Islamic Borrowings
Robert Houghton
Islamic Faith - I believe it is not found in the Koran - but I
understand that Muslims believe in the existence of the Bridge Sirat. On
the Last Day all mankind will pass over this bridge, which is finer than
a hair and sharper than a sword. It stretches from Earth to Heaven and
beneath it is Hell. The evil ones will fall from the bridge into Hell.
The word "Sirat" is not Arabic, but of Persian origin, deriving from
the word "Chinavad", which means connecting link, and refers to a bridge
identical with the Islamic notion. Here is a quotation from the ancient
Persian book, Denkart, which illustrates the point:
"It is good for me to abide in the Bright way, lest I arrive at the
severe punishment of Hell, that I may cross over Chinavad and may reach
that blessed abode, full of odour, entirely delightful, always bright."
It is clear that a Zoroastrian mythological notion has found its way
into Islamic belief. I derive my information from W.St Clair Tisdall's
"The Original Sources of the Quran" (1905), which though dated contains
much information on Zoroastrianism and Islam.
Abdalla Alothman
Robert Houghton wrote:
> The word "Sirat" is not Arabic, but of Persian origin, deriving from
> the word "Chinavad"
1. The Arabic language is older than Farisi.
2. Anyone who bothered to look at a good book about the sciences
of the Quran (e.g., Al-Itqaan fi 'uloom al-qur-aan) will notice that
there is a section about Arabized words in the Quran.
Arabized words are words that Arabs adopted from nearby regions
to the extent where those words became part of the Arabic vocabulary
just like Robert's people took words from Arabic and those words
became part of their language (for a tiny list, see below).
Allah (tt) says:
49:13. O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female,
and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one
another. [...]
No Arab pointed a finger at English speakers when they took words from
Arabic:
1. Earth - ardh (Quran)
2. Cat - qitt (Sunnah)
3. Camel - jamal
4. Cornea - qaraniya (ibn Seena)
5. Mansions - manazil (from surat yaseen)
6 . Cube - ka'b / muka'ab (Mathematics; likewise: Sine - seen (the
letter seen))
7. Magazine - makhzan
8. Coffee - qahwa (Qahwa -> jawa -> java -> coffee)
9. Prairie - baraary (likewise: Valley - waady)
10. Alphabet - alif ba ta.
And for fun, even the Mexican alcoholic drink which they call takeela
(mind the spelling) is from the Arabic word Thaqeela (meaning heavy).
The list could go on and on...
Perhaps this person assumes that he had made a discovery when
he says that the Message within the Quran is found in other sources.
However, this is what people have been trying to tell this person, but
he still doesn't get it.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
OmarKN
On 12/18/2005 05:26:38 "Robert Houghton" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote:
> Here is a quotation from the ancient Persian book, Denkart, which
> illustrates the point:
> "It is good for me to abide in the Bright way, lest I arrive at the severe
> punishment of Hell, that I may cross over Chinavad and may reach that
> blessed abode, full of odour, entirely delightful, always bright."
> It is clear that a Zoroastrian mythological notion has found its way into
> Islamic belief. I derive my information from W.St Clair Tisdall's "The
> Original Sources of the Quran" (1905), which though dated contains much
> information on Zoroastrianism and Islam.
Yes - there are some non-Arabic words in the Quran,
which ones they are there is some disagreement among the scholars.
Imam Al-Suyuti wrote a booklet about them,
(see:
Al-muhadhdhab fi ma waqa`a fi al-Qur'an min al-mu`arrab <1988>
("The emendation concerning the foreign words and phrases in
the Qur'an")
http://www.livingislam.org/suyuti_e.html
C/f sirat: If this is the case for 'sirat' it is just a proof for
what is said by God - Allah in His Quran, that this revelation is
a confirmation of what was before, encompassing the correct parts
in the beliefs of the earlier religions...
...and a guidance for mankind:
{3-3. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and
fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah
and the Gospel before this, as a guidance to the people;
and HE has sent down the Discrimination.}
g
OKN
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c60349$44a07460$5f614ed5@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> I do not know how the notion fits ...
> ... I believe it ... but I
> understand ... believe in the existence ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This is an excellent summary of a thoroughly confused mind that has no
logical idea of a "claim to knowledge" about anything, let alone Islam or
Muslims. If one says that "I do not know" and then subsequently utters "I
believe" as the basis of their "understanding", what "existent" sense does
this make to any discerning reader, Muslim or otherwise?
Doesn't it mean that a writer derives their "understanding" from a "belief"
in something they do not "know", a double-dyed unknown? Isn't this a prime
example of self-expressed crooked thinking, making a serious judgement
about an object based on an arrant self-professed lack of knowledge? Which
simply stated means the logical existence of an absurdity in the mind, does
it not?.
Is such repetitive nonsense, the serious stuff of topical discourse now in
SRI? How can anyone, Muslim or otherwise, credibly "believe" in anything
emanating from a dullard "don't know" source? Isn't "I don't know, but I
do", the self-incriminatory "intellectual" rope by which many crooked
thinking commentators hang themselves by their own bluster in SRI ? Are the
all-important "logical fallacy", out of the "notional" mouth of babes, one
could say! What fool "borrowing" is this?
--
Peace
--
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what
is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.
[Confucius]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
Thank you for your response; I think I have met your points in my reply
to Abdalla Alothman Dec 19.
AnonMoos
> The word "Sirat" is not Arabic, but of Persian origin, deriving from
> the word "Chinavad", which means connecting link, and refers to a bridge
Actually, the particular WORD "sirat" (as opposed to the theological
notion) is borrowed from the Latin language.
