QURAN: Sent and Saved by Allah : Verily, it is We Who have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We are its Guardians. [ 15:10 ]

[smaneck]

Post #91, sister.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The classic definition was given to you.

I asked for a classical source. A 19th century Orientalist is not a classical source.

Now...you keep moving the goal-posts.....is it 'revelation' or is it 'divinely inspired'?

I found passages which indicated both.

[Bowman]

<sigh> Modern Standard Arabic was developed in Egypt in the latter part of the 19th century and as I indicated it is based on Qur'anic Arabic just as modern Hebrew is based on Biblical Hebrew. It is not something which evolved over time.

Yes, Arabic changed. There are many dialects of Arabic which are not necessarily mutually understandable. MSA was developed out of Qur'anic Arabic so that all Arabs *could* communicate.

Every language without a written literature tends to decay more than to development by reason of foreign influences; and the history of the Arabic exhibits an instance of decay remarkably rapid, and extraordinary in degree. An immediate consequence of the foreign conquests achieved by the Arabs under Mohammad’s first four successors was an extensive corruption of their language; for the nations that they subdued were naturally obliged to adopt in a great measure the speech of the conquerors, a speech which few persons have ever acquired in such a degree as to be secure from the commission of frequent errors in grammar without learning it from infancy….

Such being the case, it became a matter of the highest importance to the Arabs to preserve the knowledge of that speech which had thus become obsolescent, and to draw a distinct line between the classical and the post-classical languages. For the former language was that of the Kur-an and of the Traditions of Mohammad, the sources of their religious, moral, civil, criminal, and political code’ and they possessed, in that language, preserved by oral tradition, - for the art of writing, in Arabia, had been almost exclusively confined to Christians and Jews….

The classical language they called, by reason of its incomparable excellence, “el-loghah,” or “the language:” and the line between this and the post-classical was easily drawn, on account of the almost sudden commencement, and rapid progress, of the corruption.

….I often have found in my knowledge of modern Arabic a solution of a difficulty; but without great caution, such knowledge would frequently have misled me, in consequence of the changes which have taken place in the applications of many words since the classical age.


References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. vii – viii; xxii - xxiii

Try again...

[Bowman]

I asked for a classical source. A 19th century Orientalist is not a classical source.

Yes, it is.

Lane integrates 100+ of the world's best classic lexicography within its eight volumes.

If you were even remotely familar with Arabic then you would have already known this...

I found passages which indicated both.

You have nothing.

[smaneck]

Try again...

You better try again. This only proves my point that Modern Standard Arabic was developed towards the end of the 19th century and was consciously modeled on Qur'anic Arabic. Stanley-Poole's work was written before this.

[smaneck]

Yes, it is.

Lane integrates 100+ of the world's best classic lexicography within its eight volumes.

If you were even remotely familar with Arabic then you would have already known this...

I'm quite familiar with Stanley-Poole's lexicon (though I can't afford it.) His work may well include classical sources but your quotation did not.

You have nothing.

I put up about a dozen quotations. People can judge for themselves who is lying.

[Bowman]

You better try again. This only proves my point that Modern Standard Arabic was developed towards the end of the 19th century and was consciously modeled on Qur'anic Arabic.

You keep distinguishing Modern Arabic from Koranic Arabic...of which, there would no need to do this if they were the same!

Stanley-Poole's work was written before this.

The Lexicon is E.W. Lane's and is dedicated to classic Arabic, of which, you know painfully nothing, sister...

[barnasha]

<sigh> Here, once again, are all the passages that refer to the Qur'an as revelation:

all english interpretations of course, which are moot when discussing the arabic verbs meanings......


Typically, qara'a is translated as 'recite', thats why the quran is also known as the recitation.

Do you know what the first word of the Quran was? Iqra'a! (from the verb qara'a, same as qur'aan) －－－ recite!

[smaneck]

all english interpretations of course, which are moot when discussing the arabic verbs meanings......

The Arabic word for revealed is nazala, literally 'sent down.'

Typically, qara'a is translated as 'recite', thats why the quran is also known as the recitation.

Do you know what the first word of the Quran was? Iqra'a! (from the verb qara'a, same as qur'aan) －－－ recite!

Exactly, which is why this 'collection' business is nonsense. The Archangel Gabriel did not say "Collect!"

[smaneck]

The Lexicon is E.W. Lane's and is dedicated to classic Arabic, of which, you know painfully nothing, sister...

