive tribalism inherent in their texts. Constantine chose regularly to refer to himself as the “servant of God” (famulus dei/therapon tou theou) in official writings. By the fifth century, this metaphor of subordination had been redeployed from theological to political contexts as the subjects of the emperor came to refer to themselves as “slaves of the emperor.” And by the sixth, Justinian insisted all his officials swear an oath that they would demonstrate their service to the emperor “with genuine slavehood” (gnesia douleia) building on Paul’s revalorization of the vocabulary of slavery, and particularly the word doulos came to be applied to a variety of hierarchical relationships, even as it also continued to be used specifically of chattel slaves. By the middle Byzantine period, this expansion of the semantic range of the root doul- eventually gave the abstract nominal form douleia, meaning laborer.
Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws.
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth.
None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
So hurun ain is not women rather than a grapes. That is interesting
Listen on headphones or Siri might get confused
Very interesting topic, but I which you had invited a native Arabic philologist, as it would have enriched the content. Paleographically, there is consensus that Phoenician language is the mother of several offspring scripts including Hebrew and Aramaic (Cross 1980: 13; Naveh 1982: 54,65,66,78, _1988: 84,85; Pekham 2001: 22,36; Satzinger 2002: 15; Rollston 2008: 73; Mccarter 2008: 38; Van Rooy 2011: 7; Gzella 2011: 78; Folmer 2011: 131; Wilson-Wright 2019: 511; Huehnergard & Pat-El 2019: 14). Furthermore, classical Arabic in its current epigraphic form is the youngest language (c.2nd c. CE, Dr. Al-Jallad can speak more on this matter). Thus, it is natural that the Quran is lexically connected to its geographical and historical milieu, and that it has Syriac (1st c. CE), Aramaic (8th-9th c. BCE), Hebrew (8th-9th c. BCE), Geʾez (8th-9th c. BCE), Ancient South Arabian (8th-9th c. BCE), Phoenician (the first linear alphabetic language at least 1000 BCE- see Aḥiram sarcophagus), Ugaritic (15th-14th c. BCE) and even Akkadian (c. 2,500 BCE) words as they form part of a linguistic continuum (note the dating above is approximate and excludes archaic short graffiti inscriptions and those of questionable categorization which attempt to retrofit religious and national identities).
For example, the word for “father” أَب occurs in the Quran approximately 50x. It is attested in Akkadian as ʾabu (ʾ is equivalent to the Arabic Hamza), Ugaritic as ʾab (both Akkadian and Ugaritic were written in cuneiform and not in linear alphabetic), in Phoenician which is the oldest linear alphabet it was ʾb (probably vocalized as ʾab), in Ancient South Arabian (Sabaic) it was also ʾb (probably vocalized as ʾab), in Aramaic אנא ʾabba, in Geʾez ʾab, in biblical Hebrew it was אב ʾāb (later forms pronounce the b as v), in Syriac ܐܰܒܳܐ ʾabu, and of course it is Arabic أَب ʾab which in its current form is the youngest diachronically (across time).
Having said the above, the Quran is a marvelous book of classical Arabic (CLA) literature of the highest caliber that stands on its own, albeit with some ambiguities that can be better understood through the prism of predecessor languages e.g. وَفَاكِهَةً وَأَبًّا wa-fakihatan wa-ʾabba in Surat سورة عبس [80.31] where the second word’s interpretation in CLA is unclear, though Ibn Katheer favors the translation as “grass, hay”. Yet, the word is not present in the oldest CLA dictionary c. 8th c. CE Kitāb al-ʿAyn), but attested in Syriac as the common word ʾebo ܐܶܒܳܐ which means “fruit” (Costaz 1994:1), Aramaic ʾeb (The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (huc.edu), and is also attested in biblical Hebrew as אב ʾeb “fruit” only 3x in Daniel 4:12,14,21. This is one of many examples.
Finally, this natural lexical phenomenon is not particular of the Quran and applies to the Hebrew bible too which is loaded with Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic, Akkadian words, with even some Egyptian hieroglyphic words e.g. Strong Hebrew 2856 חתםḥatam “to seal” is Khetem (Wallis Budge 1920:568).
THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD (PBUH):
"If you are in any doubt whether it is WE (ALLAH/TheGOD speaks in the plural of majesty) WHO have revealed this Book to OUR servant (Muhammad), then produce just a surah like it, and call all your supporters and seek in it the support of all others except ALLAH. Accomplish this if you are truthful.
BUT, if you are unable to do so-and YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DO SO - then fear the Fire(of Hell) fuelled with people and stones, which is prepared for the Disbelievers."
~ The Noble Qur'an Surah/Chapter Al Baqara/The Heifer 2: verses 23 - 24
I m only a learner..
And i opine that the quran is not fully 7th century arabic.
It contains word of its narrators.
If nuh is the narrator, he used his lexicon.
If ibrahim is the narrator, he used his lexicon. And the list goes on.
The problem of deciding whether it is in syiriac or aramaic or yemenis or ethopian is that we do not know grographical event in the quran.
We think musa story in present day egypt; it could be musa geographical location was in south sudan.
It could be madyan was yemenis town. The list goes on.
Why not interpret words of quran using its own semantic context in its stories. It is thru this semantic contact that allah preserve his words, among other methods.
I opine this is more closer a road to find the truth. It might not sound academic, but it is a road more closer to find the truth.
Peace.
"If you are in any doubt whether it is WE (ALLAH/TheGOD speaks in the plural of majesty) Who have revealed this Book to Our servant (Muhammad), then produce just a surah like it, and call all your supporters and seek in it the support of all others except ALLAH. Accomplish this if you are truthful.
BUT, if you are unable to do so-and YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DO SO - then fear the Fire(of Hell) fuelled with people and stones, which is prepared for the Disbelievers."
~ The Noble Qur'an Surah/Chapter Al Baqara/The Heifer 2: verses 23 - 24
For i think its time we grow up & stop making literalist views about these holy books. For theres always a perpective, always a motivation for writing a book. Who is the audience, who do you wanna oppose and why.Some good and some evil motivations. So i think especially the abrahamic religions should understand their literalist interpretations will get them nowhere but tyranny and world wars. Approach them as ancient ideologies much like communism etc , and learn about hiw ideologies function , how they make us do stuff we normally woulnt do may it be good or bad. There's a lot of chaff in these books and some very egoistic cultural ideas which they translate onto us if we blindly follow them, take moses, on one hand he is liberating jews from slavery and on the other hand he is ordering the genocide so that they can settle there. Catholicism is a roman religion not the actual religion of christ just like bodhisattva ideas had nothing to do with the historical gautama. Look if the colonials imperialised and butchered their colonies with someone like christ on their empires name then we are capable of using anything and anyone to do evil and be relieved of the sin.
Salam alaykum.
@ChristianPrince Ears he deleted your comment and all the replies? lol
The most stupid studies that have been conducted on the Qur’an are the studies of the Syriac Qur’an... Luxenberg’s imagination was very broad and he committed many fallacies and based his analysis on the impossible assumption.
Interestingly western scholars since over 100 years saw a remarkable similarity in the rhyme-pattern of early meccan surahs and syriac christian hymns because they could draw comparisons based on the knowledge of old middle eastern languages including arabic and syriac. So one of the questions was, whether early meccan surahs could be based on christian source material. This is a total "no-go-area" for muslim scholars because it goes against the two central assumptions (a,b) that the quran was (a) revealed (b) in pure arabic. Lüling did a reconstruction of surah 74 verse 1-30 in syriac which comes to the following text: „O thou hesitating one!