The word SiraaT (Sad-ra-alif-Taa) is impossible to validly assign to
any ordinary triconsonantal Arabic root, and comes from the
Latin-language phrase "via strata", meaning paved way or paved road.
The same phrase gave rise to the English word "Street" (which
originally meant a paved road extending across the countryside, as in
"Watling Street" etc.). The form "Strata" is the nominative feminine
singular form of the past/passive participle of the Latin verb
"sterno, sternere, stravi", which most literally means to stretch or
spread or throw down. An almost exact Arabic semantic translation of
the Latin word strata would be mumahhad or mumaahad (passive
participles formed from root mim-ha-dal, with ordinary non-pharyngeal
ha).
--
المتبرجة خير
من الإرهابي
المنتحر
Robert
According to St Clair Tisdall "sirat" derives from the Persian
"chinavad" by the normal phonetic rules that transpose Persian into
Arabic. One must also look at opportunities for borrowing: the Persians
were a powerful influence in Arabia and there were extensive contacts
between them and the Arabs. How extensive were the contacts between
Latin speaking Romans and the Arabs?
Robert
Please establish that the Arabic lamguage is older than Farsi; but
leaving that aside the relative ages of the languages has no bearing
upon the fact I report: "Sirat" is not a native Arabic word but derives
from the Persian "Chinavad" and that indicates that the mythological
notion of the Bridge Sirat derives from Zoroastrianism. But it is not
clear what your point is; you are careful not to commit yourself to a
position.
I am not pointing a finger at the Arabic language; borrowings from
one language to another are normal.
"Earth" is ancient Germanic in origin and it is impossible that it
could have been borrowed from Arabic.
"Camel" derives from the Hebrew and Hebrew does not derive from
Arabic as Muslims commonly believe; the languages are *cognate*.
"Cornea" derives from the Latin meaning horny, and is of
Indo-european origin.
"Mansion" comes from the Latin.
"Cube" comes from the Greek.
"Prairie" comes from the Latin.
"Alphabet" derives ultimately from the Phoenician, which does not
derive from Arabic.
I reckon you found three words which are of Arabic origin. The great
scholar W.W.Skeat lists a mere 172 words borrowed from Arabic into
English, nearly all of them exotic and relating to Eastern culture. So
much for the pre-eminence of Arabic.
The point is not that the "Message" of the Koran is found in other
sources ( I don't believe the notion is in the Koran) but that it
*derives* from a source other than the angel Gabriel. Why should
Gabriel have given a Persian name to the Bridge when communicating
with an Arab? And how do you explain the fact that the Persians were in
possession of a Muslim religious idea? Did they have a Muslim prophet,
and what is the evidence of this?
The position is even more complex since the ancient Scandinavians
had the same motif in their mythology. The idea of the Bridge Chinavad
goes back to Indo-European times when the ancestors of the
Scandinavians and Persians were kin. Are you going to say that God
sent a prophet to the Indo-Europeans, and where are you going to find
the evidence for that? Without evidence your assertions are gratuitous,
merely dogmatic.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c60349$44a07460$5f614ed5@rhdt...
<snip> ...
>... I derive my information from W.St Clair Tisdall's
> "The Original Sources of the Quran" (1905), which though dated contains
> much information on ...Islam.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
For the sake of altruism, have you actually read ""The Original Sources of
the Quran" (1905), by the *Reverend* W.St Clair Tisdall or are you slavishly
borrowing, once more, from the prominent and condensed commentary about this
questionable work on the hostile "Answering Islam" website? See this link:-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22W.+St+Clair+Tisdall%22&btnG=Search
It's interesting that you conveniently forgot to mention the "Reverend"
title in your "informational" summary wasn't this elision deliberate? Even
"Answering Islam" doesn't resort to this kind of deceptive trickery, do
they?
To altruistically summarise, you expect subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, to
accept the 'biased' opinion of a fundamentalist Protestant minister (another
bit of Catholic duplicity here) when you reject the opinions of all Muslims
as being 'biased' towards Islam? Is this double-standard morally acceptable?
On what ethical grounds? Not "Answering Islam", I expect!
But, then again what are the copycat ideas being expressed by the writer
that weren't *borrowings* directly from "Answering Islam's" notorious
propaganda, can anyone give one example?
Nevertheless, let's continue to extract selectively and chose those adverse
"key points" (hearsay, myth, shibboleth and gossip [sic]) that satisfy our
prejudiced ideological convictions about Islam, using all the tricks of
crooked thinking, and then call this bombast a "scholarly", detached and
disinterested, dissertation! All this without, the oft-repeated hollow
appeal to substantiation by independent "peer review", without citing the
real sources. Isn't this egocentric, inquisitorial grandstanding not simply
sidelining the effective discussion and chloroforming well-informed debate?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Abdalla Alothman Dec 19
>
> Please establish that the Arabic lamguage is older than Farsi; but
> leaving that aside
I don't know if this person wants the answer or not. In case he does,
the answer is in his holy books. Unfortunately, I tried before quoting
his holy books (namely Numbers 25, 27, and 31) to show that the
verdict on Bani Quraytha was directly from their holy books, but doing
so is against the moderation policies. We can easily establish what he
wants from our history books which he does not accept, or we can do it
through his holy books, which to me are seriously problematic. I don't
want to waste my time quoting their holy books, and then get my
messages rejected.
> the relative ages of the languages has no bearing
> upon the fact I report: "Sirat" is not a native Arabic word but derives
> from the Persian "Chinavad" and that indicates that the mythological
> notion of the Bridge Sirat derives from Zoroastrianism. But it is not
> clear what your point is; you are careful not to commit yourself to a
> position.
We will point to that in a minute.
> I am not pointing a finger at the Arabic language; borrowings from
> one language to another are normal.
