Our dear Keith and modern Arabic and the Qur'an and masoritic exegesis of the Qur'an

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Nov 10, 2008 at 08:07

Our dear Keith wrote

>Bottom line up front, we can't interpret the Qur'an, which is 1400 years old, with a 20th Century Arabic to English Dictionary.

For the readers any one interested in reading about the evolution of the Arabic language I suggest reading: Kees Versteegh's "The Arabic language"

Now Quranic Arabic can be very well understood by an Arab who has some education. Words like makkar and awliya' are very stable Arabic words and do you know how you can tell? You can examine the reading of the word in masoritic exegesis by the masorites (you have no clue about what I'm talking about do you?) circa 3rd century of Islam and you can also examine Ibn Mazur Lisan al-3Arab (Middle Arabic) and then you can examine a good modern Arabic qamoos wa ma3jam and if you take some time away from posting your drivel you will discover that the word makkar in masoritic exegesis as well as in Ibn Manzur and in a modern Arabic qamoos wa ma3jam means he who deceives so your claim is bogus and you need to stick to Urdu and why do you pontificate about a language that you cannot read, write or speak? Explain it to me!

The language of the Qur'an is really no more than Arabic that does not have modern words like el-internet, el-3ulmaniyya, el-shiyu3iyya, el-demoqratiyya, el-telivizion or Middle Arabic words as you shall see below but it also has strange and non Arabic words that no modern Arab would understand and non of the masorites was able to understand and we still do not understand, to this day, what these words really mean eg: ilaf, kalala. The Qur'an also has many foreign words eg: the Quranic word tur (mountain) is not an Arabic word and it is a Syriac word and the Arabic word is jabal and the Arabs not back then and not now use the word tur instead of the word jabal or mountain . Any educated modern Arab can read the Qur'an and understand what it really says and the simple fact that the Qur'an as literature is regarded as scripture then the stability of the masoritic exegesis was a must and in the process the masoritic exegesis stabilized the meaning of these words mr ignorant so makkar of 1400 years ago is the makkar of today mr demagogue

But Understanding what this opaque revelation really says is another story. What is most amazing about the Qur'an is that we cannot even reconstruct the life of Muhammad by reading the Qur'an only so your bogus "understanding the context" thing is no more that a bogus Pakistani nonsense

And how did that ignorant Yusuf Ali translate the Qur'an? You explain it to me? And I will be waiting with great anticipation (Hint: you need to study qawa3id wa nahw al-lugha al-3arabiyya and read Ibn manzur's Lisan al-3Arab albeit Middle Arabic which I doubt very much that that ignorant man Yusuf Ali was able to read such qamoos and last: one have to be able to read the masoritic exegesis in Arabic something that I doubt that he was able to do) If you do not get this much then you are really beyond help so are you beyond help?

Now even if you read Ibn Manzur's Lisan al-3Arab which was completed some 600 years after the death of Muhammad you will discover that it is Middle Arabic and not the so called classical Arabic a language that no one ever spoke which is also different from Quranic Arabic as there was no use for such words as ababeel wa sijeel, kalala, tur etc... either because there are better Arabic words that can be used (eg: jabal instead of tur) or that such words have no clear meaning (eg: ilaf) so they are of no use

Middle Arabic is full of words that we still use to this day and these are the words that were invented (yes invented) by the likes of Hunein Ibn Ishaq (he was Nestorian circa the 800's CE) and who in the process of translating the Greek learning from Greek to Syriac and then to Arabic invented such words based on Sibawayhe's F3L or verb so now we have safra, tuhal, balgham, shabakiyya and perefct Arabic words now that Muhammad (if he ever existed) and his generation would have had no clue about what these words mean

You need to stick to urdu

>Secondly, there is no one all encompassing interpretation of the Qur'an.

Could it be becaue the Qur'an does not make any sense and it is no more than poor literature? or could it be becuase it is in the words of Peters "Text with no context"?

>There are some radical and some moderate interpretations out there.

Really? could you name some names?

>You should be careful from whom you get your interpretation from my friend.

Gobbeldygook and shame on you for pontificating about a language that you cannot read, write or speak

I urge you to abandon islam that brutalized your Hindu ancestors

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".