Quran 5:32 and its reference

[Me]

President Obama alluded to Quran 5:32 in part of his speech in Cairo years =
ago:

"The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if=
he has killed all mankind."
"the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved =
all mankind." *

A translation of the full verse is follows:

"Yusuf Ali: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if=
any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief =
in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one sa=
ved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then a=
lthough there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after=
that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

This verse references a decree given to the "Children of Israel". The ques=
tion is, where in the Old Testament is this decree found? I haven't been a=
ble to reference it.


Thanks.


* http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Ca=
iro-University-6-04-09/

[Fariduddien]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:19:28 PM UTC+11, Me wrote:

> "The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as --
it is as if=
> he has killed all mankind."
>
> "the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he
has saved =
> all mankind." *

[...]

> This verse references a decree given to the "Children of
Israel". The ques=
> tion is, where in the Old Testament is this decree found? I
haven't been a=
> ble to reference it.

A very interesting question!

Apparently, a passage like this does not appear in the Bible.
However, there is a passage like this in the Talmud. (The Talmud
is a writing down of the oral law of Rabbinic Judaism.)

I found an answer on the following web page.

http://islamicperspectives.com/tafsirofsurah5_32.html

On that web page, Dr. Ahmad Shafaat writes:

(begin quote)
-----
"if any one slew a person ... it would be as if he slew the whole
humanity: and if any one saved a person, it would be as if he
saved the whole humanity".

This is part of what was ordained for the Children of Isra`il. It
is natural to ask where in the Isra`ili writings the principle
equating the killing/saving of one person with the killing/saving
the whole humanity is found. The principle is not found in the
Bible but we do find it in the Talmud, a collection of Rabbinical
legal and exegetical opinions considered by Jews almost as sacred
as the Bible itself. The tradition is found in two versions, one
is somewhat universal and the other is ethnocentric.

The universalist version, which is rather late, reads: ... For
thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it
is written: 'The bloods of your brother cry unto Me' (Genesis
4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in
the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed.
Therefore was Adam created alone, to teach us that whoever
destroys a single life, the Scriptures considers it as if he
destroyed a whole race (or world). And whoever saves a single
life, the Scriptures considers it as if he saved a whole race (or
world). (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.5)

Here we find a principle similar to the one given in the Qur`an,
although the Qur`an takes it to new heights. As in the Qur`an, so
also in the above Talmudic passage the principle is connected with
the story of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain.

The second version, which is ethnocentric is earlier. It is found
in the Babylonian Talmud:

Therefore was man created singly, to teach that whoever destroys a
single life from Isreal is considered by Scripture as if he had
destroyed an entire world and that whoever preserves a single life
from Israel is considered by Scripture as if he had preserved an
entire world.
-----
(end quote)

Here is where you can also check it from another translation of
the Sanhedrin tractate of the Talmud.

http://www.on1foot.org/text/mishna-sanhedrin-45

Here is a partial quote of the translation from there.

"Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever
destroys a single soul [of Israel], Scripture accounts it as if he
had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel,
Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world."

Hopefully that helps to answer (what I thought was) a very
interesting question.

[Me]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:55:06 AM UTC-5, Fariduddien wrote:
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:19:28 PM UTC+11, Me wrote:

>=20
>=20
>=20
> > "The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as --=20
>=20
> it is as if=3D
>=20

> > he has killed all mankind."

>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > "the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he=20
>=20
> has saved =3D
>=20
> > all mankind." *
>=20
>=20
>=20
> [...]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > This verse references a decree given to the "Children of=20
>=20
> Israel". The ques=3D
>=20
> > tion is, where in the Old Testament is this decree found? I=20
>=20
> haven't been a=3D
>=20
> > ble to reference it.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> A very interesting question!
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Apparently, a passage like this does not appear in the Bible.=20
>=20
> However, there is a passage like this in the Talmud. (The Talmud=20
>=20

> is a writing down of the oral law of Rabbinic Judaism.)

>=20
>=20
>=20

> I found an answer on the following web page.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> http://islamicperspectives.com/tafsirofsurah5_32.html
>=20
>=20
>=20

> On that web page, Dr. Ahmad Shafaat writes:

>=20
>=20
>=20
> (begin quote)
>=20
> -----
>=20
> "if any one slew a person ... it would be as if he slew the whole=20
>=20
> humanity: and if any one saved a person, it would be as if he=20
>=20

> saved the whole humanity".

>=20
>=20
>=20
> This is part of what was ordained for the Children of Isra`il. It=20
>=20
> is natural to ask where in the Isra`ili writings the principle=20
>=20
> equating the killing/saving of one person with the killing/saving=20
>=20
> the whole humanity is found. The principle is not found in the=20
>=20
> Bible but we do find it in the Talmud, a collection of Rabbinical=20
>=20
> legal and exegetical opinions considered by Jews almost as sacred=20
>=20
> as the Bible itself. The tradition is found in two versions, one=20
>=20

> is somewhat universal and the other is ethnocentric.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> The universalist version, which is rather late, reads: ... For=20
>=20
> thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it=20
>=20
> is written: 'The bloods of your brother cry unto Me' (Genesis=20
>=20
> 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in=20
>=20
> the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed.=20
>=20
> Therefore was Adam created alone, to teach us that whoever=20
>=20
> destroys a single life, the Scriptures considers it as if he=20
>=20
> destroyed a whole race (or world). And whoever saves a single=20
>=20
> life, the Scriptures considers it as if he saved a whole race (or=20
>=20
> world). (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.5)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Here we find a principle similar to the one given in the Qur`an,=20
>=20
> although the Qur`an takes it to new heights. As in the Qur`an, so=20
>=20
> also in the above Talmudic passage the principle is connected with=20
>=20

> the story of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> The second version, which is ethnocentric is earlier. It is found=20
>=20
> in the Babylonian Talmud:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Therefore was man created singly, to teach that whoever destroys a=20
>=20
> single life from Isreal is considered by Scripture as if he had=20
>=20
> destroyed an entire world and that whoever preserves a single life=20
>=20
> from Israel is considered by Scripture as if he had preserved an=20
>=20
> entire world.
>=20
> -----
>=20
> (end quote)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Here is where you can also check it from another translation of=20
>=20

> the Sanhedrin tractate of the Talmud.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> http://www.on1foot.org/text/mishna-sanhedrin-45
>=20
>=20
>=20

> Here is a partial quote of the translation from there.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever=20
>=20
> destroys a single soul [of Israel], Scripture accounts it as if he=20
>=20
> had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel,=20
>=20

> Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world."

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Hopefully that helps to answer (what I thought was) a very=20
>=20
> interesting question.

Fariduddien, if this interpretation, namely that the reference in the verse=
is in fact to that of commentary written by sages - rather than of divine =
origin as the verse indicated - is correct, then this would be very problem=
atic, for this would - to dispassionate observers - call into question the =
authenticity of this part of the Quran, would it not?

Is there another, perhaps better explanation for the reference alluded to i=
n this verse?

Thanks.

[Zev]

On Dec 15, 11:29=A0pm, Me <socreligionis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:55:06 AM UTC-5, Fariduddien wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:19:28 PM UTC+11, Me wrote:

> "...call into question the authenticity of this part of the Quran...?"

The source is Biblical, it's spelled out in the Talmud.

But it doesn't make a difference.
An idea found in both the Bible and the Quran could logically be:
copied in the Quran from the Bible,
a divine truth revealed in both,
or thought up by chance by the authors each.

It takes more than this to call authenticity
of either book into question.

[Me]

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 7:20:00 AM UTC-5, Zev wrote:
> > "...call into question the authenticity of this part of the Quran...?"
>
> The source is Biblical, it's spelled out in the Talmud.

I'm not sure I follow. It is not found in the Bible. The Talmud is not a revealed text, and as far as I'm aware, the passages in the Talmud that deal with this are not quoting the Bible or claiming this maxim to originally have divine attribution.

> But it doesn't make a difference.
>
> An idea found in both the Bible and the Quran could logically be:
>
> copied in the Quran from the Bible,
>
> a divine truth revealed in both,
>
> or thought up by chance by the authors each.

Is this in fact found in the Bible? The Old Testament does not appear to contain such a maxim.

> It takes more than this to call authenticity
>
> of either book into question.

I am indicating a problematic aspect of a part of one book. I am being very reasonable and sympathetic.

[Zev]

On Jan 6, 2:34=A0pm, Me <socreligionis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2012 7:20:00 AM UTC-5, Zev wrote:

> I'm not sure I follow. =A0It is not found in the Bible. =A0The Talmud is =
not a revealed text, and as far as I'm aware, the passages in the Talmud th=
at deal with this are not quoting the Bible or claiming this maxim to origi=
nally have divine attribution.

See Fariduddien's post for the verse in Genesis
and the discussion in Sanhedrin.
My point was only that the authenticity of
neither the Quran nor the Bible is called into question here,
as explained.

> I am indicating a problematic aspect of a part of one book. =A0I am being=
very reasonable and sympathetic.

It never crossed my mind that this might not be the case,
but for Usenet, pointing this out is exceptionally nice.
Thanks.

[Me]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:08:22 PM UTC-5, Zev wrote:
>=20
> > I'm not sure I follow. =3DA0It is not found in the Bible. =3DA0The Talm=
ud is =3D
> not a revealed text, and as far as I'm aware, the passages in the Talmud =
th=3D
> at deal with this are not quoting the Bible or claiming this maxim to ori=
gi=3D
> nally have divine attribution.
>=20

> See Fariduddien's post for the verse in Genesis
> and the discussion in Sanhedrin.
> My point was only that the authenticity of
> neither the Quran nor the Bible is called into question here,
> as explained.

Fariduddien admits "a passage like this does not appear in the Bible. Howev=

er, there is a passage like this in the Talmud."

The passage in the Talmud concerns an interpretation of the story of Cain a=
nd Abel. It indicates that Israelite judges used to admonish participants =
in criminal trials by stating the maxim "Whomever destroys a soul of Israel=
it is a though one had destroyed a whole world..."

Again no one claims this idea (the *interpretation* of the story of Cain an=
d Abel) is to be found in the Bible, but rather in the commentary and opini=
ons on the Bible by Jewish scholars and sages.

The fact that the Quran verse 5:32 references this quote as though it were =
an earlier revelation is problematic in that this part of the Quran conflat=
es the Bible (which was originally revealed) with the Talmud (which is not.=
) Which would call into question the authenticity of this part of the Qura=

n.


> > I am indicating a problematic aspect of a part of one book. I am being
> > very reasonable and sympathetic.

>=20

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 23, 12:25=A0am, Me <socreligionis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:08:22 PM UTC-5, Zev wrote:

> >=3D20
> > > I'm not sure I follow. =3D3DA0It is not found in the Bible. =3D3DA0Th=
e Talm=3D
> ud is =3D3D
> > not a revealed text, and as far as I'm aware, the passages in the Talmu=
d =3D
> th=3D3D
> > at deal with this are not quoting the Bible or claiming this maxim to o=
ri=3D
> gi=3D3D
> > nally have divine attribution.
> >=3D20

> > See Fariduddien's post for the verse in Genesis
> > and the discussion in Sanhedrin.
> > My point was only that the authenticity of
> > neither the Quran nor the Bible is called into question here,
> > as explained.
>

> Fariduddien admits "a passage like this does not appear in the Bible. How=
ev=3D

> er, there is a passage like this in the Talmud."
>

> The passage in the Talmud concerns an interpretation of the story of Cain=
a=3D
> nd Abel. =A0It indicates that Israelite judges used to admonish participa=
nts =3D
> in criminal trials by stating the maxim "Whomever destroys a soul of Isra=
el=3D
> =A0it is a though one had destroyed a whole world..."
>
> Again no one claims this idea (the *interpretation* of the story of Cain =
an=3D
> d Abel) is to be found in the Bible, but rather in the commentary and opi=
ni=3D

> ons on the Bible by Jewish scholars and sages.
>

> The fact that the Quran verse 5:32 references this quote as though it wer=
e =3D
> an earlier revelation is problematic in that this part of the Quran confl=
at=3D
> es the Bible (which was originally revealed) with the Talmud (which is no=
t.=3D
> ) =A0Which would call into question the authenticity of this part of the =
Qura=3D
> n.

what is or is not a revelation is a matter of belief. a Muslim would
say that an authentic revelation was not preserved by the Jews in
their version of the Bible but seperately and put into writing in the
Talmud.

>
> > > I am indicating a problematic aspect of a part of one book. I am bein=
g
> > > very reasonable and sympathetic.
> >=3D20

[Zev]

On Jan 24, 4:34=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 12:25=3DA0am, Me <socreligionis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:08:22 PM UTC-5, Zev wrote:

> what is or is not a revelation is a matter of belief. a Muslim would
> say that an authentic revelation was not preserved by the Jews in
> their version of the Bible but seperately and put into writing in the
> Talmud.

Such a reading seems to be more or less the same as
"calling into question the authenticity...".

BTW, I recently read a book which claims that
"furqan" in the Quran is a reference to the Hebrew "Pirkey Avot"
and "Quran" is a reference to the Hebrew "Mikrah" (OT).

I'm sure a religious Muslim won't accept this,
but I wonder if you have arguments against it.

[Zev]

On Jan 23, 7:25=A0am, Me <socreligionis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:08:22 PM UTC-5, Zev wrote:

I suppose the issue here is the meaning of Quran verse 5:32
"...prescribe to the children of Israel...".

If it includes the Talmudic *interpretation* of the story of Cain,
there's no problem, for students of the Quran who accept that
interpretations are part of the message,
of the Bible as of the Quran.