But it seems to move you a bit. And you have a problem that the
Arabic language used in the Quran contained words from nearby
regions.
Anyway, we wont elongate this discussion since it seems trivial to
you. Nonetheless...
> "Earth" is ancient Germanic in origin and it is impossible that it
> could have been borrowed from Arabic.
>
> "Camel" derives from the Hebrew and Hebrew does not derive from
> Arabic as Muslims commonly believe; the languages are *cognate*.
>
> "Cornea" derives from the Latin meaning horny, and is of
> Indo-european origin.
>
> "Mansion" comes from the Latin.
>
> "Cube" comes from the Greek.
... the above is all wrong. (ORR) :)
> I reckon you found three words which are of Arabic origin. The great
> scholar W.W.Skeat
Who made him a great scholar but you? Well, the super great scholar
Dr. A. Zahour provided the contrary:
See the list of Arabic names and the article "Setting the Record
Straight."
> The point is not that the "Message" of the Koran is found in other
> sources ( I don't believe the notion is in the Koran) but that it
> *derives* from a source other than the angel Gabriel. Why should
> Gabriel have given a Persian name to the Bridge when communicating
> with an Arab?
Because the word has been established, accepted, and used by the
Arabs. The revelation did not insert a new term in to the Arabic
vocabulary, it used a term that has already been Arabized by the
people receiving the revelation.
41:44. And if We had sent this as a Qur'ân in a foreign language other
than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its Verses explained
in detail (in our language)? What! (A Book) not in Arabic and (the
Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is for those who believe, a guide and a
healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness
(deafness) in their ears, and it (the Qur'ân) is blindness for
them. They are those who are called from a place far away (so they
neither listen nor understand).
The Arabs could have easily protested if they encountered a word they
did spotted a word which they did not know, but they didn't. Moreover,
Allah (tt) says:
14:4. And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his
people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them.
Then Allâh misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is
the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.
> And how do you explain the fact that the Persians were in
> possession of a Muslim religious idea? Did they have a Muslim prophet,
> and what is the evidence of this?
We believe that he Message has always been the same:
16:36.And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a
Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allâh (Alone), and avoid (or keep
away from) Tâghût (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship
Tâghût
besides Allâh)." Then of them were some whom Allâh guided and of
them
were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the
land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth).
The aya above has been detailed in other places in the Quran (It's
amazing how one man could stick to the words he kept inventing over a
long period of time as the unbelievers want us to believe):
11:25-26. And indeed We sent Nûh (Noah) to his people (and he said):
"I have come to you as a plain warner." "That you worship none but
Allâh, surely, I fear for you the torment of a painful Day."
11:50. And to 'Ad (people We sent) their brother Hûd. He said, "O my
people! Worship Allâh! You have no other Ilâh (God)
but
Him. Certainly, you do nothing but invent (lies)!
11:61. And to Thamûd (people, We sent) their brother Sâlih
(Saleh).
He said: "O my people! Worship Allâh, you have no other Ilâh (God)
but
Him. He brought you forth from the earth and settled you therein, then
ask forgiveness of Him and turn to Him in repentance. Certainly, my
Lord is Near (to all by His Knowledge), Responsive."
11:84. And to the Madyan (Midian) people (We sent) their brother
Shu'aib. He said: "O my people! Worship Allâh, you have no other
Ilâh
(God) but Him, and give not short measure or weight, I see you in
prosperity; and verily I fear for you the torment of a Day
encompassing.
> [...] Are you going to say that God
> sent a prophet to the Indo-Europeans, and where are you going to find
> the evidence for that? Without evidence your assertions are gratuitous,
> merely dogmatic.
Oh yes, I sure do believe that prophets and messengers were sent to
people in different places. You see, in our religion the Creator is
not a monoply in the hands of the Israelites were only those people
received prophets and messengers.
40:78. And, indeed We have sent Messengers before you (O Muhammad
SAW); of some of them We have related to you their story and of some
We have not related to you their story, and it was not given to any
Messenger that he should bring a sign except by the Leave of
Allâh. So, when comes the Commandment of Allâh, the matter will
be
decided with truth, and the followers of falsehood will then be lost.
Of course I can't prove that because I don't know the names of all the
messengers and the prophets. However, I do believe its true. On the
contrary, Robert wants me to believe that the Creator only cared about
guiding the jews of the old testament. I refuse to believe that of
course. Besides, in what way would proving such thing help a person
who is just here to argue?
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1135247883....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> According to St Clair Tisdall "sirat" derives from the Persian
> "chinavad" by the normal phonetic rules that transpose Persian into
> Arabic. ...
Comment:-
I repeat the only "claim to knowledge" that you have about this subject "
Islamic Borrowings" is based solely on the dubious authority of the
notorious (using your typical descriptive analogy) works of Reverend St.
Clair Tisdall, is it not? To expressively borrow from yourself:- "You can
find odd-balls who will maintain the most absurd positions."!
Or another borrowing, of one of your earlier 'gems':- "A situation bound
ethics is incoherent; categorical injunctions are required since there is no
strict and rigorous way of judging situations; human beings cannot be
trusted to judge situations for themselves. Morality is about what is
*always* wrong: there are no situations in which:"; doesn't this apply to
the object of this specific discussion?
Can you explain to subscribers, how can Islam and Muslims be fairly
perceived through the mind of a subjective Christian missionary, evangelical
or otherwise?
Elsewhere, you have confirmed that you do not understand any Middle Eastern
languages, let alone any of the classical languages of antiquity, yet you
make judgements as if you do. You then have the temerity to quote, using
your nescient terminology, "according to", this obscure, unsubstantiated
source, as though that source is definitive, which is isn't. Does this
comply with your frequently quoted independent "peer review"? Are there any
other authoritative cited, philological or linguistic, sources you can
mention that confirm this disputed opinion?
