What language does Allah speak?

[mindlight]

If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic does that mean that most of the world cannot know him without first learning Arabic?

If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic how come he inspired the original psalms of David and gospels (before the Muslims say they got corrupted) in a different language.

If the Muslim god can indeed speak multiple languages then why the insistence on Arabic in a mosque and for translations of the Koran.

PS - Just realised that there is similar OP already out there on a similar general theme as this. Sorry for the duplication - hopefully my OP is on a slightly different line here.

 

[Arthra]

"If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic ..."

Well consider that you already diminish the word "God" using small case letters "god". Also you limit God by saying He "...only speaks Arabic".

And consider what is in Qur'an...

Verily, God has chosen Adam, and Noah, and Abraham's people, and Imran's people above the world,- a seed, of which one succeeds the other, but God both hears and knows.

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 3 - Imran's Family)

So the revelation of Qur'an accepts Adam, Noah, Abraham and Imran's people and their language.

3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 3 - The Family Of Imran)

The Qur'an reveals that God has confirmed what went before it the Torah and the Gospel.

Consider what language Jesus used when He taught

Aramaic of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was the word Jesus used when He referred to God?

http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi

Word Number:904Meaning:God

Pronunciation:(Eastern) AaLaH
(Western) AaLoH

Part of Speech:Noun

Gender:Masculine

Person:Number:Singular

State:Absolute

Listen:

http://www.learnassyrian.com/aramaic/church/church1.au

 

[steve_bakr]

It is my understanding that prayers are said in Arabic because that is the language Allah chose to reveal the Qur'an in. Similarly, the Qur'an is to be recited in the original language. So, all Muslims are encouraged to learn the Qur'an in Arabic.

 

[mindlight]

"If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic ..."

Well consider that you already diminish the word "God" using small case letters "god". Also you limit God by saying He "...only speaks Arabic".

And consider what is in Qur'an...

Verily, God has chosen Adam, and Noah, and Abraham's people, and Imran's people above the world,- a seed, of which one succeeds the other, but God both hears and knows.

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 3 - Imran's Family)

So the revelation of Qur'an accepts Adam, Noah, Abraham and Imran's people and their language.

3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 3 - The Family Of Imran)

The Qur'an reveals that God has confirmed what went before it the Torah and the Gospel.

Consider what language Jesus used when He taught

Aramaic of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was the word Jesus used when He referred to God?

http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi

Word Number:904Meaning:God

Pronunciation:(Eastern) AaLaH
(Western) AaLoH

Part of Speech:Noun

Gender:Masculine

Person:Number:Singular

State:Absolute

Listen:

http://www.learnassyrian.com/aramaic/church/church1.au

I do not limit God , of course He speaks all languages better than the rest of us. Also I agree it would be hard to reconcile such a statement with the history of Islam and particularly its respect for David and for Jesus who did not speak in Arabic and yet clearly God spoke through them. The sura was well chosen.

But having agreed with you on this and on the links concerning languages it does seem to me to be a feature of modern Islam to insist on Arabic as the language to be used in the mosques. Indeed I went to a mosque for the purpose of witnessing to the Muslims there the other day. I went with a native Arabic speaker who was a Christian. The imman started reading from the Qur'an with what my friend said was a barely understandable accent. I have no way of knowing if he had the slightest clue as to what he was saying. Indeed my friend, a Christian, may have been the only one in the mosque who actually understood what he was saying.

This discussion in many ways mirrors the same one that was had in the Christian church about Latin and maybe even the original biblical Greek /Hebrew of the Septuagint /Massoretic texts. Various people have insisted that there own languages are the ones that best communicate Gods truth only to have them displaced by later languages as the primary one used by Christians. Indeed more Christians speak English as their first language today that do Greek, Hebrew and Latin combined even though these languages claims seems more primary.

The implications of this is that Arabic is not necessarily the best language to understand God in and that those who insist on this may in fact be doing so for their own agenda e.g. to maximise Hajj revenues to saudia Arabia.

But the moment that Islam has a reformation type event that suddenly suggests one particular authority and language are not as central and important as they have been advertising what will happen to the Muslim world.

My theory is that it is less well prepared in its core texts to language and interpretative diversity than was Christianity and that indeed such a movement might instead be shattering rather than liberating for it.

Regarding the names of God, not sure why you shared a cgi script but the sites lexicon does indeed share a pronouciation of one word used for God in Aramaic that sounds like Allah. There are many other names also and the names in Hebrew or Greek sound nothing like that of course.

