Christian Attack on the quran over Foreign Words is Refuted

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by WarAgainstError, Aug 30, 2009.

  1. WarAgainstError Registered Member

    A short article showing the erroneous nature of the foreighn word claim against the Quran and the subsequent allegation of contradiction/error which some on the net allege. Enjoy;)

    Some Critics attack the Quran Because it has Foreign Words Within it

    This claim is very embarrassing for the critic (hence it is becoming less common); they basically claim that the Quran claims to be in “pure Arabic” yet it contains foreign words.

    The critic argues a straw man as he/she bases the argument against the Quran on a single and incorrect translation of a verse of the Quran. This claim of theirs humiliates them and even suggests outright deception as the critic does not divulge the crucial information which is the other translations of the Quran differ to the translation of the Quran they use for the verse in question. This suggests the critic cherry picks translations of the Quran in order to meet his/her agenda; not scholarly nor honest!

    The critic cites a Quranic reference (16:103) and brings forward the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran as the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of this verse uses the word ‘pure’ to describe the Arabic of the Quran:

    "We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear." (16:103, Yusuf Ali translation)

    However if we look at the Hilali/Khan translation it translates it differently (without pure):

    16:103- And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad SAW)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'ân) is a clear Arabic tongue.

    Interestingly enough both M Asad and Pickthall translate it similar to Hilali/Khan too and they do not use the word “pure” either as they just use the word “clear”. Hence all three famous translations disagree with the one the critic brings forward (Abdullah Yusuf Ali). Thus it appears as though the critic is trying to deceptively get mileage out of a wrongly translated verse of the Quran. Why did the critic refrain from telling his audience that there are other translations which do not use the word ‘pure’? The cynical answer would be because the critic’s claim would unravel before it even got off the ground. This is poor scholarship bordering on deception.

    Just to further prove the verse should not be translated with the word “pure” we can look at the Arabic word used by the Quran to describe the Arabic tongue; it is “Mubeen”. We can refer to Ansar Al-Adl as he writes: To understand mubeen in a sense that negates words of foreign origin would be illogical in light of its context in other verses. For example, Allah says:

    31:11 Such is the Creation of Allah. now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: nay, but the Transgressors are in manifest error.
    The phrase that has been rendered here as 'manifest error' is dalaalim mubeen. Hence, it it obvious that mubeen refers to something clear, especially in the sense that it is obvious. [1]

    All this shows the central premise of the critic’s claim iswrong as they argue a falsehood in the first place. Now we know the claim of the critics is incorrect as they used a faulty translation we may hear the critics revise their claims and thus suggest the Quran is not in Arabic then due to the foreign words.

    This is a myopic argument. The critic claims the Quran is not in Arabic as it contains foreign words. The critic misses (or refuses to accept) the view which tells us the foreign words in the Quran were indeed incorporated into the Arab vernacular hence despite these words originating from foreign shores they became part of regular Arabic. Von Denffer devoted a short chapter on this issue and writes; ‘Some (among them Tabari and Baqillani) hold that all in the Quran is Arabic and that words of non-Arab origin the Arabs used and observed them and they became genuinely integrated in the Arabic language’ [2].

    The same reference tells us that the non-Arabic proper names are non-Arabic such as Imran, Nuh etc. Though these proper names were foreign to Arabia they can still be used in the Arabic text (ie the Quran or Arabic newspaper articles) without any claim of the Arabic text not being in Arabic just like names such as Mohammed, Dietmar, Von Denffer, etc can and are indeed used in English text (ie this article or English newspaper articles) without anybody seriously claiming the English text is not in English.

    As proper nouns such as names of people do not affect the overall Arabicity of a text..