Which raises the question, is "according to", in this subjective
evangelicalism's context, a blind dogmatic borrowing? How can it clearly not
be?
But, once again, I'm a "situation bound" bigot in my own unscholarly manner!
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot explain
to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
hajj abujamal
Robert wrote:
> Suffice it that you consider the arguments
> and information I present.
That's pretty presumptuous. No one here is under any obligation
at all to consider anything that anyone writes. You can want people
to consider what you say, and you can become upset when they don't,
but that changes absolutely nothing ~ you are entitled to speak as you
wish, but no one is obligated to listen, let alone think about it.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:43A99439...@io.com...
<snip>
> > The word "Sirat" is not Arabic, but of Persian origin, deriving from
> > the word "Chinavad", which means connecting link, and refers to a bridge
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You cannot seriously demonstrate a linguistic riposte to someone that
doesn't understand the complexities of classical Arabic or Farsi. What would
be the point when their proclaimed "claim to knowledge" is solely based on
(paraphrasing their own explication mentioned elsewhere) Christian "scholars
notably fail to contribute to the peer-group assessed international
academic journals, and so cannot be taken seriously"?
But this partisan theory only apply to Muslim scholars and Islamic
scholarship in their contrary minds, that's the one-eyed "intellectual"
paradox you can never successfully explain away!
Robert
I do not have to account for my reading to you. Suffice it that you
consider the arguments and information I present.
There is nothing in my posting that may be misunderstood by my not
using St Clair Tisdall's title.
I make no claim to originality; indeed I stated that I owed my
information to the author just mentioned. The argument is independent
of its provenance. It stands or falls on its own merits.
You have yet to substantiate your accusation of crooked (ie dishonest)
thinking.
Yusuf B Gursey
this thread, as well as other recent threads, is religious polemics
disguised as historical discourse, so I have avoided participating.
AnonMoos wrote:
> "Robert Houghton" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote:
>
> > The word "Sirat" is not Arabic, but of Persian origin, deriving from
> > the word "Chinavad", which means connecting link, and refers to a bridge
>
> Actually, the particular WORD "sirat" (as opposed to the theological
Sira:T
> notion) is borrowed from the Latin language.
Qur'anic Sira:T "path" (common noun) is from latin via greek and
aramaic (incl. syriac).
Sira:T (Bridge) (proper noun) is from middle persian *ch*inwad or
written as *ch*inwat, acc. to Enc. of Islam II "Sirat", in
new persian ("Farsi") *ch*unu:d , and is found in Hadith literature.
some muslim commentators recognized these facts.
Robert wrote:
> I reply to AnonMoos Dec 22
>
> According to St Clair Tisdall "sirat" derives from the Persian
> "chinavad" by the normal phonetic rules that transpose Persian into
middle persian *ch* is rendered as arabic /S/ due to eastern syriac
scribal tradition and eastern aramaic pronounciation (middle persian
uses
aramaic Sadi (tsadi) for /*ch*/ and the tendency of affrication is
found
in eastern aramaic) n ~ r is not unusual in arabic. otherwise IMO the
rendering seems to be influenced by Sira:T (common noun) above.
> Arabic. One must also look at opportunities for borrowing: the Persians
> were a powerful influence in Arabia and there were extensive contacts
> between them and the Arabs. How extensive were the contacts between
> Latin speaking Romans and the Arabs?
half of the arabs of the north were Roman / Byzantine subjects, the
other half Persian, and both sometimes changed sides. influence in
the Peninsula was a matter of contention between the two powers.
arabs played a siginificant role in roman politics: Palmyra was
crucial, Phillip the Arabian was a roman emperor, the Nabataenans
were crucial traders. arabs played a part in early christianity:
cf. Aretas, Edessa was a client christian kingdom founded by arabs.
the Meccans traded with Damascus (and it seems Muhammad himself),
then under roman / byzantine rule.
if you don't know the significance of the above, look it up from
reliable up to date, non-polemical sources.
latin words usually come via greek via aramaic (frequently syriac),
which was used in both sides of the border, as well as by the client
arab kingdoms of the north.
finally, the Romans were great road builders, so the presence of the
latin origin word shoudl not be surprising.
Robert wrote:
> The point is not that the "Message" of the Koran is found in other
> sources ( I don't believe the notion is in the Koran) but that it
> *derives* from a source other than the angel Gabriel. Why should
> Gabriel have given a Persian name to the Bridge when communicating
this is religion and a matter of faith, whether from the christian or
muslim
or zoroastrian etc. view.
a muslim would argue that that the Qur'an is in "clear Arabic" (which
is
the correct translation if the relevant Qur'anic passage) hence
communicating in a manner comprehensible to arabs whatever the
etymology.
furthermore, muslims would argue, God is responsible for all languages,
and it is His prerogative to use any He wishes.
> with an Arab? And how do you explain the fact that the Persians were in
> possession of a Muslim religious idea? Did they have a Muslim prophet,
> and what is the evidence of this?
>
a muslim would argue because, as the Qur'an says, God sent revelation
to all
nations in their own language. all the Prophets are muslim (and not
just
those of the israelite line), acc. to islamic belief, differing only in
matters of Law that God deemed appropriate for that time and place.
if you don't believe it, then don't become a muslim, which it seems you
don't intend to anyway.
