6 ms·

> Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. M

by waps 13y ago

> Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. My comment was written today, yet talks about things older than 2 centuries. How exactly does mentioning historical events prove the age (aside from maximum age ?). > Again, citation needed. I speak, read, and write Arabic fluently, and this is the first time I ever hear such claim. Quran 12:2 and 39:28 are enough to disprove that. Not to mention all the manuscripts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic is a good basic introduction. Please note that obviously the quran itself is not a valid source on the origin of the quran, for obvious reasons. Your arguments are about as solid as claiming Star Wars was written in a galaxy far, far away.

azth 13y ago
You stated that Kufic is a dialect of Aramaic, which is completely false. Kufic is a script used to write Arabic, which people still write in to this day for your information. The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. It would not be possible to achieve the same effect by translating from one language (Aramaic) to another (Arabic) as you are claiming. If you were to listen to recitation of the Quran that might deliver a clearer picture, even if you do not have a command over the language. I'm talking about how certain Ayat ("verses") sound (phonetically) -- this effect is hard to preserve across languages for a small body of text, let alone an entire book. (Example: http://tanzil.net/#100:1 http://tanzil.net/#100:1)
- waps 13y ago
  > The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. That's what muslims claim. Actually reading the thing does not at all give that impression. It truly is a massive effort, reading it. I admire anyone who's gotten through it because it's so incredibly obtuse and confusing (yes I know about the chapter and sentence ordering, what moron came up with that ?). Except of course, if you assume any word you don't immediately recognize is greek it becomes a lot easier. Of course then you start saying "wait ... this translation is wrong". Try it. When it comes to recitation, this is actually a tradition of the ancient world, and all texts from those eras were written like that, always. You can recite rhythmically pretty much any ancient text (meaning from the ancient era : 1000 BC to 500 AD or so, and then the renaissance texts of course). You should listen to a few Roman recitations : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ In other words, I see your recitation as further proof that the quran is just a text that fits perfectly within it's timeframe, which is of course a very strong argument against that it is anything special. The bible is more interesting, as it has pieces from different eras that follow different styles, but when God speaks (not often, grant you) there is never any local style applied. Stories are styled, including in verses to enable recitation. As for the language of the Quran, have you ever googled "Christopher Luxenberg" ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the... Here's his central argument : rewrite the quran in arameic(/greek), letter-by-letter and it makes sense, both in a historical context, the grammar is suddenly correct (no longer "intricate"), and it is obviously based on the New Testament. Whereas in arabic it cannot be read by itself, it just does not make sense. As you say "The way the Quran uses language is very intricate". It's not intricate, however, it's wrong. Oh and there is even an Arameic word for "Songbook" (meaning an extract of the New Testament, with most text put into verses to be sung, as you can find today in every church on the planet). Know what that word is ? "Koran" ... This word is at least 300 years older than islam ... Coincidence ? Not really. Keep in mind that Arabic is not in fact that far removed from Greek, because it is based on Hebrew, a late dialect of Hebrew was heavily influenced by Greek. It is like Doric text. Doric text will sort-of make sense to an English reader, he will probably think it's ancient English. But of course it's not. But only an Doric speaker will know that. The same is true for the quran. It is incredibly obtuse language in arabic, but it's perfectly clear and normal language in Arameic. Example: GIN I was God, sitting up there abeen, Weariet nae doot noo an my darg was deen, Deaved wih the harps an hymns oonending ringing, Tired of the flocking angels hairse wih singing, (famous poem) Looks like English, doesn't it ? Looks "intricate", perhaps ? But you see wrong grammar (e.g. the form of "to be" in "weariet nae doot noo" (it translates to 'there was no doubt')), you see recognizable, but misspelled words. But they're not wrong. It's simply a different language.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - azth 13y ago
