Discussion:
The Aramaic Language of the Qur'an
(too old to reply)
j***@yahoo.com
2006-06-15 17:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For the first time in history a book is written to show that the
language of the Qur'an is Aramaic, not Arabic. The Aramaic language of
the Qur'an renders interpretations that are totally different from
those rendered by Muslim commentators in the last fourteen centuries.

The Eastern Syriac dialect of Aramaic is dominant in the Qur'an, and
many chapters are borrowed from the Hebrew Bible and Syriac Peshita
(Fshito), but were interpreted erroneously by Muslim commentators.

The Qur'an states that its language is Arabic, but Arab speaking people
have difficulty understanding the language of the Qur'an. The
difficulty stems from the fact that its language was not and has never
been Arabic.The language of the Qur'an has been and still is Aramaic.

In the seventh century, the written language of the Near East was
Syriac, not Arabic. The discovery of the Nabataean and Palmyrene
inscricptions in Transjordan and Syria shows that the written language
of those Arab-origin kingdoms was Aramaic, not Arabic.

The Qur'an: Misinterpreted

Because of the language barrier, Muslim commentators interpreted
erroneously many Qur'anic verses. Their inability to understand the
Aramaic vocabulary of the Qur'an had them render erroneous
interpretations. The Qur'an admits that Jesus is the "Messiah". The
Qur'anic verse"Wama qataluhu wama salabuhu" does not mean 'they did not
kill him and did not crucify him'. Aramaic"wma"means 'what'. Contrary
to the popular Muslim interpretations,The Qur'an does say that Jesus
was "killed and was crucified".

The Qur'an admits that Jesus "cured the blind" and "raised the dead".
Muslim commentators undermine this Godly act. Who other than God is
able to cure the blind and raise the dead? The Qur'an also admits that
Jesus is a 'deliverer', it calls him "Wajeehan", Aramaic "ghh" means
'to deliver'. Muslim commentators interpreted erroneously the Aramaic
Qur'anic word as 'honored'.

The Aramaic language of the Qur'an commands Muslims to treat women with
decency; it does not state that virgin women having 'sexy eyes' are
waiting in heaven for the Jihadists. In Aramaic, the language of the
Qur'an says: "there are bright raisins and water springs".

The Qur'an: Mistranslated

Muslim commentators are unable to render a translation to many Qur'anic
words. Their inability to understand the Aramaic vocabulary of the
Qur'an, prohibited them from giving any translation to many vocabulary.
Among those are the following examples: The Qur'anic word "kalalat" was
transliterated into English as "kalalat", Syriac "kalto, kalta" meaning
'bride'; the Aramaic Qur'anic word "Ra'ina" has been transliterated
into English as "ra'ina", they did not understand that this word is
Syriac "re'yono, re'yana" meaning 'shepherd'. The Aramaic Qur'anic word
"sijjin" was transliterated into English as "sijjin", Syriac "sagiyeen"
meaning 'many'. The Aramaic Qur'anic word " 'iliyyun" has been
transliterated into English as " 'iliyyun", Syriac " 'eloyone,
'elayana'. The reason why Muslim commentators were unable to translate
these and many other Qur'anic words into English is because they did
not understand that these are Aramaic vocabulary, not Arabic.

The Qur'an: Misread

For the last fourteen centuries, Muslim commentators misread the
Qur'an. Their lack of knowledge in Aramaic, mainly its Syriac dialect,
made it impossible for them to render meaningful interpretations of the
Qur'an. For example: God of Israel "Yahweh" is mentioned in the Qur'an,
but Muslim commentators did not understand its meaning, so they twisted
the name of God "Yahweh" and gave it different meaning, they call him,
erroneously: 'evil desire'.

In another example, the Qur'an states the following: "Waja'alna laka
qusuran", Q.25: 11. Muslim commentators give the following
interpretation: 'We assign you mansions'. In Syriac the Qur'anic word
"qusuran" does not mean 'mansion', it means 'reap the fruit of
righteousness'. The Qur'anic verse is not talking about 'assigning
mansions', the Qur'an is saying: 'the righteous will reap the fruits of
his deeds'.

Aramaic is not only the dominant language of the Qur'an, it is the
language of the Qur'an. Without Aramaic, the Qur'an could not be
deciphered.It is about time for the Arabic departments in colleges and
universities, especially those institutions that deal with Islamic
studies, to shift their attention to the study of Syriac, a dialect of
Aramaic, in teaching the Qur'an rather than Arabic. Islamic
institutions are no exception. The Aramaic language does give more
meaningful interpretations to the Qur'an.

http://www.syriacaramaicquran.com/index.html
Zuiko Azumazi
2006-06-19 03:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

<snip ...
Post by j***@yahoo.com
For the first time in history a book is written to show that the
language of the Qur'an is Aramaic, not Arabic. The Aramaic language of
the Qur'an renders interpretations that are totally different from
those rendered by Muslim commentators in the last fourteen centuries. ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
Isn't the language of all sacred scripture, Quran, Bible and Torah, unique
to their religious tradition? Isn't the meaning of a word or phrase then
ascribed to the usage given to it by Muslims or Christians or Jews? For a
neutral example, isn't Coptic a unique liturgical and theological language
confined to that particular Church's adherents? Wouldn't it then be
unrealistic for non-members of this Church to impose wild exegetical
interpretations on Copts because Coptic is derived from the (pagan) Greek
alphabet and influence? Which raises the altruistic question, shouldn't we
carefully distinguish the 'language of religion' (liturgical and
theological) from its secular, vernacular and lingua franca derivatives?

Ask yourself, how many "Hamito-Semitic" (Afro-Asiatic) languages had a
religious form that is now extinct like the "Biblical Aramaic Language"?
Does anyone know the answer?
--
Peace
--
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what
is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.
[Confucius]

Zuiko Azumazi
***@hotmail.com
Abu Jamil
2006-06-19 03:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi, Jeremiah,

Please don't just cut and paste ridiculous advertisements to this
newsgroup, pretending that they're actually your own commentaries.
Think for yourself instead. Exercise your own reasoning to support your
arguments. It's good practice.

