5 ms·

Would you consider a "beginner in islamic studies" to be the least bit scientific ? The whole study field is, by definition, prejudiced. > That being said, it

by waps 13y ago

Would you consider a "beginner in islamic studies" to be the least bit scientific ? The whole study field is, by definition, prejudiced. > 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. Of course it's not. And the argument you're bringing up is laughably weak. Greek does not have the same letters as our latin script, yet transliterating is perfectly possible, it's how half our students do it half the time. Hell, ever read, shall we say "teenage" arabic/sms arabic as I've seen it referred to ? Here's essentially why I believe Luxenberg. I've shown the early quran pages to Semitic scholars (not Jews in case you're wondering) at my university, and while they can't read them smoothly, they can read them. With appropriate books, so can I (very slowly, sure). They also said that Luxenberg is right. I've also taken the same early quran page copies to an islamic scholar, freshly imported into the university, and it was blatantly obvious that he doesn't even recognize them, or the writing, despite having over 20 years of study at Al Azhar. I had to actually TELL him what it was, yet it was the thing they've supposedly been studying for 20 years. Researching the matter, it turns out to be actually true : in islamic studies you will never get to see an early islamic manuscript ... You can imagine who I believe. > 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 You must realize that vowels are not written in either language, and it is not actually known what vowels were used in the period, or where they went or didn't go. Sorry to poing out the obvious but K R N ("Kriyana" in your text) would be considered identical to K R N ("quran"). Hell they did that in greek and latin for the longest time as well. Hey wow ! I just transliterated 4 languages and 3 different alphabets there, you say it's impossible, yet it was not particularly hard. Wait we even have a global standard for doing that ... > The Quraan's Arabic is not obtuse like that at all https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+grammar https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+grammar ... half of the sites here (as does our islamic studies colleague) teach a separate form of arabic grammar called "quranic grammar", claiming that it's not possible to understand even a few lines of the book without learning the entirely different way the sentences hold together ... https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+hard+to+read https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+hard+to+read results: 8,580,000 ...

azth 13y ago
> Would you consider a "beginner in islamic studies" to be the least bit scientific ? The whole study field is, by definition, prejudiced. That was a figure of speech/hyperbole. If by the "whole study field" you mean religion in general, then I would agree to some extent. > Hell, ever read, shall we say "teenage" arabic/sms arabic as I've seen it referred to ? Yes, I chat with my friends in "sms" style Arabic on IM so to speak. Hmm, so you're saying Quranic Arabic is like sms style Aramaic? That's something new! Of course, the proof is on the one making the claim. Incidentally, the Arabic words I do recognize from Aramaic/Hebrew (even present day Persian since it was influenced by Arabic) sounds like broken Arabic to me :) This is because the usage of such words does not conform to Arabic conjugation rules (it's like saying, "he good today" -- as a very primitive example). Just goes to say that Arabic is more complicated. > You must realize that vowels are not written in either language Wrong again. Vowels ARE part of both languages. I think you might be confusing this with "taskheel", which are the "mini-vowels". That is something else though. Now, if you mean if the vowels are not part of the root of the word, then you're also wrong. Some roots do have vowels. The root you are suggesting: Q-R-N (ق ر ن) (pronounced Qa-Ra-Na, with mini-vowels, perhaps that was the source of your confusion) is a root for a different group of words than Q-R-' (ق ر ء) (pronounced Qa-Ra-'a with a glottal stop). From the former, you can derive qiran (wedding or matrimony), aqran (peers), muqaranah (comparison) and so on. From Q-R-' you can derive reading or recitation (qira'ah), and Qur'aan. Note the glottal stop in both words, this is part of the root. Again, this shows your ignorance in the language. Take another example: from the root H-M-D (pronounced Ha-Ma-Da) (ح م د) one can derive Hamdan (حمدان) which rhymes with Qur'aan. Note how in both words, the last letter "n" is not part of the roots for either word. I'm happy to give you many more examples that show this is the case. > Here's essentially why I believe Luxenberg... Interesting account, but still not sufficient. I would be interested though in hearing more about it (e.g. if you wrote a report or short document with references and citations). All that you mentioned is that you took some early Quranic manuscripts and you had someone read them. Now I don't know who that Islamic scholar is, a single data point does not mean anything, and you should know better. It is incorrect that in early Islamic studies you will never see an early manuscript of the Qur'aan. Let me tell you something, we have known this since we were kids (exposed to it in school): that early Arabic script did not have dotted letters -- this is the Kufic script to which you are referring. It is not some obscure piece of information that only a handful of people know. I presume you are referring to scripts such as [0], am I correct? In any case, I would be interested to take a look at the Quranic scripts you mentioned. Unless you formally show me at least a handful of Ayat (verses) of the Quran transliterated to Aramaic, let alone a page, let alone the entire book, while still making complete sense in Aramaic, then Luxenberg's claim really does not carry any weight. You should know better than to accept something like this without solid proof. It even says on the Wikipedia page that "That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam"! The Google links you mentioned really don't mean anything if you want to be "scientific" Oh look what I found here [1] 84,500,000 results! 10 times the number you listed! Of course, I won't use that argument since it does not make sense. It is possible to understand parts of the Quran with elementary knowledge of Arabic (and I know because we studied it in grade school, middle school, and high school). It does have intricate parts, sure. The language of the Quran did play a role in converting people back when it was revealed, because it was unique -- yet still understandable. If you really want to continue the discussion, my email address is in my profile page. Though, I would appreciate if you were to lose the attitude, and be willing to look at things in a less biased way. [0] http://www.quran-m.com/firas/ar_photo/1263930976161291c.jpeg http://www.quran-m.com/firas/ar_photo/1263930976161291c.jpeg [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+hard+to+read#q=bible++hard+to+read https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+hard+to+read#q=bible++...