Robert Houghton wrote:
> into Islamic belief. I derive my information from W.St Clair Tisdall's
> "The Original Sources of the Quran" (1905), which though dated contains
> much information on Zoroastrianism and Islam.
there are much more up to date and less polemic sources on the issue
than
a christian plomeic, but then, a christian polemic is just your
intention,
scholarliness does not seem to be. otherwise you would have found
answers
to many of your claims and poelmics by yourself (and read the links
that
were provided to you).
hur...@my-deja.com
> Actually, the particular WORD "sirat" (as opposed to the
> theological
In the Language of The Arabs "As-Siraat" means the way.
The sole Scholar I know of who claimed the word "Siraat" is of
Latin origin [Roman Language] was An-Naqqaash. Ibn
'Atiyyah rejected this claim outright.
Imam Al Qurtuby states that "Siraat" [with Saad] was also read
with "Sin".
According to Salma, Al-Farra' said: "Az-ziraat"
[with z] as it's the language of the tribes: 'Udhra, Kalb and Banu al
Qayn who used to say for instance "Azdaq" [with z] instead of "Asdaq"
[with sad].
Reference: "Al Jami' li Ahkaam al Qur'an" [Imam Al Qurtuby]
"Siraat" [with sin] means according to Lisaan al 'Arab: The
clear way, while "Siraat" [with Sad] is one spelling of the
former, which was the origin.
Ref. "Lisaan al 'Arab, Fasl As-Sin al Muhmala" [Ibn Al
Mandhoor]
> The word SiraaT (Sad-ra-alif-Taa) is impossible to validly
> assign to
> any ordinary triconsonantal Arabic root, and comes from the
> Latin-language phrase "via strata", meaning paved way or paved
> road.
"Siraat" either spelt with "Sin" or "Saad" or even "z" is definitely
assigned to
the root "Sarata" which, narrowly taken, means "to swallow" and
carries the same "weight" [Wazn] as the three triconsonantal "fa'ala"
[Fa-'ayn-laam].
Sa-ra-ta------>si-raa-tun
Fa-'a-la------->fi-'aa-lun
Hence, Siraat is an Arabic word having a clear-cut Arabic root,
with an "s" that differed in its spelling from an Arab tribe to another
as shown above. ِAny other claim is just as fantastic as
the imagination of those making it.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1135267272.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> I do not have to account for my reading to you.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This is correct. However, have you ever considered that you will have to
account to an higher authority for your misreading of His word?
<snip> ...
> Suffice it that you
> consider the arguments and information I present.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Suffice to say, all men of faith, shouldn't countenance the surreptitious
"arguments and information" of the Tempter, however 'considered' or well
'presented' that might be.
<snip> ...
> There is nothing in my posting that may be misunderstood by my not
> using St Clair Tisdall's title.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Then is it unimportant that any evangelical or Christian minister's
pre-conceived perception of Islam is always invalid? If so, why do you
consider that it is unimportant to communicate that by elision?
<snip> ...
> I make no claim to originality; indeed I stated that I owed my
> information to the author just mentioned. The argument is independent
> of its provenance. It stands or falls on its own merits.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Which gets us back to your "claim to knowledge", which is based solely on
the "authority" of a notorious (using your terminology) unreliable and
dubious source. Haven't you sceptically used exactly the same defensive
argument when refuting other subscribers sources?
Would you say that the Reformation "argument" against the papacy was
independent of its "provenance" in the "original" mind of its Protestant
creator, (i.e Luther)? Suffice to say, this is extremely doubtful!
It's tantamount to saying (in a British Christian context) that the
Reverend Ian Paisley's vehement anti-Catholic argument is independent of the
historical provenance of William of Orange and the Battle of the Boyne in
1690? How much implicit credence is added to this bigoted "information"
because he is a overzealous clergyman, or should we say Protestant zealot?
See this link (656 hits):-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=protestant+bigot+%22Ian+Paisley%22&btnG=Search
<snip> ...
> You have yet to substantiate your accusation of crooked (i.e. dishonest)
> thinking.
<snip>
Comment:-
I have already done so you just haven't been paying attention. To repeat,
"crooked thinking" is the natural opposite of "straight thinking" this
concept is fully explained in Dr. Robert H. Thouless's (Reader Emeritus-
Cambridge University and Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge)
excellent little book "Straight and Crooked Thinking", that I've recommended
previously in SRI and suggested that you should read.
In more simple terms, some subscribers in SRI lack the ability to "think
straight", they unfortunately "think crooked", that doesn't mean they are
wittingly "dishonest" as you are suggesting. Nevertheless, there are some
witting subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, that for a variety of prejudicial
reasons do unscrupulously employ "crooked thinking" methods and techniques
to intellectually exploit others. The problem is they don't like it when
such "tricks" are used against themselves or their partisan cause.
But, then again, I recognise that my "borrowings" are those of a honest
bigot! The main difference being I try and help people "how to think" whilst
others tell people "what to think".
AnonMoos
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote:
>AnonMoos Dec 22 wrote:
>>"Robert Houghton" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote:
>>> The word "Sirat" is not Arabic, but of Persian origin, deriving
>>> from the word "Chinavad", which means connecting link, and refers
>>> to a bridge
>> Actually, the particular WORD "sirat" (as opposed to the
>> theological notion) is borrowed from the Latin language.
>> The word SiraaT (Sad-ra-alif-Taa) is impossible to validly assign
>> to any ordinary triconsonantal Arabic root, and comes from the
>> Latin-language phrase "via strata", meaning paved way or paved
>> road. The same phrase gave rise to the English word "Street"
>> (which originally meant a paved road extending across the
>> countryside, as in "Watling Street" etc.). The form "Strata" is
>> the nominative feminine singular form of the past/passive
>> participle of the Latin verb "sterno, sternere, stravi", which most
>> literally means to stretch or spread or throw down. An almost
>> exact Arabic semantic translation of the Latin word strata would be
>> mumahhad or mumaahad (passive participles formed from root
>> mim-ha-dal, with ordinary non-pharyngeal ha).
