The Arabic Qur’ān and Foreign Words
Contributor:
Coverage:
Creator: Yasir Qadhi
Date:
Description:
Format: text
Identifier: http://muslimmatters.org/2008/05/21/the-arabic-quran-and-foreign-words/
Language: en
Publisher:
Relation:
Rights:
Source:
Subject: quran
Title: The Arabic Qur’ān and Foreign Words
Created on: Fri Sep 05 13:56:27 -0400 2008
Updated on: Fri Sep 05 13:56:27 -0400 2008
Version: 1
Abstract: ... t as much of a problem for Muslims as it is, say, for Christians when confronted with clear parallels between Christian theology and pagan beliefs (since, for them, there should be no Divine connection between the pagan cult of Mithra and the image of Jesus Christ, for example). For Muslims, the continuity of theology between prophets is a clear Qur’ānic principle and a proof for prophethood (as in Q. 46:9). In fact, in more than one verse the Qur’ān quite explicitly and unabashedly states that God has given the same message to the previous prophets in their respective Scriptures. In Q. 21:105, the Qur’ān states that God had already written, in the Psalms, that the righteous shall inherit the Earth (‘anna al-arda yarithuhā ‘ibadiy al-sālihūn’). This is almost an exact parallel of Psalm 37:29 “The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell therein for ever.”19 Other verses also give quotations from Biblical Scripture (see, for example, Q. 49:29). It is also interesting to note that while the classical works related to the sciences of the Qur’ān discussed a multitude of issues, and strove to ‘defend’ the purity of the Revelation by tackling, head on, the claims of those who opposed it, it is rare to find in their works, or even in the treatises that responded to Christian polemics against Islam, a detailed defense of the accusation that the Qur’ān is taken from Judaeo-Christian sources because of parallels between them. Again, this returns to the psychological frame of mind that Muslims have, in which they see such parallels as being an indication of the continuity of the same chain of prophets and the same message, revealed from the same God. In other words, such parallels are simply not as ‘troubling’ to them as they are to a secular, Christian or Jewish observer, since each of these three groups will explain such parallels from within his or her own paradigm.20 In conclusion, and on a personal note, I accept as a given that, as a believer in a particular faith, there are certain areas where academic scholarship and religious belief will simply have to agree to disagree. I find claims of neutrality and objectivity to be purely relative; secular researchers into any field of religion will have their biases (although they would probably not label them as being ‘biases’), believing adherents to one tradition will have other biases when they examine other faiths, and they will have yet another set of biases when they examine their own faith. That does not mean that research in any religious field is doomed to be bound by one’s own religious views. Rather, it is precisely because of such alternate viewpoints that academics and researchers will continue to enrich and engage with one another and provide fertile ground for ideas to be tossed around and explored; eventually, some will germinate and be nurtured, while others will fail to take root. And even of those that are nurtured, the fruits produced by such ideas will always be sweet to some, and bitter to others. Footnotes I must point out that it is not even remotely possible to do justice to this question in the space allotted; however the goal is to show as wide a grasp of the sources and issues as possible, and that is what I intend to accomplish. Al-Qurtubī, al-Jāmīʾ li Ahkām al-Qurʾān, v. 1, p. 104. Al-Tabari, Tafsīr, v. 1, p. 8. Al-Shafiʿī, al-Risālah, p. 41 Ibn Fāris, al Sāhibī, p. 28. Ibn Fāris, al Sāhibī, p. 29. Sībawayh, al-Kitāb, v. 4, p. 304. There is one minor reservation that I have about the work, and I say this fully recognizing and appreciating the level of scholarship it displays (apart from the fact that it includes proper nouns such as Ilyās, Sabiʾūn, and Majūs - this is a matter that even the likes of al-Shafiʿī would not have had an issue with!) Jeffery shows that many common nouns and verbs (such as khubz, p. 121, kataba, p. 248 and sajada, p. 162) have ‘originated’ from a foreign language; this might very well be the case, but their use and understanding amongst the Arabs, perhaps for centuries before the coming of the Prophet, had made them as ‘Arabic’ as could possibly be. My point here