Your "posting" is actually an ad for Gabriel Sawma's weird book that
pretends to have discovered that the language of the Qur'an all these
centuries has actually been Aramaic, not Arabic. This should come as a
pretty big surprise to the world's very large Arabic-speaking
population, who thought they were speaking Arabic all these years.

NEWSFLASH: THE QUR'AN IS IN ARAMAIC! BAH HAH HAH!

Let's put Sawma's hilarious theory to the test. If what his silly book
says is true, then an Arabic-language verse from the Bible and an
Aramaic one placed side-by-side will be so close (natural variations
aside) as to be virtually interchangeable. Here is the Lord's Prayer in
both languages, transliterated for clarity (noting that there are
unfortunate variations even in this firmly established prayer):

ARAMAIC

abwuun de'bwashmaaya
nethqaadash shmakh
teytey malkuuthakh
nehwey Sevyaanakh aykaanna de'bwashmaaya af be'arha
hawvlaan lakhma de'suunqanaan yaomaana
washboqlaan khaubayn aykaanna
daf khnaan shebwoqan le'khayyabaayn
wela takhlaan le'nesyuuna ela paSaan min biisha

ARABIC

'abaana~lladhii fi~s-samaawaati
li-yataqaddasi~smuka
liya'ti malakuutuka
litakun mashii'atuka &ala~l-'arDi a kamaa hiya fi~s-samaa'i
khubzanaa kafaafanaa 'a&Tina~l-yawma
wa~ghfir lanaa dhunuubanaa
kamaa naghfiru naHnu lil-mudhnibiina 'ilaynaa
walaa tudkhilnaa fii tajribatin laakin najjinaa mina~sh-shirriiri

Wow! I can't even tell the difference! Of course, all Arabs will
immediately understand "abwuun de-bwashmaaya"! Why, they say that every
day! If they're drunk out of their minds...

Hey, I'm having trouble finding the simple word "ismuka" ("your name")
in the Aramaic. Oh, there it is: shmakh. Yes, Arabs will immediately
recognize the question, "Maa shmakh?" Of course, they're actually more
used to "Maa ismuk?" But if they're really, really drunk, it might come
out sounding like Aramaic.

Alternatives to "Maa shmakh?" that might be heard among very drunk
Arabs include:

"Ma shblopplokh?"
"Maaaaashbooo?"
"Whazzzayaaaada?"
"Kplah!" (a Klingon variation)

Happily, most Arabs don't get drunk. This means that there is very
little Aramaic (or even Klingon) spoken by accident among Arabs.

Seriously though, Arabic is much older than Aramaic, or Hebrew for that
matter. This does not mean that the *oldest Semitic writings* that can
be found are in Arabic. In fact, measured from earliest extant
writings, Arabic looks relatively young (and is often so reported).
What it means that Arabic is older than these other relatives is that
Abraham (most significant to this newsgroup, admittedly) spoke a
language much closer to Classical Arabic (i.e., the Arabic of the
Qur'an) than to either Aramaic or Hebrew. You can tell by comparing
these languages to the much older Akkadian language, with a few sample
words, as follows:

AKKADIAN: (1) 'akhum, (2) shunum, (3) reeshum, (4) &iinum, (5)
lishaanum, (6) napishtum, (7) 'erSetum, (8) kalbum, (9) muu, (10)
malkum, (11) daamum, (12) 'amtum, (13) 'eshshum, (14) shinnum, (15)
shamuu, (16) kakkabum, (17) qashtum, (18) 'aqrabum

ARABIC: (1) 'akhun, (2) ismun, (3) ra'sun, (4) &aynun, (5) lisaanun,
(6) nafsun, (7) 'arDun, (8) kalbun, (9) maa'un, (10) malikun, (11)
damun, (12) 'amatun, (13) Hadiithun, (14) sinnun, (15) samaa'un, (16)
kawkabun, (17) qawsun, (18) &aqrabun

ARAMAIC: (1) 'akho, (2) shema, (3) reeshaa, (4) &aynaa, (5) leshaan,
(6) nafshaa, (7) 'arqo, (8) kalbaa, (9) mayyo, (10) malka, (11) dema,
(12) 'amtaa, (13) Hedat, (14) shennaa, (15) shemayyaa, (16) kawkebaa,
(17) qashtaa, (18) &aqrebaa

HEBREW: (1) 'okh, (2) sheem (3) roosh, (4) &ayin, (5) laashoonn, (6)
nefesh, (7) 'ereS, (8) keleb, (9) mayim, (10) melek, (11) daam, (12)
'aamaa, (13) Haadaash, (14) sheen, (15) shamayim, (16) kookaab, (17)
qeshet, (18) &aqraab

ETHIOPIC: (1) 'ekhw, (2) sem, (3) re'es, (4) &ayn, (5) lesaan, (6)
nafes, (7) [unknown], (8) kalb, (9) may, (10) 'amlak, (11) dam, (12)
'amat, (13) Hadiith, (14) senn, (15) samaay, (16) kookab, (17) qast,
(18) &aqrab

ENGLISH: (1) brother, (2) name, (3) head, (4) eye, (5) tongue, (6)
soul, (7) earth, (8) dog, (9) water, (10) king, (11) blood, (12)
bondwoman, (13) new, (14) tooth, (15) sky, (16) star, (17) bow, (18)
scorpion

I got these words from
http://sasha.inet.ru/ru/akkadian/gramm/lexicon.html because it was the
first site that I found with a sample from each of these languages.