> According to St Clair Tisdall "sirat" derives from the Persian
> "chinavad" by the normal phonetic rules that transpose Persian into
> Arabic.
The theological concept of a razor-edged bridge to the afterlife may
of may not have been borrowed from Zoroastrianism (I'm not qualified
to say one way or another), but the particular WORD "Sirat" most
definitely was not. How can you get "SiraT" from "chinvad"? The
historical phonology that would be involved doesn't seem to make
all that much sense.
> One must also look at opportunities for borrowing: the Persians
> were a powerful influence in Arabia and there were extensive contacts
> between them and the Arabs. How extensive were the contacts between
> Latin speaking Romans and the Arabs?
"Strata" would have been borrowed from Latin through Greek, and there
was moderately significant influence from Greek (the language of
administration of the Eastern Roman empire) onto the Nabatean Arabs
in early Roman times, and onto the Ghassanids in Byzantine times.
--
Murderers are not martyrs http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm
Robert
I asked how extensive were the contacts between Latin speaking
Romans and the Arabs. The examples that you give are, I believe,
contacts between the Eastern Romans and the Arabs. These used Greek as
a lingua franca not Latin.
On the one hand you seem to confirm St Clair Tisdall's derivation of
sirat from the Persian, on the other you seem to confirm that it might
derive from Latin via Greek. You do not show that the proposed Latin
original actually was accepted into Greek.
As regards the Koran's being in clear Arabic, I mount no argument
against this on the grounds that sirat derives from Persian. My
interest is in the source of the myth. Nevertheless I understand that
the Arabic of the Koran is often obscure and excessively allusive, and
does contain foreign words which were obscure to early Muslim scholars.
Please show where St Clair Tisdall's scholarship is vitiated by a
polemical intention and please provide references to the up-to-date
unpolemical sources you mention.
Robert
You still fail to establish that Arabic is older than Persian. No
moderation policy of this forum would prevent this.
As regards your assertion that God sent a messenger to the
Indo-Europeans, this is just ad hoc dogmatic assertion. You have no
evidence for it, so it is merely gratuitous.
Your idea that God cared only about guiding the Jews of the Old
Testament is not part of the Christian religion.
AnonMoos
A number of your examples of alleged English loanwords from Arabic
are very dubious. For example, "cube" most definitely does not
come from ka`bah. If there's any connection at all (which is by
no means clear), it would have been that the Greek word kuboi
influenced the Arabic plural form ku`ub to mean "cubes" (in
addition to other meanings which it already possessed).
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I asked how extensive were the contacts between Latin speaking
> Romans and the Arabs. The examples that you give are, I believe,
> contacts between the Eastern Romans and the Arabs. These used Greek as
> a lingua franca not Latin.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You seem to using the crooked thinking technique of elision once again to
frame your historically inaccurate argument, and, hence, mislead
subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, by presenting them with erroneous
information.
Back then and there, at the advent of Islam (circa 7th-8th century), there
wasn't the great mutual schism between the Eastern and Western parts of
Christendom (putting the ancient patriarchal churches of Antioch, Alexandria
and Jerusalem aside for the moment). The "Holy Roman Empire" was united
under a single centralised authority, the emperor, in its then capital
Byzantium (i.e. Constantinople). The administrative language of the literate
elite, the nobles and clergy, was mostly Greek, not Latin as you are trying
to suggest. For example, from 654 to 752 CE, only five of the seventeen
popes were of Roman origin, isn't this a fact that implicitly needs to be
taken into thorough consideration?
Which raises the question what was the nationality (in it's modern
sense -not ethnicity) of the people living in significant population centres
like Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria?
But, as you have adamantly remarked in the past, you never study any links
or references that other subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, legitimately
provide, so why are you suddenly requesting them now? Why the change of
direction?
As if, as you indicted, "St Clair Tisdall's" nineteenth century scholarship
is presumed "up-to-date", but Sir Steven Runciman's twentieth century
isn't. Isn't this another self-expressed "crooked thinking" contradiction?
Greeks bearing intellectual gifts, a borrowed Trojan horse, in an active
Islamic newsgroup, is a significant indicator, perhaps!
--
Peace
--
In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the
learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no
longer exists.
[Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Abdalla Alothman
AnonMoos wrote:
> A number of your examples of alleged English loanwords from Arabic
> are very dubious. For example, "cube" most definitely does not
> come from ka`bah.
Dear Mr. Anonymous, I think the first mention of the word
ka'bah is in your message only. I don't think anyone mentioned
it before. But you are right, the ka'bah is named as such because
it is a cube.
Whether cube is originally Arabic or Greek is irrelevant because
the Western civilization (which was living in dark ages and barred
from all sources of knowledge) obtained Greek knowledge from
the Muslims who used the Arabic language. The word cube is a
tiny drop in the ocean of words originating from the Arabic
language (It's also interesting how "Language" and "Lugha"
relate...)
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Abdalla Alothman
>
> You still fail to establish that Arabic is older than Persian. No
> moderation policy of this forum would prevent this.
It's in your holy books, which is said to be chronological.
That's just like your claim that there is no law in your holy
books to wipe out cities, kill all males, and leave only the
virgins alive (This is in the Book of Numbers 25, 27, 31).
If you don't want to look in your holy books, prove the
opposite. Nobody is tying your fingers from typing.
> As regards your assertion that God sent a messenger to the
> Indo-Europeans, this is just ad hoc dogmatic assertion. You have no
> evidence for it, so it is merely gratuitous.