    > That's what muslims claim. Actually reading the thing does not at all give that impression Did you read it in Arabic? Do you even speak the language? > don't immediately recognize is greek it becomes a lot easier. One really nice thing about Arabic is that you can reduce practically every word to 3 or 4 letter roots. This really makes it clear where a derivative of a word came from (including the word "Quraan" incidentally). > As for the language of the Quran, have you ever googled "Christopher Luxenberg" ? I have heard of him, yes. His argument is painfully laughable that it's unbearable to answer with a straight face. Without going into much detail, it is clear that he is selecting whatever supports his so called analysis, and discarding (or he is perhaps ignorant of) everything else. A beginner in Islamic studies would be able to refute him blind folded so to speak. > Here's his central argument : rewrite the quran in arameic(/greek), letter-by-letter and it makes sense, both in a historical context, the grammar is suddenly correct Umm, no. I have looked into Aramaic as well as Hebrew (I developed an interest in these languages after watching Passion of the Christ and recognizing a bunch of words in the movie). My knowledge of Arabic gives me an advantage in that I am able to easily make out similarities in syntax and pronunciation (incidentally, a lot of (most?) modern Hebrew speakers really twist the language, and it sounds nothing like it would have sounded back in the day -- many letters are dropped or merged, pronounced incorrectly, etc). The key point being: there is no one-to-one mapping of Arabic letters to Aramaic or Hebrew letters. There is a very large overlap; however, there exist letters in Arabic not present in Aramaic/Hebrew, as well as as the other way around (such as 'p' and 'v'). I concur that there are some words shared between these languages (e.g. "house", "bird", "eye", "them", "one"). However, the grammatical constructs, transformation of words, usage, plurals, pronunciation, etc are all quite different. Arabic grammar and conjugation is much more rich and complex than Aramaic or Hebrew. As a tiny example, "house" => "bayt" in Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew -- a place of resting. Now, "yabeet" (only in Arabic) means to spend the night at a house; but in this example, you can see that they both have the same root of (ba-ya-ta). I have not seen this behavior in Aramaic or Hebrew. Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than Arabic. That being said, it is impossible to have a letter-by-letter re-write from Arabic to Aramaic by definition. It's illogical and impossible. > Oh and there is even an Arameic word for "Songbook" (meaning an extract of the New Testament, with most text put into verses to be sung, as you can find today in every church on the planet). Know what that word is ? "Koran" Wrong again. The Aramaic (Syriac actually) word you are looking for is "Kriyana" ('reading the scriptures' or 'lesson'). The three-letter root of Qur'aan is (Qa-Ra-'a) -- to read/recite. So, while they sound similar (not surprising given what I mentioned about similar roots above), or even have somewhat similar meanings, they are not the same word as you were trying to make it out to be. If anything, the Arabic word "Kira'a" (reading/recitation) is closer in meaning (it's a gerund) to the Aramaic version than Qur'aan (a proper noun). Also, the Quraan has multiple names too, such as Al-Furqan, Al-Thikr, Al-Huda, etc, but that doesn't really relate to this discussion. Just something for your information. > Keep in mind that Arabic is not in fact that far removed from Greek, because it is based on Hebrew According to Wikipedia, Greek is Indo-European, whereas Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic (deriving from Afro-Asiatic). I re-iterate that I am completely fluent in Arabic, and I have Greek colleagues. The languages are not similar (if at all) as what you're trying to point out. Are you sure you're not just re-iterating things you heard before from someone and trying to pass one on me? Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language (like Aramaic), both deriving from a Central Semitic language family. Arabic is also derived from a Central Semitic language family. This makes Arabic and Aramaic/Hebrew more like uncle/nephew instead of siblings or even descendents (like how Hebrew descended from Aramaic). The analogy you are trying to make with the poem does not hold. The Quraan's Arabic is not obtuse like that at all. This just reinforces the fact that you don't seem to speak the language at all, yet you try to make a statement based on false claims. For your information, the Quraan and Hadith (moreso the former) are used as references for the Arabic language to know what is proper grammar from improper -- which yet again makes the poem analogy ridiculous.

