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 was a figure of

by 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++...

waps 13y ago
> 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 No I'm saying that sms arabic is a transliteration or arabic into latin script, despite very different alphabets. Obviously it's possible. I find it fascinating, because there's actually multiple styles of doing this. But I like the version where they use numbers to complete the set of letters. Reminds me of old French texts that also have a "3"-shaped letter lost in the middle of words instead of the modern letter, and those were some of the first non-mother-tongue texts I read. Fairy tales. I think I'm getting old. > Wrong again. Vowels ARE part of both languages. In modern arabic, sort-of (spoken, yes, written, not really, same as in hebrew really, which is to say, not at all (say different vowels and people will still understand you), but yes you can put little marks on the letters now indicating which vowel to use in "most" cases. I was told this is mainly done for children's first reads though, and not done in normal handwritten texts). In ancient (written) arabic, it is never done. Obviously the arabs living in the 8th century still used vowels, just not in writing. As for Luxenberg's thesis, buy his book and read it. It has chapters full of those verses. > The language of the Quran did play a role in converting people back when it was revealed, because it was unique -- yet still understandable. Doesn't that just further confirm this situation though ? It's "unique", is that perhaps a polite way of saying that it's very different from anything else you've ever read, with "weird" verb forms, words with wrong roots and the like ? I guess I don't fully understand what you're saying. Either it's "unique" arabic, or it's not, right. I'm thinking that what you're calling unique arabic would be more accurately identified as "not quite" arabic.
- azth 13y ago
  > No I'm saying that sms arabic is a transliteration or arabic into latin script... I see your point. Though that still does not advance Luxemberg's claim. > In modern arabic, sort-of (spoken, yes, written, not really, same as in hebrew really, which is to say, not at all... I really don't understand this claim. What about the following letters since you say you can read Arabic: (و، ا، ي) Aren't they vowels? Did you take a look at the Kufic manuscript I linked in my previous post? Those letters exist there as well. Hebrew and Aramaic both have corresponding letters to those too. > Obviously the arabs living in the 8th century still used vowels, just not in writing... The Kufic script image I linked to proves otherwise. I take it I got the point across with the root of the word Qur'aan (Qa-Ra-'a) :-) > It's "unique", is that perhaps a polite way of saying that it's very different from anything else you've ever read, with "weird" verb forms, words with wrong roots and the like ? Speculation on your part (when you say "perhaps"). I will try to go more into details about this topic in another post (if this thread remains open!)

by azth 13y ago

waps 13y ago

> 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 No I'm saying that sms arabic is a transliteration or arabic into latin script, despite very different alphabets. Obviously it's possible. I find it fascinating, because there's actually multiple styles of doing this. But I like the version where they use numbers to complete the set of letters. Reminds me of old French texts that also have a "3"-shaped letter lost in the middle of words instead of the modern letter, and those were some of the first non-mother-tongue texts I read. Fairy tales. I think I'm getting old. > Wrong again. Vowels ARE part of both languages. In modern arabic, sort-of (spoken, yes, written, not really, same as in hebrew really, which is to say, not at all (say different vowels and people will still understand you), but yes you can put little marks on the letters now indicating which vowel to use in "most" cases. I was told this is mainly done for children's first reads though, and not done in normal handwritten texts). In ancient (written) arabic, it is never done. Obviously the arabs living in the 8th century still used vowels, just not in writing. As for Luxenberg's thesis, buy his book and read it. It has chapters full of those verses. > The language of the Quran did play a role in converting people back when it was revealed, because it was unique -- yet still understandable. Doesn't that just further confirm this situation though ? It's "unique", is that perhaps a polite way of saying that it's very different from anything else you've ever read, with "weird" verb forms, words with wrong roots and the like ? I guess I don't fully understand what you're saying. Either it's "unique" arabic, or it's not, right. I'm thinking that what you're calling unique arabic would be more accurately identified as "not quite" arabic.

azth 13y ago
> No I'm saying that sms arabic is a transliteration or arabic into latin script... I see your point. Though that still does not advance Luxemberg's claim. > In modern arabic, sort-of (spoken, yes, written, not really, same as in hebrew really, which is to say, not at all... I really don't understand this claim. What about the following letters since you say you can read Arabic: (و، ا، ي) Aren't they vowels? Did you take a look at the Kufic manuscript I linked in my previous post? Those letters exist there as well. Hebrew and Aramaic both have corresponding letters to those too. > Obviously the arabs living in the 8th century still used vowels, just not in writing... The Kufic script image I linked to proves otherwise. I take it I got the point across with the root of the word Qur'aan (Qa-Ra-'a) :-) > It's "unique", is that perhaps a polite way of saying that it's very different from anything else you've ever read, with "weird" verb forms, words with wrong roots and the like ? Speculation on your part (when you say "perhaps"). I will try to go more into details about this topic in another post (if this thread remains open!)