You also have no evidence that the Creator did not send
messengers and prophets to other nations. You can't prove
that belief wrong. If you say that Indo-Europeans had idolaterous
beliefs, that doesn't mean that it isn't a distortion as the Quran
said that original messages were distorted (See the stories of
the Messenger NuuH (Noah) - see Sura #11 and Sura #71).
This shows how your arguments are badly tailored. And as
long as you can't prove the contrary, the belief remains valid.
Unchallenged, actually.
> Your idea that God cared only about guiding the Jews of the Old
> Testament is not part of the Christian religion.
You say so. Other christians had something else to say in this
newsgroup. Those people are the ones who made one of the
web sites that you have been referring to.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Yusuf B Gursey
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Yusuf B. Gurney 26 Dec.
my last name is not "Gurney".
a symptom ofthe amount of attention you paid to my post.
>
> I asked how extensive were the contacts between Latin speaking
> Romans and the Arabs. The examples that you give are, I believe,
> contacts between the Eastern Romans and the Arabs. These used Greek as
> a lingua franca not Latin.
but they were native latin speakers, and some amount of Latin was
used even in formal contexts, as evidenced from inscriptional
evidence. besides, they that they would on occasion use a latin
word even when speaking greek is a reasonable assumption.
>
> On the one hand you seem to confirm St Clair Tisdall's derivation of
> sirat from the Persian, on the other you seem to confirm that it might
> derive from Latin via Greek. You do not show that the proposed Latin
> original actually was accepted into Greek.
there is no need to rehash what is generally accepted. if you are
curious you could discover them by yourself if you wanted to. and
BTW I don't care if you consider this as "sidelining the discussion"
since I am not that enthusiastic in discussing with you at length
in the first place.
being "accepted" into Greek is irrelevant, and it obvious that Roman
and Byzantine era greek contains a high percentage of latin origin
words.
that the word involves a typicaly Roman activity lends credence. all
things being equal and with no evidence to the contrary its the
simplest and most reasonable explanation.
that being said, Jeffery in "The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an",
though otherwise a somewhat dated work, cites a Greek attestation
and its attestation in Aramaic.
there is no contradiction in having seperate origins for the common
noun found in the Qur'an and the proper name found in the Hadith.
as I said, the common noun may have influenced the form of the name
in arabic.
>
> As regards the Koran's being in clear Arabic, I mount no argument
> against this on the grounds that sirat derives from Persian. My
al-Sira:T as a proper noun, which is the one derived from persian, does
not occur in the Qur'an. the noun occuring in the Qur'an derives
ultimately from Latin. see above.
> interest is in the source of the myth. Nevertheless I understand that
> the Arabic of the Koran is often obscure and excessively allusive, and
> does contain foreign words which were obscure to early Muslim scholars.
the "obscure" vocabulary is limited to a handful of words. these are
words that had probably fallen out of common use later and / or
limited to the Hijaz. more radical theories have been discounted as
crackpot.
the rest is non-linguistic, such as the context of a particular
commandment or narrative etc.
>
> Please show where St Clair Tisdall's scholarship is vitiated by a
> polemical intention and please provide references to the up-to-date
> unpolemical sources you mention.
just look at the author's works and you will see that the author
accepts
christian dogma and the critical analysis is limited to what is outside
it or contradicts it. not to mention phrases like "ignorant Jew" or
"ignorant Arab" and in some works there are sections that advocate
christian dogma and reject muslim theology outright.
as for better sources, try first "Enc. of ISlam II". for more recent
developments just go to the periodical section of a good university or
public library and browse through the nuemrous non-theological
journals on history and language. but since your posts are of no
different intention than the sources you quote, I am not motivated to
do your "homework" for you further.
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Abdalla Alothman Dec 25
> As regards your assertion that God sent a messenger to the
> Indo-Europeans, this is just ad hoc dogmatic assertion. You have no
> evidence for it, so it is merely gratuitous.
this is another example of gratuitous usage of scientific jargon
where it doesn't belong in the first place and is wrong to boot.
no one talked about "Indo-Europeans" (properly speakers of
proto-Indo-European) in the first place. but Zoroaster did claim
to be a prophet to the Iranians, "Aryas", speakers of Old Iranian
languages, and advocated a monotheistic religion, and muslims,
certainly "officially" nowadays (acc. to a publication in Iran),
accept him as a prophet.
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Abdalla Alothman Dec 19
>
> Please establish that the Arabic lamguage is older than Farsi; but
another gaffe. in english "Farsi" refers to arabized new persian, so
yes, although it is usually hazardous to speak of the "age" of
languages, arabic is older than farsi. otherwise it would not have
been called so, which is an arabization of "parsi:". although all
this is non-sequitor anyway.
AnonMoos wrote:
> A number of your examples of alleged English loanwords from Arabic
> are very dubious. For example, "cube" most definitely does not
> come from ka`bah. If there's any connection at all (which is by
> no means clear), it would have been that the Greek word kuboi
> influenced the Arabic plural form ku`ub to mean "cubes" (in
> addition to other meanings which it already possessed).
>
the technical geometric meaning probably came later.
these are among the handful of words that have a superficial
resemblance between some or most Semitic and Indo-European (IE)
languages. some may be due to simple coincidence, some may be
ancient borrowings in either direction or from some third,
perhaps extinct language or language family, or some may be
due to a genuine relashinship between Afro-Asiatic (AA) and IE.
I fail to see the relevance to SRI or Islam, other than it
happens to be the name of the shrine.