Following a few simple rules of equivalence (i.e., identical consonants
and long vowels count for one point, identical short vowels count for
half, single<>double consonants count for half, m<>n counts for half,
sh<>s counts for half, w<>u counts for one quarter, o<>u counts for one
quarter, i<>e counts for one quarter, ii = y, and uu = w), we have the
following computed average strengths of relationship, based on this
random sample:

Akkadian to Arabic: 67%
Akkadian to Aramaic: 55%
Akkadian to Hebrew: 52%
Akkadian to Ethiopic: 48%

I get a kick out of how often I hear the aficionados of the Aramaic
language pretend that their favorite language preceded all other
Semitic languages. They did not even have sense enough to hold onto the
original Bible! (They use a translation from Greek instead.)

The gall of anyone who tries to foist a bizarre theory that the Qur'an
is really in Aramaic is mind-boggling, but it makes sense from one
perspective: the myth that Aramaic is the ancestor of all other Semitic
languages. It is one of the most arrogant positions that one finds
regarding studies of the early Semitic languages.

What is saddest about this gross misrepresentation of history is that a
knowledge of old Aramaic can indeed add some helpful context to some of
the more interesting passages of the Qur'an. Certainly, one's knowledge
of Arabic helps so much *more* to understand Aramaic or Hebrew (because
Arabic maintains the old root system almost entirely in its original
form, unlike Aramaic and Hebrew, whose root systems were shattered
beyond all recognition through multiple migrations and clashes with
other cultures). The author's approach, however, rather than persuade
the reader through balanced rhetoric that some phraseology in the
Qur'an might benefit from some background in Aramaic, instead quite
obtusely attacks all of the old Muslim commentators as essentially
being stupid morons who did not know what language they were reading.

Here is a simple example of what the author thinks is a mistranslated
verse:

[25:10] <...wayaj&al~laka quSuuran>

First, the author writes, "Waja'alna laka qusuran" and cites 25:11 as
the verse, which really should warn any reader that there is a screw
loose somewhere in this author's head. But ignoring that, the author
writes: "Muslim commentators give the following interpretation: 'We
assign you mansions.'" He then goes on to say that in Aramaic (or
Syriac) the word "qusuran" does not mean "mansion," but rather "reap
the fruit of righteousness." Thus, this author thinks that by finding a
word in Aramaic that looks like a similar word in the Qur'an, he can
redefine the latter.

Let's complete this analysis. Does the word <quSuuran> exist in Arabic?
Of course it does. It is a well established word. It has been around
for centuries. It comes from the radical reflecting the idea of a
"limit." The singular form, <qaSr>, can mean mansion, palace, utmost
limit, or the utmost of one's power. The idea of limit, and in
particular of falling short of a limit, is central to the radical:

<qaSara> - to fail, to be expensive, to confine, to limit
<'aqSara> - to shorten
<qaSura> - to be short
<qaSSara> - lag behind
<qaaSara> - to punish

Now, does Aramaic have this radical? Let's see. Aha! Yes indeed, the
same radical exists in Aramaic:

<qaSret> - to reap; to be short; to be distressed

But what about <quSuuran>? It is nowhere to be found in Aramaic. That
was a wild leap by the author, nothing more. The author recognized the
radical, allowed for a few vowels that differed from those found in his
Aramaic glossaries, forced a foreign interpretation into a perfectly
good Arabic text, and then proclaimed that Arabic-speaking Muslims had
gotten it wrong for centuries. And this author can't even quote the
verse correctly!

You can buy the book new off of Amazon.com for $49 if you're really
feeling charitable. But really, I think Mr. Sawma needs to go back to
school for a while and try again.

Abu Jamil
Denis Giron
2006-06-24 16:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Abu Jamil
Let's put Sawma's hilarious theory to the test. If what his silly book
says is true, then an Arabic-language verse from the Bible and an
Aramaic one placed side-by-side will be so close (natural variations
aside) as to be virtually interchangeable.
Hold on. There is no doubt that Aramaic is not Hebrew, and Aramaic is
not Arabic. Nonetheless, with regard to the former I have seen passages
in the Talmud which blur the line between Aramaic and Hebrew, and
regarding the latter, consider the Raqush inscription...

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/raqush.html

...where some scholars conclude it is Aramaic with Arabisms, and
others conclude it is Arabic with Aramaisms (i.e. there is disagreement
on this piece of writing, which blurs the line between Arabic and
Aramaic somewhat).

Furthermore, if you want to compare texts to one another, consider
this. I have looked at the original text of Daniel 7, which is in
Biblical Aramaic, and I have seen the recent Syriac (i.e. Syrian
Aramaic) translation performed by the American Bible Society (i.e. it
is a 20th century Protestant translation). These texts are *VERY*
different. I spent some time coming to understand the former (mainly
with the aid of Rosenthal's "Grammar of Biblical Aramaic"), and in no
way did that prepare me for comprehending the latter (and this is not
an issue that stems merely from the different scripts). Are you going
to tell me that one or both of these texts is not actually written in
Aramaic?

Now mind you, I'm not endorsing the arguments of the original poster of
this thread (I have not even familiarized myself with his arguments
yet). I'm merely pointing out flaws in your attempted refutation. So
I'm not claiming the Qur'an was written in Aramaic. But I am saying
that your objections failed to demonstrate the falsity of such a claim
(irrespective of what the original language of the Qur'an actually is).
Post by Abu Jamil
I got these words from
http://sasha.inet.ru/ru/akkadian/gramm/lexicon.html because it was the
first site that I found with a sample from each of these languages.
Yes, and the list struck me as, with all due respect, a bit loaded, if
not purely ridiculous.

For example, the Arabic for brother is 'akhun but for Hebrew is 'okh?
Actually, they're spelled pretty much the same way (assuming we accept
that Hebrew chet can correspond to Arabic khaa as well as Arabic Haa,
especially since I feel, at least now, chet is pronounced far closer to
the former), and pronounced essentially the same way: akh. My brother?
akhee (roughly AXY) in either language. And the Aramaic list was
bizarre, as (what is, roughly speaking) the definite article (i.e. alif
at the end) was thrown on almost every word but then transliterated
three different ways (o,a, aa). The transliterations of the Hebrew
words were bizarre (as some represented Askhenazic *transliterations*
while others struck me as wholly unfamiliar unfamiliar).