is that the case cannot be made with such common nouns and verbs that the Prophet himself had anything to do with them or that he somehow introduced them into the language of the Arabs (whereas the case may indeed be made with other words). Hence their inclusion on a list of ‘foreign’ vocabulary of the Qurʾān (as opposed to a list of foreign vocabulary of the Arabic language), seems, to me at least, foreign. Muir, The Life of Mahomet, (Edinburgh, 1923) v. 2, p. 20-21. Mohammadanism: A Historical Survey (London, 1961) p. 37. Hitti, Islam and the West: A Historical Cultural Survey (New York, 1979), p. 15. The Call Of The Minaret, p. 66 New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. VII, p.677. Jeffery, Foreign Vocabulary, p. 1. Jeffery, Foreign Vocabulary, p. 2. Ibid., p. 22, 28-9, 38. Sidney H Griffith, “The Gospel In Arabic: An Enquiry Into Its Appearance In The First Abbasid Century” Oriens Christianus, Volume 69, p. 131-132. For the above paragraphs, see, inter alia: Mohammad Khalifa, The sublime Qur’ān and Orientalism (London; Longman, 1983), Hamza Njozi, The Sources of the Qurʾān: A Critical Review of Authorship Theories, (WAMY Press, 1995); Mohar Ali, Sirat al-Nabi and the Orientalists (Madina, 1997); my own comments in Qadhi, An Introduction, p. 274-6. Also see Watt’s comments on this verse in Mohammed at Mecca, p. 45. Although I am not knowledgeable of Hebrew, I am told that the parallel in the original is even more profound. I am not implying that such defense does not exist in the classical sources, for it does; what I am saying is that when one compares the quantity of material on this specific issue, versus other issues (for example, proving the iʿjāz of the Qurʾān), it is quite clear that this issue was not of as great a concern to them as other issues. More from this category Ramadan Reflections - Juz 3Ramadan Reflections - Juz 2Ramadan Reflections: A Daily Journey Through the Qur’an Juz 1An Exegesis of the Basmala More from this author Retread: Understanding the Controversies Regarding MoonsightingAn Exegesis of the Basmala‘Nabiha My Love’ - But a Person is With the One Whom They LoveThe Arabic Qur’ān and Foreign Words Subscribe to this author Tagged as: arabic, Quran, route 114, sciences of the quran, uloom al-quran, Yasir Qadhi 15 Responses to “The Arabic Qur’ān and Foreign Words”--> Comments (15) Trackbacks & Pingbacks (0) Comments Sunie Nizami said: JazakAllahukhair Sheikh, for a great supplement to your class on ‘uloomulQuran. I am wondering how the Muslim scholars who came after Abu Obaid bin Salaam and heard of his opinion felt about it. Was there an immediate trend of acknowldgment and acceptance(especially since its much easier to defend the quran from this position) or did they continue to put forth previous opinions spurred by Ibn Abbass’ comment? -May 21st, 2008 at 10:38 am MR said: This is a very thorough and interesting article. JazakAllah khair. I’d love to read other articles from various contemporary scholars on this. -May 21st, 2008 at 10:51 am Ridwaan said: assalaamu alaikum, Please fix the Quranic reference. “Other verses also give quotations from Biblical Scripture (see, for example, Q. 49:29).” jazakumullah khayr -May 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am AnonyMouse (Author) said: Wonderful article, jazakAllahu khair! I love the study of linguistics and especially of the Qur’an -May 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm Abu Abdurrahman said: Bismillah… JazakAllahu khairan YQ! Just a quick question… With reference to the issue of subjectivity and objectivity entailed in the arriving at the conclusion of truth or falsehood - what would be your response to (an apparently sincere) non-muslim who points to the fact that much of ‘evidences’ of the Divine origin of the Quran are either purely or mainly subjective in nature, and give examples of the challenge of producing a Surah similar to the Quran, or how the Quran was unique in that it differentiated itself in its very structure. (with Poetry in Arabic falling into sixteen different ” Bihar ” (rhythmic forms), and other than that they have the speech of soothsayers, rhyming prose, and normal speech. The Qur’an’s form did not fit into any of these categories..etc). But still it is subjective. Me personally, I also feel inclined to state that there is going to be a degree of subjectivity in anything - other than a few things which would render this life no longer a test or would lead to ‘further confusion’ (such as angels coming down etc.). However, one