 

[mindlight]

It is my understanding that prayers are said in Arabic because that is the language Allah chose to reveal the Qur'an in. Similarly, the Qur'an is to be recited in the original language. So, all Muslims are encouraged to learn the Qur'an in Arabic.

That makes some sense but then why do Catholics do mass in Latin in many places when the original Biblical languages were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

 

[steve_bakr]

That makes some sense but then why do Catholics do mass in Latin in many places when the original Biblical languages were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

That is a good question and, incidentally, I prefer Mass to be said in my own language. The answer to your question, though, is that--aside from fundamentalists--Christianity does not have the same doctrine as Islam regarding scripture and revelation. Martin Lings explained it best by saying that in Islam the revelation to mankind is the Qur'an; whereas in Christianity the revelation to mankind is Jesus Christ. The Bible is the testimony to the revelation but not the revelation itself.

 

[mindlight]

That is a good question and, incidentally, I prefer Mass to be said in my own language. The answer to your question, though, is that--aside from fundamentalists--Christianity does not have the same doctrine as Islam regarding scripture and revelation. Martin Lings explained it best by saying that in Islam the revelation to mankind is the Qur'an; whereas in Christianity the revelation to mankind is Jesus Christ. The Bible is the testimony to the revelation but not the revelation itself.

If God inspired the text I would not expect him to contradict it so it is an authority properly interpreted. But it was NOT dictated and being inspired through 40 different authors on 3 continents and in 3 different languages over 1500 years is considerably more flexible and adaptable than Islam at root. People from every culture and time can find a connection with this text and yet it speaks with the same authority and shares the same message into their lives.

Martin Ling sounds like Barth and the neoOthodox to me.

 

[smaneck]

It is my understanding that prayers are said in Arabic because that is the language Allah chose to reveal the Qur'an in.

Right. And the salat or obligatory prayers consist largely of verses from the Qur'an.

 

[smaneck]

But having agreed with you on this and on the links concerning languages it does seem to me to be a feature of modern Islam to insist on Arabic as the language to be used in the mosques. Indeed I went to a mosque for the purpose of witnessing to the Muslims there the other day. I went with a native Arabic speaker who was a Christian.

No, it is not a modern feature of Islam to read the Qur'an in Arabic. As we have discussed in an earlier thread, Arabic is used because it is the language of the original.

The imman started reading from the Qur'an with what my friend said was a barely understandable accent. I have no way of knowing if he had the slightest clue as to what he was saying.

He probably did. Arabic has become something like Latin for non-Arab speaking Muslims and they pronounce words their own way. A lot of the Baha'i writings are in Arabic as well but when an Iranian Baha'i recites them they would be almost incomprehensible to an Arab. Iranian Baha'is know the meaning of what they are reading quite well, but they use Persian pronunciation.

Indeed my friend, a Christian, may have been the only one in the mosque who actually understood what he was saying.

I would not assume that.

This discussion in many ways mirrors the same one that was had in the Christian church about Latin and maybe even the original biblical Greek /Hebrew of the Septuagint /Massoretic texts. Various people have insisted that there own languages are the ones that best communicate Gods truth only to have them displaced by later languages as the primary one used by Christians. Indeed more Christians speak English as their first language today that do Greek, Hebrew and Latin combined even though these languages claims seems more primary.

I think you are missing the point. Obviously God can reveal Himself in any language He chooses, but in the case of the Qur'an He chose Arabic. Any time you do a translation something of the original meaning would be lost. This happens to be much more true of translations from Arabic to English.

The implications of this is that Arabic is not necessarily the best language to understand God in and that those who insist on this may in fact be doing so for their own agenda e.g. to maximise Hajj revenues to saudia Arabia.

Uh, Muslims are going to go on Hajj regardless of what language they speak. The Saudi government is not opposed to translations of the Qur'an so long as it is recognized that a translation is not the same as the original text. Indeed, if you want a translation of the Qur'an in English you can write the Saudi embassy and they will send you one for free!

But the moment that Islam has a reformation type event that suddenly suggests one particular authority and language are not as central and important as they have been advertising what will happen to the Muslim world.

I suppose you could describe the Baha'i Faith as a 'reformation-type event.' But Baha'u'llah even though Baha'u'llah was Iranian He chose to reveal many of His Writings in Arabic because He found it was more precise. As He wrote to a Zoroastrian leader who wanted Him to use more Persian:

"Both Arabic and Persian are laudable. That which is desired of a language is that it convey the intent of the speaker, and either language can serve this purpose. And since in this day the Orb of knowledge hath risen in the firmament of Persia, this tongue deserveth every praise.”