Arise and solemnly promise!
And say that thy Lord is great!
And thy garment purify!
And defilement flee!
And bestow not favour to gain many!
And for thy Lord wait patiently!
And when the trumpet will be sounded,
That day will be a harsh day,
for the unbelievers not easy.
He [God] has created me and whom He created as a unique being.
And He [God] made him [Christ] a property, obedient to his will
And He testified him by witnesses.
And he paved him the way.
Then he [Jesus Christ] desired that he [Jesus] might be increased.
Not at all that he was rebellious against His signs [= commandments].
Finally he made him pass through death to the height.
Behold him! He was tortured and despised.
So he [Christ] was killed as it was decided.
He accomplished. He was kille das it was decided.
He stopped looking around reflectively.
He stopped scowling and making a stern face.
He stopped disputing and said „God is great“.
And he said: „What else is this but the seducer, who desires?
What else ist this but the voice of the transitory flesh.
So He {God] has finally transferred him to the underworld [saqqar].
And what has let thee know, what saqqar is?
It doesn’t let remain and doesn’t let go.
Indeed an oasis for the transitory flesh.
On it are seven gates.“
For reference G. Lüling, „A Challenge to Islam for Reformation“ p. 511ff.)
@@amuthi1
Your imagination is very broad (it is clear that you do not have the slightest knowledge about the history of Islam)
@@m7hd1 Could you tell me then, why there is no archeological proof nor geological match for the Mecca of Muhammad in Saudi Arabia according to the description by early muslim historians? Let's see what your broad imagination will produce!
@@amuthi1
Once again, I advise you to read Islamic history and you will know that you are a fool
@@m7hd1 See not even your your imagination was able to produce an answer to my question.
Just conjecture & preseption
So which is it? Grapes or Virgins?
Virgins. Hope you're not disappointed.
How can grapes be heavenly reward of a g-d?
@TENGRI-101 it is an expression of heaven in earth .
Rivers grapes
@TENGRI-101 either way, I think it would have to be interpreted allegorically
@@mcosu1 "I think it would have to be interpreted allegorically"
Why?
يأيها الناس أنا مسلم عربي والله أني لكم ناصح ونصيحتي هي أنا القران تنزيل الله أنزله على قلب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وحفظه الله على يد صحابة رسول الله محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وهذي الحياة رحلة قصيرة الى عالم لانهائي فمن أمن بمحمد وأطاعه فقد فاز فوزا عظيما
ياله من سريانى يفهمه كل العرب
To my knowledge considerable parts in the quran cannot be understood properly in arabic. Therefore a multitude of scholarly interpretations for the same verse.
@@amuthi1 Every sentence in any language can be interpreted in different ways. It makes less sense to "read" a script in a totally different language to try an squeeze a false narrative out of it.
God begetting a son means 2 gods. Trinity is confusion, human/god blood sacrifice is pagan. This is Christianity
And still we have the muslim tradition of bloody cutting genitals. Isn't that an offering, too? Especially when a certain percentage of children die during the procedure?
I mean, I like grapes and all, but, I dunno, seems like a bit of a let down.
The good news, it's not grapes.
Will you do (so called) good things for the whole life to be awarded a bunch of grapes in heaven? 😆
You can read its explanation in the last chapters of the holy Quran in the tafseeri kabier of Hazrat Ghulam Ahmad sahib of Qadian these all the saymbols are used sambolically as reward for a human beings after last death day Then jannah And the hell is enough on the earth for the jaza punishment of humans dead nobele or bad .you read in the surh siffat that the earth is energatic all the elments of the sky and between the sky obsorb in him the gravities of earh so strong .
First you read your Quran with understanding that why your Allah forcing himself on all human beings by saying > Katilu those who do not believe in Allah and his messenger" That tells you, you have NO choice but to accept Islam. Correct?
@@childofgod4862stupid comment
My beautiful Syriac church language ❤❤
Bro you need to understand the basic root words in Arabic or any other Semitic language to know where the derived expressions come from and what their subsequent usages can be. For instance you mentioned قربان in Arabic means drawing close or near where as ܩܘܼܪܒܵܢܵܐ in Syriac means sacrifice. The Hebrew word is also very close להקריב. But definitively the root word for all three is قرب which means to be close and its a 100% Arabic word found in ancient poetry. So the قربان in Arabic used for the sacrifice as well is a صيغة مبالغة derived from the root word ie على وزن فعلان.
From the same root you also have the word for relatives or next of kin, اقاربي which in Hebrew is very close as well קרובי. Does that make Arabic a borrower another language??? Obviously not, what kind of academic work is this 🤭.
The fact that the words are in both sister languages is no big surprise or discovery. Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, or Syriac probably share 30 to 40% of their vocabulary written in different scripts. Even when we compare words written in the modern حجازي (Hijazi) script to words written in the ancient ثمودي (Thamudic) Arabic script, which is 1500 years older, some words are either identical or vary close. It's not a big deal. These nations lived in close proximity and must have traded and communicated. I mean, is it such a big surprise that French, Spanish, and Italian share words 🤔?? Not at all, they all come from Latin.
I mean, did Abraham speak with Isaac in one language and Ismail in another ? Did he teach them different faiths ? Obviously not. Therefore, their immediate descendants knew what these expressions meant, and depending on their interaction with other tribes and nations developed a unique vocalization over time.
(15:22) Everyone knows that people of the book knew about the sleepers of Ephesus. The reason why it is mentioned in the Quran was that the prophet was being challenged to relay their story if he truly received revelation. The fact that a dog is mentioned is a detail in the accounts. I suppose if the Quran didn't mention the dog, you would have said, the Quranic account is missing the dog 😅.
(19:14) Errr nope, it's not Alexander, the Qur'an doesn't say that. Everything else is pure speculation. If there is a potential character, it might be Koresh the great. Besides many kings depicted themselves with two horns, not just Alexander. Blabels work is worthless 🤭.
(25:00) Grapes 😳!!! 🤔🤣🤣, come on guys get serious here.
And how does your Luxembourg guy go about explaining:
(لَمْ يَطْمِثْهُنَّ إِنْسٌ قَبْلَهُمْ وَلا جَانٌّ) سورة الرحمن
Your Luxembourg guy obviously has no clue except for wishful thinking based on his Arabic 101 course. More obviously, Luxembourg is not a serious academic, his book is a sham🤭.
The Quran challenges the Arabs speaking of that time with their language. If the Arabs of thst time didn't understand the Quran then there wouldn't have followed Islam and the Prophecy of Muhammad would have been destroyed.
You seem to know some arabic so try to know more about the language to understand the Quran better.
If there are some words that have transcended from Aramaic or Syriac to Arabic its natural thing in the development of any language.
Every now and then somebody comes up with weird idea and are we supposed to take him seriously ?
@@urbandsouza7279 "Why it says it is arabic if it is indeed arabic?"
Should it say Greek instead?
@@urbandsouza7279 because the Qura'n challenges the Arabs who where at that time renounced for their poetry to come up with any thing similar. Citing the this is your Arabic.
@@urbandsouza7279 The first syriac dictionary was written after the establishment of the Omayad califate and in writing the dictionary they relied on Arabic since the two languages along with the Hebrew comed ftom the same root the Sematic language.