by waps 13y ago

azth 13y ago

You stated that Kufic is a dialect of Aramaic, which is completely false. Kufic is a script used to write Arabic, which people still write in to this day for your information. The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. It would not be possible to achieve the same effect by translating from one language (Aramaic) to another (Arabic) as you are claiming. If you were to listen to recitation of the Quran that might deliver a clearer picture, even if you do not have a command over the language. I'm talking about how certain Ayat ("verses") sound (phonetically) -- this effect is hard to preserve across languages for a small body of text, let alone an entire book. (Example: http://tanzil.net/#100:1 http://tanzil.net/#100:1)

waps 13y ago
> The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. That's what muslims claim. Actually reading the thing does not at all give that impression. It truly is a massive effort, reading it. I admire anyone who's gotten through it because it's so incredibly obtuse and confusing (yes I know about the chapter and sentence ordering, what moron came up with that ?). Except of course, if you assume any word you don't immediately recognize is greek it becomes a lot easier. Of course then you start saying "wait ... this translation is wrong". Try it. When it comes to recitation, this is actually a tradition of the ancient world, and all texts from those eras were written like that, always. You can recite rhythmically pretty much any ancient text (meaning from the ancient era : 1000 BC to 500 AD or so, and then the renaissance texts of course). You should listen to a few Roman recitations : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ In other words, I see your recitation as further proof that the quran is just a text that fits perfectly within it's timeframe, which is of course a very strong argument against that it is anything special. The bible is more interesting, as it has pieces from different eras that follow different styles, but when God speaks (not often, grant you) there is never any local style applied. Stories are styled, including in verses to enable recitation. As for the language of the Quran, have you ever googled "Christopher Luxenberg" ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the... Here's his central argument : rewrite the quran in arameic(/greek), letter-by-letter and it makes sense, both in a historical context, the grammar is suddenly correct (no longer "intricate"), and it is obviously based on the New Testament. Whereas in arabic it cannot be read by itself, it just does not make sense. As you say "The way the Quran uses language is very intricate". It's not intricate, however, it's wrong. Oh and there is even an Arameic word for "Songbook" (meaning an extract of the New Testament, with most text put into verses to be sung, as you can find today in every church on the planet). Know what that word is ? "Koran" ... This word is at least 300 years older than islam ... Coincidence ? Not really. Keep in mind that Arabic is not in fact that far removed from Greek, because it is based on Hebrew, a late dialect of Hebrew was heavily influenced by Greek. It is like Doric text. Doric text will sort-of make sense to an English reader, he will probably think it's ancient English. But of course it's not. But only an Doric speaker will know that. The same is true for the quran. It is incredibly obtuse language in arabic, but it's perfectly clear and normal language in Arameic. Example: GIN I was God, sitting up there abeen, Weariet nae doot noo an my darg was deen, Deaved wih the harps an hymns oonending ringing, Tired of the flocking angels hairse wih singing, (famous poem) Looks like English, doesn't it ? Looks "intricate", perhaps ? But you see wrong grammar (e.g. the form of "to be" in "weariet nae doot noo" (it translates to 'there was no doubt')), you see recognizable, but misspelled words. But they're not wrong. It's simply a different language.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- azth 13y ago
  > That's what muslims claim. Actually reading the thing does not at all give that impression Did you read it in Arabic? Do you even speak the language? > don't immediately recognize is greek it becomes a lot easier. One really nice thing about Arabic is that you can reduce practically every word to 3 or 4 letter roots. This really makes it clear where a derivative of a word came from (including the word "Quraan" incidentally). > As for the language of the Quran, have you ever googled "Christopher Luxenberg" ? I have heard of him, yes. His argument is painfully laughable that it's unbearable to answer with a straight face. Without going into much detail, it is clear that he is selecting whatever supports his so called analysis, and discarding (or he is perhaps ignorant of) everything else. A beginner in Islamic studies would be able to refute him blind folded so to speak. > Here's his central argument : rewrite the quran in arameic(/greek), letter-by-letter and it makes sense, both in a historical context, the grammar is suddenly correct Umm, no. I have looked into Aramaic as well as Hebrew (I developed an interest in these languages after watching Passion of the Christ and recognizing a bunch of words in the movie). My knowledge of Arabic gives me an advantage in that I am able to easily make out similarities in syntax and pronunciation (incidentally, a lot of (most?) modern Hebrew speakers really twist the language, and it sounds nothing like it would have sounded back in the day -- many letters are dropped or merged, pronounced incorrectly, etc). The key point being: there is no one-to-one mapping of Arabic letters to Aramaic or Hebrew letters. There is a very large overlap; however, there exist letters in Arabic not present in Aramaic/Hebrew, as well as as the other way around (such as 'p' and 'v'). I concur that there are some words shared between these languages (e.g. "house", "bird", "eye", "them", "one"). However, the grammatical constructs, transformation of words, usage, plurals, pronunciation, etc are all quite different. Arabic grammar and conjugation is much more rich and complex than Aramaic or Hebrew. As a tiny example, "house" => "bayt" in Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew -- a place of resting. Now, "yabeet" (only in Arabic) means to spend the night at a house; but in this example, you can see that they both have the same root of (ba-ya-ta). I have not seen this behavior in Aramaic or Hebrew. Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than Arabic. That being said, it is impossible to have a letter-by-letter re-write from Arabic to Aramaic by definition. It's illogical and impossible. > Oh and there is even an Arameic word for "Songbook" (meaning an extract of the New Testament, with most text put into verses to be sung, as you can find today in every church on the planet). Know what that word is ? "Koran" Wrong again. The Aramaic (Syriac actually) word you are looking for is "Kriyana" ('reading the scriptures' or 'lesson'). The three-letter root of Qur'aan is (Qa-Ra-'a) -- to read/recite. So, while they sound similar (not surprising given what I mentioned about similar roots above), or even have somewhat similar meanings, they are not the same word as you were trying to make it out to be. If anything, the Arabic word "Kira'a" (reading/recitation) is closer in meaning (it's a gerund) to the Aramaic version than Qur'aan (a proper noun). Also, the Quraan has multiple names too, such as Al-Furqan, Al-Thikr, Al-Huda, etc, but that doesn't really relate to this discussion. Just something for your information. > Keep in mind that Arabic is not in fact that far removed from Greek, because it is based on Hebrew According to Wikipedia, Greek is Indo-European, whereas Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic (deriving from Afro-Asiatic). I re-iterate that I am completely fluent in Arabic, and I have Greek colleagues. The languages are not similar (if at all) as what you're trying to point out. Are you sure you're not just re-iterating things you heard before from someone and trying to pass one on me? Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language (like Aramaic), both deriving from a Central Semitic language family. Arabic is also derived from a Central Semitic language family. This makes Arabic and Aramaic/Hebrew more like uncle/nephew instead of siblings or even descendents (like how Hebrew descended from Aramaic). The analogy you are trying to make with the poem does not hold. The Quraan's Arabic is not obtuse like that at all. This just reinforces the fact that you don't seem to speak the language at all, yet you try to make a statement based on false claims. For your information, the Quraan and Hadith (moreso the former) are used as references for the Arabic language to know what is proper grammar from improper -- which yet again makes the poem analogy ridiculous.