of the many things which make one feel indifferent to this approach is the fact that in reality these evidences are nothing short of a body of clear proof - like the sun shining in the clear sky, a “burhan” and “bayyinat.” These are not subjective things, as I understand it. Could you help fill the missing link in the argument. Wa jazakAllahu khairan wassalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatyllah -May 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm Charles said: My point here is that the case cannot be made with such common nouns and verbs that the Prophet himself had anything to do with them or that he somehow introduced them into the language of the Arabs (whereas the case may indeed be made with other words). Hence their inclusion on a list of ‘foreign’ vocabulary of the Qurʾān (as opposed to a list of foreign vocabulary of the Arabic language), seems, to me at least, foreign. From what you’ve written here, I would understand “list of ‘foreign’ vocabulary of the Quran” to be a subset of “foreign vocabulary of the Arabic language.” That is, these scholars are limiting the foreign vocabulary found in Arabic to one particular instance, much like we might focus on the Greek vocabulary in medical language, rather than the Greek vocabulary in all of the English (or other) language. Thus, they are simply being precise about which part of the Arabic language they are looking at. Of them is that Muḥammad was an illiterate man raised in an uneducated Bedouin society. Could you comment on the meaning of “illiterate”? I ask because in the Bible the phrase doesn’t necessarily mean someone who cannot read or write but someone who has not studied under a teacher or scholar. You can see this in John 7:14 where the Jews wonder how Jesus could be “lettered” (or “literate”) “without having studied.” (Compare also to Acts 4:13 where Peter and John are called illiterate and untrained.) -May 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm Ibrahim said: JazakAllahu khairan for a wonderful article. You have addressed this in this article, but I kept wondering why would somebody question the divinity of the Quran if it contains non-Arabic words. I would assume a non-Muslim or a very confused Muslim asked this question. -May 21st, 2008 at 9:43 pm Talha Syed said: Wonderful Article! Ibrahim, Sh. Yasir pointed out that the only potential problem Muslims had with non-Arabic words was the verse that said the Qur’an was in Lisanaan Arabiyyan (an Arabic tongue). For Muslims, other than the above issue, the presence of non-Arabic words was/is not a problem at all, just as the presence of supposedly ‘Biblical’ stories (universal in our view) is actually a proof for the Qur’an. As the Sheikh points out, for Christians, similarities to previous major religions are a theological problem, because the previous nations and cultures were pagan. We Muslims are saved from this trial, Alhamdulillah. BTW, here is the tranliteration I found for Pslams 37:29: tsaddiyqiym yiyrshu-’ârets veyishkenu lâ`adh `âleyhâ Can a Hebrew speaker please translate each Hebrew word into Arabic so we can see the similarities/differences? -May 21st, 2008 at 11:04 pm aarij said: Awesome piece, Sh. Yasir. These orientalist kafs (kafs = short for kafirs) are really no different than the mushrikeen of Makkah who claimed that Rasool Allah [SAWS] made up the Qur’an. What I find amazing (and as mentioned in the article) is that when it is an established historic fact that: a) the Prophet [SAWS] had no formal education (i.e. he was illiterate) b) the Prophet [SAWS] had shown no inclination towards poetry or literature his entire life then how can he all of a sudden produce such amazing work of literature? Like Allah [SWT] says, “Or do they say that he [SAWS] made this Qur’an up? Rather, they do not believe” in Surah AtToor (51), 33. BTW, for the uninitiated, orientalist = a kafir who studied Islam formally. This question came up during the Route 114 class in Toronto. -May 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 am dawud said: salaam; mashAllah and well-written, ya ustadh Yasir. I think the last statement you made was interesting, calling for a reflection on what my Christian father would term worldviews and how they affect study, along with a request for intellectual integrity and respect for diverse views. Without re-opening the debate from the Ashari/Athari debate, I would just like to ask, given your last statement about the fruits of intellectual labor being ’sweet to some ... [Full Article...]
