Why do you think Quran is in Arabic?

[DeitySlayer]

I know. So far, I haven't seen anything about the Quran that's inconsistent with the idea that Muhammad created it without God's help. Muhammad spoke Arabic; the Quran's in Arabic. I find it hard not to assume that the one fact has something to do with the other.

Not to mention that the supposed divine scientific revelations concerning embryology look suspiciously similar to the Ancient Greek work on embryology. Including the same mistakes.

 

[YmirGF]

The one thing that I see missing from this discussion, so far, is that I have read some Muslims consider that Arabic is the language of God used in Paradise.

It's a pretty safe claim, lol.

To pull a Fatihah, "Prove that Arabic is not the language spoken in Paradise!"


As to the question raised by the OP, well, seriously... An arab "wrote" a book whilst living in Arabia, for Arabic speaking followers. My guess is that he wanted to be understood and not overtly and justifiably labeled as a madman. I do like the Rosetta stone idea as that would be a proof of divine origin. Say have it in Greek, Chinese, Latin and Arabic. That would have been a show-stopper.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

I think what the brother meant by this thread, was to show why chose Muhammad sallalahu 'alayhi wassalam an arab person to send His message, hence the question why quran was in arabic.

So please stop mocking a thread just because you did not understand it, or ... Just continue doing so, who cares anyway?

@My respected brother OP:

Dont even worry about the mockeries going on in here, و لا يخافون لومة لائم may Allah azza wajjal protect you.

When you posted a thread on why quran is in arabic, you had to take in consideration that most of your readers are atheists , i.e . They dont even believe in God, then whats the point?
Thats why ,my respected brother, I always insist that discussion with ateists should always focus on the existence of God and the prophethood of Muhammad sallalahu alayh wasssalam, because since Islam is all about God , how can someone who does not believe in Him would probably listen to you telling him Allah said, or why Allah azza wajjal did so and so.

Please note akhil kareem, that Im in no way critisizing your work or your thread, I did not read it all but I guess I already have an idea about it and its a good one, I just wanted to point out that the DIR forum would have been a better place for it wallahu a'lam.

Barakallahu feek wa shakaralak

 

[Riverwolf]

I think what the brother meant by this thread, was to show why chose Muhammad sallalahu 'alayhi wassalam an arab person to send His message, hence the question why quran was in arabic.

If that's the case, then why wasn't that asked rather than a question that has a blindingly obvious answer?

So please stop mocking a thread just because you did not understand it, or ... Just continue doing so, who cares anyway?

What's to understand beyond the words we see? This isn't Scripture; this is a debate thread: there's no room for being cryptic here. Words are responded to, not intentions.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

If that's the case, then why wasn't that asked rather than a question that has a blindingly obvious answer?

Sometimes you mean something and say something different, I explained what was meant. No big deal.

What's to understand beyond the words we see? This isn't Scripture; this is a debate thread: there's no room for being cryptic here. Words are responded to, not intentions.

Fair enough. However, one should try and find the best way to answer someone without hurting him/her, at least that what Islam taught me, I dont know about atheism.

Dont get me wrong, Im just standing for a brother here.
The prophet sallalahu 'alayhi wassalam said (meaning) ; stand for your brother wether hes being just or unjust. His companions then asked him: We do understand the first one, but what about the unjust part? He then replied: By stopping him from comitting injustice.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sometimes you mean something and say something different, I explained what was meant. No big deal.

Fair enough. However, one should try and find the best way to answer someone without hurting him/her, at least that what Islam taught me, I dont know about atheism.

Atheism doesn't have any teaching on the matter, as it doesn't have any teachings at all; it's simply a lack of a belief in God.

However, American culture tends to be... unforgiving of the kind of thing displayed in the OP. Believe me; most of the time, it's much, much worse.

Dont get me wrong, Im just standing for a brother here.
The prophet sallalahu 'alayhi wassalam said (meaning) ; stand for your brother wether hes being just or unjust. His companions then asked him: We do understand the first one, but what about the unjust part? He then replied: By stopping him from comitting injustice.

Great. I'm doing the same by defending the thinking behind replies.

 

[Caladan]

Please note akhil kareem, that Im in no way critisizing your work or your thread, I did not read it all but I guess I already have an idea about it and its a good one, I just wanted to point out that the DIR forum would have been a better place for it wallahu a'lam.