Mind you, I would be more than willing to accept that Arabic is, in
some sense, older than Hebrew or Aramaic (off the top of my head, I
recall Guillame calling Arabic the senior language at least
'philosophically'), but I do not believe that poorly constructed list
demonstrates that, to paraphrase your claim, "Abraham spoke a language
much closer to the Arabic of the Qur'an than to either Aramaic or
Hebrew."
Post by Abu Jamil
Certainly, one's knowledge of Arabic helps so much *more*
to understand Aramaic or Hebrew (because Arabic maintains
the old root system almost entirely in its original
form, unlike Aramaic and Hebrew, whose root systems were shattered
beyond all recognition through multiple migrations and clashes with
other cultures).
Indeed, a knowledge of Arabic is very helpful to the study of Aramaic
or Hebrew (hence the reason very serious dictionaries of Aramaic or
Hebrew often have their pages littered with recourses to Arabic), and
indeed the Arabic grammatical system is richer, and the root structure
seems a bit more stable. That being admitted, I do not think it is the
case that the root system in Hebrew has been "shattered beyond all
recognition". what would you base such a claim on? Serious dictionaries
of both Modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are based entirely on
the root system (admittedly a system Jews apparently adopted after
seeing the writings of Muslim grammarians of Arabic).
Post by Abu Jamil
First, the author writes, "Waja'alna laka qusuran" and cites 25:11 as
the verse, which really should warn any reader that there is a screw
loose somewhere in this author's head.
Question regarding the author's approach to this verse in Soorat
al-Furqan: is your opinion about a "screw" being "loose" a reference to
the bizarre transliteration alone, or the verse numbering as well? I'm
just curious.
Post by Abu Jamil
Now, does Aramaic have this radical? Let's see. Aha! Yes indeed, the
<qaSret> - to reap; to be short; to be distressed
But what about <quSuuran>? It is nowhere to be found in Aramaic.
Though, being that qSr is obviously an Aramaic root, is qSwr really
such an impossible construction? I'm typing this from work, so I don't
have any Aramaic dictionaries in front of me, but I want to ask: what
Aramaic dictionaries did you look in?

Mind you, again, I am NOT endorsing the argument you are attacking. I
am merely commenting on what you wrote.
Abdalla Alothman
2006-06-19 04:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@yahoo.com
In another example, the Qur'an states the following: "Waja'alna laka
qusuran", Q.25: 11.
quSooran is mentioned in 25:10. The aaya does not look as you say,
it is totally different. My first impression about you is that you
don't even know how to read the Quran.

The aaya is:

tabaraka allathi inshaa-a ja'ala laka khayran min thalika jannatin
tajree min taHtihaa al-anhaaru wayaj'al laka qusoora.

There is no "waja'lna laka qusuran" in the aya above nor the entire
Quran.

It's you who doesn't know how to read the Quran, not Arabs or Quran
commentators. ;)

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
2006-06-19 04:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Salaam Alaikum all...

Interesting read indeed! I have heard of this book (site even!), and I
would admit that it makes some intrepid claims about the Qur'an and
Muslim history. Nevertheless, the author (like Gunter Luling before
him) must assume the very conclusion for the emendations to work. If
the conclusion of the deduction must be assumed in order for the new
interpretations to have argumentative inertia, then we come full circle
Post by j***@yahoo.com
The Aramaic language of the Qur'an commands Muslims to treat women with
decency; it does not state that virgin women having 'sexy eyes' are
waiting in heaven for the Jihadists. In Aramaic, the language of the
Qur'an says: "there are bright raisins and water springs". <

While this "might" very well be the case, the conclusion (an
Aramaic Christian reading) is assumed. What external information may we
select for our understanding of the data? Why not accept Gunter
Luling's reading of the verse as "underworld" maidens? Not even
Luxenberg goes as far as impressing his Syrian reading on hur-al-ayin.

I can't say too much about the book given that I have yet to read it.
However, from the few terse readings of some of the emendations offered
the book seems to overstate its case and often accepts the very
conclusion it's trying argue for.

Comments ladies and gents?

Toda!
Zuiko Azumazi
2006-06-21 01:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:***@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Wa alaykum as-salaam

<snip> ...
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Interesting read indeed! I have heard of this book (site even!), and I
would admit that it makes some intrepid claims about the Qur'an and
Muslim history. Nevertheless, the author (like Gunter Luling before
him) must assume the very conclusion for the emendations to work. ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
Aren't all intrepid claims of this sort plausible? Don't they all contain
some partial truth that makes them apparently reasonable? It's similar in
that regard to all "conspiracy theories", in that the zeal of the proponents
often overrides logic and natural occurrences in uncertain language
transition.

If, for example, we look at these kind of ideas through the Wittgenstein
maxim: "For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ
the word meaning it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in
the language.", where would that naturally lead us? The assumption being
could a 'common' or 'borrowed' root word (from within a known language
family - e.g.'Hamito-Semitic') be utilised with a distinctly different
meaning in two or more sacred texts, in the common usage of its followers?
If so, why doesn't the Islamic meaning attributed to any word "X" in the
Quran mean "X", the connotations given it by Muslims? Isn't this praxis
inherently more plausible?

Notwithstanding, the fact, that hypothetical "plausibility" can never lead
to conclusive philosophical certainty in areas where there is a paucity of
reliable information.
--
Peace
--
What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a
completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas.
[Anonymous Diplomat]

Zuiko Azumazi
***@hotmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
2006-06-21 01:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Salaam Alaikum all...
Wa alaikum asalam.
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Comments ladies and gents?
Words of the Arabic language are usually very short. What those
people are doing is very silly. They are trying to find matches of
letters that appear in other languages. The sad part is that Arabic
words can match even "distant" languages like English.

