This makes a person Muslim. But it should be said in Arabic.
=D9=84=D9=85=D9=89 =D8=A7=D9=85=D9=8A=D8=B1, <news:8e3fa0c6-8052-4879-b98=d-9493793eead8@googlegroups.com>
=20
This makes a person Muslim. But it should be said in Arabic.=20
That's one of the things Islam is wrong about.
I mean, the deification of the certain language, Arabic. A certain
language is a material thing. Sound vibrations and letters on paper
are material, as material are the bits in the memory chips. Language
is a communication protocol established by an agreement of those who
use it. Languages are developing over time, news words appear, other
words become obsolete, language structures are changing.
=20
Holy spirit isn't material, does not depend on a certain language.
=20
And the 'sacred language' trap is not specific for Islam only.
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+2, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
=D9=84=D9=85=D9=89 =D8=A7=D9=85=D9=8A=D8=B1, <news:8e3fa0c6-8052-4879-b98=d-9493793eead8@googlegroups.com>
=20
This makes a person Muslim. But it should be said in Arabic.=20
That's one of the things Islam is wrong about.
I mean, the deification of the certain language, Arabic. A certain
The idea is that the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic and it says so
in the text. So the Qur'an and key pious formulae are recited in
Arabic so as not to be tainted with later interpretation.
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:00:02 AM UTC-8, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+2, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
=D9=84=D9=85=D9=89 =D8=A7=D9=85=D9=8A=D8=B1, <news:8e3fa0c6-8052-4879-b98=d-9493793eead8@googlegroups.com>
=20
This makes a person Muslim. But it should be said in Arabic.=20
That's one of the things Islam is wrong about.
I mean, the deification of the certain language, Arabic. A certain
The idea is that the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic and it says so
in the text. So the Qur'an and key pious formulae are recited in
Arabic so as not to be tainted with later interpretation.
The question about how good your Arabic has to be does not seem to
have gotten much attention.
I would imagine the rule to be that if you intend your speech to be
Arabic and do your best then your speech is Arabic.
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+2, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
This makes a person Muslim. But it should be said in
Arabic.
That's one of the things Islam is wrong about.
I mean, the deification of the certain language, Arabic.
The idea is that the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic and it
says so in the text. So the Qur'an and key pious formulae
are recited in Arabic so as not to be tainted with later
interpretation.
This does not mean that they should not be translated in
order to be understood. But these translations have the
status of study aides and not a new standard.
Personal prayers or religious study may be done are done
in the local language. =20
A certain
language is a material thing. Sound vibrations and
letters on paper are material, as material are the bits
in the memory chips. Language is a communication protocol
established by an agreement of those who use it.
Languages are developing over time, news words appear,
other words become obsolete, language structures are
changing. =20
True, that is why recourse is made to the earliest
possible dictionaries and grammars and other sources in
interpreting=20 the text.
Holy spirit isn't material, does not depend on a certain language.
Yusuf B Gursey, <news:6df2da86-827b-4f53-bfbe-946a6892f005@googlegroups.com>
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:30:04 AM UTC+2, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
This makes a person Muslim. But it should be said in
Arabic.
That's one of the things Islam is wrong about.
I mean, the deification of the certain language, Arabic.
The idea is that the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic and it
says so in the text. So the Qur'an and key pious formulae
are recited in Arabic so as not to be tainted with later
interpretation.
This does not mean that they should not be translated in
order to be understood. But these translations have the
status of study aides and not a new standard.
Personal prayers or religious study may be done are done
in the local language. =20
Should one believe that God literally dictated the text in
then Arabic, and prophet Muhammad remembered and retold it
'mechanically' without exact understanding of exact meaning?
A certain
language is a material thing. Sound vibrations and
letters on paper are material, as material are the bits
in the memory chips. Language is a communication protocol
established by an agreement of those who use it.
Languages are developing over time, news words appear,
other words become obsolete, language structures are
changing. =20
True, that is why recourse is made to the earliest
possible dictionaries and grammars and other sources in
interpreting=20 the text.