    In fairness and scholarly balance we should consider the other view; ‘that the Quran does contain words not used in the Arabic language’ [2].We realise this is immaterial as a text is judged by its overall language as opposed to a few foreign words it utilizes. To illustrate this I shall put forward a paragraph and the reader can decide what language I have wrote the paragraph in:

    “Dietmar and Yusuf entered the laboratory an began their experimentation with industrial alcohol, the modus operandi they chose to use was already decided but they did get distracted as they peered out of the window in their chalet overlooking the circus; they could see camels, lions, chimpanzees and Asian, European and Arab tourists lining up to get into the circus. As they glanced to their right they saw a museum, mobile phone shops and automobiles ground to a halt due a few rickshaws and chariots breaking down. As they began their work they were interrupted by Doctor Kalrheinz who was wearing a stethoscope around his neck, he was clearly perturbed and explained he was not aux fait with the building layout and has got himself lost and he is now late for his clinic”.

    I am sure the individual will say the text was written in English despite many foreign words being involved. The foreign words in the text are many which include; dietmar, Yusuf, alcohol, modus operandi, chalet, circus, camel etc. etc.. However we would still say the paragraph was in English as the foreign words utilized have been absorbed into the English language and because the paragraph is composed in English.

    Thus the Quran is in Arabic for the same reason despite foreign words being included, which were incorporated into the Arabic language at the time; thus the foreign words were Arabized and became part of the Arabic language according to Tabari. If this is the case (which was believed to be the case by the great scholar Tabari) then the critic has no claim.

    If they were not then the critic still has no claim as a text is always judged on its overall composure as opposed to a few foreign words; thus meaning the Quran is still in Arabic despite the foreign words. It must also be said proper nouns (names) which are foreign are immaterial as they are incorporated into a language immediately (as soon as they are used in textual or spoken forms of any language including Arabic). So if the critic brings up foreign names then he/she is following an ignorant line of argumentation.

    So either way we see the critic is clutching at desperation out of his/her own prejudice against Islam rather than any real scholarly thought.

    May Allah safeguard us from the deception and irrationality of the critics. Ameen

    Please note: Wherever the there is an English translation of a Quranic passage in this article please realise it is not the actual Quran but a translation to the nearest meaning as the Quran is in Arabic and a translation is only a translation and not the verbatim Word of Allah.

    Recommended readings on this issue: Quran


    1. Quran

    2. Ulum al Quran, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation 2003 pg 73
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. CABAL1c Registered Member

    tldr bro
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I'm not Christian here is a list of loan words in the Qur'an:

    Tafaq'a, Al-toar, Al-Raq'im, Ta-Ha, Senin, As-Sijjîl, Al-Istabrek, Al-Soundos, Sariah, Meshkat, Jouhan'm, Al-Zakât, Sajjîl, Ad-Durie, Nashet-Al lail, keflain, Al-Q'swara, Al-Melah Al-Okhra, Wara'hom, Bata'nha, Uho'd, As-Sam'd, Abareeq, Injeel, Tabout, Saradeq', Surah, Al-Ferdous, At-Taghout, Mao'un, etc... etc... etc...

    Now that this is settled can you tell me just ONE novel and (for you) enlightening idea from the Qur'an that wasn't written before by some other religion?

    Tell us something YOU personally have learned. Share with us you personal wisdom you have gained after reading the Qur'an.

    I'm waiting on pins and needles,
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Whats a loan word?
  8. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    i guess it means it was lent from another language.

    michael, how many years have you studied arabic?

    do i need to clarify those words or shouldn't i bother?

    what did you do with the list of names of sahaba who wrote the quran i rummaged through the internet to get you?
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Which language has no loan words?
  10. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    lol, good point, so what's the problem if the quran contains some?
    as the OP suggests,"mubeen" which is used to describe the arabic used in the quran, doesn't mean pure, but clear.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2009
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I'm still trying to figure out what a pure language is. Where does it come from?
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Loanword is a word borrowed from one language and incorporated into another.
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    This is a legacy based on racism, it suggests that Arab culture is somehow closer to God and therefor superior to other cultures.