This very verse, 5:32, implies that the Bible is divine
and it seems reasonable to assume that the Quran accepts
a similar succinct style.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Jan 29, 9:19=A0am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:34=3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jan 23, 12:25=3D3DA0am, Me <socreligionis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:08:22 PM UTC-5, Zev wrote:
> > what is or is not a revelation is a matter of belief. a Muslim would
> > say that an authentic revelation was not preserved by the Jews in
> > their version of the Bible but seperately and put into writing in the
> > Talmud.
>
> Such a reading seems to be more or less the same as
> "calling into question the authenticity...".
>
> BTW, I recently read a book which claims that
> "furqan" in the Quran is a reference to the Hebrew "Pirkey Avot"
> and "Quran" is a reference to the Hebrew "Mikrah" (OT).
>
> I'm sure a religious Muslim won't accept this,
> but I wonder if you have arguments against it.

many Muslim scholars of the past have accepted that there are words in
the Qur'an of foreign origin and have discussed their etymology. after
all, what is Arabic, they correctly pointed out, is what is understood
by Arabs. they also argued that it was natural in the final revelation
to contain words found in previous revelations.

that being said, I find what you gave bogus linguistics, but just out
of curiosity I would like to know the reference.

modern Orientalists have frequently pointed out the use of those two
words in Syriac religious usage. others have pointed out that they
have Arabic parallels as well, and to what extent the Qur'an
originally used the word furqa:n close to Syriac has been debated.

[Zev]

On Jan 29, 7:15 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:19=A0am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I recently read a book which claims that
> > "furqan" in the Quran is a reference to the Hebrew "Pirkey Avot"
> > and "Quran" is a reference to the Hebrew "Mikrah" (OT).

> > I'm sure a religious Muslim won't accept this,
> > but I wonder if you have arguments against it.

> many Muslim scholars of the past have accepted that there are words in
> the Qur'an of foreign origin and have discussed their etymology. after
> all, what is Arabic, they correctly pointed out, is what is understood
> by Arabs. they also argued that it was natural in the final revelation
> to contain words found in previous revelations.

> that being said, I find what you gave bogus linguistics, but just out
> of curiosity I would like to know the reference.

Me'achrei HaQuran (from behind the Quran)
Hebrew, author Hai Bar-Zeev.
isbn 978-965-91641-0-3
You can see the entire book, in .pdf format,
in French and in Hebrew, at:
http://www.hai-bar-zeev.com/.

I don't know of an English version, in print or on-line.

> modern Orientalists have frequently pointed out the use of those two
> words in Syriac religious usage. others have pointed out that they
> have Arabic parallels as well, and to what extent the Qur'an
> originally used the word furqa:n close to Syriac has been debated.

I know the Quran says of itself that it's written in Arabic.
I'm willing to accept that this means:
The Arabic language which you speak,
including foreign borrowings.

The claims of Bar-Zeev are not orthodox
and depend on assumptions which you may not accept.
But I remember "Furqan" coming up in discussions
between you and David Kleinecke,
and I was hoping for more than
"I find what you gave bogus linguistics".

[socrelig...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:16:59 AM UTC-5, Zev wrote:
>
> I suppose the issue here is the meaning of Quran verse 5:32
> "...prescribe to the children of Israel...".
>
> If it includes the Talmudic *interpretation* of the story of Cain,
> there's no problem, for students of the Quran who accept that
> interpretations are part of the message,
> of the Bible as of the Quran.
>
> This very verse, 5:32, implies that the Bible is divine
> and it seems reasonable to assume that the Quran accepts
> a similar succinct style.

A succinct style in what sense? Could you elaborate on your point.

[socrelig...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:34:32 AM UTC-5, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> what is or is not a revelation is a matter of belief. a Muslim would
> say that an authentic revelation was not preserved by the Jews in
> their version of the Bible but seperately and put into writing in the
> Talmud.

Has any Muslim scholar ever said this? This would seem to be an innovation in interpretation of the Muslim message regarding corruption of earlier scriptures. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 6, 9:07=A0pm, socreligionis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:34:32 AM UTC-5, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > what is or is not a revelation is a matter of belief. a Muslim would
> > say that an authentic revelation was not preserved by the Jews in
> > their version of the Bible but seperately and put into writing in the
> > Talmud.
>

> Has any Muslim scholar ever said this? =A0This would seem to be an innova=
tion in interpretation of the Muslim message regarding corruption of earlie=
r scriptures. =A0Correct me if I'm wrong.

I know of no case when such a question came up, but it would be the
logical thing to say.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 6, 9:07=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 7:15 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 6, 9:07 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 7:15 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 9:19=A0am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I recently read a book which claims that
> > > "furqan" in the Quran is a reference to the Hebrew "Pirkey Avot"
> > > and "Quran" is a reference to the Hebrew "Mikrah" (OT).
> > > I'm sure a religious Muslim won't accept this,
> > > but I wonder if you have arguments against it.
> > many Muslim scholars of the past have accepted that there are words in
> > the Qur'an of foreign origin and have discussed their etymology. after
> > all, what is Arabic, they correctly pointed out, is what is understood
> > by Arabs. they also argued that it was natural in the final revelation
> > to contain words found in previous revelations.
> > that being said, I find what you gave bogus linguistics, but just out
> > of curiosity I would like to know the reference.
>
> Me'achrei HaQuran (from behind the Quran)
> Hebrew, author Hai Bar-Zeev.
> isbn 978-965-91641-0-3
> You can see the entire book, in .pdf format,
> in French and in Hebrew, at:http://www.hai-bar-zeev.com/.
>
> I don't know of an English version, in print or on-line.

I looked at the French version, but I couldn't find any discussion on
furqa:n.

at any rate, what linguistics I noticed was again untenable, like the
alledged relationship between 'iram and Gommorah which is impossible.


as for the relation betweemn qur'a:n amd miqrA' (Hebrew spelling?)
while they are both related to the root of "recitation" (if indeed
miqrA' is spelled with qoph), it does not follow that they are
specially related, and the claim that Qur'an originally referds to the
Torah

>
> > modern Orientalists have frequently pointed out the use of those two
> > words in Syriac religious usage. others have pointed out that they
> > have Arabic parallels as well, and to what extent the Qur'an
> > originally used the word furqa:n close to Syriac has been debated.
>
> I know the Quran says of itself that it's written in Arabic.
> I'm willing to accept that this means:
> The Arabic language which you speak,
> including foreign borrowings.
>
> The claims of Bar-Zeev are not orthodox
> and depend on assumptions which you may not accept.
> But I remember "Furqan" coming up in discussions
> between you and David Kleinecke,
> and I was hoping for more than
> "I find what you gave bogus linguistics".

,
phonologicall what you offered doesn't hold water, other than pirkey,
if spelled with qoph, is from a cogante root.

David Kleinecke was refering to something substantial.

that being said, you could give the Hebrew meaning and spelling
(without using Hebrew as SRI posts don't support UNICODE.

[Zev]

On Feb 8, 9:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:07 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 7:15 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.hai-bar-zeev.com/

The claim is that a mentor, perhaps a Rabbi,
told Muhammad about the Bible, calling it Mikra,
and that=92s what =93Quran=94 really means when used in the Quran.
The fact that the words are obvious cognates
is no more than a =93nice to have=94.

Mikra =3D Mem Qoph Resh Aleph

Mikra -
Middle of page 22 in the French document:
quote
Il est donc =E9vident que lorsque Mohammed parle du Livre qu=92il
nomme le Coran, il ne s=92agit pas du Coran Moushaf =91Uthman, mais de
la Torah, le Livre de Mo=EFse, qu=92il d=E9signe sous le nom de Coran. Le
mot Coran, du reste, est s=E9mantiquement proche du nom que les juifs
donnent =E0 la Torah : Mikrah .
end quote

The Furqan claim is similarly not based on etymology.

The Hebrew paperback and Hebrew pdf file both have it,
the French doesn=92t. There=92s probably a story to this.

If you want to see it in Hebrew, it=92s on pages 30-31.
There you=92ll see another expression, =93al matni=94,
explained as =93Mishnah=94, and
=93shiba al matni=94 as the seven Noahide commandments,
mentioned in the Talmud (=93Mishnah=94) but not in the Bible.

[Zev]

> A succinct style in what sense? =A0Could you elaborate on your point.

The principle is not mentioned in the Genesis 4 story.
It comes from an explanation of an additional letter,
in Hebrew as in English, which changes
singular "blood" into plural "bloods".
If we agree that the explanation is part of the Biblical message
and not an unintended addition,
we must assume that the style is succinct.

The Quran's statement, "...prescribe to the children of Israel..."
refers to this explanation as part of the Biblical message
and therefore had been prescribed to the Children of Israel.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 9:07 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 29, 7:15 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.hai-bar-zeev.com/
>
> The claim is that a mentor, perhaps a Rabbi,

he makes Waraqa b. Nawfal who was a priest. a rabbi. OTOH I am among
those who believe he was a Christian of a Judaizing variety, not
Ebionite, as some maintain (who did not believe in the Virgin Birth)
but an Elchasite (who did believe in the Virgin Birth).

> told Muhammad about the Bible, calling it Mikra,
> and that=92s what =93Quran=94 really means when used in the Quran.
> The fact that the words are obvious cognates
> is no more than a =93nice to have=94.
>
> Mikra =3D Mem Qoph Resh Aleph

yes, that would make it cognate (one should not transcribe Hebrew
words according to Israeli Hebrew when doing etymology).

>
> Mikra -
> Middle of page 22 in the French document:
> quote
> Il est donc =E9vident que lorsque Mohammed parle du Livre qu=92il
> nomme le Coran, il ne s=92agit pas du Coran Moushaf =91Uthman, mais de
> la Torah, le Livre de Mo=EFse, qu=92il d=E9signe sous le nom de Coran. Le
> mot Coran, du reste, est s=E9mantiquement proche du nom que les juifs
> donnent =E0 la Torah : Mikrah .
> end quote
>
> The Furqan claim is similarly not based on etymology.

it is based on false etymology.

>
> The Hebrew paperback and Hebrew pdf file both have it,
> the French doesn=92t. There=92s probably a story to this.
>
> If you want to see it in Hebrew, it=92s on pages 30-31.
> There you=92ll see another expression, =93al matni=94,
> explained as =93Mishnah=94, and
> =93shiba al matni=94 as the seven Noahide commandments,
> mentioned in the Talmud (=93Mishnah=94) but not in the Bible.

it should be sab`a(t) min al-matn(i) ; Arabic sin corresponds to
Hebrew shin (as well as samekh).

the final -i is a case ending and is pronounced at the end of a
sentence, nor is it written in Judeo-Arabic.

this is utterly false as matn "text, what is firm" is NOT cognate with
Mishnah "study, repetition". it's not semantically equivalent, nor is
it from cognate roots. Arabic /t/ corresponds to Hebrew and Aramaic /
t/; Arabic /*th*/ corresponds to Hebrew ./*sh*/ i.e. shin and Aramaic /
t/. Arabs were aware of the correspondence with Aramaic, but only
modern Semitic studies yielded the correspondance with Hebrew.

[DKleinecke]

On Feb 9, 11:24=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> He makes Waraqa b. Nawfal who was a priest. a rabbi. OTOH I am among

> those who believe he was a Christian of a Judaizing variety, not
> Ebionite, as some maintain (who did not believe in the Virgin Birth)
> but an Elchasite (who did believe in the Virgin Birth).

For the benefit of non-specialists you should be aware that many
writer use "Ebionite" to describe all Judaizing denominations that
considered Jesus to be a prophet and not a divine being. That would
make Elchasites a kind of Ebionites. The Elchasites had some
interesting special beliefs and may have survived to Muhammad's day -
much of this is quite speculative.

As to Waraqa bn Nawfal he was almost certainly a fictitious person so
his exact theological position is not important.

The knowledge of Christianity expressed in the Quran is surely
Ebionite (In the broad sense) but it must have been part of the
culture of Muhammad's day rather than the teaching of some one
priest. That is, there must have been an "Ebionite" community in the
Hijaz upon whose teachings the Quran is based for its references to
Christianity. I believe that this community being Elchasite would be
an important result but I do not consider that fact to be proven.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 9, 8:34 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:24=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He makes Waraqa b. Nawfal who was a priest. a rabbi. OTOH I am among

> suspicions.> those who believe he was a Christian of a Judaizing variety, not

> > Ebionite, as some maintain (who did not believe in the Virgin Birth)
> > but an Elchasite (who did believe in the Virgin Birth).
>
> For the benefit of non-specialists you should be aware that many
> writer use "Ebionite" to describe all Judaizing denominations that
> considered Jesus to be a prophet and not a divine being. That would

as well as broadly speaking observance of Jewish Law (though Jesus'
relaxing of Jewish Law is refered to).

Jewish Christians did however, believe in a supernatural angelic
Christ and Holy Ghost, leading to charges of Tritheism as in the
Elchasite Trinity described below.

> make Elchasites a kind of Ebionites. The Elchasites had some

in reality there is a distinction.

> interesting special beliefs and may have survived to Muhammad's day -
> much of this is quite speculative.
>
> As to Waraqa bn Nawfal he was almost certainly a fictitious person so
> his exact theological position is not important.

many scholars take the traditon seriously. Waraqa is used to counter
Muhammad's claim to prophethood as it implies he might have had prior
knowledge of scripture, so in a way it is against the self-interest of
Muslims to have invented him.

> culture of Muhammad's day rather than the teaching of some one
> priest. That is, there must have been an "Ebionite" community in the

if he was a priest he certainly had a community. there is no
contradiction. or if he was not a priest he ahd acquired it from the
community.

and I agree that I suspect there was a community, which is the
weightier of my suspicions.the evidence from the Qur'an to lead to the
suspicion of a community. the description of Nawfal has him "writing
the Gospel in Hebrew" i.e. Palestinian Jewish Aramaic in the square
script. Judaizing Christians ("Jewish Christians") had only one
Gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews, based on Matthew in Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic (the language of the Jerusalem Talmud). those
scholars who do not believe in the Jewish Christian beliefs of Waraqa
say this is just a motif to have the man who announces Muhammad's
prophethood know Jesus' "original" message.

> Hijaz upon whose teachings the Quran is based for its references to

the Elchasite elements in the Qur'an are the Trinity as described in
the Qur'an as consisting of God, Christ (Jesus) and Mary, which is
specifically Elchasite and the lack of reference of Christian's eating
of pork ("the food of the People of the Book is lawful") which is
Jewish Christian in general.

also the Qura'nic and Arabic word for "Christian" is derived from
"Nazarene" which remained as the self designation of the Elchasites
and is the Hebrew word for "Christian".

for these issues, except those dealing with Waraqa, see:

Nasrani (...) and hanif (...): Studies on the Religious Vocabulary of
Christianity and of Islam
Author(s): Francois de Blois
Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, Vol. 65,
No. 1 (2002), pp. 1-30
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of
Oriental and African Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145899

unfortuately the URL requires a subscription for full text, but you
may look up the reference in
a good library.