For every word in English (en) there is another word for it in
Arabic (ar) which has a totally different meaning.

Jar (en) = Jar (ar) (many meanings, as neighbor, protect, etc.)
Can (en) = Kan (ar) (was)
Had (en) = Had (ar) (short form of Hadi=guide)
sin (en) = sin (ar) (tooth, issue, etc.)
eye (en) = ayy (ar) (ouch!)
fan (en) = fan (ar) (short form of faani, as in kulla man 'alayha faan
- sura 55)
far (en) = far (ar) (mouse)
shack (en) = shaak (ar) (a doubt or having a doubt)
shore (en) = shor (ar) (an advice)
farm (en) = farm (ar) (grind?)
jack (en) = jaak (ar) (came to you)
silk (en) = silk (ar) (cable, wire, path)
sail (en) = sail (ar) (flood, etc..)
kail (en) = kail (ar) (a measure)
mail (en) = mail (ar) (slope, slant, etc...)
femme (en) = famm (ar) (mouth)
lam (en) = Lam (not, or the letter laam).
My (en) = my (ar) (water, in some Arabic dialects)
fay (en) = fayy (ar) (shade)
mat (en) = maat (ar) (died)
shift (en) = shift (ar) (saw/seen)
mid (en) = [ya/yu]midd (ar) (extend)
tiff (en) = [ya]tiff (ar) (spit)

The list can go on (and I really mean on...) That's because Arabic
words are very short and simple, and human languages are many.
Thus, the probabilities of finding an Arabic word (from 2-3 letter
roots) in another language is not a surprise. If it works on "distant"
languages as English, imagine how well it will work on "nearer"
languages.

As for the first message on this thread, some people might find it
"interesting," but we find it silly. I mean if the Quran is in Aramaic,
who wrote it? Did it fall from the sky? If the Arabs "wrote" it, how
then it is difficult for them to understand it as some people (?)
claim? Of course the Arabs' pride is not in writing, it's in their
skillful memorization. That's why they were given a qur-aan (not
a kutbaan).

After the Christians have failed for centuries to erase Islam and
defeat it, their last resort is to twist the Quran in order to make
the it (the Quran) agree with their beliefs. Silly examples include
furqaan / natheer, and the sender of the first message in this
thread who used what he calls "wma" as a replacement for
"kayfa/ma/what." In Arabic, wama is not a single word. It includes
the letter wa, for 'aTf (conjugation) and ma for nafi (negation). All
that wont matter to him as long as he can make it agree with his
nonsensical Christian beliefs. We will see what goals they will be
able to accomplish.

Wishing you and your family peace and good health.

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
c***@onlinehome.de
2006-06-21 01:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings to all,
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Salaam Alaikum all...
wa-s-salam
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Post by j***@yahoo.com
The Aramaic language of the Qur'an commands Muslims to treat women with
decency; it does not state that virgin women having 'sexy eyes' are
waiting in heaven for the Jihadists. In Aramaic, the language of the
Qur'an says: "there are bright raisins and water springs".
While this "might" very well be the case, the conclusion (an
Aramaic Christian reading) is assumed.
Right. This hypothesis recommends itself because the Koranic "hûr
`în", especially with regard to the word "`în", is no Arabic.
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
What external information may we select for our understanding of the data?
For instance the well documented religious "lore" in pre-Islamic
Oriental christendom (Ephrem Syrus etc.). For a pittoresque example
visit my website http://www.christoph-heger.de/Note_on_the_Huris.htm,
where you can see the Patriarches Abraham, Isaak and Jacob feeding the
blessed souls with white grapes.
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Why not accept Gunter Luling's reading of the verse as "underworld" maidens?
My friend Günter Lüling accomplished a great work with his "A
Challenge to Islam for Reformation", Delhi 2003. Nevertheless with
regard to this point I disagree with Lüling and agree with Luxenberg.
Post by Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Not even Luxenberg goes as far as impressing his Syrian reading on hur-al-ayin.
On the contrary, it has been Christoph Luxenberg who in his "Die
syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran...", Berlin 2000, argues that many
passages in the Koran loose their "darkness", as soon as you read them
taking into account an Aramaic linguistic background. Especially it was
Luxenberg who proposed to understand the Koranic "Hûr `în" (there are
no "hur-al-ayin" in the Koran) as "jewellike grapes".

Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
2006-06-23 18:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Salaam Alaikum all....

Thank you Dr. Heger for your kind and thoughtful comments. I have been
thinking about Luxenberg's magnum opus for a while now (for the past 3
years, actually).
Post by c***@onlinehome.de
Right. This hypothesis recommends itself because the Koranic "hûr
`în", especially with regard to the word "`în", is no Arabic.
As for Luxenberg I respond...

True; nonetheless, why must this enforce a Syro-Aramaic Christian
reading of the Qur'an? My central claim was that the emendation has
explanatory power if we insert the conclusion of the argument as our
premise. This maneuver is common of most textual emendations. The
deduction seems to only work in circularity. (I do not, however, claim
that *all* Luxenberg's emendations function in this manner) The
linchpin of my demur is that I do not see a deductive inference from
the emendations to a Syro-Aramaic Christian reading. Such a thesis goes
too far and is logically invalid.