E.W. Lane started it, his nephew Lane-Poole finished it. And what it is dedicated to is irrelevant. It is still a secondary source. I asked you for the same thing you demanded of me, a classical source.

[Bowman]

E.W. Lane started it, his nephew Lane-Poole finished it.

Lane dedicated the last 34 years of his life to compiling his great lexicon.

After his passing, all his nephew did was to collate the work that Lane had already done.

And what it is dedicated to is irrelevant. It is still a secondary source.

Your ignorance is showing again, sister.

Lane's Lexicon has been the scholarly reference gold standard for the past 150+ years.

You should have been at least able to google this much...

I asked you for the same thing you demanded of me, a classical source.

Done.

Your turn.

[smaneck]

[
[FONT=Times New Roman]Lane's Lexicon has been the scholarly reference gold standard for the past 150+ years.

I am well aware of what the lexicon is. It doesn't change the fact that what you provided is a secondary source, not a classical one. And I explicitly asked you for a classical source because that was what you were demanding of me. Apparently you don't know the difference between a reference book and a classical source. Let me give you a hint. Classical sources are a lot older than 150 years.

[Bowman]

I am well aware of what the lexicon is.

No, you are not.

It doesn't change the fact that what you provided is a secondary source, not a classical one.

Lane's is classical, sister.

You would have known this if you had bothered to read it.

However, you want keep using the excuse that you can't afford it - when, in fact, it is freely available online.

Move on to another excuse...

And I explicitly asked you for a classical source because that was what you were demanding of me.

Still waiting for your reply...unless, of course, you still want to trump-up this excuse some more...

Apparently you don't know the difference between a reference book and a classical source. Let me give you a hint. Classical sources are a lot older than 150 years.

Lane integrates all the world's best lexicography within its eight volumes.

Go ahead...choose anyone that you think is not already contained in Lanes.

Good luck.

Your line of excuses has just run dry...

[smaneck]

No, you are not.

LOL. So says the guy who can't use an Arabic dictionary because he doesn't know how to identify the trilateral roots of Arabic words.

Lane's is classical, sister.

And you obviously don't know the meaning of 'classical' in the context of Arabic literature either. A classical source is not something written by an Orientalist in the 19th century. It is a source written around the time or shortly after the Qur'an was written.

You would have known this if you had bothered to read it.

However, you want keep using the excuse that you can't afford it - when, in fact, it is freely available online.

Yes, I found it recently. Doesn't change the fact a lexicon is a secondary source and classical source in the context of Islam would be one that was written more than a thousand years ago.

Still waiting for your reply...unless, of course, you still want to trump-up this excuse some more...

Okay, here is a classical source. The Qur'an itself:


1 Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,

2 Createth man from a clot.

3 Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous,

4 Who teacheth by the pen,

5 Teacheth man that which he knew not.

(Surah 96)

The word translated as 'read' is iqra from the same root as Qur'an. If you translate it as 'collect' the passage makes no sense whatsoever. Now produce your classical Arabic source where Qur'an carries the meaning of 'collect.' And you can stop beating around the bush.

[Bowman]

LOL. So says the guy who can't use an Arabic dictionary because he doesn't know how to identify the trilateral roots of Arabic words.

You are stalling again, sister.

And you obviously don't know the meaning of 'classical' in the context of Arabic literature either. A classical source is not something written by an Orientalist in the 19th century. It is a source written around the time or shortly after the Qur'an was written.

Again, you have not bothered to read Lane's Lexicon.

It is freely available online.




Next excuse...

Yes, I found it recently. Doesn't change the fact a lexicon is a secondary source and classical source in the context of Islam would be one that was written more than a thousand years ago.

Already contained in Lane's.



Next excuse...

Okay, here is a classical source. The Qur'an itself:


1 Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,

2 Createth man from a clot.

3 Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous,

4 Who teacheth by the pen,

5 Teacheth man that which he knew not.

(Surah 96)

The word translated as 'read' is iqra from the same root as Qur'an. If you translate it as 'collect' the passage makes no sense whatsoever. Now produce your classical Arabic source where Qur'an carries the meaning of 'collect.' And you can stop beating around the bush.

A prime example which proves our point all the more.

If you must read something, then it means that it is written down.

The Koran was originally oral...thus, this cannot possibly be the Koran which it is talking about.