> Christianity. I believe that this community being Elchasite would being

[DKleinecke]

On Feb 10, 8:21=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:34 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Feb 9, 11:24=3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > He makes Waraqa b. Nawfal who was a priest. a rabbi. OTOH I am among

> > suspicions.> those who believe he was a Christian of a Judaizing variet=

y, not
> > > Ebionite, as some maintain (who did not believe in the Virgin Birth)
> > > but an Elchasite (who did believe in the Virgin Birth).
>
> > For the benefit of non-specialists you should be aware that many
> > writer use "Ebionite" to describe all Judaizing denominations that
> > considered Jesus to be a prophet and not a divine being. That would
>
> as well as broadly speaking observance of Jewish Law (though Jesus'
> relaxing of Jewish Law is refered to).
>
> Jewish Christians did however, believe in a supernatural angelic

> Christ and Holy =A0Ghost, leading to charges of Tritheism as in the
> Elchasite Trinity described below.
>
> > make Elchasites a kind of Ebionites. =A0The Elchasites had some

>
> in reality there is a distinction.
>
> > interesting special beliefs and may have survived to Muhammad's day -
> > much of this is quite speculative.
>
> > As to Waraqa bn Nawfal he was almost certainly a fictitious person so
> > his exact theological position is not important.
>
> many scholars take the traditon seriously. Waraqa is used to counter
> Muhammad's claim to prophethood as it implies he might have had prior
> knowledge of scripture, so in a way it is against the self-interest of
> Muslims to have invented him.
>
> > culture of Muhammad's day rather than the teaching of some one

> > priest. =A0That is, there must have been an "Ebionite" community in the

> > Christianity. =A0I believe that this community being Elchasite would be=

ing
> > an important result but I do not consider that fact to be proven.

The Ebionites - by that name - are first mentioned by Irenaios around
185 CE. They are one of several groups he accuses of disbelieving in
the divinity of Jesus. A generation earlier Justin Martyr had
acknowledged the existence of Christians who did not accept the
divinity of Jesus but did not call them heretics. A generation later
Hippolytos imagines them as a heresy started by a man named Ebion. In
fact we don't know much about these Ebionites other than that they
were monotheist. Hippolytos is the oldest writer to mention Elchasai.
He says the Elchasite religion was brought to Rome in his day (circa
225 CE). It is not clear from Hippolytos that the Elchasites were even
Christians at that time.

The primary source for Judaizing Christianity is the Clementina - two
long "novels" about how Peter brought Christianity from Judea to
Antioch. So far as I know neither the Ebionites nor the Elchasites are
mentioned in the Clementina. But Bar Daisan is borrowed from. The
whole matter is extremely complex and no consensus has been reached.
We are still in process of learning what the Manichees, who are much
better documented, really believed even though writers as important as
Augustine of Hippo wrote about them. I think it is quite unsafe to
speculate about details of Judeo-Christian theology.

The Quran, of course, speaks of the virgin birth and appears to
follow, in part, some heterodox Christian thought - but that is not
enough to conclude that it learned of them from a Christian community.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 9, 8:34=A0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 11:24=3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He makes Waraqa b. Nawfal who was a priest. a rabbi. OTOH I am among
> > those who believe he was a Christian of a Judaizing variety, not
> > Ebionite, as some maintain (who did not believe in the Virgin Birth)
> > but an Elchasite (who did believe in the Virgin Birth).
>
> For the benefit of non-specialists you should be aware that many
> writer use "Ebionite" to describe all Judaizing denominations that
> considered Jesus to be a prophet and not a divine being. That would

> make Elchasites a kind of Ebionites. =A0The Elchasites had some

> interesting special beliefs and may have survived to Muhammad's day -

Elchasites are attested in the swamps of southern Iraq (formerly part
of the Sasanid Persian Empire) by al-Nadim a 10th cent. author. also
some Sasanid texts seem to distinguish Nazoraeans / Nazarenes (by
which Elchasites or other Jewish Christians are known) and Christians.
Central Arabia was under the Persian sphere of influence through the
Arab Lakhmids. no church records exist for Central Arabia so it may
very well have had Christians outside the Orthodox Church.

> much of this is quite speculative.
>
> As to Waraqa bn Nawfal he was almost certainly a fictitious person so
> his exact theological position is not important.
>
> The knowledge of Christianity expressed in the Quran is surely
> Ebionite (In the broad sense) but it must have been part of the
> culture of Muhammad's day rather than the teaching of some one

> priest. =A0That is, there must have been an "Ebionite" community in the

> Hijaz upon whose teachings the Quran is based for its references to

> Christianity. =A0I believe that this community being Elchasite would be

[Yusuf B Gursey]

> > a giriood library.

>
> > > Christianity. =A0I believe that this community being Elchasite would be=
> ing
> > > an important result but I do not consider that fact to be proven.
>
> The Ebionites - by that name - are first mentioned by Irenaios around
> 185 CE. They are one of several groups he accuses of disbelieving in
> the divinity of Jesus. A generation earlier Justin Martyr had
> acknowledged the existence of Christians who did not accept the
> divinity of Jesus but did not call them heretics. A generation later
> Hippolytos imagines them as a heresy started by a man named Ebion. In
> fact we don't know much about these Ebionites other than that they
> were monotheist. Hippolytos is the oldest writer to mention Elchasai.
> He says the Elchasite religion was brought to Rome in his day (circa
> 225 CE). It is not clear from Hippolytos that the Elchasites were even
> Christians at that time.

F. de Blois uses those and Epiphanius, Origen and Jerome as well as al-
Nadim.

they all agree that the Elchaisites believed that God was accompanied
by two entities, male and female.

the male entity is identified with Jesus and the female with the Holy
Spirit.

the entities seem to be gigantic angels.


"Spirit" ru:H in Arabic is sometimes taken as grammatically feminine
in Semitic.

in more than one instance the female entity is identified with Mary,
as in the Trinity described in the Qur'an. another instance identifies
the female entity as Jesus' sister.

the Qur'an also feels compelled to insist that God did not have a
wife, in the context of polemics with Christianity. this is not a
polemic with Catholic Orthodox Christianity.

>
> The primary source for Judaizing Christianity is the Clementina - two
> long "novels" about how Peter brought Christianity from Judea to
> Antioch. So far as I know neither the Ebionites nor the Elchasites are
> mentioned in the Clementina. But Bar Daisan is borrowed from. The
> whole matter is extremely complex and no consensus has been reached.
> We are still in process of learning what the Manichees, who are much

Mani was originally an Elchasite before founding a new religion. I
think that is pretty well established. F. de Blois is an expert on
Manichaeism.

F. de Blois in another paper, identifies the Sabi'u:n of the Qur'an
with the Manichees. this is unlike later Muslim atitudes towards the
Manichaeans. in general, muslims were hostile to Manichaeans because
of their revolutionary activities and the good relations that the
Muslim authorities had established with the Zoroastrian clergy.

Manichaeism became the state religion of the medieval Turkic Uighur
Empire and they left documents in Old Turkic concerning it. Asiatic
Manichaeanism was closer to Buddhism than in Rome, where it paralelled
Christianity. Manichaeism also influenced the early Qing dynasty in
China.

> better documented, really believed even though writers as important as
> Augustine of Hippo wrote about them. I think it is quite unsafe to
> speculate about details of Judeo-Christian theology.
>
> The Quran, of course, speaks of the virgin birth and appears to
> follow, in part, some heterodox Christian thought - but that is not
> enough to conclude that it learned of them from a Christian community.

neither F. de Blois nor I do not claim that the Qur'an derives its
theology from Elchasitism. I am merely stating that I believe,
following de Blois, that the polemics against Christianity, and the
description of Christianity is directed mainly against the Elchasites,
who it seems were the most numerous sect in Mecca, though not the only
sect (the Qur'an also has other elements from Orthodox Christianty and
mentions that the Christians are divided).

I also add that Waraqa, a pagan in search of monotheism who became a
Christian, was probably an Elchasite. he may have been dissatisfied
with it and if one takes a secular approach to the history of Islam
may have influenced Muhammad. but they also had their own logic.

there is a recent modern polemic against Islam that the Qur'an is not
original and merely a Jewish Christian teaching, just adding Arab
nationalism to it. some go as far to say that the polytheists
mentioned in the Qur'an were Trinitarian Christians (cf. Lueling). I
certainly don't participate in or advocate this polemic.

[Zev]

On Feb 9, 9:24=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 9:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The Furqan claim is similarly not based on etymology.
>
> it is based on false etymology.

No.
The idea is that someone used the word with Muhammad,
Muhammad used the word himself,
and it was eventually written down, in Arabic letters.
We don't know exactly how any of these transmitters pronounced it.
Same for the other words and phrases.

The only arguments against it are:
1) the word is too well known
for it not to mean what it's been thought to mean,
2) some other speculation seems more reasonable,
3) it doesn't make sense in context.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 11, 2:04=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 9:24=3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 8, 9:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Furqan claim is similarly not based on etymology.
>
> > it is based on false etymology.
>
> No.

I thought you said that it is "not based on etymology" which I agreed
with but only strengthened by saying that is it false etymology.

> The idea is that someone used the word with Muhammad,
> Muhammad used the word himself,
> and it was eventually written down, in Arabic letters.
> We don't know exactly how any of these transmitters pronounced it.

Semitic languages of the 1st millenium are well known and Arabic,
including pronounciation, was studied in great detail in less than two
hundred years after the Islamic era and those who studied it took some
pains to obtain genuine antiquarian material. two hundred years is not
too great a time for linguistic memory if one is careful. an elderly
scholar of Turkish literature, coming from a family of scholars
himself, once explained to me that he knew the spoken Turkish of two
hundred years ago as he knew the spoken Turkish of his grandfather who
in turn knew the spoken Turkish of his grandfather.

variant vowelings of the Qur'an were also collected and the end result
has produced very little variation in meaning (one varaint in the
opening chapter of the Qur'an reads as "Lord of the Day of Judgement"
- found in most of the Muslim world, while the variant in North Africa
- excluding Egypt - is "King of the Day of the Judgement"). some
modern "free for all" renditions of Qur'anic phrases and words have
remained in the fringes of academia and as material for crackpots.

in addition, Semitic languages are known up to Akkadian (Old
Babylonian), which did have vowel representation, so we can say with a
high degree of certainity that the overwhelming portion of the
reported material is genuine.

we also know how sound changes in general work so we can pronounce
judgment on what is crackpot and what is not.

> Same for the other words and phrases.
>
> The only arguments against it are:

the main argument against the interpretation reported by you by me is
that it goes against how sound change works and that the origin of
furqa:n has been discussed quite a bit with straightforward agruments
based on Syriac and Arabic. now, if you want to me to say something
more give the Tiberian (not Israeli) vocalization and meanings of the
phrase in question.

[Zev]

On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2:04=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 9:24=3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 8, 9:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The Furqan claim is similarly not based on etymology.
>
> > > it is based on false etymology.
>
> > No.
>
> I thought you said that it is "not based on etymology" which I agreed
> with but only strengthened by saying that is it false etymology.

"Not based on..." means look elsewhere.
"It is based on false..." means it's wrong.
I'm surprised you equate the two.

> > The idea is that someone used the word with Muhammad,
> > Muhammad used the word himself,
> > and it was eventually written down, in Arabic letters.
> > We don't know exactly how any of these transmitters pronounced it.
>
> Semitic languages of the 1st millenium are well known and Arabic,
> including pronounciation, was studied in great detail in less than two
> hundred years after the Islamic era and those who studied it took some
> pains to obtain genuine antiquarian material. two hundred years is not
> too great a time for linguistic memory if one is careful. an elderly
> scholar of Turkish literature, coming from a family of scholars
> himself, once explained to me that he knew the spoken Turkish of two
> hundred years ago as he knew the spoken Turkish of his grandfather who
> in turn knew the spoken Turkish of his grandfather.

Irrelevant.
The native language of the Jewish Christian may have been
Greek, Latin, Persian, Aramaic or Amharic and he may have
spoken Arabic with a heavy foreign accent.
He may have spoken a different dialect of Arabic from Muhammad's.
If he had studied the OT and the Mishnah,
his language may have been full of Hebrew and Hebraisms,
and you don't which Hebrew accent it would have been.
You don't know how Muhammad would have repeated a word
containing a sound not found in the Arabic which he spoke.

BTW, the claim in the book I mentioned was that the mentor
influenced Muhammad during the Meccan period,
because the Meccan verses say nothing which Judaism rejects.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 2:04=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 9, 9:24=3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 8, 9:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The Furqan claim is similarly not based on etymology.
>
> > > > it is based on false etymology.
>
> > > No.
>
> > I thought you said that it is "not based on etymology" which I agreed
> > with but only strengthened by saying that is it false etymology.
>
> "Not based on..." means look elsewhere.
> "It is based on false..." means it's wrong.
> I'm surprised you equate the two.
>

etymology is the scientific study of the origin of words. so any
earthly mechanism to that end is within its perview. if you claim that
it is not based on etymology and yet you believe it not to be true
than it is based on theological arguments that can only settled in the
Hereafter.

now let me do a little theology as I see it. the Qur'an says that it
is in *clear* (mubi:n) Arabic, so that it may be understood by
Muhammad's audience (that it is in "pure' Arabic is a later dogma by
most). ergo, it is in natural language that is subject earthly
linguistic laws.

> > > The idea is that someone used the word with Muhammad,
> > > Muhammad used the word himself,
> > > and it was eventually written down, in Arabic letters.
> > > We don't know exactly how any of these transmitters pronounced it.
>
> > Semitic languages of the 1st millenium are well known and Arabic,
> > including pronounciation, was studied in great detail in less than two
> > hundred years after the Islamic era and those who studied it took some
> > pains to obtain genuine antiquarian material. two hundred years is not
> > too great a time for linguistic memory if one is careful. an elderly
> > scholar of Turkish literature, coming from a family of scholars
> > himself, once explained to me that he knew the spoken Turkish of two
> > hundred years ago as he knew the spoken Turkish of his grandfather who
> > in turn knew the spoken Turkish of his grandfather.
>
> Irrelevant.

it is very relevant.