Moreover, there seems to be an obscurity with the very nature of the
thesis of Luxenberg, principally his claim that the Qur'an is written
in a mixed language; that is, the Qur'an contains grammatical moves
that are both Arabic as well as Syriac. However, such a point- it
seems - is a non-factor. Linguistic duality (or triune!) is a common
feature in languages and certainly does not warrant a conclusive case
of a mixed language. Take the triad case of English and Latin/Greek in
philosophical jargon (e.g. episteme, a priori, ad hoc, ad hominem et
cetera, et cetera). As a philosopher myself, I admit philosophy would
be pretty difficult without the Greek/Latin expressions. Albeit highly
influential, the employment of these expressions does not entail a
mixed language. What they do, however, admit is that Greek and Latin
operate as analytic expression that, perhaps, the English language
lacks (at least in its formative years). And when English and Latin
phrases and expressions are adopted the grammar of both are employed as
well. Could the Qur'an function this way in "religious" jargon?
Perhaps. For instance, if we assume the word, say, "Qur'an" is
derived via Syriac (Qeryena) I do not see reason to infer that the
Qur'an should be emended to fit a Christian Syriac text. What could
be a case, on the contrary, is that Syriac is a highly theological
language and that Arabic uses (or "borrows") Syriac terms and
phrases to express complex theological points that Arabic might lack. I
am open to this possibility as it is inductive and does not involve a
quantum deductive inference. For more on this point, I suggest Fred M.
Donner's "The Qur'an in Recent Scholarship - Challenges and
Disderata" (forthcoming in Gabriel Said Reynolds' "The Qur'an
in Its Historical Context")
Post by c***@onlinehome.de
On the contrary, it has been Christoph Luxenberg who in his "Die
syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran...", Berlin 2000, argues that many
passages in the Koran loose their "darkness", as soon as you read them
taking into account an Aramaic linguistic background. Especially it was
Luxenberg who proposed to understand the Koranic "Hûr `în" (there are
no "hur-al-ayin" in the Koran) as "jewellike grapes".
Fair enough. I also do not think Gunter Luling's emendation works. My
point was that his reconstruction is just as epistemically justified
given the assumption of the conclusion. Like Luling, Luxenberg's
grape emendations functions perfectly if we assume that the intention
of its [the verse] employment is Syro-Aramaic Christian.

A side point: It is interesting that you're friends with Gunter
Luling. In my terse conversations with him he is probably one of the
most kind-hearted individuals I have ever met. Sad thing what became of
his professional career thanks to Anton Spitaler and the University of
Enlargen.

best wishes,

Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
Zuiko Azumazi
2006-06-22 19:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:***@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

<snip>
If the conclusion of the deduction must be assumed in order for the new
interpretations to have argumentative inertia, then we come full circle
(i.e. petitio principii). Take this statement: ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
Since we are in deductive mode, I thought this brain teaser might be of
general interest, to the non-specialist subscriber, in this controversial
language area. Take this opening phrase from the Bible [Luke XV] written in
old English, circa 1000, and see how the average English reader today would
interpret it:-

"Soplice his yldra waes on acere; and he cum, and pa he pam huse
genealaehte," ...

Would the average reader even recognise it as English? If so, would they
readily understand it? Would we say these precise words have the same
meaning today as they did yesterday? If not, why would average English
readers of today need to decipher it?

What would happen if we applied the same rationale to the "Aramaic language
of the Quran" brouhaha?
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists. [Eric Hoffer]

Zuiko Azumazi
***@hotmail.com
k***@astound.net
2006-06-23 18:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Zuiko Azumazi
"Soplice his yldra waes on acere; and he cum, and pa he pam huse
genealaehte," ...
In the interest of fair play you ought to point out that the letter "p"
in that quote is not the familiar "p", but rather the obsolete letter
called "thorn" and pronounced "th". Then a naive modern English speaker
would possibly recognize "soothly". The words "his", "on", "and" and
"he" would be obvious. The words "tha" and "tham" would seem vaguely
familiar.
Post by Zuiko Azumazi
Would the average reader even recognise it as English? If so, would they
readily understand it? Would we say these precise words have the same
meaning today as they did yesterday? If not, why would average English
readers of today need to decipher it?
I would expect the average English speaker of today would guess it was
English - but would not be able to make much sense of it. She would not
even recognize "acere" even though she knew "acre" well; or "cum" or
"waes" or "huse" although these are words of modern English (well -
"cum" isn't really). The spelling has changed.

If we could find a literate "Arabic" speaker who had never been exposed
to what is called Standard Modern Arabaic (or something like that) and
asked them to read the Qur'an they would be in an even worse position
than our hypothetical English speaker. Of course, so far as I know,
there is no chance of us finding such a naive neo-Arabic speaker.
Post by Zuiko Azumazi
What would happen if we applied the same rationale to the "Aramaic language
of the Quran" brouhaha?
Personally I do not find the arguments that the Qur'an is really
somehow "Aramaic" rather than Arabic very convincing. But as you read
along from time to time something is mentioned that strikes a cord. My
guess is that the Qur'an contains a fair number of words and expression
taken over or calqued from Aramaic. Many more than the traditional
Arabic commentators were willing to admit.

I see no reason to believe that the Qur'an was the first time these
Aramaic borrowings were used. The traditional explanation, which I see
no reason to give up, is that they were borrowed long before the time
of Muhammad and were part and parcel of Arabic at the time the Qur'an
was written down.
Zuiko Azumazi
2006-06-24 16:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<***@astound.net> wrote in message news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
Post by k***@astound.net
Post by Zuiko Azumazi
"Soplice his yldra waes on acere; and he cum, and pa he pam huse
genealaehte," ...
In the interest of fair play you ought to point out that the letter "p"
in that quote is not the familiar "p", but rather the obsolete letter
called "thorn" and pronounced "th". Then a naive modern English speaker
would possibly recognize "soothly". The words "his", "on", "and" and
"he" would be obvious. The words "tha" and "tham" would seem vaguely
familiar. ,,,
<snip> ...

Comment:-
What you indicate is reasonably accurate without going into a long-winded
technical discussion. Part of the difficulty lies in the number of
unfamiliar words "pa" ('when', 'then'), "genealaehte' ('approached') these
are two words that have died out from the English language or replaced by
borrowed words from French or Norman. Even words that have survived is used
in an unfamiliar sense: the word "acere" is our modern 'acre' but actually
meant 'field', back then and there. There are differences from modern
English in the way words change endings according to their grammatical
function, but that's another story.