Admin you have forgotten to mention about “Quran name” it’s Syriac holy book 📕 called “Quryana” therefore Islam took or copied the name of Quran from Syriac and Assyrian holy book!,
Thank you
Learn more why it was called Qur'an rather than making conclusion 😂
I believe there r so many greek things in quran no wonders but the actual question is how these greek words and concepts ended up in quran ?!
If you follow the Pfanderfilms channel where they do textual and historical criticism of the Koran, you'll discover why. It was a breakaway offshoot of Christianity with Gnostic (or something leanings) and it was also political meaning the early what you might call proto-Muslim rulers took Christian teachings and changed them.
@thetabletopskirmisher You are clearly dishonest. To suggest to people that they should learn from Christian Extremists and Anti-Islam Trolls like Jay Smith, is completely ridiculous. Would anyone take any so-called knowledge on Judaism from the Nazi Party?
@@thetabletopskirmisher Easy to claim such a thing, yet it is near impossible. Muhammad wouldve had to travel all across Europe, find Gnostic texts from all these sects, have them translated, and then still synthesise them into a new religion, all while being illiterate himself. Gnostic origin theory is even more ridiculous than the Syriac origin theory.
Just remember Islam is not a new religion, as stated it’s a perfected religion of the past. The God of Adam, that all of humanity are Muslims before they were born into this world - hence they ‘revert’! If there is evidence of pre-Quranic establishment, it legitimatises Islamic theology because the Quran states there is not a civilisation of earth where the message (whatever form and style) has been sent. There have many messengers (prophets) throughout time. If fragments from other religions are found that comply with the original islam message in archaeological sites, for Muslims this gives greater proof to islam. So therefore, even if you said the Quran has copied parts from somewhere else, it still legitimatise the Quran because that’s what the Islam says, there are fragments of truth everywhere but Quran is the complete truth.
Islam is a political philosophy with borrowed spiritual idea. The 5 pillars are nothing but recipe for power and control
Modern scientific historical research proves that the city of Makka could not have existed as a large commercial caravan city in the years 600 AD
Main reasons for this fact are:
1) Makka is not an oasis, so there is no surface water (only a well, known as zamzam which is clearly unsufficient for many caravan camels)
2) Makka is not shown on any map at that time or even previously
3) Makka is located down of Hidjaz plateau and could therefore not be located on the caravan route which is located more than 1000 m above on the plateau (eg the city of Taeef is located at an altitude of ca 2000 m while Makka is 300 m)
4) there were no archeological artefacts discovered in Makka dating from before circa year 700
5) no agriculture whatsoever is possible in this wild desert location, how could a large city survive in such adverse climate ?
Water has been coming out of Zamzam for thousands of years! And there were many other wells.
There were/are farms around Mecca. It is little hilly and arid, but it's not sandy desert. I bet you've never been there!
It was not shown on your Western map, but neither were two Americas. Yet. they existed.
Mecca (another name Beca, used in Quran) is also mentioned in the Bible.
There was no archeology in 700 AD. Saudis never used to allow archeological teams until recently and even now it's under strict controls.
@@QabilAGhor can you tell me how camels can drink from a well ? There is no surface water in makka, so there cannot be any agriculture and no farms
@@jeangatti9384 Have you heard of date palm trees and people digging wells for the their own water supply and to give it to their animals? It rains in Mecca every now and then, and there have even been floods!
Let me share a story with you. When I went for the pilgrimage to Mecca decades ago, we were driving from Mecca to Medina. Almost midway, we stopped at a place where there was a well, and lot of other people were also stopping there to drink water from it. I tell you, it was the sweetest water I have ever tasted in my life! Soon after I drank it, I felt all the food I had eaten was digested and I was hungry. The guide told me that this well came about when Prophet Muhammad and his companions were traveling and they were out of water. The Prophet asked his companions to dig this well. The companions said they also need water for their animals. So the Prophet went a little distant away and with his bare hands picked up some dirt. Miraculously, a spring sprang out and it created a small pond. Animals drank from it. And that spring is still bubbling water even after 1400 years! It is truly a sight to see.
In greek (?) MAKKAH named MACORABA, in ptolemy's atlas. Ancient map. googling if you want to know
There are more two horned depicted kings like darius or cyrus
Why isn't the two-horned one Cyrus the Great? What disproves this theory?
Your Muslims scholars disproves your theory. Those who live with Mhmd also said same thing. Go read Tafsir ibn Abbas and Jalalayn!
Everything disproves it. The story in the Quran is a capsule summary of the Syriac Legend of Alexander which is Byzantine political propaganda praising Heraclius (the Emperor at the time of the Prophet). Alexander was associated with two horns very soon after his death and it became a regular part of his iconography yet Cyrus was never known as having horns on his helmet or in images. Professor Juan Coles understand Dhul Qarnayn to be signal toward Heraclius since the Quran promises Gods help to his empire (The Romans) in Surah Ar Rum and he (Heraclius) was depicting himself as the new Alexander in his propaganda. It’s part of a Roman tradition called Imitaio Alexandri
The problem with the argument that Cyrus is DQ is that we see at least one text in late antiquity where attributes of the Persian ram in Daniel 8 have been ascribed to Alexander, and that is the Syriac Legend of Alexander. Further, the horn imagery in the Syriac Legend has been depaganized and recontextualized around Christian interpretive lines by making references to foreign imagery in the Hebrew Bible that refers to god-given authority rather than that of a pagan deity.
Of course, the whole debate is whether or not the Quran predates the Syriac Legend but I tend to believe that the Syriac Legend came first due to the fact that many of the elements present within the text reflect the political situations of the 6th century as Tesei has argued. However, Alexander's prophecy in the middle of the text appears to be an interpolation since the dates for the end calculated up come to a date around the late 620s-630s. The Quran appears to have some familiarity with this text because not only is nearly every element in the Syriac Legend parallel in the Quran (with the exception of the muddy spring, which I believe is a reference to Isaiah 57:20 - 21 which says that the wicked are like a sea which continually churns up mud and since elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the sea is associated with chaos and hostile Nations it would seem that it's supposed to be a foreshadowing of the nation's crashing against one another like waves in Q 18:99), the prophecies of Alexander and DQ are remarkably similar to one another with one key difference.
Whereas the prophecy in the Syriac Legend gives a fixed date, the Quran leaves it more vague by simply saying when the promise of my Lord is fulfilled. This to me seems like a reaction to the text and against Byzantine political ideology which often tied the coming of the kingdom of God with the Dominion of the Roman empire.
But getting back to the subject of DQ being Cyrus, we have to realize that the Alexander that was the most familiar in the minds of ancient people was not the historical Alexander of Macedon but the fanciful character created by the various romances and legends in which whoever was telling the story made Alexander whatever they were. For jews, he became a righteous god-fearing Gentile, for Persians he became either an arch Satan hellbent on destroying Persian religion and culture or the half brother of Darius and true successor King of Persia, for Christians he became a pious God fearer. So the fact that Alexander was believed by many to have been a worshiper of the judeo-christian god and was a righteous person was an idea that was cemented in the minds of late antique audiences. Therefore assuming since there are so many parallels between the story of DQ and the legends of Alexander it would not be unreasonable to suggest that DQ is in fact Alexander.