We usually tend to keep and preserve important old texts as
is, because there is a possibility that someone in the future
might be more wise and knowning than we are today, and will be
able to reveal more information / more accurate meaning from
the preserved.
However, fetishization of a certain language (the idea that
speech in a certain language - which certainty is implemented
in physical objects - makes more sacred effect) resembles the
vulgar 'magic' (ie. when one is supposed to know / pronounce
certain magic spells to produce supposed magic effects).
Holy spirit isn't material, does not depend on a certain language.
A certain
language is a material thing. Sound vibrations and
letters on paper are material, as material are the bits
in the memory chips. Language is a communication protocol
established by an agreement of those who use it.
Languages are developing over time, news words appear,
other words become obsolete, language structures are
changing. =20
True, that is why recourse is made to the earliest
possible dictionaries and grammars and other sources in
interpreting=20 the text.
We usually tend to keep and preserve important old texts as
is, because there is a possibility that someone in the future
might be more wise and knowning than we are today, and will be
able to reveal more information / more accurate meaning from
the preserved.
However, fetishization of a certain language (the idea that
speech in a certain language - which certainty is implemented
in physical objects - makes more sacred effect) resembles the
vulgar 'magic' (ie. when one is supposed to know / pronounce
certain magic spells to produce supposed magic effects).
Muslims believe, as stated explicitly in the Qur'an that
God sent each nation a Messenger delivering the same
revelation (except for some specific differences in
some details of some commandments that he deemed apporpriate
for only a particular time and place)in the language of that
nation. For Moses and the Israelites it was in Hebrew, for
Jesus in Aramaic and so on. The Qur'an says it does not mention
all of them (Muslims give the generous figure of 124 000). The
Arabs recieved it last in Arabic and this was meant
as the final revelation for all mankind as well, one that will
not be corrupted over time.
As I said this is what Muslims happen to believe, I'm not forcing it
or advocating it.
Christianity is rather exceptional in that it does not make
recourse to a sacred text in a particular language. Rather
various sects have their own standards from various translations.
In fact, most denominations rely on the Greek LXX rather than the
Hebrew Tanakh.
On 1/12/2016 2:50 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
Muslims believe, as stated explicitly in the Qur'an that
God sent each nation a Messenger delivering the same
revelation (except for some specific differences in
some details of some commandments that he deemed apporpriate
for only a particular time and place)in the language of that
nation. For Moses and the Israelites it was in Hebrew, for
Jesus in Aramaic and so on. The Qur'an says it does not mention
all of them (Muslims give the generous figure of 124 000). The
Arabs recieved it last in Arabic and this was meant
as the final revelation for all mankind as well, one that will
not be corrupted over time.
As I said this is what Muslims happen to believe, I'm not forcing it
or advocating it.
I know that a certain amount of what you say above is based on specific Hadith (not the Qur'an itself). Could you specify the important Hadith,
and perhaps tell people where those Hadith can be found? There's quite
a bit of misunderstanding of how Islamic theology is formed among non-Muslims, so some background is helpful.
Christianity is rather exceptional in that it does not make
recourse to a sacred text in a particular language. Rather
various sects have their own standards from various translations.
In fact, most denominations rely on the Greek LXX rather than the
Hebrew Tanakh.
Not quite right. Christians recognize the Hebrew and Aramaic original
texts of the books of the Jewish Bible (what we call the Old Testament)
as the source documents, and the Koine Greek text of the New Testament
as the source documents. English speakers customarily refer to
different translations of the original texts as "versions", a bad habit
which has led some non-Christians (and probably a few uneducated
Christians) to think that these translations are considered the
equivalents of the original texts. They are not. :)
which has led some non-Christians (and probably a few uneducated
Christians) to think that these translations are considered the
equivalents of the original texts. They are not. :)
I believe there was at the least former teaching that certain translations, at least the LXX were divinely inspired. In Islam you can't claim
this after Muhammad.
On 1/12/2016 7:38 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
which has led some non-Christians (and probably a few uneducated
Christians) to think that these translations are considered the
equivalents of the original texts. They are not. :)
I believe there was at the least former teaching that certain translations, at least the LXX were divinely inspired. In Islam you can't claim
this after Muhammad.