The deductive point being, in relation to the several Aramaic languages or
dialects, if these various combinations and permutations exist in the
continuum of one distinct language, English in this case, could it also be
inferred that they apply to other languages also?

As an aside, I did write this in "Rich Text" format complete with
pronunciation symbols but our network automatically converts email stuff
into "Plain Text" format (I think the mystical network administrator is too
preoccupied with translating non-existent Aramaic manuscripts into Arabic -
although I'm not sure if he/she's a Christian - but the programming is
definitely written in an ancient language I don't understand! <G>).
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists. [Eric Hoffer]

Zuiko Azumazi
***@hotmail.com
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
2006-07-02 15:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Salaam Alaikum...

Edmund Beck's essay is an alternative to the position of Luxenberg. For
anyone with knowledge of German: "Eine Christliche Parallel zu den
Paradiesjungfrauen des Korans?," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 14
(1948): 398-405.

best wishes,

Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
San Francisco State University
Philosophy department
Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
2006-06-23 18:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Salaam Alaikum all...

BTW: I have heard that Federico Corriente has his own lot to cash in on
Luxenberg's thesis. From what Professor Corriente told me, the review
is quite negative. I was wondering if anyone has read Federico
Corriente's 'On a proposal for a "Syro-Aramaic" reading of the
Qur'an' in Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 2004. Anyone willing to
post it on a site for all to see?

best wishes,

Derrick Mohammed Abdul-Hakim
s***@gmail.com
2013-08-27 07:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@yahoo.com
For the first time in history a book is written to show that the
language of the Qur'an is Aramaic, not Arabic. The Aramaic language of
the Qur'an renders interpretations that are totally different from
those rendered by Muslim commentators in the last fourteen centuries.
=20
The Eastern Syriac dialect of Aramaic is dominant in the Qur'an, and
many chapters are borrowed from the Hebrew Bible and Syriac Peshita
(Fshito), but were interpreted erroneously by Muslim commentators.
=20
The Qur'an states that its language is Arabic, but Arab speaking people
have difficulty understanding the language of the Qur'an. The
difficulty stems from the fact that its language was not and has never
been Arabic.The language of the Qur'an has been and still is Aramaic.
=20
In the seventh century, the written language of the Near East was
Syriac, not Arabic. The discovery of the Nabataean and Palmyrene
inscricptions in Transjordan and Syria shows that the written language
of those Arab-origin kingdoms was Aramaic, not Arabic.
=20
The Qur'an: Misinterpreted
=20
Because of the language barrier, Muslim commentators interpreted
erroneously many Qur'anic verses. Their inability to understand the
Aramaic vocabulary of the Qur'an had them render erroneous
interpretations. The Qur'an admits that Jesus is the "Messiah". The
Qur'anic verse"Wama qataluhu wama salabuhu" does not mean 'they did not
kill him and did not crucify him'. Aramaic"wma"means 'what'. Contrary
to the popular Muslim interpretations,The Qur'an does say that Jesus
was "killed and was crucified".
=20
The Qur'an admits that Jesus "cured the blind" and "raised the dead".
Muslim commentators undermine this Godly act. Who other than God is
able to cure the blind and raise the dead? The Qur'an also admits that
Jesus is a 'deliverer', it calls him "Wajeehan", Aramaic "ghh" means
'to deliver'. Muslim commentators interpreted erroneously the Aramaic
Qur'anic word as 'honored'.
=20
The Aramaic language of the Qur'an commands Muslims to treat women with
decency; it does not state that virgin women having 'sexy eyes' are
waiting in heaven for the Jihadists. In Aramaic, the language of the
Qur'an says: "there are bright raisins and water springs".
=20
The Qur'an: Mistranslated
=20
Muslim commentators are unable to render a translation to many Qur'anic
words. Their inability to understand the Aramaic vocabulary of the
Qur'an, prohibited them from giving any translation to many vocabulary.
Among those are the following examples: The Qur'anic word "kalalat" was
transliterated into English as "kalalat", Syriac "kalto, kalta" meaning
'bride'; the Aramaic Qur'anic word "Ra'ina" has been transliterated
into English as "ra'ina", they did not understand that this word is
Syriac "re'yono, re'yana" meaning 'shepherd'. The Aramaic Qur'anic word
"sijjin" was transliterated into English as "sijjin", Syriac "sagiyeen"
meaning 'many'. The Aramaic Qur'anic word " 'iliyyun" has been
transliterated into English as " 'iliyyun", Syriac " 'eloyone,
'elayana'. The reason why Muslim commentators were unable to translate
these and many other Qur'anic words into English is because they did
not understand that these are Aramaic vocabulary, not Arabic.
=20
The Qur'an: Misread
=20
For the last fourteen centuries, Muslim commentators misread the
Qur'an. Their lack of knowledge in Aramaic, mainly its Syriac dialect,
made it impossible for them to render meaningful interpretations of the
Qur'an. For example: God of Israel "Yahweh" is mentioned in the Qur'an,
but Muslim commentators did not understand its meaning, so they twisted
the name of God "Yahweh" and gave it different meaning, they call him,
erroneously: 'evil desire'.
=20
In another example, the Qur'an states the following: "Waja'alna laka
qusuran", Q.25: 11. Muslim commentators give the following
interpretation: 'We assign you mansions'. In Syriac the Qur'anic word
"qusuran" does not mean 'mansion', it means 'reap the fruit of
righteousness'. The Qur'anic verse is not talking about 'assigning
mansions', the Qur'an is saying: 'the righteous will reap the fruits of
his deeds'.
=20
Aramaic is not only the dominant language of the Qur'an, it is the
language of the Qur'an. Without Aramaic, the Qur'an could not be
deciphered.It is about time for the Arabic departments in colleges and
universities, especially those institutions that deal with Islamic
studies, to shift their attention to the study of Syriac, a dialect of
Aramaic, in teaching the Qur'an rather than Arabic. Islamic
institutions are no exception. The Aramaic language does give more
meaningful interpretations to the Qur'an.
=20
http://www.syriacaramaicquran.com/index.html
Concerning the truth about the so-called "Arabic" language - a truth that h=
umanity is still not aware of, that was discovered by a handful of linguist=
s and scientists in the late 18th Century:

The term "arabic" =D8=B9=D8=B1=D8=A8=D9=8A (transliteration: 3arabi) is n=
ot a proper name of a language. It is derived from "i3rab", which means "el=
oquence and clarity". So when the Quran says "lisan arabi" it means precise=
ly that: "the eloquent tongue". This means that there were other tongues sp=
oken in Arabia that were NOT eloquent, but were actually perverted dialects=
. The Quran calls them "Ajami" (transliteration: "a3jami"), which comes fr=
om "3jm", which means: "missing something / improper/lacking/ weak/ somethi=
ng that makes enourmos effort to be eloquent but fails to do so - outlandis=
h".

Aramaic, Syriac, Old Yemeni,Persian and others are all nothing but
"a3jami" dialects derived from the Mother Tongue (which we call "Arabic"). =
These dialects are missing some letters. For example, Aramaic and Syriac ha=
ve 22letters, while the Mother Tongue has 28. But the similarities between =
all these dialects are staggering. Linguists are begin now to realize that =
ALL these dialects in fact had one, older origin.

The eloquent tongue (lissan 3arabi) of the Quran is the most ancient tongue=
on the planet. It was the tongue spoken by Adam (the first homo-sapiens ra=
ce). It is made up of three-letter roots whose meanings are derived directl=
y from natural phenomena. For example, If you ask any European or American =
what the word "Adam" means, he will say: "it's the name of the first human =
being". They see it as a proper noun which doesn't have a meaning. In "Arab=
ic" the word "adam" is derived from the 3-letter root "adm", from which com=
es the word "adeem". When we say "adeem al- ardh", it means: the soil or s=
kin of the earth which is good and convenient for cultivation. So ADAM. i=
s: the being that was created from the skin of the earth (the surface clay)=
, and who is ripe and fit to be the vicegerent , and worthy of receiving th=
e divine message.

There is not a single language on the face of this planet that will give yo=
u this meaning. Only "arabic" can.=20

Yes, "arabic" is a description (not the proper name) of the primordial and =
"fitri" tongue of mankind. ALL the inhabitants of Arabia, whether they spok=
e Syriac, Aramaic, Old Yemeni, or other "a3jami" dialects could understand =
the Quran, because "arabic" (the eloquent speech) is the Mother and Prototy=
pe of all. =20

GOD chose this eloquent prototype as the vehicle not only for HIS final Boo=
k but HIS first Book, [which comprises of the sections (zubur) - Torah and =
Injeel], to humanity. That's some paradox, isn't it?

And to say that language of the world derives from Greek, is a fraud. The T=
orah was in the Eloquent tongue but was distorted by the Greeks in their ow=
n tongue (dialect) and palgarised as well.=20

Eloquent Tongue - Alif, Ba, Jim, Dal....
Outlandish Tongue - Alif, Beth, Gamal, Dalath....
Distort Tongue - Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta....

Saleh AlHadi
Zev
2013-09-09 16:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
In "Arab=
ic" the word "adam" is derived from the 3-letter root "adm", from which com=
es the word "adeem". When we say "adeem al- ardh", it means: the soil or s=
kin of the earth which is good and convenient for cultivation. So ADAM. i=
s: the being that was created from the skin of the earth (the surface clay)=
, and who is ripe and fit to be the vicegerent , and worthy of receiving th=
e divine message.
There is not a single language on the face of this planet that will give yo=
u this meaning. Only "arabic" can.=20
Read Genesis 2:7 in Hebrew and apologize for making such an absurd claim.
s***@gmail.com
2014-10-26 14:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
HEBREW IS GREEK...with a Mask on! Hebrew is Greek,the Book, written by a Jewish Author JOSEPH YAHUDA.

Besides Hebrew was created by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda before the Balfour Declaration, in the 19th Century to be exact. He used especially the Arabic grammar and Yiddish to create the language.

The Torah was written in the Quranic Arabic [with an ancient fonts] and it was distorted by the Greco Romans in the 4th Century, in their own dialect, Greek!!!
Zev
2014-11-18 04:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
The Torah was written in the Quranic Arabic [with an ancient fonts] and it was distorted by the Greco Romans in the 4th Century, in their own dialect, Greek!!!
Learn Greek and Hebrew and you'll see how silly this is.
Yusuf B Gursey
2014-11-30 04:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
HEBREW IS GREEK...with a Mask on! Hebrew is Greek,the Book, written by a =
Jewish Author JOSEPH YAHUDA.
=20
Besides Hebrew was created by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda before the Balfour Decla=
ration, in the 19th Century to be exact. He used especially the Arabic gram=
mar and Yiddish to create the language.

This is only true for Israeli Hebrew. He did not use Arabic grammar at all,=
in fact as far as syntax and verbal usage (verbs reflect temporal tense, w=
ith well defined past / present / future, rather than aspect as in Arabic) =
is concerned Israeli Hebrew reflects the native Yiddish and "General Europe=
an" of the Zionist settlers rather than a Semitic language such as Arabic. =
Only some vocabulary items from Arabic, mostly those used in medieval Hebre=
w writings were imported into Israeli Hebrew
=20
The Torah was written in the Quranic Arabic [with an ancient fonts] and i=
t was distorted by the Greco Romans in the 4th Century, in their own dialec=
t, Greek!!!

Islamic tradition knew better than make such a silly claim.

Loading...