Barakallahu feek wa shakaralak

Many of us have taken notice that the DIR forum is being used as a shield from dialogue and from challenge. there is simply not good enough reason for you to be bent out of shape for having this OP challenged, this is posted in a debate forum, and personally I have little respect for this semi-proselytizing posts, for the most part I dont even respond to them let alone 'mock' them as you say, which BTW I didnt, I posted a coherent answer based on sound logic, if that's too much to handle, than really, what else is there to say?

 

[YmirGF]

Many of us have taken notice that the DIR forum is being used as a shield from dialogue and from challenge.

Just so. It is easy to run and hide, than to defend ones thinking in the full light of day.

there is simply not good enough reason for you to be bent out of shape for having this OP challenged,

Exactly. Given the lack of intelligence exhibited in the OP it is little wonder that people reacted as they did.

My guess is the OP was crafted by another zealous youngster he didn't think things out before posting. Personally, I think religion needs to be mocked more. People might just begin to take the hint. Heck, due to the vapid suppositions that religions are based on, just exactly, what is there not worthy of being mocked?

 

[Copernicus]

Why was he OP written in English?

 

[Breathe]

I think what the brother meant by this thread, was to show why chose Muhammad sallalahu 'alayhi wassalam an arab person to send His message, hence the question why quran was in arabic.

Why was Muhammad an Arab, you mean?

If so: Because he was born in Arabia, to Arabs. He was raised by Arabs. Arabic was his native language. Arabia is quite close to Israel and has a lot of Jews and Christians, which allowed Muhammad to learn the stories of those people. Even Khadijah's uncle was a Christian, which means that she may have even knew the stories and told him of them. Muhammad was a trader, and it is obvious that he would have traded with Jews and Christians - it seems logical that people had spoken to him about religion, especially Christians, with their message of going forth and spreading the Gospel and all that.

I have yet to see any proof that Muhammad is from God, or even if Allah is an existent entity at all (nb, I do believe in what 'God', but the Abrahamic (Islam, Christianity, Jewish) concept of God is not the type I believe in), without using the Qur'an or Hadith to attempt to prove it. I have yet to see any evidence the Kaaba was a shrine set up by Abraham.

My $0.02

 

[lombas]

I think the Gospel was not solely written in Arameic but also in Greek, according to some traditions...?

Also, Muhammad never wrote anything (so far as we know), the Quran was written down by Zaid ibn Thabit, his - ehm - secretary.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Many of us have taken notice that the DIR forum is being used as a shield from dialogue and from challenge. there is simply not good enough reason for you to be bent out of shape for having this OP challenged, this is posted in a debate forum, and personally I have little respect for this semi-proselytizing posts, for the most part I dont even respond to them let alone 'mock' them as you say, which BTW I didnt, I posted a coherent answer based on sound logic, if that's too much to handle, than really, what else is there to say?

I dislike to be cought in useless ddebates, but Ill give it a go anyway:
When I said you should have posted it in the DIR Forum, I didnt mean the Islamic in specific I just meant that the thread had to written for Deists only. Why? Because when you tell a deist why God did so and so, he knows what it means and he may see something coherent in it, but when an atheist read it he will start by mocking the fact that you are saying God did so and so, since he believes its the prophet who wrote that down, then he'll try to find out something else to mock.

Thats why I advised the brother to start with atheists from the existence of God, and to let this topic for Abrahamic religious people or at least deists only.

As for you having posted a coherent and simple answer, then I dont even remember what you wrote but you should know that I was speaking generally, not specifically adressing you, even though I cant remember having read anything un-ironic in this thread if my memory doesnt fail me.

Best Regards

 

[LoTrobador]

I think the Gospel was not solely written in Arameic but also in Greek, according to some traditions...?

I think it is a generally accepted view that the Gospels were written in Koine Greek (Greek Primacy), though the Aramaic Primacy has also been proposed.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Guess I'm a little late to this thread, but might just add my $0.02 worth.

The Qur'an was revealed into an Arabic speaking region. If it were revealed in Han Chinese, then it might've been a little misunderstood I think. This kind of reasoning goes without saying.

However, there is a miracle in the language of the Qur'an, in that the dialect of Arabic it was revealed in was pretty unique. It was not necessarily the dialect of the Arabs of Makkah in that time, as some today assume. It was revealed in a form of Arabic that is extremely conservative (the most eloquent form, in Arabic: al-Fusha), containing features that had disappeared from all other Semitic languages by that time, and even in most Arabic dialects those features had all but vanished. I often wonder how on earth the language of the Qur'an maintained those features, and the only answer I can come up with is that the language was divinely protected (along with the scripture). That might sound biased, or it might sound wishful, but anyone who doubts it probably just doesn't know enough about the language. It is so full of features that simply shouldn't be there, they should've been worn down long ago by speakers, but somehow they miraculously survived, against all odds.