    It's all about US versus THEM. The Believers versus the Infidels. Look at the title "Christians ... blah blah blah...". US versus THEM. Secondly, the Qur'an is a copy of Biblical stories. It's pretty unlikely that Mohammad was so stoned he actually thought he heard Angels actually speaking to him. The stories are there and so there's this notion of IF it's pure Arabic then it's somehow "Authentic".

    For me all this is plain obvious and you can see the ramifications of such intolerance down through the ages.
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I was going to write something else, but you seem to have descended into the same idiocy that your rants about Islam or Muslims invariably lead into, incoherence.

    Since you don't even know Arabic and have no idea what mubeen means, its pointless to have a discussion with you about the verses.
  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Let me guess it went like this: the USA...

    Here lets make it easier for your mind to grasp. Suppose someone was here writing America is the Nation of God and "American" is God's language. Kill all non-Americans and get 70 virgins in heaven.

    Simple enough? Because that's your religion in a nut shell.
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    No thats American foreign policy. Find me the verses in the Quran which say that.

    Guess who doesn't belong in this picture


    Is it the guys reading the Arabic Quran or the other one? Who is in whose country? Who is the attacker? Who is Killing all non-Americans and not even considering them human enough to count bodies? If it was animals being killed like that, you'd have conservationists at least caring, as it stands, its just nameless Muslims.

    So if reading the Arabic Quran means that its hard for Americans to wipe out Muslims as easily as they would like to, thats not a disadvantage.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2009
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If reading the Arabic Quran tends to make people into the sort of folks most other people would like to step on, it may be, though.

    IIRC you mentioned the potential lesson to be learned from getting tossed out of a series of bars.

    I doubt most Americans could identify, let alone develop a desire to wipe out, most Muslims as Muslims.
    In the case of the Quran, it came from Allah and was delivered to Muhammed by an angel. Or so I have been repeatedly and firmly informed.
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member


    Are you saying that both Arab Muslims and Americans were/are cultural supremacists?

    That makes some sense,

    I could envision an alternate world where Americans fought in Iraq in the name of the founding fathers and after settling there for centrues teaching everyone that English (oh, I mean "American") is the only true language of the "Founding Fathers" *turns to pray toward DC). Of course this makes good sense as it , determines loyalty of those indigenous who fight on the side of freedom and love of the Founding Fathers, and the only True Constitution - it also acts to eradicate the previous culture and binds the colonists in purpose. Just like the Muslim Crusaders.

    The PERFECT Qur'an, the LAST Prophet all in PURE Arabic - cultural supremism.

    It should also be noted that only someone fluent in Arabic would know what the hell was written there - keeps the power in the hands of the very few literate. Just like the Japanese Imperials used to speak Chinese to one another, The Russian spoke French, etc...
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    The truth is usually hard to tolerate for most people. Even the ones who insist they want to hear it.

    Including your own, yes indeed. Has that lesson been learned?

    Because they always tell themselves the truth? I remember distinctly the orgasmic fervour on the face of a democrat at the beginning of the Iraq invasion, when reports of the first casualties started pouring in. He could hardly contain himself he was so excited. It was incredibly repulsive to watch. Not that its particularly relevant, but it was Howard Dean.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2009
  20. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Well, ideally Turkish. Not much luck with that little endeavor though.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So are people who think they own it, from their perfect book or wherever. The question was whether personal acquaintanceship with the Quran tends to create such persons from what had been reasonable human beings.
    Because they have no idea who or what or where a Muslim is, unless it's shoved in their face.
    And that has what relevance to "Muslims"? Do you imagine the average American had any idea what sort of religion they were dealing with? The President and major politicians directly involved, if you recall, were clueless on the Shia/Sunni business - it's hard to imagine they were killing people for a religion they couldn't find on a map.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2009
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    The American soldier, obviously.

    Oh, and the guy in the back with the bomb in his rucksack.
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I imagine it is indeed less common. There's much else to criticize. In any event, the claim that there are no loan-words is a bit supremacist: who would care if there were? Does anyone really believe that Arabic is some kind of a magical language of God, as the radical nutbars claim?

Share This Page