Another problem with arguing that Cyrus was DQ is the fact that we do not have widespread legends about Cyrus the Great in late antiquity in which he performs or accomplishes the same deeds that Alexander the Great had done in the popular romance literature of the time. In some Islamic sources reference is made to a South Arabian king who shares many of the qualities that DQ had, however as my colleague has argued once you begin to sift through the evidence it's very clear that this South Arabian king is in fact Alexander:
www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/zQ0VdgCOEV
So no, I do not find it compelling to suggest that DQ is not Alexander. The preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that he was in fact Alexander and not Cyrus. Alexander in the Syriac Legend had clearly taken on some of the qualities of Cyrus in Isaiah 45 and in a bizarre form of exegesis was being identified with the Persian ram in Daniel 8.
@@scripturalcontexts Fantastic comment. I hadn’t known about the muddy spring as chaotic nations before - intriguing!
To your point about the DQ story breaking with Byzantine political ideology due to it simply referencing “Gods promise” rather than a fixed date - Surah Ar Rum starts with the prophecy that the Romans/Byzantines will be victorious by Gods help in a few years time and that “This is the promise of Allah” (30:6). I’d argue that this is the promise referred to in the DQ story and therefore keeps it in line with Byzantine political ideology. Thoughts?
@@bobbycalifornia7077 Welcome. I'm guessing that's probably the correct interpretation of the muddy spring based on the fact that the Isaiah reference is the only known thing in the Hebrew Bible or new testament that I've come across that has a close parallel to what is in the quran. Granted, the idea of the Isaiah passage representing Nations is not in the text itself, but given other biblical passages which equate hostile nations with the sea and the Midrash Tehillim using the mud churning sea imagery in its commentary on Psalm 2 as an analog for all of Israel's past enemies and Gog and Magog in the future, such an identification is not that absurd.
Of course, we don't really know when the MT was written or finally redacted but given the imagery in 18:99 of Gog and Magog crashing like waves and the constant association of the nations with the sea, this is likely what the passage is referring to in the Quran. Sort of a snapshot of what's to come. Also I'm suspecting there may be possible references to classical Greco-Roman literature which makes mention of the sun setting in the ocean (the muddy spring thus becoming like the wine dark sea in the Homeric epics).
I have to give credit where credit is due though: I first became aware of Isaiah 57:20 - 21 reading a comment by Sean Anthony on Twitter when he made reference to classical Islamic disagreements over whether or not the spring was muddy or warm and he suggested the idea of the spring being interpreted as muddy could have some connection to Isaiah. However, it was after I read his comment that I did my own research and started putting together all the pieces and arrived at the conclusion that I now have about the connection to Gog and Magog.
I would say that it only partially agrees with Byzantine political ideology, because the Quran doesn't make use of the last emperor motif which was current in Byzantine Christian theology from at least the 4th century and is even made reference to in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat, a Syriac Christian author writing in the 4th century who hoped that the recent triumph of Christianity over the pagan Roman Empire in the west would lead to a liberation of the Christian community the Persian East from Sasanian oppression. Such attitudes would change in the following centuries as Christians became more accepted in Sasanian culture, with Mar Aba in the 6th century declaring Khosrau I to be the new Cyrus and the Syriac Cave of Treasures naming the Magi after three Sasanian kings.
So while I do think that particular prophecy in Surah 30 May hinges hopes on a Byzantine victory, it doesn't seem to fully endorse the idea of some kind of Byzantine hegemony ushering in the end of the age. The Quran itself seems to have an anti-monarchical streak running through it rejecting or at least not directly implying the idea of any kind of final Messianic figure, although such notions would be found in later Islamic tradition with the temporary kingdom set up by Jesus (an idea which stems from 2 Esdras) and the final rule of the Mahdi. It seems that in the Quran God is the final judge and his power is not given to royal dignitaries.
Please dont be naive and swallow anything they tell you. Houris in arabic language are women from paradise not grapes . Can you get married with grapes ? you would say what! . read this verse
52 20
They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Houris (female, fair ones) with wide lovely eyes.
What is the meaning of the name Hour in the Holy Quran?
The name Hour is an Arabic name and is written in English as hoor. It is a soft and delicate name that refers to beautiful girls. The name Hour is taken from the Holy Quran. The most famous of them are Hour al-Ayn. They are white women or women with very white eyes and very black pupils, or women with wide eyes with very white and black eyes. The owner of the name Hour is characterized by beauty, kindness and tenderness. She is also an intelligent girl and has
if the word hour means grapes in syriac , but we are dealing with arabic text here not syriac . A word may have one meaning in one language , but the same word can have completely different meaning in another language . I will give you one example
the word burro in italian it means butter , but in spanish burro means donkey
This guy is stupid.
No it doesn't, maybe your butchered traditional meaning but it's not in accordance with the Arabic of Quran, imagine you people bring your small mysogeny into the text of Quran, if Allah is talking about what men get , why isn't anything mentioned of what a woman would get ? Is Allah unjust by neglecting half of his creation i.e females
Today they call homosexual people gay 50/60 years ago gay meant happy go lucky ,
Kindly regaurds From Afghanistan.
Abrahamic Books (old&News Testament and Quran) are very rediculous .
God speaks in Quran as the creator of the universe and all things he is capable of revealing things in the Quran and it doesn't mean Quran was influenced by other books.
Thu-Alqarnain (The Two-Horned) is Cyrus the Great (Monothiestic Persian Emeror), who acted as a Massaih (Savior after period) to the early Jews, finding an entry into the Biblical sources. As per the Quranic narrative, he went eastward to a land with intense Sun exposure (India). Westward to the muddy lakes of the west shores of Anatolia. Northward Cucasia building a Dam/Wall with iron between the people and the North Barbaric tribes of Asia (between two mountains /hills). He is indeed not Pagen Alexander, who had odd social orientations and a short-lived kingdom. But Western-Centeric Academia tries to hijack and rob near-east history and antiquity to be more relevant by magnifying Alexander. There is Statue and depications of Cyrus with Two Horns before Alex that can be found in the web if researched. This is noticed in wetern academia (not all) who have an agenda against giving credit to other parts of the world. This can be clearly noticed against Islam when they say, Mohammed is not real and Mecca is Perta and the Quran is way to late invention of later empires. But after time, all these claims die (by evedince) as their authenticity in the records.
Just by looking at islamic sources, we see that no muslim commentators identified Dhul-qarnayn with Cyrus before modern time but some of them (like Tabari if i remember correctly) identified DQ with Alexander. There is no evidence at all to support the identification DQ/Cyrus. On the contrary, there is a lot of evidences, from the islamic sources as from non-islamic ones, to support the identification DQ/Alexander.
Cyrus was never identified as having two horns as part of his identity whereas Alexander was. Not to mention the fact that the story in the Quran is a capsule summary of the Syriac Legend. The Syriac Legend is intended to praise the efforts of Heraclius against the Persians implying he (Heraclius) is the new Alexander. The Heraclius-Alexander stele of the early 7th century depicts Heraclius with the two horns of Alexander, furthering this political support for Heraclius. Also it can be argued that Cyrus was not monotheistic.
@zeulim My friend, be honest and study your Quran. Then look what your Muslim scholars have said in the past. Do not look any explanations of recent scholars because they want to twist the stories so you will not get out of Islam Ok?
If you say, "It was not Alexander the Great" then either your Muslims scholars are Liars or you are a Liar Choose one for yourself!