When we compare it to Hebrew for instance, which has texts stretching back about 1000 years older than the earliest Arabic texts, we find that the Hebrew language, although a sister language of Arabic, has lost so much of the structure of it's language. It has merged/lost about 7 or 8 of it's letters, it has lost the entire case system, the dual number and many many more features. The dialects of common everyday Arabs have also undergone these exact same changes (in many cases exactly the same as Hebrew, Aramaic etc. have). Yet the Arabic of the Qur'an did not. Somehow all of it's complexity and features were uniquely preserved, awaiting the revelation of the divine speech.

It is indeed a miracle.

Any Arab today can recognise that the language of the Qur'an is unique compared to the language they speak, and they know that the complexity it contains is far greater than the language they speak. And in fact their own language is corrected and systematicaly defined by the Qur'an itself and the language it is revealed in.

 

[Revoltingest]

However, there is a miracle in the language of the Qur'an, in that the dialect of Arabic it was revealed in was pretty unique. It was not necessarily the dialect of the Arabs of Makkah in that time, as some today assume. It was revealed in a form of Arabic that is extremely conservative (the most eloquent form, in Arabic: al-Fusha), containing features that had disappeared from all other Semitic languages by that time, and even in most Arabic dialects those features had all but vanished. I often wonder how on earth the language of the Qur'an maintained those features, and the only answer I can come up with is that the language was divinely protected (along with the scripture). That might sound biased, or it might sound wishful.....

I'd go with that last part...."biased" & "wishful". Generally, everyone prefers their first language, believing it expressive & precise.
After all, learning the language helped form the structure of our brain, so of course it will seem best. We each adapt to our own.
Besides, everyone knows that if there is a God, that English (American version) is his language.

 

[Copernicus]

The Qur'an was revealed into an Arabic speaking region. If it were revealed in Han Chinese, then it might've been a little misunderstood I think. This kind of reasoning goes without saying.

I agree that this kind of reasoning ought to go without saying, because it is not good reasoning. Every culture has spawned religions, and the language of those religions has always been native to the people who created the religion. Arabs were not unique in that respect.

However, there is a miracle in the language of the Qur'an, in that the dialect of Arabic it was revealed in was pretty unique. It was not necessarily the dialect of the Arabs of Makkah in that time, as some today assume. It was revealed in a form of Arabic that is extremely conservative (the most eloquent form, in Arabic: al-Fusha), containing features that had disappeared from all other Semitic languages by that time, and even in most Arabic dialects those features had all but vanished...

What features are you talking about? My understanding is that al-Fusha was a standard literary form of the language. Formal standards like that tend to be conservative and somewhat different from spoken forms. Again, this is not unique, unexpected, or miraculous. If you study Classical Latin or Classical Sanskrit, you will learn a version of the language that was seldom "spoken" except among the literate elite. Over time, cultures tend to preserve the dialect that religious scripture is recorded in. The desire of Hindus to preserve Sanskrit (both Vedic and Classical versions) led to the development of very advanced linguistic science--which in fact became the basic historical foundation for linguistic theory in modern times. So-called "liturgical languages" are usually formalized, conservative versions of a spoken language.

I often wonder how on earth the language of the Qur'an maintained those features, and the only answer I can come up with is that the language was divinely protected (along with the scripture). That might sound biased, or it might sound wishful, but anyone who doubts it probably just doesn't know enough about the language. It is so full of features that simply shouldn't be there, they should've been worn down long ago by speakers, but somehow they miraculously survived, against all odds.

Well, I do doubt what you say. Before you dismiss those doubts, you should know that I have been a professional linguist for roughly 40 years, so I am fully capable of understanding language issues. From your vague references so far, I can say that I have no idea what aspects of al-Fusha you are thinking about.

When we compare it to Hebrew for instance, which has texts stretching back about 1000 years older than the earliest Arabic texts, we find that the Hebrew language, although a sister language of Arabic, has lost so much of the structure of it's language. It has merged/lost about 7 or 8 of it's letters, it has lost the entire case system, the dual number and many many more features...