> The native language of the Jewish Christian may have been
> Greek, Latin, Persian, Aramaic or Amharic and he may have

Latin was not used as a principal means of communication in the Near
East at the time. in fact, even during the Roman Empire it had to
compete with Greek, which was the language in which daily bussiness
was transacted. the Byzantine Emperor at the time, Heraclius, had just
done away with the use of Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire (which was
rapidly de facto turning into the "Byzantine Empire"). the few Latin
origin words in the Qur'an and Classical Arabic come via Greek and
Aramaic.

there are some Persianisms, as the Arabs of al-Hira in southern Iraq
(the Lakhmids) were the nominal overlords of the Central Peninsula and
the kingdom was a sattelite kingdom of the Persian Empire. Nestorian
Christianity had a strong presence there. Salman al-Farisi (Salman the
Persian) was one of the companions of Muhammad.

Amharic was simply non-existant at as a literary language at the time.
Amharic developed as the center of the Abyssinian Kingdom shifted from
Axum around present day Eritrea and the adjoining Ethiopian province
of Tigray between the 10th and 12th centuries CE. the formal language
of the Abyssinian Empire and the Ethiopian Church was Ge`ez also known
as Ethiopic (it's still the liturgical language of the Ethiopian
Church). Amharic today still exists as a first spoken language only in
the interior of Ethiopia. Amharic stands in relation to Ge`ez much the
way French stands in relation to Latin (i.e. the most divergent
Romance language and away from the original Latin heartland). Tigre
and Tigrinya (the working language of Eritrea) stand in relation to
Ge`ez as Spanish and Italian respectively to Latin. there is a
significant Ethiopic vocabulary in the Qur'an, in particular in
Christian terminology.

there is also a substantial Sabaic or other South Arabian vocabulary
in the Qur'an, not surprising since Sabaic was the language of Yemen
(see above) and had a substantial written literature. Yemen was also a
center of Judaism, Christianity and experimental local monotheism, as
well as its indegenous paganism. as inscriptions from Arabia (mostly
in the form of Arabic known as Ancient North Arabian) are few and
rather monotonous in content, Sabaic inscriptions from the South shed
much light on the cultic practices, some of Arab pagan origin.
confirmation of some of the pagan practices mentioned in the Qur'an
and Arab tradition are found in these inscriptions.

> spoken Arabic with a heavy foreign accent.
> He may have spoken a different dialect of Arabic from Muhammad's.
> If he had studied the OT and the Mishnah,
> his language may have been full of Hebrew and Hebraisms,

well, yes, there are Hebraisms / Aramaisms in the Qur'an, though some
of the Aramaisms come from Syriac (i.e. Christian sources).

> and you don't which Hebrew accent it would have been.

the Hebrew words come via Aramaic, the Hebrew "accent" of these words
is Masoretic Hebrew which has its phonology from Aramaic because that
was the spoken language of Jews in the Near East at the time.

> You don't know how Muhammad would have repeated a word
> containing a sound not found in the Arabic which he spoke.

but we do know the sound changes into Arabic from these languages and
they are quite regular.

Arabic contains a richer consonantal inventory than the other Semitic
languages around (rivaled by Sabaic, but by that time Sabaic had
ceased to be regular spoken and was used by the Arabs and Himyarites
(speaking what can either be termed a divergent dialect or a sister
language) of Yemen as a formal language (late Sabaic contains many
Arabisms). in fact it was at its death throws.

the Qur'an is not Muhammad's private notes written in his own
ideoloct, but a public document (whether in written or oral form)
designed to be understood by others.

the historical linguist and philologist have tools at their disposal
to detemine the factors you enumerated.

from the Qur'an, the Pentateuch source used Aramaic but highly
Arabized the personal names, which I find consistent with Waraqa b.
Nawfal using the Gospels in "Hebrew" (i.e. Aramaic) and trandlating
them to Arabic. as I said names in from the later books are based on
Greek (a Melkite Christian source).said, names from the later books
are based on Greek.


that being said, the fault of the source you mention is not that it
misses some subtle sound change but that it offers etymologies that
completely ignore morphology (the form of the words) and are
completely arbitrary and fail to address the mush more obvious
etymologies previously offered.

now, if you give transliteration (the SRI server does'nt support
anything more than basic ASCII) of the Tiberian form and meaning of
those Hebrew words I could tell you more. teh discussion will be more
productive then.

>
> BTW, the claim in the book I mentioned was that the mentor
> influenced Muhammad during the Meccan period,
> because the Meccan verses say nothing which Judaism rejects.
>

the Meccan verses espouse a simple, basic monotheism (without details
of law), which is indeed compatible with the theology of Judaism. but
there are very significant Christian elements. the Qur'an itself says
it is restoring the original religion of Abraham rather than what is
specific to Judaism or Christianity.

[DKleinecke]

On Feb 14, 9:31=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Feb 11, 2:04=3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > including pronounciation, was studied in great detail in less than tw=
o
> > > hundred years after the Islamic era and those who studied it took som=
e
> > > pains to obtain genuine antiquarian material. two hundred years is no=

t
> > > too great a time for linguistic memory if one is careful. an elderly
> > > scholar of Turkish literature, coming from a family of scholars
> > > himself, once explained to me that he knew the spoken Turkish of two

> > > hundred years ago as he knew the spoken Turkish of his grandfather wh=

> > > variant vowelings of the Qur'an were also collected and the end resul=

t
> > > has produced very little variation in meaning (one varaint in the
> > > opening chapter of the Qur'an reads as "Lord of the Day of Judgement"

> > > - found in most of the Muslim world, while the variant in North Afric=
a
> > > - excluding Egypt - is "King of the Day of the Judgement"). =A0some

> > > modern "free for all" renditions of Qur'anic phrases and words have
> > > remained in the fringes of academia and as material for crackpots.
>
> > > in addition, Semitic languages are known up to Akkadian (Old

> > > Babylonian), which did have vowel representation, so we can say with =

a
> > > high degree of certainity that the overwhelming portion of the
> > > reported material is genuine.
>
> > > we also know how sound changes in general work so we can pronounce
> > > judgment on what is crackpot and what is not.
>
> > > > Same for the other words and phrases.
>
> > > > The only arguments against it are:
>
> > > the main argument against the interpretation reported by you by me is
> > > that it goes against how sound change works and that the origin of
> > > furqa:n has been discussed quite a bit with straightforward agruments
> > > based on Syriac and Arabic. now, if you want to me to say something
> > > more give the Tiberian (not Israeli) vocalization and meanings of the
> > > phrase in question.
>
> > > > 1) the word is too well known
> > > > for it not to mean what it's been thought to mean,
> > > > 2) some other speculation seems more reasonable,
> > > > 3) it doesn't make sense in context.

Very good presentation. All I disagree with is the mention of Waraqa
bn Nawfal - but we have been there before.

As a rule the nativitiy legends of important people who rose from
obscurity are all fictions - from Sargon the Great until today.

[Zev]

On Feb 14, 7:31 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Feb 11, 2:04=3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On Feb 9, 9:24=3D3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> etymology is the scientific study of the origin of words. so any
> earthly mechanism to that end is within its perview. if you claim that
> it is not based on etymology and yet you believe it not to be true
> than it is based on theological arguments that can only settled in the
> Hereafter.

The author's claim I'm repeating here is that the words and phrases
I mentioned earlier, are derived from Aramaic/Hebrew
and signify concepts well known in Judaism.
It's speculation, but it's not the only one,
and I'm wondering if it's as good as the others.
So far, my curiosity has not been satisfied.

> now let me do a little theology as I see it. the Qur'an says that it
> is in *clear* (mubi:n) Arabic, so that it may be understood by

Cognate of Hebrew "muvan" (=3Dunderstood)?

> Muhammad's audience (that it is in "pure' Arabic is a later dogma by
> most). ergo, it is in natural language that is subject earthly
> linguistic laws.

Agreed.

> > The native language of the Jewish Christian may have been
> > Greek, Latin, Persian, Aramaic or Amharic and he may have
>
> Latin was not used as a principal means of communication in the Near
> East at the time. in fact, even during the Roman Empire it had to
> compete with Greek, which was the language in which daily bussiness
> was transacted. the Byzantine Emperor at the time, Heraclius, had just
> done away with the use of Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire (which was
> rapidly de facto turning into the "Byzantine Empire"). the few Latin
> origin words in the Qur'an and Classical Arabic come via Greek and
> Aramaic.

Call it Early Medieval Latin if you like.
A Jew who had lived where it was spoken
might have gone to Arabia for business reasons,
or after getting into trouble with Christians.
Same goes for Amharic.
Call it Pre-Amharic or Ge`ez if you like.

You obviously know the history of these languages better than I do
but my point is only that a Jew living in Arabia at the time
may have spoken with a heavy accent due to his own background.

Since the very existence of our Jew or Jewish Christian
is speculative, I doubt if you can rule this out.

How do you know where the mentor learned Hebrew?

> > You don't know how Muhammad would have repeated a word
> > containing a sound not found in the Arabic which he spoke.
>
> but we do know the sound changes into Arabic from these languages and
> they are quite regular.

You know the regular ones, like Hebrew "P" =3D Arabic "F".
You can't be sure how an individual is going to repeat
a strange sound from a foreign language.

> Arabic contains a richer consonantal inventory than the other Semitic
> languages around (rivaled by Sabaic, but by that time Sabaic had
> ceased to be regular spoken and was used by the Arabs and Himyarites
> (speaking what can either be termed a divergent dialect or a sister
> language) of Yemen as a formal language (late Sabaic contains many
> Arabisms). in fact it was at its death throws.
>
> the Qur'an is not Muhammad's private notes written in his own
> ideoloct, but a public document (whether in written or oral form)
> designed to be understood by others.

Today's written form may have been an attempt by scribes
of the day representing as well as they could,
Muhammad's attempt to repeat, as well as he could,
words and phrases he heard from his mentor.

> the historical linguist and philologist have tools at their disposal
> to detemine the factors you enumerated.
>
> from the Qur'an, the Pentateuch source used Aramaic but highly
> Arabized the personal names, which I find consistent with Waraqa b.
> Nawfal using the Gospels in "Hebrew" (i.e. Aramaic) and trandlating
> them to Arabic. as I said names in from the later books are based on
> Greek (a Melkite Christian source).said, names from the later books
> are based on Greek.
>
> that being said, the fault of the source you mention is not that it
> misses some subtle sound change but that it offers etymologies that
> completely ignore morphology (the form of the words) and are
> completely arbitrary and fail to address the mush more obvious
> etymologies previously offered.

Perhaps, but these words *are* difficult.
The question is which difficulty is easiest to accept.

> now, if you give transliteration (the SRI server does'nt support
> anything more than basic ASCII) of the Tiberian form and meaning of
> those Hebrew words I could tell you more. teh discussion will be more
> productive then.

If you want to see it in Hebrew, it=92s on pages 30-31 of the book.
There you=92ll see
"Furkan" may be Pirkin, Talmud,
or perhaps specifically Pirkey Avot
(Ethics of the Fathers, a tractate of the Talmud)

=93al matni=94 (=3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,

=93shiba al matni=94 the seven Noahide commandments,

mentioned in the Talmud (=93Mishnah=94) but not in the Bible.

It appears that Aramaic source is a better guess than a Hebrew one.

> > BTW, the claim in the book I mentioned was that the mentor
> > influenced Muhammad during the Meccan period,
> > because the Meccan verses say nothing which Judaism rejects.
>
> the Meccan verses espouse a simple, basic monotheism (without details
> of law), which is indeed compatible with the theology of Judaism. but
> there are very significant Christian elements. the Qur'an itself says
> it is restoring the original religion of Abraham rather than what is
> specific to Judaism or Christianity.

The author says that Muhammad's purpose was
to encourage keeping the 7 Noahide commandments.
That sounds like what the Quran says here.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 15, 6:43 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 7:31 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 11, 2:04=3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 9, 9:24=3D3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > etymology is the scientific study of the origin of words. so any
> > earthly mechanism to that end is within its perview. if you claim that
> > it is not based on etymology and yet you believe it not to be true
> > than it is based on theological arguments that can only settled in the
> > Hereafter.
>
> The author's claim I'm repeating here is that the words and phrases
> I mentioned earlier, are derived from Aramaic/Hebrew
> and signify concepts well known in Judaism.
> It's speculation, but it's not the only one,
> and I'm wondering if it's as good as the others.

I told you there are much better ones.

> So far, my curiosity has not been satisfied.
>
> > now let me do a little theology as I see it. the Qur'an says that it
> > is in *clear* (mubi:n) Arabic, so that it may be understood by
>
> Cognate of Hebrew "muvan" (=3Dunderstood)?

it's not cognate but related. they are from cogante roots. both are
participles of the IV'th form of the verb, the Arabic cognate of
Hebrew Hiph`il. the Arabic word is an active participle and the Hebrew
word a passive participle.

>
> > Muhammad's audience (that it is in "pure' Arabic is a later dogma by
> > most). ergo, it is in natural language that is subject earthly
> > linguistic laws.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > The native language of the Jewish Christian may have been
> > > Greek, Latin, Persian, Aramaic or Amharic and he may have
>
> > Latin was not used as a principal means of communication in the Near
> > East at the time. in fact, even during the Roman Empire it had to
> > compete with Greek, which was the language in which daily bussiness
> > was transacted. the Byzantine Emperor at the time, Heraclius, had just
> > done away with the use of Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire (which was
> > rapidly de facto turning into the "Byzantine Empire"). the few Latin
> > origin words in the Qur'an and Classical Arabic come via Greek and
> > Aramaic.
>
> Call it Early Medieval Latin if you like.
> A Jew who had lived where it was spoken
> might have gone to Arabia for business reasons,
> or after getting into trouble with Christians.

now you are arguing in the "everything is possible" mode. what you
have above is more a subject for a sketch for a historical novel
rather than an attempt at history. BTW why didn't your hypothetical
Jew just go to Central Europe which was out of reach of the
Christians? anyway.
there is absoluletly no evidence of direct Romance loans in Arabic for
this period. after the Arab expansion into North Africa very few words
of the extinct language of North African Romance, and those were
generally confined to the Arabic used in North Africa. one legacy in
Modern Arabic are the names of the solar months. Arabic has two sets
of names. one is based on Syriac and is used Greater Syria (Syria,
Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan) and Iraq. the other is Latin based and
used in Egypt and North Africa. the Gulf States maintain the facade of
using the Islamic calender, but for practical purposes use the Latin
based solar month names.