There is no such thing as Western academia. There is secular academia, which is international, and then there is religious academia, as in Christian or Islamic academia. There are Chinese Muslims who are secular academics, and there are Muslims who are Islamic academics. A few secular academics think Ḏuw 'Alqarnayn is wholly imaginary, though most consider him to be a reference to Alexander the Great.
You attribute many things to secular Islamic academia, yet most secular Islamic academics do not even hold to these things. The number of secular Islamic academics that hold to Gibson's view that Mecca was actually Petra is less than you can count on your hand. No one thinks that the Qur'an was created "way" later, since we have physical fragments of it from less than a century after the traditional dating. No secular Islamic academic thinks that Muhammad didn't exist. Some debate whether Muhammad was his real or first name, or if he did this or that, but none nowadays claim that the first leader of the Arab forces that went on to take over North Arabia, Persia, and North Africa didn't exist.
Can you name more than 2 living secular Islamic scholars that hold any of these opinions?
"Cyrus the Great was a monotheist"
Do you have any proof of this? You are claiming that he was a Zoroastrian, what proof of this do you have? Hint: secular academics in relevant fields to this topic do not say this, they take no stance on his religion as evidence to what his religion was is near non-existent.
"There is Statue and depications of Cyrus with Two Horns before Alex that can be found in the web if researched."
That's funny, statues or depictions of Cyrus the Great with two horns? Last time I checked, we don't have ANY art of Cyrus the Great AT ALL, let alone with two horns.
If you're found dug up or uncovered a depiction of Cyrus the Great that weren't made after AD 1700, the relevant academic community would love to see it.
"As per the Quranic narrative, he went eastward to a land with intense Sun exposure. Westward to the muddy lakes of the west shores of Anatolia. Northward Cucasia building a Dam/Wall with iron between the people and the North Barbaric tribes of Asia."
So did Alexander the Great. So on what basis do you claim otherwise?
@@bobbycalifornia7077 The Syriac narrative was corrupted and influenced after introducing the Christian Faith in the Roman and later under ‘Greek’ Byzantine Era. Such influence exploited the ambiguity of such figure and mentions HomoAlex explicitly. There is large statue in Persepolis where Cyrus with Two Horns you cant miss it, potentially inspired by HomoAlex wearing it.
A fundamental problem with most Muslims is that they believe God chose to preserve the Quran forever. If they really thought about it, rather than just accept the consensus, they would understand the absurdity of this claim.
When guidance came to a Prophet, like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, at the time, it was for all of Mankind. Of course, those who followed the last Prophet, could not see themselves reflected in the Pagans, Jews and Christians around them. How could they, when there was a Prophet of God amongst them, and fresh revelation being sent down. Once the Prophet passed away, I am pretty sure his followers were full of vigor and energy and thought "This time, we wont make the same mistake that the Jews and Christians made, this time, we will preserve this fresh and last guidance that has come from God!".
Such thinking is likely what has resulted in Muslims today thinking that the Quran is being preserved by God. Alas, just a glance at the early Arab history after the Prophets death will reveal that the Arabs ended up in the same cycle as the Jews and Christians. Once Muslims start to say that "The Quran we have today is what has survived to this Day" then they can finally liberate their minds and think critically.
And no, Quran 15:9 is not a forever promise, just like when the same phrase was used in the Chapter on Joseph. When Josephs brothers said they would protect/take care of him, they meant, in the context, that they would protect and take care of Joseph as he is running and playing with them. In the same manner, God was simply re-assuring the disbelievers that He and the Angles are taking care/looking after the reminder as it is being sent down. This has been the case for all divine scriptures. Once the Prophet had passed away, it was left in the hands of the remaining humans who believed in the Prophet. As generations came, one after the other, things can get lost, hidden, corrupted or added.
Peace.
The Quran has Hebrew, Persian, Syriac, and other sematic languages.
What version (language) quran do malaysians read? What version quran do south asians read?
Hey... they read quran in own local language, buddy.
90% moslems are non arabs and so they read quran translation in local language. Some of them can't read even local language and such followers know only molvies preach them. This is reality.
As a Reading aka Quran follower the sunnis change the meaning of alot of words in the Quran
Just as physicists will never be able to understand the ultimate reality of the universe in spite of their continued huge efforts, the true mystery and majesty of the Quran will also never be understood or likewise appreciated. It’s astonishing how western scholarship has over the years so misunderstood the Quran. From believing the Quran was written over a couple of centuries (now proven wrong) to assuming beautiful maidens are actually grapes, ignoring in the process that the oral tradition is very strong and that many children have memorized the entire Quran before mastering any multiplication table! And I don’t exclude Muslim ignorance of the Quran either, past and present…
Huwr al Ayn dosent mean virgins or grapes of Paradise
H-w-r is suggesting to unravel
Nuwr in Arabic unanimously people accept as light, illumination, brightness etc
Morphology of the word huwr becomes a light that has been unraveled , Ayn , has been understood as Eye but its original Arabic derivation is a Pearl from its shell 🦪 , similar to an eye if you take the outer shell to be like the eyelid and its form,
So huwr al Ayn in context of the Quranic verse is , when you understand a verse of Quran its like unravelling a gem and you see the light of the verse and you are in a state of joy , ecstatic or jannah
, this understanding forgive me if I made a mistake is from MQ channel, a brilliant channel reinterpretating Quran and doing away with the fables imposed by previous generations
Absolutely not Hebrew. Hebrew letters are completely different than Aramic, Arabic, Farsi, Turkish . Hebrew letters are like Chinese.
Any ways, none of the Muslims world wide care or pay attention to your desperate attempts to falsify the Quran. There were hundreds of thousands attempts that had failed even during Mohammed’s (PBUH) time. As the matter of fact, there was a famous Arabian figure (Musailama AlKathab) who tried desperately to come up with a book that sounded like Quran in terms of knowledge and revelation but completely had failed. Simply couldn’t take the challenge.
Dhu al-Qarnayn (The Two-Horned One); is likely Cyrus the Persian (600-529 BC), who lived a little over a thousand years before Islam.
Dhu al-Qarnayn (Cyrus?) It is likely that he converted at the hands of one of the prophets of the Children of Israel in Iraq during the period of the Babylonian captivity, and his name was mentioned in the Book of Isaiah.
And Cyrus of Achaemenid, God gave him the kingship of the largest state in history up to his time. Concerning the meaning of his title (Dhul-Qarnayn/The Two-Horned One), it is most likely, because he is the king of the East and the West.
18:86 Until, when he reached the setting of the sun [i.e., the west], [Surah Al-Kahf]
18:90 Until, when he came to the rising of the sun [i.e., the east], [Surah Al-Kahf]
Perhaps his people, the people of Persia/Iraq, or the Jews were the ones who called him (Dhu al-Qarnayn) when they were in Babylon (6th century BC).
It is more likely that the horn for them represents the butting (invasion and storming), a horn butting to the east (conquering the East) and a horn butting to the west (conquering the West). While we notice the king of Greece (Alexander the Macedonian, who came about 3 centuries after Cyrus), his symbol is a goat (a goat in the Hebrew text) with one horn (perhaps because he only butted to the east).
Although there are Persian inscriptions that place Cyrus in the religion of his ancient fathers, this may be an allegation made by those who reigned after him, so they wrote it in the name of Cyrus after his death in order to deceive the subjects so that they would not abandon the religion of the people.