by waps 13y ago

azth 13y ago

> Would you consider a "beginner in islamic studies" to be the least bit scientific ? The whole study field is, by definition, prejudiced. That was a figure of speech/hyperbole. If by the "whole study field" you mean religion in general, then I would agree to some extent. > Hell, ever read, shall we say "teenage" arabic/sms arabic as I've seen it referred to ? Yes, I chat with my friends in "sms" style Arabic on IM so to speak. Hmm, so you're saying Quranic Arabic is like sms style Aramaic? That's something new! Of course, the proof is on the one making the claim. Incidentally, the Arabic words I do recognize from Aramaic/Hebrew (even present day Persian since it was influenced by Arabic) sounds like broken Arabic to me :) This is because the usage of such words does not conform to Arabic conjugation rules (it's like saying, "he good today" -- as a very primitive example). Just goes to say that Arabic is more complicated. > You must realize that vowels are not written in either language Wrong again. Vowels ARE part of both languages. I think you might be confusing this with "taskheel", which are the "mini-vowels". That is something else though. Now, if you mean if the vowels are not part of the root of the word, then you're also wrong. Some roots do have vowels. The root you are suggesting: Q-R-N (ق ر ن) (pronounced Qa-Ra-Na, with mini-vowels, perhaps that was the source of your confusion) is a root for a different group of words than Q-R-' (ق ر ء) (pronounced Qa-Ra-'a with a glottal stop). From the former, you can derive qiran (wedding or matrimony), aqran (peers), muqaranah (comparison) and so on. From Q-R-' you can derive reading or recitation (qira'ah), and Qur'aan. Note the glottal stop in both words, this is part of the root. Again, this shows your ignorance in the language. Take another example: from the root H-M-D (pronounced Ha-Ma-Da) (ح م د) one can derive Hamdan (حمدان) which rhymes with Qur'aan. Note how in both words, the last letter "n" is not part of the roots for either word. I'm happy to give you many more examples that show this is the case. > Here's essentially why I believe Luxenberg... Interesting account, but still not sufficient. I would be interested though in hearing more about it (e.g. if you wrote a report or short document with references and citations). All that you mentioned is that you took some early Quranic manuscripts and you had someone read them. Now I don't know who that Islamic scholar is, a single data point does not mean anything, and you should know better. It is incorrect that in early Islamic studies you will never see an early manuscript of the Qur'aan. Let me tell you something, we have known this since we were kids (exposed to it in school): that early Arabic script did not have dotted letters -- this is the Kufic script to which you are referring. It is not some obscure piece of information that only a handful of people know. I presume you are referring to scripts such as [0], am I correct? In any case, I would be interested to take a look at the Quranic scripts you mentioned. Unless you formally show me at least a handful of Ayat (verses) of the Quran transliterated to Aramaic, let alone a page, let alone the entire book, while still making complete sense in Aramaic, then Luxenberg's claim really does not carry any weight. You should know better than to accept something like this without solid proof. It even says on the Wikipedia page that "That idea is in serious disagreement with the views of both traditional Muslims and western scholars of Islam"! The Google links you mentioned really don't mean anything if you want to be "scientific" Oh look what I found here [1] 84,500,000 results! 10 times the number you listed! Of course, I won't use that argument since it does not make sense. It is possible to understand parts of the Quran with elementary knowledge of Arabic (and I know because we studied it in grade school, middle school, and high school). It does have intricate parts, sure. The language of the Quran did play a role in converting people back when it was revealed, because it was unique -- yet still understandable. If you really want to continue the discussion, my email address is in my profile page. Though, I would appreciate if you were to lose the attitude, and be willing to look at things in a less biased way. [0] http://www.quran-m.com/firas/ar_photo/1263930976161291c.jpeg http://www.quran-m.com/firas/ar_photo/1263930976161291c.jpeg [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+hard+to+read#q=bible++hard+to+read https://www.google.com/search?q=quran+hard+to+read#q=bible++...