The light of truth is indeed shining resplendent above the horizon of divine utterance, and hence no further elaboration is required from this evanescent soul or from others like unto him. Although there can be no question or doubt as to the sweetness of the Persian tongue, yet it hath not the scope of the Arabic. There are many things which have not been expressed in Persian, that is to say, words referring to such things have not been devised, whilst in Arabic there are several words describing the same thing. Indeed there existeth no language in the world as vast and comprehensive as Arabic. This statement is prompted by truth and fairness; otherwise it is clear that in this day the world is being illumined by the splendours of that Sun which hath dawned above the horizon of Persia, and that the merits of this sweet language can scarcely be overestimated."

My theory is that is less well prepared in its core texts to language and interpretative diversity than was Christianity and that indeed such a movement might instead be shattering rather than liberating for it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but as we have said repeatedly you lose a lot when you translate the Qur'an. That is not because of any deficiency in the text but rather the deficiencies in the target language.

Regarding the names of God, not sure why you shared a cgi script but the sites lexicon does indeed share a pronouciation of one word used for God in Aramaic that sounds like Allah. There are many other names also and the names in Hebrew or Greek sound nothing like that of course.

As there are many other names for God in Islam as well, 99 in fact. The root word "El" from which both Allah and Elohim are derived just happens to be the most common one in the Bible.

 

[smaneck]

That is a good question and, incidentally, I prefer Mass to be said in my own language. The answer to your question, though, is that--aside from fundamentalists--Christianity does not have the same doctrine as Islam regarding scripture and revelation. Martin Lings explained it best by saying that in Islam the revelation to mankind is the Qur'an; whereas in Christianity the revelation to mankind is Jesus Christ. The Bible is the testimony to the revelation but not the revelation itself.

Dear Steve,

You might want to take a look at Fazlur Rahman's introductory book Islam. He makes a rather subtle argument that you can't really say that the Qur'an is the Word of God without saying the Prophet is the Word of God as well.

warmest, Susan

 

[smaneck]

If God inspired the text I would not expect him to contradict it so it is an authority properly interpreted. But it was dictated and being inspired through 40 different authors on 3 continents and in 3 different languages over 1500 years is considerably more flexible and adaptable than Islam at root. People from every culture and time can find a connection with this text and yet it speaks with the same authority and shares the same message into their lives.

I think you left out a sentence here. Are you trying to say that the Bible is more flexible because it was written by so many authors living in three continents over 1500 years? If so, I'm not sure that argument stands. There are really only two cultures influencing the Bible, the Hebrew culture and the Greek culture. To say it was written on three continents doesn't make much sense either, but it is part of the 'myth' of continents creating meaningful differences between peoples. The part of Asia, Africa and Europe in which the Bible was composed were all part of Mediterranean World which made up a single ecumene or civilization zone. I'm not sure why a text so much older than the Qur'an would be any more flexible. What is perhaps the most 'flexible' thing about the NT is that it essentially does away with the Law period, therefore it's ability to change with the times need not be an issue. If your operating on the basis of Spirit vs. Law you are free to ignore nearly everything you don't like. On the other hand, it becomes rather ineffectual when it comes to changing the world. Not all Christians care about that, but Muslims and Baha'is do. Ultimately the only way Revelation can be flexible and still effective is for it to be continuous.

 

[SanFrank]

If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic does that mean that most of the world cannot know him without first learning Arabic?
If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic how come he inspired the original psalms of David and gospels (before the Muslims say they got corrupted) in a different language.
If the Muslim god can indeed speak multiple languages then why the insistence on Arabic in a mosque and for translations of the Koran.
PS - Just realised that there is similar OP already out there on a similar general theme as this. Sorry for the duplication - hopefully my OP is on a slightly different line here.

As a christian i assume you are already aware of G*d's gift to mankind, the Christ who was crucified and resurrected to life forevermore. All scriptures that followed the New Testament are false including those of islam.

With that said, as far as the arabic language goes; the original kufic form of the qur'an did not have diacritic markings so that many words were misunderstood. Many muslims are not aware that the qur'an (correctly exegete) actually does say the Christ was crucified. Problem is its ambiguous and rare. You will not find this exegesis anywhere. Of course, the inconsistency shown here only adds to your concerns.