> Same goes for Amharic.
> Call it Pre-Amharic or Ge`ez if you like.

it's not a matter of calling it. you got the wrong language. Ge`ez
loanwords are found in the Qur'an not Amharic. Amharic hadn't
developed at that time.

>
> You obviously know the history of these languages better than I do
> but my point is only that a Jew living in Arabia at the time
> may have spoken with a heavy accent due to his own background.
>

Arabia had contact with Palestinian Jews, whose native language was
Aramaic. Yusuf Dhu Nuwas (died 525 or 530 CE), Jewish convert King of
Yemen is recorded as having contact with Jewish scholars in
Tiberias.

there is one unmistakable Jewish Aramaism associated with Muhammad.
Muhammad observed the fast of `a:*sh*u:ra:' on account of its
observance by Jews in Medina and its alledged association with Moses
and it is said that the Meccan pagans observed it as well. it falls on
the 10th of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar. it is
unmistakably Hebrew 'as^or "10th" with the Aramaic determinative -a:

the foreign accent in Arabic of anyone who was in contact with
Muhammad is completely irrelevant as Muhammad learned Arabic from his
natural parents who were Arabs! the dialect of ancient Hijaz is a
different matter, and for that too we have good information.

that being said the Qur'an does refer to an informer (denying that he
is so) of Muhammad with a foreign accent.

<<

Q 16:103: "And We know very well that'they say: Only a mortal is
teaching him. The speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous; and
this is speech Arabic, manifest {lisa:n `arabi: mubi:n)."

>>

in a tradition, he is identified as a Jew, who spoke Greek. but
orientalists believe this is an error for Aramaic. Greek influence is
felt in the proper names used for the later books of the Old
Testament.


<<

According to the renowned exegete Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 150/767):

There was a servant of 'Amir b. al-Hadram! al-Qurashl. He was a Jew,
not an Arab [or spoke bad Arabic, a`jami:]; he spoke Greek[more
likely: Aramaic],'7 and his name was Abu Fukayha Yasar. As the
Qurayshis saw the Prophet speaking with him, they said: "Indeed, he is
being taught by
Abu Fukayha Yasar."

(Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafslr al-Qur'an, 2, 487)

>>

> Since the very existence of our Jew or Jewish Christian
> is speculative, I doubt if you can rule this out.

Arabian Jews were mostly proselytes and were completely integrated
into Arab society and observed Arab tribal customs. DNA studies of
modern Yemeni Jews confirm the historical recortd that they are mostly
descended from local proselytes with only small Palestinian Jewish
admixture.

the origin of Muhammad's putative informant(s) is really that
rellevant as far as language concerned, as the Qur'an was understood,
as evidenced by the rallying of the population around it, by the Arab
pagans, Christians, Jews and those that experimented with local
monotheism. but of course, the religious vocabulary of particularly
the monotheists was influenced by the centers of monotheist learning
which surrounded pagan Arabia and the Qur'an made use of that. for
example the presence of Ethiopic (Ge`ez) loanwords in the Qur'an does
not mean that Muhammad had an Abyssinian informant, it only shows the
natural conclusion that Arabian Christians would have had contact with
Abyssinia.

knowledge of Hebrew would be passed on in the local Jewish community.
religious vocabulary in the Qur'an of Jewish origin and Muslim
tradition indicates it was Aramaic based, and thus be more or less
close to some form of Masoretic Hebrew albeit in a colloquial form.
mentor or no mentor.

>
> > > You don't know how Muhammad would have repeated a word
> > > containing a sound not found in the Arabic which he spoke.
>
> > but we do know the sound changes into Arabic from these languages and
> > they are quite regular.
>
> You know the regular ones, like Hebrew "P" =3D Arabic "F".
> You can't be sure how an individual is going to repeat
> a strange sound from a foreign language.

we have a pretty good idea what those "strange sounds" were and at
least in terms of consonants very few.

as I said, the Qur'an and Muhammad's preaching is directed at a mass
audience, it is not a conversation between two individuals or
someone's private notes.

>
> > Arabic contains a richer consonantal inventory than the other Semitic
> > languages around (rivaled by Sabaic, but by that time Sabaic had
> > ceased to be regular spoken and was used by the Arabs and Himyarites
> > (speaking what can either be termed a divergent dialect or a sister
> > language) of Yemen as a formal language (late Sabaic contains many
> > Arabisms). in fact it was at its death throws.
>
> > the Qur'an is not Muhammad's private notes written in his own
> > ideoloct, but a public document (whether in written or oral form)
> > designed to be understood by others.
>
> Today's written form may have been an attempt by scribes
> of the day representing as well as they could,
> Muhammad's attempt to repeat, as well as he could,
> words and phrases he heard from his mentor.
>

Muhammad would not be parroting bad Arabic. the sound changes in
question from the languages concerned into Arabic are well known and
the loanwords in the Qur'an are explicable in terms of that. you can't
make a case by saying "everything is possible".

furthermore, as I said, what you are talking about are from a text,
oral or written, intended for a mass audience at must be understood in
this context. now, the Qur'an and the new religion may have given new
significance to already existing religious vocabulary. for example,
Jesus is called al-masi:H, but that does not imply that Islam accepted
the orthodox Christian notion of "Christ" or the Jewish notion of the
Messiah.

> > the historical linguist and philologist have tools at their disposal
> > to detemine the factors you enumerated.
>
> > from the Qur'an, the Pentateuch source used Aramaic but highly
> > Arabized the personal names, which I find consistent with Waraqa b.
> > Nawfal using the Gospels in "Hebrew" (i.e. Aramaic) and trandlating
> > them to Arabic. as I said names in from the later books are based on
> > Greek (a Melkite Christian source).said, names from the later books
> > are based on Greek.
>
> > that being said, the fault of the source you mention is not that it
> > misses some subtle sound change but that it offers etymologies that
> > completely ignore morphology (the form of the words) and are
> > completely arbitrary and fail to address the mush more obvious
> > etymologies previously offered.
>
> Perhaps, but these words *are* difficult.

there is nothing diffucult in the word qur'a:n which is an Arabic
verbal noun form of the verb "to recite, to read". it is just an
intellectual curiousity that it resembles a cognate Syriac word in
Christian religious terminology. it just shows possible Syrian (or for
that matter Mesopotamian) contacts of Christian Arabs of the
Peninusula, which is natural and the unsurprising result that the
Qur'an includes them inits audience. it does not neccassrily mean that
Muhammad had a mentor whose native language was some form of Aramaic.

> The question is which difficulty is easiest to accept.

well, the difficulties caused by the etymologies you refer to are a
whopper.

>
> > now, if you give transliteration (the SRI server does'nt support
> > anything more than basic ASCII) of the Tiberian form and meaning of
> > those Hebrew words I could tell you more. teh discussion will be more
> > productive then.
>
> If you want to see it in Hebrew, it=92s on pages 30-31 of the book.

rather than have me go line by line not exactly sure what to look for,
why don't you give it yourself.

> There you=92ll see
> "Furkan" may be Pirkin, Talmud,

well, that's a little closer, but it's still not purqa:na: (-a: is the
determinative), and "Talmud" does not make sense in the Qur'anic
passages in question.

why don't you use <q> to represent Arabic Qaf and Hebrew Qoph? before
you say "How do we know how they were pronounced in Hebrew?" let me
tell you that in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew names Khi is used for
Kaf and Kappa for Qoph.

> or perhaps specifically Pirkey Avot
> (Ethics of the Fathers, a tractate of the Talmud)

now, a translation does clarify.

this is not even close. neither meaning nor morphology (structure)
fit. completely arbitrary.

>
> =93al matni=94 (=3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,
>
> =93shiba al matni=94 the seven Noahide commandments,

it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)

"seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
unrelated to "Mishnah".

this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.

frankly, I have not heard this phrase before. there is a mention in
the Qur'an that it was revealed in "seven 'aHruf" (Harf, pl. 'aHruf
could mean letters or dialect). this came to be taken as seven
different traditions of recitation (they are minor variants of
voweling the consonantal text) or variants found in non-canonical
codices. perhaps the above phrase is a gloss on that. it is not one of
the generally known of the "seven" phrases, which I looked up, so you
will have to tell me the reference from which your source got it.

"seven" is a common Near Eastern motif, and the same is true for the
Qur'an and Islamic tradition, but I fail to find this in discussions
of the "seven motif" either.

I assume the author has a reference for it. if so, tell me and perhaps
I could tell you more when I see the context.

> mentioned in the Talmud (=93Mishnah=94) but not in the Bible.
>
> It appears that Aramaic source is a better guess than a Hebrew one.

while it is true that the root fom which "Mishnah" is derived (from
"two") has /t/. in Aramaic (and *th* in Arabic), matn is just a noun
meaning "text", derived from "what is firm". Aramaic for mishnah is
matnita:, but it seems that the Mishnah was not noramally refered to
with that.

matn is from a different root.

>
> > > BTW, the claim in the book I mentioned was that the mentor
> > > influenced Muhammad during the Meccan period,
> > > because the Meccan verses say nothing which Judaism rejects.
>
> > the Meccan verses espouse a simple, basic monotheism (without details
> > of law), which is indeed compatible with the theology of Judaism. but
> > there are very significant Christian elements. the Qur'an itself says
> > it is restoring the original religion of Abraham rather than what is
> > specific to Judaism or Christianity.
>
> The author says that Muhammad's purpose was
> to encourage keeping the 7 Noahide commandments.
> That sounds like what the Quran says here.

as I said the Qur'an does not have this phrase.

while it is very tenable to argue that Islam is consistent with
keeping the Noahide commandants, there is nothing explicit in the
Qur'an or Islamic that this was Muhammad's original mission. however,
there is much mention of keeping the religion of Abraham and this is
universally known.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Feb 9, 2:24=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 9:06 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 9:07 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 29, 7:15 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.hai-bar-zeev.com/
>
> > The claim is that a mentor, perhaps a Rabbi,
>
> he makes Waraqa b. Nawfal who was a priest. a rabbi. OTOH I am among
> those who believe he was a Christian of a Judaizing variety, not
> Ebionite, as some maintain (who did not believe in the Virgin Birth)
> but an Elchasite (who did believe in the Virgin Birth).

interestingly, according to tradition,Waraqa b. Nawfal is said to have
adopted Judaism before adopting Christianity. he is also said tohave
gone Syria which influenced him religiously

[Zev]

On 19 =D7=A4=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=95=D7=90=D7=A8, 13:57, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@=

gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 6:43 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 7:31 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Feb 11, 2:04=3D3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> now you are arguing in the "everything is possible" mode. what you
> have above is more a subject for a sketch for a historical novel
> rather than an attempt at history. BTW why didn't your hypothetical
> Jew just go to Central Europe which was out of reach of the
> Christians? anyway.

Good question.
But there's little to be gained by adding a guess
to an existing speculation.

> ...The Gulf States maintain the facade of

> using the Islamic calender, but for practical purposes use the Latin
> based solar month names.

Similar in Israel.
Official documents have both Jewish calendar
and modern Western dates.

> > Same goes for Amharic.
> > Call it Pre-Amharic or Ge`ez if you like.
>
> it's not a matter of calling it. you got the wrong language. Ge`ez
> loanwords are found in the Qur'an not Amharic. Amharic hadn't
> developed at that time.

I can see how my mistake annoys you,
but my only point was that Jews from various places
spoke any one of several languages natively.

> there is one unmistakable Jewish Aramaism associated with Muhammad.
> Muhammad observed the fast of `a:*sh*u:ra:' on account of its
> observance by Jews in Medina and its alledged association with Moses
> and it is said that the Meccan pagans observed it as well. it falls on
> the 10th of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar. it is
> unmistakably Hebrew 'as^or "10th" with the Aramaic determinative -a:

Interesting.
Sounds like the fast of Yom Kippur, on the 10th of Tishrei.
The first day of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah (New Year's day)
so the month is the beginning of the year.
This doesn't prevent it from being
considered the *seventh* month.
Don't ask me to make sense out of it :-(

> the foreign accent in Arabic of anyone who was in contact with
> Muhammad is completely irrelevant as Muhammad learned Arabic from his
> natural parents who were Arabs! the dialect of ancient Hijaz is a
> different matter, and for that too we have good information.
>
> that being said the Qur'an does refer to an informer (denying that he
> is so) of Muhammad with a foreign accent.

Very likely, this is the source of my author's idea.

> Arabian Jews were mostly proselytes and were completely integrated
> into Arab society and observed Arab tribal customs. DNA studies of
> modern Yemeni Jews confirm the historical recortd that they are mostly
> descended from local proselytes with only small Palestinian Jewish
> admixture.

Jewish tradition has Yemenite Jews as descendants of the exile
at the time of the destruction of the First Temple.
But it makes sense that a trickle, into and out of the group,
would make big changes in group DNA over time.

> ...the presence of Ethiopic (Ge`ez) loanwords in the Qur'an does

> not mean that Muhammad had an Abyssinian informant, it only shows the
> natural conclusion that Arabian Christians would have had contact with
> Abyssinia.

Makes sense, and I don't remember
my author taking this into account.

> > Perhaps, but these words *are* difficult.
>
> there is nothing diffucult in the word qur'a:n which is an Arabic
> verbal noun form of the verb "to recite, to read".

The difficulty is in the fact that the Quran
didn't exist as a written book at the time.
The Miqrah (Tanach) did.

