Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Arabic in general
and on 'Al Qur'a:n in particular.
(An analytic discussion)
They even deny the opinions of Authentic and Authorative Arabists over the
languages in their zeal to prove their
Supposition Of Borrowing.
MOST FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE of their all arguments is that Arabic
Authorities DID NOT Know Hebrew and ARAMAIC, so they
are in Error As Hebrew and ARAMAIC is known to these OBJWCTION MAKERS
,they think that openion, remarls and comments
At most they may have a common source yet it is equally possible that
parallel words originated independent of each other.
Some times there is a n approximate similarity in vowels as well . But the law
is the same .
Some time inspite of such similarities the meanings are different.
In such cases in is primerily wrong to claim the act of borrowing from one
another.
If in some cases some additional evidences do shew a case of borrowing, no
conclusion can be drawn just based on
similarities.
These bases do not support the claim of borrowing.
b] There are cases where a word in one language doeth resemble an other
word in any one of the two languages
or in both f them in fundamental consonents
yet different im meanings.
It cannot prove any thing ,raither it is incorrect to claim such a donation
-acceptance formula since there are several
words in Arabic itself which resmble on an other in fundamental consonents
but different in meanings. If two words in one language
cannot be claimed to be borrowed on this basis it is more in correct to claim
such an alleged borrowing on this basis
if such words belongeth to two different languages.
c] If an Arabic word is borrowed from any one of the two languages or from
any other language it is incorrect to claim that
the author of Quran has borrowed it directly from these languages. If any one
of the non Arabic language is a doner of a word and Arabic
is the Accepter of the word , then this acceptance must have occurred long
before the appearence of Quran.
Such a claim is as in correct as to claim that any word in SHECKPERE'S PLAYs
with GREEK OR LATIN origin is directly borrowed
from SHECKPARE from Greek or Latin for the first time. Actually English had
posterior to Aramaic and some other languages like Persian etc and Arabic is not a contemporary of Aramaic
from them.
This is not even a theory but a Dogma, pressented as if it is a theory,
raither
presented as if it is a fact.
But This is incorrect and wrong.
F irst it is based on the argument that :- Arabic literature was produced posterior
to Aramaic, there fore Arabic is Posterior to Aramaic.
And a posterior language can not loan words to a language which is proir to it.
But the posteriority production of written written literature is no proof that the
language is also posterior. It is based on the denial
on oral literature.Oral literatues is undeniable and its cradibility is certain. So the
axiom which say Oral literature is unauthentic and
unauthorative , cannot be accepted.
Second it is also incorrect and false that a language which is posterior to a language
cannot donate words to a language which predates it.
1] I can lend a word after its emergence. 2] Second , the proto of the posterior
language may lend a word to the language which may be
contemporary or prior.
Objection of terms:If Arabic is a Hybrid language even then it is not necessary that the terms
used in Qur'a:n ahd 'Ahaddis' are not borrowed
but are purely used from Arabic even if the orin of the word is not 'Arabic.
The Terms are made from 'arabic itself irrespective
of the origin of the word.
If a person who did only know Arabic did want to coin a term for his
theological and religious system atmost and at least
can choose words from Arabic irrespective and regardless of their PURE
ARABIC Origin or Borrowed Origin.
If Arabic after borrowing a non Arabic word from a language absorbs it and
change it meaning com-pletely or partially,
and a persons say Person A who only did know Arabic use some of these
words for making terms for his system then
it is independent
of the not only the meanings of them in their original languages say Aramaic
but also independent of possible termonological
meanings used by any person or community of the languages prior to That
person say Person A.
SUCH A PERSON did not
know the meaning or the uses of the words uses only their Arabic
meanings,So non Arabic use of the words of these
Non Arabic languages are totally irrelevent to him and his termonological
meanings.
This is not pecular to Arabic but it is general for a number of different
languages.
Even if a pesron who know a language say language Z which has lended a
number of words to His language say language
Y uses words of his languages for a system say a theological system it is not
necessay that he is influenced by the original
words of the doner language, or their termonolical use if any prior to him,
since he used it only from Arabic independent
of not only its not Arabic literal meaning(s) but also independent of Non
Arabic Termonological meanings.
Example:- Some people have suggested that the Word Al-Qur'a:n is just an
influance of Aramic word Qrn used by a prior
religious community in some other meaning.
But this is totally incorrect for reasons stated above.Some counter examples
of such incorrect traces:
It is incorrect to say that that the word AMEM is repeatedly said after Prayers
is SUPPOSED to be traced back TO the Noun
Of Egyptian Deity AMON or AMEN. Similarly it is incorrect to trace back El of
Hebrew to IL, the father of Ba'l/Baal.
These two examples are sufficient to prove that such incorrect form of
reasonings can yeild very negative and incorrect
results.
Some Inverse Extremism:Just like some who try to traceback Aramaic Influance on Arabic on their self
reasonings, some have also tried to trace back English
to Arabic, particularly some scholars of languages of a new religion
Mirzaiasm/Qadyanism. Actually their methodology
is roughly similar to those who want to trace back nopt only Arabic to
Aramaic but un this supposed trace try to prove Aramaic
termonological influance on Qur'an or Ahadis or both.
A follower of Qadyanism, Mohammad Ahmad Mazhar a former advocate of
High Court Former West Pakistan had
developed a method to prove that Arabic is the source of all Languages, and
wrote ''English Traced to Arabic''.
How ever inspite of his labourous work this work did not gain any significance
in the eyes of scholars. But it appears that
Alphonse Mingana and some other people of his mind somehow got copies of
Mohammad Ahmad Mazhar's labourous
work '' ENGLISH TRACED TO ARABIC'' and used his invented methodologies
toTrace Arabic to Aramaic/Syriac.
Any one who may read Mazhar's work and works of people like Alphonse shall
be convinced that the latter has used the
methodologies invented by the former, and tried to prove Syriac influence on
Qur'an. Inspite of difference in aims and
objections the basic principles are either same or similar.
One may read the work of Mazhar and compair it with the works of Alphonse
etc. himself and himself/herself see
that the methods used by Mazhar were for more advanced then then the
author of Influence of Syriac on the Style of Quran.
Raither the latter author crudifies the methods of the former writer.