There are many such allegations;
For example, the Jews claimed through their books that Solomon, peace be upon him, was a disbeliever, and the Qur’an invalidated that, and just as God acquitted Moses, peace be upon him, of what they said, and just as they spoke about Mary, peace be upon her, and their statement about killing Jesus.
Ancient royal inscriptions and monuments are often propaganda that distorts and falsifies the facts and presents them according to what the public wants, and not what was true.
The problem with the argument that Cyrus is DQ is that we see at least one text in late antiquity where attributes of the Persian ram in Daniel 8 have been ascribed to Alexander, and that is the Syriac Legend of Alexander. Further, the horn imagery in the Syriac Legend has been depaganized and recontextualized around Christian interpretive lines by making references to foreign imagery in the Hebrew Bible that refers to god-given authority rather than that of a pagan deity.
Of course, the whole debate is whether or not the Quran predates the Syriac Legend but I tend to believe that the Syriac Legend came first due to the fact that many of the elements present within the text reflect the political situations of the 6th century as Tesei has argued. However, Alexander's prophecy in the middle of the text appears to be an interpolation since the dates for the end calculated up come to a date around the late 620s-630s. The Quran appears to have some familiarity with this text because not only is nearly every element in the Syriac Legend parallel in the Quran (with the exception of the muddy spring, which I believe is a reference to Isaiah 57:20 - 21 which says that the wicked are like a sea which continually churns up mud and since elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the sea is associated with chaos and hostile Nations it would seem that it's supposed to be a foreshadowing of the nation's crashing against one another like waves in Q 18:99), the prophecies of Alexander and DQ are remarkably similar to one another with one key difference.
Whereas the prophecy in the Syriac Legend gives a fixed date, the Quran leaves it more vague by simply saying when the promise of my Lord is fulfilled. This to me seems like a reaction to the text and against Byzantine political ideology which often tied the coming of the kingdom of God with the Dominion of the Roman empire.
But getting back to the subject of DQ being Cyrus, we have to realize that the Alexander that was the most familiar in the minds of ancient people was not the historical Alexander of Macedon but the fanciful character created by the various romances and legends in which whoever was telling the story made Alexander whatever they were. For jews, he became a righteous god-fearing Gentile, for Persians he became either an arch Satan hellbent on destroying Persian religion and culture or the half brother of Darius and true successor King of Persia, for Christians he became a pious God fearer. So the fact that Alexander was believed by many to have been a worshiper of the judeo-christian god and was a righteous person was an idea that was cemented in the minds of late antique audiences. Therefore assuming since there are so many parallels between the story of DQ and the legends of Alexander it would not be unreasonable to suggest that DQ is in fact Alexander.
Another problem with arguing that Cyrus was DQ is the fact that we do not have widespread legends about Cyrus the Great in late antiquity in which he performs or accomplishes the same deeds that Alexander the Great had done in the popular romance literature of the time. In some Islamic sources reference is made to a South Arabian king who shares many of the qualities that DQ had, however as my colleague has argued once you begin to sift through the evidence it's very clear that this South Arabian king is in fact Alexander:
www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/zQ0VdgCOEV
So no, I do not find it compelling to suggest that DQ is not Alexander. The preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that he was in fact Alexander and not Cyrus. Alexander in the Syriac Legend had clearly taken on some of the qualities of Cyrus in Isaiah 45 and in a bizarre form of exegesis was being identified with the Persian ram in Daniel 8.
Muslim scholars have recognized from the beginning the presence of foreign words in the Quran. For example dirham. So there is no great mystery here. These are all related languages in neighboring areas. The purity of the Quranic Arabic has never been challenged, and in fact has been used to explore all lost Semitic languages including Hebrew.
Certainly, no human language is 100% pure. That one is understood. But a bunch of imported fables, with striking similarly, in any language, is a different matter. That is where the argument is.
@msemakweli-wk3lg Study what linguists have said about Arabic.
@@arbitScaleModels That doesn't help much. We are talking about a deity, and his input should transcend the confines of a language.
@@msemakweli-wk3lgYou’re just showing you haven’t read the Quran. Allah chose Arabic for its richness and precision. Have some humility for once.
@@jaketwigg1065 Syriac fables finding their way into the Quran have nothing to do with the richness of Arabic.
We believe the Qur'an is a divine revelation given to Prophet Muhammad thru Jibril. It is the last revelation of the Holy scripture to the last Prophet.
It is meant to rectify, verify and more importantly to correct the earlier scriptures which came from the same God which have either been deviated, concocted or corrupted by men.
The fact that God has not taken to preserve these Holy Scriptures speaks for itself.
All language or linguistics came from Allah Ta'ala not only he created all things including languages and words .... Alhamdulillah ... He taught man of which man not know so do not be arrogant
This is an academic channel. Read some books then come back to discuss your theories. Salam.
In Sura 36:38 Allah especially created a stable for the sun to rest at night. That's so nicely done by the allmighty flat-earther.
Syrian is an Arabic Accent for the people who lived north Arabia. All Aramaic, arabic Hebrew, Syriac , and others.. all related to the mother the Arabic.
The Arabic grammars so complicated not like others , so every word has a meaning. There is no way the arabic copy from others. There are thousands of inscriptions rocks around Saudi Arabia with Arabic poetry before Isalm.
The Bible came from Arabia and biblical Israelites were Arabs. The holy land is 🕋.
It has 28 letters more than others.
The Quran describes the Hoor Aeen as females who were not touched by male humans or male Jinn. It also describes them as beautiful as pearls and have nice b…. reasts.
Please show us the reference!
arabic is the origin of all languages
Ever heard if Indo-Hittite, Indogermanic and Indo-Iranian?
THE QUR'AN IS A CHRISTIAN TEXT AND JESUS IS MUHAMMAD AS MUHAMMAD IN THE QUR'AN BEING A EUPHEMISM FOR MESSIAH(CHRIST)HaMASHIAK.
The Qur'an properly read appears to be a Christian text calling for the return to the authority of the first apostolic Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-32 in rejection of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.
So the only way to pull the rug from under the obscurantists'feet even defeat Jihadism is to reject the categorization Christianity versus Islam and affirm instead Nazareans versus Islam. Nazarean being anybody following the teachings of Paul which of course permeate the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople.
Islam is a reaction to the West attempt to hijack Christianity or the Gospel and use it to overrun the globe.
And the Prince rejected by the Arabian builders became the cornerstone and this is the Lord doing !
More in:
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-30 and the partition of Christianity in two Apostolic Traditions: Circumcised(Muslims) vs. Uncircumcised(Paul's Nazareans or Catholics...
😂😂😂😂 What on Earth are you talking about ? It's clear you have no idea about Quran neither does this fool professor . He is a damn fool as well .
The title of this video itself shows ignorance. The Qur'an is in arabic, thus there is sumerian, akkadian, obeidian, hebrew, egyptian and aramaic, even from persian. In syriac there are all of them above, less the arabic, the final refined semitic language. The Qur'an traces toward Aadam.