sura 89
89.1 And/by the dawn.
(Announces & swears by the morning of Jesus’ singular Resurrection)
89.2 And three nights.
(Swears by the three nights Jesus was in the earth)
89.3 And/by the two days after the sacrifice and the third day.
(Swears by the three days Jesus was in the earth; the one who was pearced with a spear)
89.4 And/by the night when He departed.
(Swears by Jesus’ empty tomb)
89.5 A profound oath, for one who possesses intelligence.
(Asks if the reader understands)
89.6 Did you not see how your Lord He has returned from the grave?
(Jesus’ singular resurrection)
89.7 A sign, Lord of the pillar.
(Jesus carrying the Cross)
89.8 Which has not been built similar to it in the city?
(Jesus crucified outside the city)
89.9 And a small round cavity whom they hewed out the rocks in the valley.
(Jesus’ grave)
89.10 And King, Lord of the wooden stakes.
(Jesus being crucified)

Sura 89.1-10 Standard translation, Khalifa
By the dawn.
And the ten nights.
By the even and the odd.
By the night as it passes.
A profound oath, for one who possesses intelligence.
Have you noted what your Lord did to `Aad?
Erum; the town with tall buildings.
There was nothing like it anywhere.
Also Thamoud, who carved the rocks in their valley.
And Pharaoh who possessed might.

http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u240595-e70284/

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I think it's supposed to be a means of preventing a loss of information via translation. All communication involves some degree of noise. Translation is a sure way to increase the noise to signal ratio though. I don't believe however that they limit revelation to Arabic. It's simply that in their understanding the last and supposedly final revelation was given in that language. That's the one they as a community are mostly dealing with so they like keeping knowledge of that language alive even in differening ethnic and linguistic communities.

 

[TG123]

If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic does that mean that most of the world cannot know him without first learning Arabic?

If the Muslim god only speaks Arabic how come he inspired the original psalms of David and gospels (before the Muslims say they got corrupted) in a different language.

If the Muslim god can indeed speak multiple languages then why the insistence on Arabic in a mosque and for translations of the Koran.

PS - Just realised that there is similar OP already out there on a similar general theme as this. Sorry for the duplication - hopefully my OP is on a slightly different line here.

Show me evidence that Muslims believe that God according to their understanding speaks only Arabic. Show me where it says that in the Quran or hadiths. Feel free to show a verse that backs up what you say.

Muslims believe the Quran is God's Word revealed directly by Him, through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. They believe that since it was revealed in Arabic, it must be read in Arabic because the Quran contains God's exact words.

Of course, I do not believe that. The Quran denies who Jesus really is and what He did on the cross for us, as well as misrepresents some Christian and Jewish beliefs, and has examples of scientific errors. All of that indicates God did not dictate it.

However, Muslims do not believe God can only speak Arabic. That is a misunderstanding of Islam, just as claiming that the Trinity states God is the third of three is a misunderstanding of Christianity.

 

[smaneck]

With that said, as far as the arabic language goes; the original kufic form of the qur'an did not have diacritic markings so that many words were misunderstood.

A few might have been misunderstood, but not many. The oral tradition was strong enough to have preserved most of the text. But one error I can think of is that Yahya (John the Baptist) should probably have been Yohanna. It is a difference of a dot in Arabic.

Many muslims are not aware that the qur'an (correctly exegete) actually does say the Christ was crucified. Problem is its ambiguous and rare.

I would agree that Surah 4:157 is ambiguous but where did you come up with that weird translation of Surah 89?

 

[Arthra]

Frank wrote regarding his interp of Surih 89:

"You will not find this exegesis anywhere..."

For once I agree with you.

You've given me some hope that my version of Genesis 16:12

http://www.christianforums.com/t7621765-16/#post59528725

has some merit after all.

 

[steve_bakr]

As a christian i assume you are already aware of G*d's gift to mankind, the Christ who was crucified and resurrected to life forevermore. All scriptures that followed the New Testament are false including those of islam.

With that said, as far as the arabic language goes; the original kufic form of the qur'an did not have diacritic markings so that many words were misunderstood. Many muslims are not aware that the qur'an (correctly exegete) actually does say the Christ was crucified. Problem is its ambiguous and rare. You will not find this exegesis anywhere. Of course, the inconsistency shown here only adds to your concerns.

sura 89
89.1 And/by the dawn.
(Announces & swears by the morning of Jesus' singular Resurrection)
89.2 And three nights.
(Swears by the three nights Jesus was in the earth)
89.3 And/by the two days after the sacrifice and the third day.
(Swears by the three days Jesus was in the earth; the one who was pearced with a spear)
89.4 And/by the night when He departed.
(Swears by Jesus' empty tomb)
89.5 A profound oath, for one who possesses intelligence.
(Asks if the reader understands)
89.6 Did you not see how your Lord He has returned from the grave?
(Jesus' singular resurrection)
89.7 A sign, Lord of the pillar.
(Jesus carrying the Cross)
89.8 Which has not been built similar to it in the city?
(Jesus crucified outside the city)
89.9 And a small round cavity whom they hewed out the rocks in the valley.
(Jesus' grave)
89.10 And King, Lord of the wooden stakes.
(Jesus being crucified)