> > The question is which difficulty is easiest to accept.
>
> well, the difficulties caused by the etymologies you refer to are a
> whopper.

I refer to no etymologies.
I refer to words in Hebrew/Aramaic which a mentor
may have use to express Jewish concepts
which later appeared in the Quran.

I admit that some are quite artificial.
For instance, I know of no reference to the Talmud as "Pirqin"
The word means "chapters" and is non-descriptive.
It might make sense as a reference to "Pirqei Abot"
(Ethics of the Fathers), one of the tractates of of the Talmud.

> why don't you use <q> to represent Arabic Qaf and Hebrew Qoph? before
> you say "How do we know how they were pronounced in Hebrew?" let me
> tell you that in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew names Khi is used for
> Kaf and Kappa for Qoph.

I usually don't pay much attention to this,
but, again, I can see why this is annoying.

> > =3D93al matni=3D94 (=3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,
>
> > =3D93shiba al matni=3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,

>
> it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)
>
> "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.

Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
[15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 19 =D7=A4=D7=91=D7=A8=D7=95=D7=90=D7=A8, 13:57, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@=
>
> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 6:43 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 14, 7:31 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 11, 2:04=3D3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > now you are arguing in the "everything is possible" mode. what you
> > have above is more a subject for a sketch for a historical novel
> > rather than an attempt at history. BTW why didn't your hypothetical
> > Jew just go to Central Europe which was out of reach of the
> > Christians? anyway.
>
> Good question.
> But there's little to be gained by adding a guess
> to an existing speculation.

it goes to show that it is not the simplest explanation and is very
unlikely. remember Occam's Razor: in the absence of evidence, the
simplest explanation for a phenomenon stands.

>
> > ...The Gulf States maintain the facade of
> > using the Islamic calender, but for practical purposes use the Latin
> > based solar month names.
>
> Similar in Israel.
> Official documents have both Jewish calendar
> and modern Western dates.

in Saudi Arabia there are three systems. official is the Islamic
calendar, with the beginings of months determined by direct sighting
of the crescent. then there is the fiscal solar calendar, with months
determined by the zodiac and bearing their names. then there is the
Common Era calendar for communicating with the rest of the world.

>
> > > Same goes for Amharic.
> > > Call it Pre-Amharic or Ge`ez if you like.
>
> > it's not a matter of calling it. you got the wrong language. Ge`ez
> > loanwords are found in the Qur'an not Amharic. Amharic hadn't
> > developed at that time.
>
> I can see how my mistake annoys you,
> but my only point was that Jews from various places
> spoke any one of several languages natively.

the foreign informant seems to have spoken Aramaic.

one man is irrelevant, what languages Arabian Christianity and Judaism
borrowed is much more relevant, and we can tell from the Qur'an what
these languages are.

>
> > there is one unmistakable Jewish Aramaism associated with Muhammad.
> > Muhammad observed the fast of `a:*sh*u:ra:' on account of its
> > observance by Jews in Medina and its alledged association with Moses
> > and it is said that the Meccan pagans observed it as well. it falls on
> > the 10th of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar. it is
> > unmistakably Hebrew 'as^or "10th" with the Aramaic determinative -a:
>
> Interesting.
> Sounds like the fast of Yom Kippur, on the 10th of Tishrei.
> The first day of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah (New Year's day)
> so the month is the beginning of the year.
> This doesn't prevent it from being
> considered the *seventh* month.

where does the *seventh* month enter in? oh, you mean the seventh
month starting from Nissan? yes, at first the Hebrews began their
calendar in Nissan (April) then changed. the OT mentions both systems.

BTW apparently a tradition does in fact say that the Medinian Jews
used Aramaic.

> Don't ask me to make sense out of it :-(
>
> > the foreign accent in Arabic of anyone who was in contact with
> > Muhammad is completely irrelevant as Muhammad learned Arabic from his
> > natural parents who were Arabs! the dialect of ancient Hijaz is a
> > different matter, and for that too we have good information.
>
> > that being said the Qur'an does refer to an informer (denying that he
> > is so) of Muhammad with a foreign accent.
>
> Very likely, this is the source of my author's idea.
>

he was not so much a "mentor" as an informant on OT traditions,

does the author you refer to talk specifically about one with a
foreign accent?

> > Arabian Jews were mostly proselytes and were completely integrated
> > into Arab society and observed Arab tribal customs. DNA studies of
> > modern Yemeni Jews confirm the historical recortd that they are mostly
> > descended from local proselytes with only small Palestinian Jewish
> > admixture.
>
> Jewish tradition has Yemenite Jews as descendants of the exile
> at the time of the destruction of the First Temple.
> But it makes sense that a trickle, into and out of the group,
> would make big changes in group DNA over time.

the DNA evidence matches the archaeological and historical record.
evidence of Jews in Yemen goes to the 1st cent. CE in an inscription
about the construction of a synagouge. but Jewish inscriptions do not
become numerous until the end of the 4th cent. when the Himyartites of
Yemen adopted Judaism. this is an undisputed fact.

>
> > ...the presence of Ethiopic (Ge`ez) loanwords in the Qur'an does
> > not mean that Muhammad had an Abyssinian informant, it only shows the
> > natural conclusion that Arabian Christians would have had contact with
> > Abyssinia.
>
> Makes sense, and I don't remember
> my author taking this into account.

that's one of the weaknesses of his argument. also etymology doesn't
determine meaning, usage does. for example, English speakers don't
think their offsprings are young goats when they call them "kids"

>
> > > Perhaps, but these words *are* difficult.
>
> > there is nothing diffucult in the word qur'a:n which is an Arabic
> > verbal noun form of the verb "to recite, to read".
>
> The difficulty is in the fact that the Quran
> didn't exist as a written book at the time.
> The Miqrah (Tanach) did.

qur'a:n as a verbal noun could refer to reciting any text whether
written or oral.

besides, there was an attemot to collect the verses in Muhammad's
time. the reason it was not set as a complete book was that as long as
Muhammad was alive, new revelations could still come.

>
> > > The question is which difficulty is easiest to accept.
>
> > well, the difficulties caused by the etymologies you refer to are a
> > whopper.
>
> I refer to no etymologies.

if you are referring to the evolution of the meaning or sound of
words, then you are dealing with etymology.

> I refer to words in Hebrew/Aramaic which a mentor
> may have use to express Jewish concepts
> which later appeared in the Quran.
>
> I admit that some are quite artificial.
> For instance, I know of no reference to the Talmud as "Pirqin"
> The word means "chapters" and is non-descriptive.
> It might make sense as a reference to "Pirqei Abot"
> (Ethics of the Fathers), one of the tractates of of the Talmud.

again, all of these are phonetically and semantically very distant
from furqa:n

>
> > why don't you use <q> to represent Arabic Qaf and Hebrew Qoph? before
> > you say "How do we know how they were pronounced in Hebrew?" let me
> > tell you that in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew names Khi is used for
> > Kaf and Kappa for Qoph.
>
> I usually don't pay much attention to this,
> but, again, I can see why this is annoying.

that's because you are used to the Israeli Hebrew recitation. but when
doing etymological work you must give the historic pronounciation, at
least as far as the script shows.

>
> > > =3D93al matni=3D94 (=3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,
>
> > > =3D93shiba al matni=3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,
>
> > it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)
>
> > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.

it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
"matn" does not occur in it.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

I tried to post something similar yesterday, but it seems Google
Groups is having problems and it did not appear. don't be suprised if
my first version appears in the future.

On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>

>
>



>
>
>
>
>

> > > > =3D93al matni=3D94 (=3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,
>
> > > > =3D93shiba al matni=3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,
>
> > > it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)

sab`a(tun) min al-matn(i)

>
> > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> "matn" does not occur in it.

OK. I figured out what is going on!


the expression in question is

sab`an mina~l-ma*th*a:ni:

using 3 for `ayn (Hebrew `Ayin) and A for alif (Aleph) the consonantal
skeleton is:

sb3A mn Al-m*th*Any

the author's (Bar Zeev) Hebrew rendition is: *sh*b3h mn Al-mtny (he
substituted Hebrew etymological /*sh*/ for Arabic /s/).

now, the accusative ending -an is written with alif because an older
rule of pause (when it comes at the end of a clause or sentence) is
reading it -a: (this is still done in Oman). the author mistakenly
renders it with Hebrew He as if it were a feminine ending (and because
final -a: in Hebrew is rendered with He). however, this is incorrect
Judeo-Arabic practice. now Arabic *th* is rendered with Hebrew taw.
this is problematic since in Arabic it changes the meaning of the word
if you substitute /*th*/ with /t/. in linguistic terms /t/ and /*th*/
are seperate phonemes in Arabic. in Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic OTOH
the phoneme /t/ (represented by taw) can be pronounced either as [t]
or [*th*] depending on its position in the word. in linguistic terms
[t] and [*th*] are allophones of the phoneme /t/. failure to observe
these rules of pronounciation may make you sound foreign, but in
general, you will be understood. in Judeo-Arabic /*th*/ is usually
represented by taw with a dot on top, or as in the current Israeli
guidelines, with taw followed by an apostrophe like symbol (name?).
Bar Zeev, the author of the book you refer to ignores these essential
devices. now, in Arabic long vowels are regularly indicated (only a
handful of exceptions where the alif representing /a:/ is ommitted).
but the author follows Hebrew practice but not indicating medial a:.
again, this is not Judeo-Arabic practice nor the Israeli guidelines
for transliterating Arabic. now, in this case, the final -i: is a long
vowel and it is NOT a case ending, so it is written with <y> and the
author correctly transliterates it so. it should be remarked that Bar
Zeev does not entirely follow a phonetic *transcription* but contains
elements of transliteration, since the alif of teh definite article
does not represent a consonant (gottal stop, which Masoretic Hebrew
aleph represents) when not sentence intial.

as a result of the author's numerous misrepresentations and by an
extraordinary coincidence, the author succeeds in transcribing a
perfectly good Arabic phrase (and with the correct case ending!), but
not what he intended!

now, ma*th*a:ni: means things (plural) that are repeated or
reiterated. it is in fact from the same cognate root as Hebrew
Mishnah, Aramaic matnita [ma*th*ni:*th*a:].

th singular is ma*th*na(n) (masc., it is spelled with final <y>
because an archaic pronounciation is with -e: or -ai ; ignore the
point of Arabic grammar of the n in paranthesis) or ma*th*na:(t)
(fem.).

now by some coincidence ma*th*na:(t) is also Arabic for Mishnah. it
must have been coined by some very Aramaic savy Arab Jews, since it is
the correct cognate.

but the Qur'anic verse couldn't refer to the Mishnah, as the word used
is plural.

incidentally, I noticed that the French name of the book, "Une lecture
juive du Coran" is a take on the "Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran".

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 18, 6:20=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =A0On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>


>
>
>
>
>
> > > > =3D3D93al matni=3D3D94 (=3D3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic=
,
>
> > > > =3D3D93shiba al matni=3D3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,
>
> > > =A0it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)

>
> > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> "matn" does not occur in it.

oh, I see what is going on. the verse says: sab`an mina~l-ma*th*a:ni:

that's a whole different ballgame.

in Standard / Classical Arabic (and modern colloquials which preseve
interdentals) /t/ and /*th*/ are sepearate phonemes, that is
interchanging them produces an entirely new word. in Aramaic and
Masoretic Hebrew the sounds [t] and [*th*] are allophones of the
single phoneme /t/, meaning pronouncing it as [t] or [*th*] depends on
the position of the single phoneme /t/ within the owrd. interchanging
the sounds will make you sound like a foreigner but will not change
the meaning of the word, and basically you will be understood (sorry
to proffessionals for the pedagogic presentation).

now the proper way to transliterate the consonantal skeleton is (with
3 standing for ayn and A for alif) is

sb3A mn Al-m*th*Any

alif represents -an in the first word because that is an accusative
ending and the accusative used to be (and in Oman still does) [a:]
when in pause (in pause in a clause or at the end of the sentence). it
is NOT the feminine ending and thus should not have been
transliterated with Hebrew he. as for *th* it should have been
rerpesented with taw with a dot on top of it (as in Judeo-Arabic) or
taw with a small apostrophe like mark (what's its name in Hebrew?)
folllowing it (standard Israeli transliteration of Arabic). the aleph
between <*th*> and <n> should have been written plene, as is the
practice in Judeo-Arabic and Israeli transliteration rather than the
Hebraizing defective (not writing it out) spelling in order to avoid
the misreadings that you made.
now, writing out the final -i: with <y> IS correct, since this is a
long vowel and part of the word, and not a short vowel case ending
(which I mistook it to be). it's just bad luck that sab`a(t) mina~l-
matn(i) (with the correct case ending!) makes sense as well, but it
turns out that this is not what is meant. (the author also substituted
etymological shin for Arabic sin).

now ma*th*a:ni(n) (well, it's a complicated matter of Classical Arabic
grammer about the <n> in paranthesis) is plural of ma*th*na(n)
(written <m*th*ny> because the archaic pronounciation in pause was
with final -e: or ai) or its feminine ma*th*na:(t) which means
something that is repeated or reiterated, and is indeed cognate with
Mishna. now ma*th*na:(t) is also Arabic for Mishna (see Lane under
*th*ny). probably the cognate was aduced and coined through Aramaic
matni:ta: [ma*th*ni:*th*a:] (it can't be a proper cognate because the
Mishna did not exist when Hebrew and Arabic seperated!).

the argument against the Qur'an refering to the Mishna is that the
word is in the plural (which the authors covers up by ommitting the
aleph in his transcription). so it must be a common noun refering here
to verses that are oft repeated (with various exegetical
explanations).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

I tried to post something similar yesterday, but it seems Google Groups is
having problems and it did not appear. don't be suprised if my first
version appears in the future.

On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>

>
>



>
>
>
>
>

> > > > =3D93al matni=3D94 (=3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,
>
> > > > =3D93shiba al matni=3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,
>
> > > it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)

sab`a(tun) min al-matn(i)

>
> > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> "matn" does not occur in it.

