Syriac in the Qur'an and even the word sura is not an Arabic word

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Apr 18, 2009 at 11:05

Plato wrote

>Hello dnm,That was great.

Thank you and any time and the credit goes where it belongs for pointing out the obvious and that is Father Zakaria Botros and all I did i just reviewed what he said and found it to be true

>I wonder why all translators use words like salute, greet etc instead of pray.

My guess is: it could be our of pure ignorance of the arabic language and Arabic garmmar and how the genuis Semitic grammar and the root system work. But I suspect that these are no more than tendentious translations by people that do not wish to tell the readers the turth

You know it just makes me wonder how can a non Arabic speaker like Ali or Shakir and who does not know any Syriac translate the likes of Q25:1 (and much of the credit here goes to Magnana and C. Heger) or tabaraka al-ladhi anzala al-furqana 3ala abdihi li yakuna lel 3alameena nadhiran

This is clear Arabic however there are two problems here:

1. The word furqan is not an Arabic word and it is from Syriac PRQN (Syriac P becomes Arabic F) . The funny thing here is that those that examined the Muslim masora (the language of the Qur'an) had no clue what this word really means (my guess is that most of them were Iranians and they did not know any Syriac) and based on Sibawayhe's F3L or verb (the father of Arabic garmmar who was not an Arab and he was an Afghani) one can very much guess that the root of the word furqan must be FRQ as in: yufariq al-mufariq and tafreeq or he who divides and the divider and the dividing but you notice that the word furqan would not fit here in garmmar which means that it is either a Quranic mistake and it should have been al-tafreeq (and the Qur'an is full of grammatical mistakes) or it is a lafz 3ajami or foreign word and the turth is it is a Syriac word and the word Purqan in Syriac means salvation which is very much a Christian word and for sure not islamic

2. Now the second issue with this aya is that the last three words are puzzling as in classical Arabic syntax you would have: The verb then the subject and then the object as in: Yaktubu al-katib al-kitab or (he) writes the author the book. (the author writes the book)

Now liyakuna is the verb as in (he) will be and the lel3alameen or the worlds/peoples (more later) is the object and the nadhiran or the subject. So you can see so far that this is strange Arabic syntax. Now the ulama tell us that the word nadhiran is from the root NDhR (which is the same root in both Syriac and Hebrew and Arabic for votiv/gift) and indeed the Arabic word for votive/gift means nadhr. However the ulama read such word as: warner or mundhiran (which is another stem from the root NDhR0 which is not the word in the Qur'an and indeed if this was correct then it would have been liyakuna (verb) mundhiran (subject) lel3lameen (object). So you can see that something is wrong here and that the ulama just did not get it because they did not know any Syriac but if you read it one more time it would be: blessed he who sent down the salvation (very Christian idea indeed) upon his servant (you can also read it as: he who prays to him) so he will be the votiv/gift for the worlds/peoples.

Now it does not become 3arabi faseeh (clear and eloqunt Arabic) anymore but clear Syriac that is Arabized

As for the word al-3alameen it can be read in dual case or the two wrolds/peoples as in surat al-fatiha where you have the two worlds/peoples where you have:

1. al-ladhi an3amta 3alayhum

2. al-maghdubi 3alayhum wa al-daleen

Now you can see that Q25:1 makes sense but this translation makes it very clear that this is Arabized Syriac and very Christian vocabulary indeed. Now do you think for a minute that either Ali or Shakir would have known any of this? I doubt very much

>Thanks again Plato

I hope i helped

---

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".