An authorized translation isn't the same thing as the original text.
It's just a translation that was supposedly checked for accuracy and authorized by church officials or occasionally secular authorities.
(Such as the King James Version in English.) There is a saying among
certain English-speaking Christians that, "If the King James Version was
good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me," but that is a
*joke*. <G>
You're right that there aren't nearly the complexities with establishing
the text of the Qur'an that there are with the Jewish or Christian
Bible. Caliph Uthman ensured that by establishing an official text and removing a great many variant texts from circulation. The original text
is also all written in one language and was recorded within a relatively short period (less than 100 years) instead of the Bible's three
languages and much longer period of production (1700 years).
That said, the actual scholars of the Jewish Bible, Christian Bible, and Qur'an all share similar understandings of how you establish an
authoritative text, and that translations by their very nature can never
be exact. What I think Islam has done better than either Judaism or
Christianity is propagate that understanding to non-scholars in the community.
--
Catherine Jefferson <tw86034@ergosphere.net>
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:40:04 PM UTC+2, Catherine Jefferson wrote:
On 1/12/2016 7:38 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
which has led some non-Christians (and probably a few uneducated
Christians) to think that these translations are considered the
equivalents of the original texts. They are not. :)
I believe there was at the least former teaching that certain translations,
at least the LXX were divinely inspired. In Islam you can't claim
this after Muhammad.
An authorized translation isn't the same thing as the original text.
It's just a translation that was supposedly checked for accuracy and authorized by church officials or occasionally secular authorities.
(Such as the King James Version in English.) There is a saying among certain English-speaking Christians that, "If the King James Version was good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me," but that is a
*joke*. <G>
You're right that there aren't nearly the complexities with establishing the text of the Qur'an that there are with the Jewish or Christian
Bible. Caliph Uthman ensured that by establishing an official text and removing a great many variant texts from circulation. The original text
Nevertheless the variants, recorded and discovered, are not that great.
So far nothing of the equivalent of say the Gnostic Gospels has been found for the Qur'an.
is also all written in one language and was recorded within a relatively short period (less than 100 years) instead of the Bible's three
languages and much longer period of production (1700 years).
That said, the actual scholars of the Jewish Bible, Christian Bible, and Qur'an all share similar understandings of how you establish an authoritative text, and that translations by their very nature can never
Nevertheless you haven't gone into the issue of the upholding
of certain versions by certain sects, particularly until recently.
be exact. What I think Islam has done better than either Judaism or
Judaism upholds a Hebrew (on occassions Aramaic) canon, so there
should be no issue for Islam upholding an Arabic canon.
Christianity is propagate that understanding to non-scholars in the community.
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:10:04 AM UTC-8, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
=20
This has drifted off the original point I was concerned with - not
whether one does the Islamic liturgy in Arabic or English or whatever -
but how good one's Arabic must be to be considered Arabic.=20
=20
I cannot articulate an ayin. Am I unable to speak "Arabic" until I=20
learn how? Must I learn certain kinds of 'l' sounds before I can say
the shahada?
=20
I guessed before that intention matters more than precise articulation.
On 1/12/2016 7:38 AM, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
which has led some non-Christians (and probably a few uneducated
Christians) to think that these translations are considered the
equivalents of the original texts. They are not. :)
I believe there was at the least former teaching that certain translations, at least the LXX were divinely inspired. In Islam you can't claim
this after Muhammad.
An authorized translation isn't the same thing as the original text.
It's just a translation that was supposedly checked for accuracy and authorized by church officials or occasionally secular authorities.
(Such as the King James Version in English.) There is a saying among
certain English-speaking Christians that, "If the King James Version was
good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me," but that is a
*joke*. <G>
That said, the actual scholars of the Jewish Bible, Christian Bible, and Qur'an all share similar understandings of how you establish an
authoritative text, and that translations by their very nature can never
be exact. What I think Islam has done better than either Judaism or Christianity is propagate that understanding to non-scholars in the community.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 83:39:16 |
Calls: | 6,658 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,203 |
Messages: | 5,333,527 |
Posted today: | 1 |