OK. I figured out what is going on!


the expression in question is

sab`an mina~l-ma*th*a:ni:

using 3 for `ayn (Hebrew `Ayin) and A for alif (Aleph) the consonantal
skeleton is:

sb3A mn Al-m*th*Any

the author's Hebrew rendition is: *sh*b3h mn Al-mtny (he substituted

Hebrew etymological /*sh*/ for Arabic /s/).

now, the accusative ending -an is written with alif because an older rule
of pause (when it comes at the end of a clause or sentence) is reading it
-a: (this is still done in Oman). the author mistakenly renders it with
Hebrew He as if it were a feminine ending (and because final -a: in Hebrew
is rendered with He). however, this is incorrect Judeo-Arabic practice.
now Arabic *th* is rendered with Hebrew taw. this is problematic since in
Arabic it changes the meaning of the word if you substitute /*th*/ with
/t/. in linguistic terms /t/ and /*th*/ are seperate phonemes in Arabic.
in Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic OTOH the phoneme /t/ (represented by taw)
can be pronounced either as [t] or [*th*] depending on its position in the
word. in linguistic terms [t] and [*th*] are allophones of the phoneme
/t/. failure to observe these rules of pronounciation may make you sound
foreign, but in general, you will be understood. in Judeo-Arabic /*th*/ is
usually represented by taw with a dot on top, or as in the current Israeli

guidelines, with taw followed by an apostrophe like symbol (name?). the
author of the book you refer to (his name?) ignores these essential

devices. now, in Arabic long vowels are regularly indicated (only a
handful of exceptions where the alif representing /a:/ is ommitted). but
the author follows Hebrew practice but not indicating medial a:. again,
this is not Judeo-Arabic practice nor the Israeli guidelines for
transliterating Arabic. now, in this case, the final -i: is a long vowel
and it is NOT a case ending, so it is written with <y> and the author
correctly transliterates it so.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

I tried to post something similar yesterday, but it seems Google
Groups is having problems and it did not appear. don't be suprised if
my first version appears in the future.

On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>

>
>



>
>
>
>
>

> > > > =3D93al matni=3D94 (=3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,
>
> > > > =3D93shiba al matni=3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,
>
> > > it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)

sab`a(tun) min al-matn(i)

>
> > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> "matn" does not occur in it.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 22, 4:40=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

this was the final version!

> I tried to post something similar yesterday, but it seems Google
> Groups is having problems and it did not appear. don't be suprised if
> my first version appears in the future.
>
> On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > =A0On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > =3D3D93al matni=3D3D94 (=3D3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Arama=
ic ,

>
> > > > > =3D3D93shiba al matni=3D3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,
>

> > > > =A0it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)
>
> =A0sab`a(tun) min al-matn(i)

>
>
>
> > > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> > it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> > "matn" does not occur in it.
>
> OK. I figured out what is going on!
>
> the expression in question is
>

> =A0sab`an mina~l-ma*th*a:ni:

>
> using 3 for `ayn (Hebrew `Ayin) and A for alif (Aleph) the consonantal
> skeleton is:
>

> =A0sb3A mn Al-m*th*Any

[Yusuf B Gursey]

I tried to post something similar yesterday, but it seems Google
Groups is having problems and it did not appear. don't be suprised if
my first version appears in the future.

On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>

>
>



>
>
>
>
>

> > > > =3D93al matni=3D94 (=3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic ,
>
> > > > =3D93shiba al matni=3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,
>
> > > it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)

sab`a(tun) min al-matn(i)

>
> > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> "matn" does not occur in it.

OK. I figured out what is going on!


the expression in question is

sab`an mina~l-ma*th*a:ni:

using 3 for `ayn (Hebrew `Ayin) and A for alif (Aleph) the consonantal
skeleton is:

sb3A mn Al-m*th*Any

the author's Hebrew rendition is: *sh*b3h mn Al-mtny (he substituted

Hebrew etymological /*sh*/ for Arabic /s/).

now, the accusative ending -an is written with alif because an older
rule of pause (when it comes at the end of a clause or sentence) is
reading it -a: (this is still done in Oman). the author mistakenly
renders it with Hebrew He as if it were a feminine ending (and because
final -a: in Hebrew is rendered with He). however, this is incorrect
Judeo-Arabic practice. now Arabic *th* is rendered with Hebrew taw.
this is problematic since in Arabic it changes the meaning of the word
if you substitute /*th*/ with /t/. in linguistic terms /t/ and /*th*/
are seperate phonemes in Arabic. in Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic OTOH
the phoneme /t/ (represented by taw) can be pronounced either as [t]
or [*th*] depending on its position in the word. in linguistic terms
[t] and [*th*] are allophones of the phoneme /t/. failure to observe
these rules of pronounciation may make you sound foreign, but in
general, you will be understood. in Judeo-Arabic /*th*/ is usually
represented by taw with a dot on top, or as in the current Israeli
guidelines, with taw followed by an apostrophe like symbol (name?).

the author of the book you refer to (his name?) ignores these

essential devices. now, in Arabic long vowels are regularly indicated
(only a handful of exceptions where the alif representing /a:/ is
ommitted). but the author follows Hebrew practice but not indicating
medial a:. again, this is not Judeo-Arabic practice nor the Israeli
guidelines for transliterating Arabic. now, in this case, the final -
i: is a long vowel and it is NOT a case ending, so it is written with
<y> and the author correctly transliterates it so.

[Zev]

On 18 =D7=9E=D7=A8=D7=A5, 12:20, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On 19 =3DD7=3DA4=3DD7=3D91=3DD7=3DA8=3DD7=3D95=3DD7=3D90=3DD7=3DA8, 13:=
57, Yusuf B Gursey
> > <ygur...@=3D

> > gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 6:43 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 14, 7:31 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> it goes to show that it is not the simplest explanation and is very
> unlikely. remember Occam's Razor: in the absence of evidence, the
> simplest explanation for a phenomenon stands.

Accepted.
But it's difficult to argue against a
"somebody came for some reason, and stayed", speculation.

> in Saudi Arabia there are three systems. official is the Islamic

> calendar, with the beginnings of months determined by direct sighting

> of the crescent. then there is the fiscal solar calendar, with months
> determined by the zodiac and bearing their names. then there is the
> Common Era calendar for communicating with the rest of the world.

This sort of thing, particularly "direct sighting",
makes comparing old dates from different parts of the world
a difficult business.

> > Sounds like the fast of Yom Kippur, on the 10th of Tishrei.
> > The first day of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah (New Year's day)
> > so the month is the beginning of the year.
> > This doesn't prevent it from being
> > considered the *seventh* month.
>
> where does the *seventh* month enter in? oh, you mean the seventh
> month starting from Nissan? yes, at first the Hebrews began their
> calendar in Nissan (April) then changed. the OT mentions both systems.

Exodus 12:2, referring to the month of the Passover says:
This month shall be the beginning of months for you
it is to be the first month of the year to you.

I don't remember any OT reference to
1 Tishrei as New Year's day or to Tishrei as month 1.

> BTW apparently a tradition does in fact say that the Medinian Jews
> used Aramaic.

> > > that being said the Qur'an does refer to an informer (denying that he
> > > is so) of Muhammad with a foreign accent.
>
> > Very likely, this is the source of my author's idea.
>
> he was not so much a "mentor" as an informant on OT traditions,
>
> does the author you refer to talk specifically about one with a
> foreign accent?

Yes, from Muslim sources.

> > > Arabian Jews were mostly proselytes and were completely integrated
> > > into Arab society and observed Arab tribal customs. DNA studies of

> > > modern Yemeni Jews confirm the historical recortd that they are mostl=

y
> > > descended from local proselytes with only small Palestinian Jewish
> > > admixture.
>
> > Jewish tradition has Yemenite Jews as descendants of the exile
> > at the time of the destruction of the First Temple.
> > But it makes sense that a trickle, into and out of the group,
> > would make big changes in group DNA over time.
>
> the DNA evidence matches the archaeological and historical record.
> evidence of Jews in Yemen goes to the 1st cent. CE in an inscription

> about the construction of a synagogue. but Jewish inscriptions do not

> become numerous until the end of the 4th cent. when the Himyartites of
> Yemen adopted Judaism. this is an undisputed fact.
>
>
>
> > > ...the presence of Ethiopic (Ge`ez) loanwords in the Qur'an does
> > > not mean that Muhammad had an Abyssinian informant, it only shows the

> > > natural conclusion that Arabian Christians would have had contact wit=

h
> > > Abyssinia.
>
> > Makes sense, and I don't remember
> > my author taking this into account.
>
> that's one of the weaknesses of his argument. also etymology doesn't
> determine meaning, usage does. for example, English speakers don't
> think their offsprings are young goats when they call them "kids"
>
>
>
> > > > Perhaps, but these words *are* difficult.
>
> > > there is nothing diffucult in the word qur'a:n which is an Arabic
> > > verbal noun form of the verb "to recite, to read".
>
> > The difficulty is in the fact that the Quran
> > didn't exist as a written book at the time.
> > The Miqrah (Tanach) did.
>
> qur'a:n as a verbal noun could refer to reciting any text whether
> written or oral.
>

> besides, there was an attempt to collect the verses in Muhammad's

> time. the reason it was not set as a complete book was that as long as
> Muhammad was alive, new revelations could still come.

> > > > The question is which difficulty is easiest to accept.
>
> > > well, the difficulties caused by the etymologies you refer to are a
> > > whopper.
>
> > I refer to no etymologies.
>
> if you are referring to the evolution of the meaning or sound of
> words, then you are dealing with etymology.
>
> > I refer to words in Hebrew/Aramaic which a mentor
> > may have use to express Jewish concepts
> > which later appeared in the Quran.
>
> > I admit that some are quite artificial.
> > For instance, I know of no reference to the Talmud as "Pirqin"
> > The word means "chapters" and is non-descriptive.
> > It might make sense as a reference to "Pirqei Abot"
> > (Ethics of the Fathers), one of the tractates of of the Talmud.
>
> again, all of these are phonetically and semantically very distant
> from furqa:n

Not phonetically, and semantically depends on how
you interpret the verses in which the word is used.

> > > why don't you use <q> to represent Arabic Qaf and Hebrew Qoph? before
> > > you say "How do we know how they were pronounced in Hebrew?" let me
> > > tell you that in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew names Khi is used for
> > > Kaf and Kappa for Qoph.
>
> > I usually don't pay much attention to this,
> > but, again, I can see why this is annoying.
>
> that's because you are used to the Israeli Hebrew recitation. but when

> doing etymological work you must give the historic pronunciation, at

> least as far as the script shows.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > > > =3D3D93al matni=3D3D94 (=3D3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from Aramaic=
,
>

> > > > =3D3D93shiba al matni=3D3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,

>
> > > it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)
>
> > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> "matn" does not occur in it.

This verse is from a reference in the book.
There may be a problem with different verse numbering systems,
but I used http://www.quranbrowser.com/
to see transliterations of verses before and after 15:87.
I didn't notice anything like "matn".

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 22, 6:30 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 18 =3DD7=3D9E=3DD7=3DA8=3DD7=3DA5, 12:20, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmai=

l.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On 19 =3D3DD7=3D3DA4=3D3DD7=3D3D91=3D3DD7=3D3DA8=3D3DD7=3D3D95=3D3DD7=
=3D3D90=3D3DD7=3D3DA8, 13:=3D
> 57, Yusuf B Gursey
> > > <ygur...@=3D3D

> > > gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 6:43 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 14, 7:31 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote=

:
> > it goes to show that it is not the simplest explanation and is very
> > unlikely. remember Occam's Razor: in the absence of evidence, the
> > simplest explanation for a phenomenon stands.
>
> Accepted.
> But it's difficult to argue against a
> "somebody came for some reason, and stayed", speculation.

it just remains speculation, fantasy unless backed up by at least a
modicum of evidence.

>
> > in Saudi Arabia there are three systems. official is the Islamic
> > calendar, with the beginnings of months determined by direct sighting
> > of the crescent. then there is the fiscal solar calendar, with months
> > determined by the zodiac and bearing their names. then there is the
> > Common Era calendar for communicating with the rest of the world.
>
> This sort of thing, particularly "direct sighting",
> makes comparing old dates from different parts of the world
> a difficult business.

frequently the weekday is also given, so then one can determine the
Common Era date.

some argue that astronomical calculation is permissible, since the
regularity of the motions of the heavenly bodies is mentioned in the
Qur'an. even when relying on witnesses astronomically impossible
claims are rejected.

at any rate, the Fatimids developed an algorithm and this is known as
"the Tabular Islamic Calendar" and is used as a guide by historians.
this usually starts the era on July 16, 622 CE (Friday) and starts the
day at sunset. there is another, slightly different algorithm and
starts the era on July 15, 622 (Thursday) and starts the day at
midnight.

there are also various other algorithms.



a medieval chronicler explains the discrepancy thus:

<<

The Hijra took place on Tuesday the 8th of Rabi` I. The first of that
year=97that is, al-Muharram=97fell on a Thursday according to the average
(calculation). After this had become generally known, it was
considered (the correct date). However, according to observation (of
the new moon) and astronomical(?) calculation, the day fell on a
Friday.

>>

"astronomical calculation" translates what is literally "calculation
of the conjunctions"

the Fatimid calendar was used by the Ottomans (who also adopted a
solar Julian Calendar for fiscal purposes. this started to become
regular towards the end of the 19th cent. and was regualAr during the
Young Turk period. during 1916 - 1917 the Gregorian system was
adopted, with only the era being different. the change in calendar is
something historians of WWI Turkey have to be wary of, the Common Era
was adopted by Turkey in 1926) at some point, and this was continued
for religious purposes and to determine the eids by the Republic of
Turkey until sometime in the 1970's. at that point, there was a
movement by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now the
Organization for Islamic Cooperation) to have a unified worldwide
Islamic Calendar based on the calculated visiblity of the crescent
anywhere in the world. Turkey was a proponent of it, and adopted it. I
remember the Director of Religious Affairs in Turkey explaining it
with a diagram on TV during Ramadan. he also explained that there was
a debate concerning the criterion for crescent visiblity and that some
countries would be observing Ramadan with a day's difference, but said
that we should follow his viewpoint that was official in Turkey. at
any rate, this scheme has yet to adopted by all Muslim countries and
communities. it was a shame that a few years ago the Shia and Sunni
communities of Iraq observed Ramadan with a day's difference (does the
moon appear differently to them?).