Sura 89.1-10 Standard translation, Khalifa
By the dawn.
And the ten nights.
By the even and the odd.
By the night as it passes.
A profound oath, for one who possesses intelligence.
Have you noted what your Lord did to `Aad?
Erum; the town with tall buildings.
There was nothing like it anywhere.
Also Thamoud, who carved the rocks in their valley.
And Pharaoh who possessed might.

http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u240595-e70284/

What you call the standard translation is closer to the Arabic. Verse 10 more literally says,
"Pharoah, owner of stakes."
Where did your translation come from?

 

[steve_bakr]

Dear Steve,

You might want to take a look at Fazlur Rahman's introductory book Islam. He makes a rather subtle argument that you can't really say that the Qur'an is the Word of God without saying the Prophet is the Word of God as well.

warmest, Susan

Susan,

I have that book and I will look at it.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[mindlight]

No, it is not a modern feature of Islam to read the Qur'an in Arabic. As we have discussed in an earlier thread, Arabic is used because it is the language of the original.

He probably did. Arabic has become something like Latin for non-Arab speaking Muslims and they pronounce words their own way. A lot of the Baha'i writings are in Arabic as well but when an Iranian Baha'i recites them they would be almost incomprehensible to an Arab. Iranian Baha'is know the meaning of what they are reading quite well, but they use Persian pronunciation.

I would not assume that.

I think you are missing the point. Obviously God can reveal Himself in any language He chooses, but in the case of the Qur'an He chose Arabic. Any time you do a translation something of the original meaning would be lost. This happens to be much more true of translations from Arabic to English.
Uh, Muslims are going to go on Hajj regardless of what language they speak. The Saudi government is not opposed to translations of the Qur'an so long as it is recognized that a translation is not the same as the original text. Indeed, if you want a translation of the Qur'an in English you can write the Saudi embassy and they will send you one for free!

I suppose you could describe the Baha'i Faith as a 'reformation-type event.' But Baha'u'llah even though Baha'u'llah was Iranian He chose to reveal many of His Writings in Arabic because He found it was more precise. As He wrote to a Zoroastrian leader who wanted Him to use more Persian:

"Both Arabic and Persian are laudable. That which is desired of a language is that it convey the intent of the speaker, and either language can serve this purpose. And since in this day the Orb of knowledge hath risen in the firmament of Persia, this tongue deserveth every praise.”

The light of truth is indeed shining resplendent above the horizon of divine utterance, and hence no further elaboration is required from this evanescent soul or from others like unto him. Although there can be no question or doubt as to the sweetness of the Persian tongue, yet it hath not the scope of the Arabic. There are many things which have not been expressed in Persian, that is to say, words referring to such things have not been devised, whilst in Arabic there are several words describing the same thing. Indeed there existeth no language in the world as vast and comprehensive as Arabic. This statement is prompted by truth and fairness; otherwise it is clear that in this day the world is being illumined by the splendours of that Sun which hath dawned above the horizon of Persia, and that the merits of this sweet language can scarcely be overestimated."



I'm not sure what you mean by this, but as we have said repeatedly you lose a lot when you translate the Qur'an. That is not because of any deficiency in the text but rather the deficiencies in the target language.



As there are many other names for God in Islam as well, 99 in fact. The root word "El" from which both Allah and Elohim are derived just happens to be the most common one in the Bible.

Neither Arabic or Farsi remotely compare in terms of capacity to express,, range , flexibility and most important of all the ability to recontextualise messages with English. My point is not that God should reveal his holy texts in the worlds most popular, widely spoken and largest language but that the capacity to communicate the message requires the translation and recontextualisation of the message. To insist that God has chosen to speak to us primarily in Arabic in this latest post Mohammed phase of our relationship with him sets up a tyranny of language that is more an imprisonment to a seventh century Arabic culture than a liberation into Gods truth.

The Bible speaks of experiences in Egypt, Israel, Babylon, Greece, Rome and its message was inspired in a variety of contexts, times and places. This inspirational flexibility is reflected in its capacity to recontextualise its messages in the modern day. By contrast Islams imprisonment to Arabic does not give the same flexibilty and therefore casts doubt on whether God could be behind the message of the Qu'ran at all. God is the God of all the earth and not just that of one culture, language and time.

 

[Sister of Faith]

You can't compare the creator with the creatures!
It just make no sense.