Gibreal . . . such a hypocritic person. . his chunnul is bible and quran but he target only quran. check his chunnul its only quran. he is just like jay smith of scholars. . . a liar who claim Alexander the great is zulqarnain ". . . . he is such a shaddy character
You just angry about your fake quran and peddo prophet muhammad hahaha lol
Dear, why don't we think logically? Why don't we use science in our research to reach the truth? Do we have to believe the myths and lies that the Europeans have drowned us in for centuries and centuries? Why do you rely on ignorant opinions produced by biased Europeans who do not know the history of the Arab region except from Jewish religious stories? Where did the Arabs live and live? Arab tribes inhabited Babylon and spoke the Arabic language 4,800 years ago. Babylon also spoke Arabic. Assyria are Arab tribes and spoke Arabic, not another language, but they spoke Arabic. Likewise, the Philistines = Canaanites were Arab tribes who spoke Arabic 4,500 years ago. Likewise, the inhabitants of Syria now spoke Arabic 6,000 years ago. The inscriptions on the stones are written in Arabic, the entire region. From Yemen to Lebanon, passing through Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and the Hijaz, Mecca and Medina, the Sultanate of Oman and Kuwait, all these peoples are Arabs and spoke Arabic in dialects of Arabic. Aramaic, Phoenician, Cataanite, Assyrian and Yemeni Arabic are all one language, a tree from which branches branch, but all share the islands. Have you found any inscription in Palestine that confirms the story? The Bible and its stories? There is no archaeological confirmation before Jesus Paul, two hundred years before Jesus and Paul. The Palestinian = Canaanite inscriptions recorded the lives of the Palestinians, their joys, their sorrows, their victories, their way of life, their morals, their religions, and everything is written on stone and metal, but we do not find any trace that shows us the existence of Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Solomon, David, Hood, and Job. We did not find any proof. For the biblical stories, why do we believe the opinions of Europeans who are biased or ignorant of the history of the region? The Qur’an is not in the Arabic language, but it is in a clear, clear language, and the dialects in the north and south give us meanings for the words in the Qur’an. It is possible to find a Quranic word whose meaning we understand well when we know the meaning of this word among the Yemenis, or among the Iraqis, or among the Canaanites, or among the Lebanese = Phoenicians, or among the Syrians, as all of these dialects are Arabic languages: If you visited Yemen and asked any Yemeni child about the Prophet Moses, he would tell you where he lived, where he died, and the Yemeni village in which he lived. He will also tell you about the place of the Prophet Abraham and his village in Yemen, and every Yemeni will tell you about the kingdom of Solomon and David, and the youth in Yemen will tell you about the name of Pharaoh Moses and about Christ. Who lived and died in Yemen 1000 years before the appearance of Jesus, Paul and Rome, sir. Unfortunately, you are following the illusions written by biased Europeans who are not aware of the heritage and history of the region in Yemen. Inscriptions thousands of years ago recorded the existence of the Prophet Abraham, Moses, Pharaoh, Hood, Job, Jacob, Ishmael, David, Solomon, and also the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary. They are all found in Yemeni inscriptions. A final word: There is no reward in the Qur’an for reward for martyrs and devout believers. This is a distorted and wrong understanding. The verses in the Qur’an do not say that, but there are those who understand it wrongly.
You did forget to mention the ethiopian language. The term "fitra" was probably taken from this language (maybe importet by Muhammads later to become wife Sawda).
@@amuthi1 Indeed, my good professor, the Ethiopian language is originally an Arabic language, and it contains very, very many Arabic words, and it is written in the same script as the Yemeni Musnad. The Arabic language is the richest and most accurate language, but your statement about a wife for the Prophet, I do not believe that. Unfortunately, there are very, very many lies about the Prophet Muhammad. I believe that Muhammad is The most noble, compassionate and compassionate of all human beings
@@user-wc7ku7ud3e I think you should look again at the table presented in the video about the origins of arabic which contradicts your narrative about arabic being the "mother of all languages".
„FITRA is a "noun of kind" (Wright, Grammar* i, 123d) to the infinitive fatr and means (an Ethiopic loan-meaning, see Schwally, in ZDMG, liii, 199 f.; Nöldeke, Neue Beiträge, 49), "a kind or way of creating or of being created". It occurs in Kur'an, XXX, 29 (khilka, Baydawl) and other forms of this verb in the same meaning occur 14 times. But though Muhammad uses derived forms freely, it was obscure to his hearers. Ibn ´Abbas did not understand it until he heard a Bedouin use it of digging a well,and then the Bedouin probably meant the genuinely Arab sense of shakk (Lisdn, vi, 362, 1. 20).“ (Quotation from The Enceclopaedia of Islam, Vol 2, p.931f. )
Meanings and origins of fatr (leading to the „noun of a kind“ fitrah) as summary of the german text (citation given at the end of the paragraph): In this text (starting from page 199) Schwally gives 4 possible origins of „fatara“ „fatir“ referencing to arabian lexica (splitting, breaking the fast, unleavened, creating). For „splitting“ there are similarities with the assyrian and hebrew language, for breaking the fast he assumes an syriac-christian background, unleavend is of aramaic origin, for „creating“ an ethiopian origin is assumed, where it is used in this connotation quite commonly. Schwally describes also that a lot of words for religious terms or religious cult artifacts stem from ethiopian language. In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (ZDMG), Bd. 53, S. 199f.
So the term „fitrah“ probably came back when some of the muslims fleeing to Abyssinia (Kingdom of Aksum) in the first hijra in 615 returned in 616.
Fitra is first mentioned in surah Ar-Rum which is the second-to-last of the mekkan surahs, which again correlates very well with muslims returning from the first Hijra to Abyssinia (616 AD). One of them was Muhammad‘s later wife Sauda (Sawda), which would clear the human chain of narration very well.
Surah 30
„Regarding the timing and contextual background of the revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), it is an earlier "Meccan surah", which means it is believed to have been revealed in Mecca, instead of later in Medina. Parts of Q30:38-50 are preserved in the Ṣan‘ā’1 lower text.[7] According to Theodor Nöldeke, ar-Rūm was the second-to-last Meccan surah and the eighty-fourth surah chronologically; however, he argues its 17th ayah was revealed during the Medinan period.[8] While the first ayah of the surah refers to the defeat of the Byzantine Empire at the hands of the Sasanian Empire near Damascus in the spring of 614, Nöldeke notes that this does not necessarily indicate 614 was the year in which the surah was revealed.[8] According to al-Tabari, it refers to the Battle of Adhri'at in 614, but this battle is ignored in other sources.[9] „ (search Ar-Rum wiki )
@@amuthi1 My love, I do not need Mr. Noldeke to know Arabic, my language. I am an Arab. I speak Arabic and live it. As I told you, Arabic was spoken by the Sumerians in Iraq, the Babylonians in Iraq, and the Assyrians also spoke Arabic. The Canaanites and Syrians = residents of the north of the Arabian Peninsula. Their name was not Syriac until after a portion of the people converted to Christianity. Likewise, the word “Arameen” is not correct, as the people are not named after a person (Aram). The Yemenis spoke Arabic, and likewise the Abyssinians, thousands of years ago, spoke Arabic, and their relations with Yemen were very strong. They ruled Yemen, and Yemen also ruled over the entire region. They spoke Arabic, so this wealth was given to the Arabic language, great wealth, and it is possible that an Arabic word spoken by the Yemenis comes from it. In the Qur’an, its meaning is known precisely from Yemenis. It is also possible that a word spoken by Iraqis comes into the Qur’an, so the Iraqis know it better than the residents of Oman know it, and so on. And about Ibn Abbas, these are stories that I do not trust. They are stories that were fabricated decades after the death of people. Therefore, I do not believe in these stories and in the Meccan and Medinan Qur’an. It is a myth created by Muslims. The Qur’an is one, and its verses and surahs are intertwined. It is not true that there are Meccan verses and Medinan verses. This is a wrong and deviant understanding. Whoever says that does not know the Qur’an and does not believe in the Qur’an. He believes in narrations transmitted by the lips only. As for the word “break the fast” because of its relation to unleavened bread or pizza, the word has very many uses. We say “break your fast” by crying as well. In the Qur’an, the word “fitrah” appears, including the active participle of fatir = a name for God, the Creator of the heavens = Creator. Likewise, fitrah comes in the meaning of God’s creation, i.e. a system = a program that was broadcast and placed throughout the universe and also within man.