I have much to say about the Islamic Calendar and what may have
preceded it in Arabia. I intended to post what I researched, but it
turned out too long. I intend to post what I wrote on a simple website
someday but I never get around to setting up.

>
> > > Sounds like the fast of Yom Kippur, on the 10th of Tishrei.
> > > The first day of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah (New Year's day)
> > > so the month is the beginning of the year.
> > > This doesn't prevent it from being
> > > considered the *seventh* month.
>
> > where does the *seventh* month enter in? oh, you mean the seventh
> > month starting from Nissan? yes, at first the Hebrews began their
> > calendar in Nissan (April) then changed. the OT mentions both systems.
>
> Exodus 12:2, referring to the month of the Passover says:
> This month shall be the beginning of months for you
> it is to be the first month of the year to you.

the Roman calendar originally started in March until it was changed to
January. that's why the next to the last month is the 10th month
(September, October, November, December). names persist in spite of
changes. many of the Islamic month names are after seasonal weather
conditions, even though the calendar became purely lunar by the Qur'an
9:36-37.

>
> I don't remember any OT reference to

OK. I was mistaken. i ofund out that it was discussed in the Mishnah.

> 1 Tishrei as New Year's day or to Tishrei as month 1.
>
> > BTW apparently a tradition does in fact say that the Medinian Jews
> > used Aramaic.

> > > > that being said the Qur'an does refer to an informer (denying that =

he
> > > > is so) of Muhammad with a foreign accent.
>
> > > Very likely, this is the source of my author's idea.
>
> > he was not so much a "mentor" as an informant on OT traditions,
>
> > does the author you refer to talk specifically about one with a
> > foreign accent?
>
> Yes, from Muslim sources.
>
>

it's mentioned in the Qur'an.

>
>
>
>
>



> > > > ...the presence of Ethiopic (Ge`ez) loanwords in the Qur'an does

> > > > not mean that Muhammad had an Abyssinian informant, it only shows t=
he
> > > > natural conclusion that Arabian Christians would have had contact w=
it=3D

they are phonetically very distant from furqa:n . that is very
important if you want to tie them together

> you interpret the verses in which the word is used.
>
>
>

you can't reconcile Bar Ze'ev's interpetation with Qur'an 8:41
(Pickthal's translation):

<<

And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof
is for Allah, and for the messenger and for the kinsman (who hath
need) and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in
Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of
Discrimination {yawma~l-furqa:n}, the day when the two armies met. And
Allah is Able to do all things

>>

"discrimination" (between good and evil) or "salvation" are possible.
Bar Ze'ev's interperation is not. "the Day of Furqan" is said to refer
to the Battle of Badr.

>
>
>
>
> > > > why don't you use <q> to represent Arabic Qaf and Hebrew Qoph? befo=

re
> > > > you say "How do we know how they were pronounced in Hebrew?" let me

> > > > tell you that in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew names Khi is used f=

or
> > > > Kaf and Kappa for Qoph.
>
> > > I usually don't pay much attention to this,
> > > but, again, I can see why this is annoying.
>
> > that's because you are used to the Israeli Hebrew recitation. but when
> > doing etymological work you must give the historic pronunciation, at
> > least as far as the script shows.
>

> > > > > =3D3D3D93al matni=3D3D3D94 (=3D3D3D3D The Mishnah) unchanged from=
Aramaic=3D
> ,
>
> > > > > =3D3D3D93shiba al matni=3D3D3D94 the seven Noahide commandments,

>
> > > > it's sab`at(u) min al-matn(i)
>
> > > > "seven from the text". matn is a noun meaning "text" and it is
> > > > unrelated to "Mishnah".
>
> > > > this is not found in the Qur'an (I checked with a concordance). the
> > > > covenant of God with Noah (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus) but
> > > > ilke the Old Testament, it is not elaborated on further.
>
> > > Could it be this ( I don't know the Arabic)?
> > > [15.87] And certainly We have given you seven
> > > of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran.
>
> > it could be taken out of a discussion of the verse in question but the
> > "matn" does not occur in it.
>
> This verse is from a reference in the book.
> There may be a problem with different verse numbering systems,
> but I used http://www.quranbrowser.com/
> to see transliterations of verses before and after 15:87.
> I didn't notice anything like "matn".

see my previous post. I figured what is going on.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 23, 1:10=A0am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> at any rate, the Fatimids developed an algorithm and this is known as
> "the Tabular Islamic Calendar" and is used as a guide by historians.
> this usually starts the era on July 16, 622 CE (Friday) and starts the
> day at sunset. there is another, slightly different algorithm and
> starts the era on July 15, 622 (Thursday) and starts the day at
> midnight.
>
> there are also various other algorithms.
>
> a medieval chronicler explains the discrepancy thus:
>

> =A0<<

>
> The Hijra took place on Tuesday the 8th of Rabi` I. The first of that

> year=3D97that is, al-Muharram=3D97fell on a Thursday according to the ave=

rage
> (calculation). After this had become generally known, it was
> considered (the correct date). However, according to observation (of
> the new moon) and astronomical(?) calculation, the day fell on a
> Friday.
>

<nit>
Ibn Ishaq has it (with an isnad through isn Shihab) that "the apostle
came to Medina on Monday at high noon on the 12th of Rabi`u'l-
awwal" (Guillaume's translation, p 281). Al-Tabari does not report any
other opinion but adds (the SUNY translation, volume 6, p 162) that he
left Mecca on a Monday and he quotes a tradition (said to be from Ibn
Abbas) that all the important events in Muhammad's life occurred on
Monday. Finally al-Tabari adds his own comment that the era started
two months and twelve days before Muhammad arrived in Madina because
the year began in al-Muharram.

Apparently tradition never did get these tuings straightened out
</nit>

[Zev]

Doesn't seem to be critical.
It may sound worse (as a plural) than it does in English or Hebrew.
Your discussion of Arabic and Hebrew grammar is interesting,
some of it was over my head.
I'm in no position to make comments on it.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 28, 11:50=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:40 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > =A0On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > now by some coincidence ma*th*na:(t) is also Arabic for Mishnah. it
> > must have been coined by some very Aramaic savy Arab Jews, since it is
> > the correct cognate.
>
> > but the Qur'anic verse couldn't refer to the Mishnah, as the word used
> > is plural.
>
> Doesn't seem to be critical.
> It may sound worse (as a plural) than it does in English or Hebrew.
> Your discussion of Arabic and Hebrew grammar is interesting,
> some of it was over my head.
> I'm in no position to make comments on it.

you are not familiar with <bdgkpt> (in Israeli Hebrew it is <bkp>) in
Masoretic Hebrew and their pronounciations with and without Dagesh and
the rules of putting Dagesh?

In Israeli Hebrew /v/, /*kh*/ and /f/ have become independent phonemes
with the advent of loanwords. and waw is pronounced [v] (not a
semivowel as in Masoretic Hebrew and Semitic), Heth has become [*kh*]
(not an unvoiced pharyngeal fricative as in Masoretic Hebrew, though
Biblical Hebrew has it pronounced either as that or as *kh* depending
on etymology like Arabic, we can tell that from transcriptions in
Greek in the LXX).

Hebrew / Aramaic names and words in the Qur'an don't generally follow
the <bdgkpt> rules (at any rate, [v] and [p] are non-existant in
Arabic and gimel is usually rendered as jim) but are otherwise
rendered as they are in Masoretic Hebrew / Aramaic.

later loanwords from Aramaic do betray <bdgkpt>.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 28, 11:50=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 22, 10:40 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > =A0On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > now by some coincidence ma*th*na:(t) is also Arabic for Mishnah. it
> > must have been coined by some very Aramaic savy Arab Jews, since it is
> > the correct cognate.
>
> > but the Qur'anic verse couldn't refer to the Mishnah, as the word used
> > is plural.
>
> Doesn't seem to be critical.
> It may sound worse (as a plural) than it does in English or Hebrew.
> Your discussion of Arabic and Hebrew grammar is interesting,
> some of it was over my head.
> I'm in no position to make comments on it.

email me with your questions concerning these linguistic matters, if
you wish.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 28, 11:50=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 22, 10:40 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > =A0On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > now by some coincidence ma*th*na:(t) is also Arabic for Mishnah. it
> > must have been coined by some very Aramaic savy Arab Jews, since it is
> > the correct cognate.
>
> > but the Qur'anic verse couldn't refer to the Mishnah, as the word used
> > is plural.
>
> Doesn't seem to be critical.
> It may sound worse (as a plural) than it does in English or Hebrew.
> Your discussion of Arabic and Hebrew grammar is interesting,
> some of it was over my head.
> I'm in no position to make comments on it.

concerning the details of linguistics, email me with your questions,
if you wish.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Mar 29, 12:40=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 11:50=3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 10:40 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 6:20 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > =3DA0On Mar 13, 6:20 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > now by some coincidence ma*th*na:(t) is also Arabic for Mishnah. it

> > > must have been coined by some very Aramaic savy Arab Jews, since it i=
s
> > > the correct cognate.
>
> > > but the Qur'anic verse couldn't refer to the Mishnah, as the word use=

d
> > > is plural.
>
> > Doesn't seem to be critical.
> > It may sound worse (as a plural) than it does in English or Hebrew.
> > Your discussion of Arabic and Hebrew grammar is interesting,
> > some of it was over my head.
> > I'm in no position to make comments on it.
>
> email me with your questions concerning these linguistic matters, if
> you wish.

also responsible comments por queries in sci.lang are awlays welcome.
the group has a high signal to noise ratio and there are many
competent people who post there, including myself.

[Zev]

On Mar 29, 10:10=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:40=3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 28, 11:50=3D3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> also responsible comments por queries in sci.lang are awlays welcome.
> the group has a high signal to noise ratio and there are many
> competent people who post there, including myself.

You may remember discussing the meaning of Biblical "khelev"
(fat, all kinds or a particular kind) in sci.lang
with me and Peter T. Daniels back in July 2008.
Knowledgable people like the both of you set the tone there,
although Peter sometimes replies like a cranky old man.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

On Apr 5, 4:10=A0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:10=3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:40=3D3DA0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Mar 28, 11:50=3D3D3DA0pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > also responsible comments por queries in sci.lang are awlays welcome.
> > the group has a high signal to noise ratio and there are many
> > competent people who post there, including myself.
>
> You may remember discussing the meaning of Biblical "khelev"
> (fat, all kinds or a particular kind) in sci.lang
> with me and Peter T. Daniels back in July 2008.
> Knowledgable people like the both of you set the tone there,
> although Peter sometimes replies like a cranky old man.

I looked it up. you asked about Qur'an al-An`am 6:146

in Pickthal's translation:

<<

Unto those who are Jews We forbade every animal with claws. And of the
oxen and the sheep forbade We unto them the fat thereof save that upon
the backs or the entrails, or that which is mixed with the bone. That
we awarded them for their rebellion. And lo! we verily are truthful.

>>

and that in Hebrew there were two words for fat, that for permitted
fat and that for forbidden fat. you asked if there were such a
distinction in Arabic. I said no., in Islam fat is AFAIK permissible
and the Qur'an speaks of a prohibition put upon by God to Jews only
(for their sins during the wanderings in the Sinai). also the Sabbath
is incumbant upon Jews only and Jews not observing the Sabbath are
further punished. but God did not rest on the seventh day, since God
does not get weary Friday is not a full day of abstention from work
(though it is a holiday in most Muslim countries), the Qur'an says
only to leave work to attend the Friday sermon (implying that work is
permissible otherwise). later, the holy character of Friday was
embellished in various writings. there is a theory that Friday was
chosen because it was the market day in heavily Jewish Medina (because
the Jews would gather provisions for the coming Sabbath) and thus
large crowds were available and thus a practical time to find a large
audience for Muhammad's sermons. to support this Friday was known as
Yom ha-kkeniset in late Hebrew and this would readily translate into
Arabic as yawm al-jum(u)`a(t) "Day of Gathering". this makes some
sense as the Qur'an would use a pre-existing usage and that the
gathering would then not be named for the time of sermon by Islam.
secularizing Muslim countries like Turkey, Tunisia and the new Central
Asian republics (Pakistan has changed its weekend schedule repeatedly)
can get away with synchronizing the weekend with the rest of the world
because Friday is not strictly a day of desisting from work in Islam.

back to fat. "fat" as an adjective (plump) is sami:n and this is
cognate (rather from a cognate root) with Hebrew shamun.

the word used in the Qur'anic passage above is *sh*uHu:m which is the
plural *sh*aHm and normally refers to solid, animal fat or the pulp of
fruit. but it can also refer to a lubricant.

there are two words for "oil, grease"

duhn tends to be animal oil (i.e fat in liquid form)
zayt tends to be plant based oil.

for petroleum or petrolium based oil the prefered and pan-Arab
understood word is nafT from Persian naft of the same meaning and is a
post-Classical medieval Arabic word (many such words have entered the
modern "standard" version of Arabic). from Persian one has Greek
naphtha which in Maccabees 2 refers to a miraculously flammible
liquid. Iraq also uses duhn for petroleum or petroleum based oil,
whereas in some other Arab countries zayt is also used for petroleum
or petroleum based oil. there is still some variation even in written
Arabic from country to country especially for modern terms and
concepts, jsut as there is some difference between American English
and British English (which also sub-deffentiates into Canadian,
Australian and South African - I don't know about New Zealand), but
these are mostly leveling out due to increased travel and modern
sattelite (previously the high powered radio transmitters of Egypt and
afetrwards other Arab countries filled that role) communication.

now, in that thread you, as now, failed to differentiate in
transcription between Heth and Kaf without a Dagesh using kh for both.
for Heth you may either use ch or h with a dot underneath (the
corresponding sound in Arabic is rendered thus) though when you are
limtied to ASCII I use capital H. also you said you were using
biblical exegisis to determine and Peter Daniels rightly criticized
you for both tohough at times he was ratehr brusque.