First of all, do not confuse writing systems with the languages that they are used to represent. Writing in that region spread across many cultures and evolved quite independently of spoken languages. All languages change, and nothing good or bad can be concluded from such change. It is not miraculous or unexpected that some languages retain linguistic features over time that others lose.

The dialects of common everyday Arabs have also undergone these exact same changes (in many cases exactly the same as Hebrew, Aramaic etc. have). Yet the Arabic of the Qur'an did not. Somehow all of it's complexity and features were uniquely preserved, awaiting the revelation of the divine speech.

Again, this is entirely normal. Liturgical languages are almost always a conservative version of the spoken language, because they convey stories that persist across generations. The same is true of formal literary dialects, stage language, and legal language. English still has many legal terms that go back to Middle English and even Latin. This has to do with the nature of how we record past traditions, not divine intervention.

 

[Abu Rashid]

I'd go with that last part...."biased" & "wishful". Generally, everyone prefers their first language, believing it expressive & precise.

Arabic is not my first language. My first language is English, and yes I consider English to be more expressive and precise, because it's the language I am able to be most expressive and precise in, but as I said, I am amazed at the situation of Arabic.

Besides, everyone knows that if there is a God, that English (American version) is his language.

I highly doubt God would choose the most annoying English accent on the planet

 

[Abu Rashid]

I agree that this kind of reasoning ought to go without saying, because it is not good reasoning. Every culture has spawned religions, and the language of those religions has always been native to the people who created the religion. Arabs were not unique in that respect.

Yes, but as I pointed out, also in a respect the Arabic of the Qur'an was not native to the people, it was almost instructional to them. It was one of the aspects of the Qur'an which even the Arabs themselves could not explain and were amazed by. In so many places the Qur'an uses the phrase: "What is <such-and-such>? And what will convey to you what <such-and-such> is? It is <explanation>". It sounds a lot better in Arabic, but the Qur'an came to redefine the language in a sense, even it's vocabulary.

What features are you talking about?

Pretty much every single aspect of the language.

My understanding is that al-Fusha was a standard literary form of the language.

It's precise place in the Arabic language sphere of the time is still unknown and debated. Some believe it was just the polished dialect of Makkah, others believe it was a common literary dialect used for poetry competitions, yet others that it was a form of the language specifically developed for the Qur'an itself. There is very little evidence of it having existed much before the time of the Qur'an, with few, if any (specific) attestations until the Islamic period.

Formal standards like that tend to be conservative and somewhat different from spoken forms. Again, this is not unique, unexpected, or miraculous. If you study Classical Latin or Classical Sanskrit, you will learn a version of the language that was seldom "spoken" except among the literate elite.

True enough. I don't think to quite the same extent though. Also since Latin has no closely related sister languages, it's very difficult to make the same comparisons. Same goes for Sanskrit too I think. When we compare Arabic (fusha) to all it's sister languages though, we find it's a very different story. Whilst Arabic dialects are almost on the same level as the sister languages. I don't think the same situation occurs with those two.

It would almost be like if proto-IE had been mostly preserved in a certain IE language. Arabic contains a large degree of the features that linguists suppose existed in proto-Semitic. If one reads a comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, one will find fusha Arabic being used continuously as the reference source for all the other languages.

Well, I do doubt what you say. Before you dismiss those doubts, you should know that I have been a professional linguist for roughly 40 years, so I am fully capable of understanding language issues.

Good, should make it easier to discuss then.

From your vague references so far, I can say that I have no idea what aspects of al-Fusha you are thinking about.

Pretty much all aspects.

First of all, do not confuse writing systems with the languages that they are used to represent.

I used the term letters, since most would not understand linguistics terminology too well. I correctly meant phonemes. Hebrew has lost about 7 or 8 of the original proto-Semitic phonemes, as have pretty much all of the Semitic languages, except Arabic.

All languages change, and nothing good or bad can be concluded from such change. It is not miraculous or unexpected that some languages retain linguistic features over time that others lose.

I would agree if it were randomly spread out like that. But in the Semitic language group, pretty much all of them have merged phonemes and simplified grammar to a similar degree, except Fusha.

Again, this is entirely normal. Liturgical languages are almost always a conservative version of the spoken language, because they convey stories that persist across generations. The same is true of formal literary dialects, stage language, and legal language. English still has many legal terms that go back to Middle English and even Latin. This has to do with the nature of how we record past traditions, not divine intervention.