Wrong information has no relevance to Quranic text
What is your belief sir ? Also I was taught Quran is completely Arabic no foreign words
When a foreign word is adopted into a language, it becomes part of that language. For example, "alcohol" and "cotton" are both Arabic in origin, but they are 100 percent English words today. Nobody can say "alcohol" and "cotton" are foreign words because these are the terms we use in English for those two things. The same logic applies to the so-called foreign words in the Quran. They might be foreign in origin, but they were 100 percent Arabic at the time because Arabs used them in their language. However, if someone pointed to a word in the Quran that the Arabs at the time did not know, then that particular word would be a foreign word in the Quran. As far as I know, there is no such foreign word in the Quran. I hope that clears up the issue for you.
@@stevesmith4901 You're mostly right. Indeed, alcohol & cotton are English words, however that does not then logically necessitate that they are not foreign words. They can, and in fact are, both. This is because what we mean by foreign words are words which, at some point in the evolution of a language, were taken from another language instead of developing from an already existing lexeme in the language. For instance, the word "thou" in English is wholly native. We can see its ancestor in Proto-Indo-European from 4500 BC and draw a direct line with precise phonological changes that happened to it. As well, we have no evidence to believe that PIE didn't also have it natively through it existence all the way back to the first human language. Cotton and alcohol are fundamentally different in this regard. We know roughly when they entered the language, they are an artificial addition. This isn't bad or anything, it's completely normal as you point out. There is no issue with a language having foreign vocabulary, which indeed Muhammad's Old Hejazi Arabic, the mythologized Qur'anic Arabic, and all of the modern descendant Arabic languages also all have.
@@jeremias-serus Of course, I don't consider borrowed foreign words to be in the same category as native words developed from within the language. The two are distinctly different. The foreignness I'm addressing here is the unfamiliarity of a word within a language community. Like the English word "thou" among native Arabic speakers today.
Are you serious?
Every language has adopted foreign words. This is a very common thing of every language.
Quran completely in arabic is the standard narrative which might be not totally true.
Which is fine to us, we believe in the original bible and its teaching. Unless if u trying to explain quran in the old syriac perspective, again to us its fine
The 'white grapes' idea, I think is from Luxenberg. His thesis has many criticisms and has been refuted by reputable scholars. For example:
"...There is no doubt that, without the diacritical points, the Qur’an is indeed an extremely obscure work and that the possibility of repointing affords virtually limitless opportunities to reinterpret the scripture, in Arabic or in any other language that one chooses. I think, however, that any reader who wants to take the trouble to plough through Luxenberg’s ‘new reading’ of any of the numerous passages discussed in this book will concede that the ‘new reading’ does not actually make better sense than a straight classical Arabic reading of the traditional text. It is a reading that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say its perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or on the history of Islam. "
Review Of Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (‘Christoph Luxenberg’, 2000, Das Arabische Buch: Berlin) By François de Blois
François de Blois
Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2003, Volume V, Issue 1, pp. 92-97.
www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/luxreview2
Just add, the Arabic word "Huur حُور", we should know, is a plural for both males and females(!) from "'aHwar أحور" (masculine sing.) and "Hauraa حَورأ" (feminine sing.), and signified the marked contrast between intensely black pupils and the surrounding white of the eye; a mark of great beauty in ancient Arabia. All to do with beauty of the eye, nothing to do with being a virgin or not! That interpretation seems odd. If one says that the context should be taken into account and that "wide-eyed virgins" meaning "chaste companions" is meant, then we have to assume that in Arab society of the time, being chaste woman was being a virgin and had something to do with eye! This interpretation also doesn't make sense - chaste was NOT synonymous with being a virgin!
... and the purported Syriac "white grapes" is even more outlandish as it means reading Arabic with Syriac in mind. One might then read the Peshitta (Syriac New Testament) using the syntax and vocabulary of Arabic!
"signified the marked contrast between intensely black pupils and the surrounding white of the eye" without some illness every pupil should be pitch black. That does not make sense as an argument at all!
Thanks so much Dr Reynolds for this livestream highlighting Syriac in the Quran and its richness in Literature, Poetry, History, Theology the list is long and exhaustive.last but not the least the strong impact & influence on the Quranic texts, and who can forget the Legends of the Seven Sleepers, Dhul Qarnain.What is interesting is that the Quran does not deny the accusations of the disbelievers about Apocryphal tales in the Quran but as being sent down to Muhammad Sura 25: 4-6.Yes Christoph Luxemburg's work surely stirred a busy hornets nest when he points out that the idea of the heavenly virgins contradicts the Quranic promise that the blessed will enter paradise with their wives sura 43:70 unless the earthly wives are supposed to seethe in rage & sorrow as their husband's cavort with the heavenly virgins.But hur doesn't mean virgin as even arabic philologists acknowledge but is the plural form of an Arabic feminine adjective that means White.Luxemburg argues that it contradicts arabic usage and does not make sense as a sign of beauty.No where it is heard about beautiful white eyes but we find it taken as an expression of the beauty of those virgins as " wide eyed or large eyed.Sadly sura 12:84 also says the eyes of Jacob went white crying over his Son Joseph( Yusuf) however arabic commentators have a way of explaining that the white in reference to the virgins emphasizes the beauty of big black eyes, surely an invented makeshift explanation.Luxemburg shows that the word Paradise can be traced to the Syriac word for garden which stands to reason , given to the common identification of the garden of Adam& Eve with Paradise.Luxemburg makes metaphorical references to bunches of grapes that are consonant with Christian homilies expatiating on the refreshments that greeted the blessed in Paradise.He cites the 4th century hymns of St Ephraem the Syrian and the Syriac word St Ephraem used for grapevines was feminine which led the the Arab exegetes of the Quran to this erotic assumption that the quranic texts refer to sexual pleasures in exotic jannah...LORD have mercy.Misleading also are the verses regarding the boys of Paradise particularly sura 76:19 which Luxemburg references to iced fruits that resemble pearls that are translucent and one can imagine and gauge the extent to which the quranic exegesis has become estranged via the Original Christian Symbolism of the wine of Paradise.To conclude The Quran is Misinterpreted, Mistranslated & Misread as is the title of Dr Gabriel Sawma's brilliant book.God bless & keep up the good work...Ameen.
About the syriac "garden" you find an interesting predating translation as "high place" in reference pagan places of worship on moutains. See: Lüling "A Challenge to Islam for Reformation".
@@amuthi1 Yes I have read Luling but need to Re- read as it's a big and heavy book.Appreciate it.
القران كلام الله وحده ودعاك ودعا الخلق للإيمان به قبل يوم القيامه