العلق

“Alalaq”

“The Blood”

(Named in honor of Jesus’ sacrificial blood)


Sura 96 takes its content from the Biblical Book of Revelation. This chapter introduces the theme of recreating man though the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ, then replays Book of Revelation eschatology, up to, and including, the recognition of the unbelievers as having ‘The Mark of the Beast’ upon their forehead.



Summary:

96.1 Read you! By your Lord's name whom He created. (Jesus’ Crucifixion)

96.2 He created the human from blood. (Man is a new creation through Jesus’ shed blood at the cross)

96.3 Read you! And your Lord, the noblest. (Jesus as Lord)

96.4 Whom He taught with the pen. (Jesus inspires John to write)

96.5 He taught the human that which he did not know. (Jesus’ divine Revelation to John)

96.6 By no means truly the human he exceeds all limits in transgression. (Unbelievers)

96.7 That he saw Him, he considers himself sufficient. (Unbelievers)

96.8 Truly to your Lord the ultimate return. (Judgment Day)

96.9 Did you see who restrains? (Jesus as Lord)

96.10 A slave when he prayed? (John falls at the feet of Jesus)

96.11 Did you see if he was on the sacrifice? (John witnesses the sacrificial Lamb)

96.12 Or he commanded with the warding off of evil? (Jesus as Lord)

96.13 Did you see if he cried lies and he turned away? (Unbelievers)

96.14 Does he not know with that he shall see “allah”? (Satan)

96.15 By no means if he does not restrain, we will assuredly mark him with the mark of the people of the fire, upon the forehead. (The Mark of the Beast)

96.16 His forehead a liar, one who makes mistakes. (The Mark of the Beast)

96.17 So let him call his assembly. (Satan’s army)

96.18 We will call the tormentors of the damned in Hell. (Demons)

96.19 By no means do not obey him, and you prostrate yourself, and draw near! (Flee from Satan, i.e. “allah”)

[barnasha]

You are stalling again, sister.






Again, you have not bothered to read Lane's Lexicon.

It is freely available online.




Next excuse...







Already contained in Lane's.



Next excuse...





A prime example which proves our point all the more.

If you must read something, then it means that it is written down.

The Koran was originally oral...thus, this cannot possibly be the Koran which it is talking about.


العلق

“Alalaq”

“The Blood”

(Named in honor of Jesus’ sacrificial blood)


Sura 96 takes its content from the Biblical Book of Revelation. This chapter introduces the theme of recreating man though the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ, then replays Book of Revelation eschatology, up to, and including, the recognition of the unbelievers as having ‘The Mark of the Beast’ upon their forehead.



Summary:

96.1 Read you! By your Lord's name whom He created. (Jesus’ Crucifixion)

96.2 He created the human from blood. (Man is a new creation through Jesus’ shed blood at the cross)

96.3 Read you! And your Lord, the noblest. (Jesus as Lord)

96.4 Whom He taught with the pen. (Jesus inspires John to write)

96.5 He taught the human that which he did not know. (Jesus’ divine Revelation to John)

96.6 By no means truly the human he exceeds all limits in transgression. (Unbelievers)

96.7 That he saw Him, he considers himself sufficient. (Unbelievers)

96.8 Truly to your Lord the ultimate return. (Judgment Day)

96.9 Did you see who restrains? (Jesus as Lord)

96.10 A slave when he prayed? (John falls at the feet of Jesus)

96.11 Did you see if he was on the sacrifice? (John witnesses the sacrificial Lamb)

96.12 Or he commanded with the warding off of evil? (Jesus as Lord)

96.13 Did you see if he cried lies and he turned away? (Unbelievers)

96.14 Does he not know with that he shall see “allah”? (Satan)

96.15 By no means if he does not restrain, we will assuredly mark him with the mark of the people of the fire, upon the forehead. (The Mark of the Beast)

96.16 His forehead a liar, one who makes mistakes. (The Mark of the Beast)

96.17 So let him call his assembly. (Satan’s army)

96.18 We will call the tormentors of the damned in Hell. (Demons)

96.19 By no means do not obey him, and you prostrate yourself, and draw near! (Flee from Satan, i.e. “allah”)

العلق “Alalaq” “The Blood”

`alaq means more like a clot of blood of something - not merely blood.

96.2 He created the human from blood. (Man is a new creation through Jesus’ shed blood at the cross)

wow.. really? i would call that a stretch, but it's much more than a stretch