If all Arabic dialects had been similar to fusha prior to the Qur'an that theory might be valid, but they were not.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, but as I pointed out, also in a respect the Arabic of the Qur'an was not native to the people, it was almost instructional to them. It was one of the aspects of the Qur'an which even the Arabs themselves could not explain and were amazed by. In so many places the Qur'an uses the phrase: "What is <such-and-such>? And what will convey to you what <such-and-such> is? It is <explanation>". It sounds a lot better in Arabic, but the Qur'an came to redefine the language in a sense, even it's vocabulary.

I would not say that the Quran redefined Arabic any more than the King James version of the Bible redefined English. English speakers are influenced by the language of the Bible because so many have studied it for so long. Again, that kind of influence is to be expected.

Pretty much every single aspect of the language.

If you cannot name any specifics, then it seems likely that you have nothing specific with which to back up your claim.

It's precise place in the Arabic language sphere of the time is still unknown and debated. Some believe it was just the polished dialect of Makkah, others believe it was a common literary dialect used for poetry competitions, yet others that it was a form of the language specifically developed for the Qur'an itself. There is very little evidence of it having existed much before the time of the Qur'an, with few, if any (specific) attestations until the Islamic period.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it isn't from linguists, who have expert knowledge of all known Semitic languages and objective methods for answering such questions. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the language of the Quran was special or different from other languages.

True enough. I don't think to quite the same extent though. Also since Latin has no closely related sister languages, it's very difficult to make the same comparisons. Same goes for Sanskrit too I think...

Not true. Latin had plenty of related "sister" languages and a popular vernacular. The same was true of Sanskrit, about which we know more than any other ancient language, thanks to its superb tradition of linguistic scholarship. The spoken languages of the time were studied by scholars, who called them "Prakrits".

When we compare Arabic (fusha) to all it's sister languages though, we find it's a very different story. Whilst Arabic dialects are almost on the same level as the sister languages. I don't think the same situation occurs with those two.

I have never heard any such claim by a reputable language scholar, and you have given us no details or sources for your claims.

It would almost be like if proto-IE had been mostly preserved in a certain IE language...

You obviously don't know about Hittite. When Proto-IE was initially reconstructed in the 19th century, Hittite records had not been deciphered. When they were in the 20th century, it was discovered that the Anatolian peninsula was full of Indo-European languages, and they contained a lot of information to confirm and inform the reconstruction of Proto-IE. Anatolian (of which Hittite was the best known exemplar) has often been considered a "sister" branch that broke off of the main IE trunk earlier than the other daughter languages.

Arabic contains a large degree of the features that linguists suppose existed in proto-Semitic. If one reads a comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, one will find fusha Arabic being used continuously as the reference source for all the other languages.

Again, you give no specifics, but this is not surprising. For example, Lithuanian is often cited as a modern IE language that retains a number of features that resemble earlier versions of IE languages. Some languages are more conservative than others. Proto-languages are constructed from a comparison of the earliest written records of sister languages (if such records exist), and proto-Arabic would likely contain many features of proto-Semitic.

I used the term letters, since most would not understand linguistics terminology too well. I correctly meant phonemes. Hebrew has lost about 7 or 8 of the original proto-Semitic phonemes, as have pretty much all of the Semitic languages, except Arabic.

You can just use the word "basic speech sounds" if you want a non-technical term for phonemes. And phonology is a lot more complicated than just phoneme inventories. But comparing early versions of Hebrew and Arabic in such general terms does not support the claim you have been making about Arabic. There was nothing linguistically unusual about al-Fusha.

I would agree if it were randomly spread out like that. But in the Semitic language group, pretty much all of them have merged phonemes and simplified grammar to a similar degree, except Fusha.

I think that you need to become more knowledgeable about the mechanisms that govern linguistic change before you try to draw conclusions about al-Fusha in comparison to other literary and liturgical standards that have arisen in other cultures.

If all Arabic dialects had been similar to fusha prior to the Qur'an that theory might be valid, but they were not.

Not at all. Literary standards are seldom drawn from "all dialects" of a language. They tend to reflect the dialect of the most powerful tribe or national group within a culture. Just as American English has standardized on the Midwestern version of the Northern dialect (as opposed to other competing dialects), Al-Fusha would have sprung from a single dialect source.

 

[Revoltingest]

I highly doubt God would choose the most annoying English accent on the planet

It makes sense that God would use American broadcast English....
....he would be testing your faith. You're just lucky he doesn't have
a Texas or Kentucky twang. Hmmmm....that wouldn't be so bad.