AnonMoos wrote:
> The theological concept of a razor-edged bridge to the afterlife may
> of may not have been borrowed from Zoroastrianism (I'm not qualified
> to say one way or another), but the particular WORD "Sirat" most
> definitely was not. How can you get "SiraT" from "chinvad"? The
> historical phonology that would be involved doesn't seem to make
> all that much sense.
read my post. middle persian *ch* is usually rendered as S in arabic.
middle persian -wa- may lead to o: , NB *ch*unu:d which may go back to
earleir *ch*uno:d . cf. kurdish xwe$ ($ = *sh*; <e> rouughly like
persian /a/ and cognate to it), persian xu:$ (or [xe$] in some pedantic
readings), NB turkish (lw) ho$ . /a:/ was sometimes ponounced as [A:],
i.e. labailized, near [o:] in Old Hijazi. given orthographic *ch*inwat
and middle persian t frequently rendered as T in Old Arabic one obtains
*Sina:T . given the similarity of the beliefs, and that a bridge is
arguabely a type of "path" (Sira:T) and the not infrequent n ~ r
alterations in arabic, an alteration to (Al-)Sira:T is reasonable.
especially since a scholarly work accepts it.
Robert
Klein's "Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English
Language" states that the Greek kubos is probably Semitic in origin and
gives the Arabic ka'bah for purposes of comparison. The Greek word is
use by Herodotus; it seems more likely that the Greeks took it from
Semitic neighbours closer than the inhabitants of the Arabian
peninsula, who were at a low level of culture.
You seem to suggest that the Muslims brought either the Arabic word
or the Greek word to the West. The Arabs did not teach the West Greek.
The West did not learn it until the late 15th century when Greek
scholars, fleeing the Muslim conquest of Byzantium, came to Italy with
their manuscripts and knowledge.
But Latin adopted kubos from Greek, and the word was part of the
language and of the medieval European learned class long before the
rise of Islam.
The knowledge of Greek science and philosophy which was imparted in
the Arabic language is owed, not to the Muslims - who provided only the
language - but to Syriac Christians who did the translating for them.
The Arabs owe their civilization to the ancient civilizations of
Christendom and Persia.
Robert
You still fail to establish that Arabic is older than Persian.
It is you who need to claim that God sent a messenger to the
Indo-Europeans; you need it to explain the fact that the motif of the
Bridge of Death has an Indo-European origin. Because of this the onus
lies upon you to produce the evidence.
You refer to Christians who believe that God only cared about the
Jews. To be worth anything you should give the the reference some
substance. As it is it's just words.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1135273666.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Salaam Yusuf,
<snip> ...
> this thread, as well as other recent threads, is religious polemics
> disguised as historical discourse, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This is quite correct. Subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, might well ask if
the object of this thread is Islam's natural language "Arabic" (excursive
connotations of the unsystematic knowledge of borrowings and loan words) or
the altruistic analysis of the "history of language" put in a religious
context?
What is disquieting, however, is the underlying premise, being ever so
subtly projected, which is the age-old 'racial' rivalry between language
families, that is "Hamito-Semitic" (Semitic) and "Proto-Indo-European"
(Aryan)?
Which raises the question, can the cultural language problematic ever escape
its ethnic (racial [sic]) roots? Ask yourself, in all honesty, when did you
become cognitively conscious of the fact that their mother-tongue had a
name? Now, that's a question that few of us can adequately remember or
answer.
But, sadly, Islam is all politics and man qua man is still a political
animal. This appears to be an inescapable "truth" for subscribers, Muslim or
otherwise, in SRI.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Your idea that God cared only about guiding the Jews of the Old
> Testament is not part of the Christian religion.
<snip>...
Comment:-
Which amply demonstrates once more to subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, the
ancient distinction between knowledge and opinion seems to be in essential
agreement with the insight that emotions can control the course of "crooked
thinking" from recidivist sources. But at the same time it denies that all
"crooked thinking" is necessarily guided by the dominate passions. The sort
of "crooked thinking" which is free from emotional bias or domination may
result in knowledge, if reason (the fallibility of biblical hermeneutics by
modernist Christian theologians themselves) itself is not defective in its
processes.
The ego, that drives some gratuitous SRI subscribers in the most vociferous
manner, is after all part of primitive instincts and energies underlying all
psychic activity, a part purposely modified by its proximity to the dangers
of reality, the truth that is Islam.
But, are my opinions bigoted and independent of knowledge? Well that's a
matter of taste determined by the discerning subscribers, is it not?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.
[Arthur Schopenhauer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
.
Robert
The Eastern Romans spoke Greek. The use of Latin in inscriptions would
not generate effective linguistic contact.
You refuse to 'rehash' what is generally accepted, but you have joined
in the argument on precisely this issue, and to make your case you are
under an obligation to produce the Greek and Aramaic words which bridge
the Latin and the Arabic. You forget that the derivation may be
generally accepted among the small group of specialists in Semitic
linguistics, but it is not known among the generality of educated
people and followers of this forum. You say go and discover it for
yourself - but it is your case, not mine, and I and other interested
persons do not have access to a library with a section on Arabic
linguistics. You can't enter an argument and then discourteously drop
it and tell other participants to make good your case for you.
If you are not interested in discussing with me, what *are* you
interested in in joining in?
I do not assert that the word "sirat" occurs in the Koran; Alothman
wrongly charges me with having "a problem that the Arabic used in the
Quran contains words from nearby regions."
Tisdall's Christianity does not vitiate his scholarship. One must, of
course, distinguish between his writings as a missionary and his
scholarly investigations. You use his Christianity as a smear. That in
some books he writes frank Christian apologetic and rejects Muslim
theology in no way impugns his intellectual integrity and scholarship.
I have found no instances of Tisdall's using such expressions as
"ignorant Jew" or "ignorant Arab", rather he always wrties as a
gentleman. Please give references to substantiate your charge.
Again, you point to more up-to-date work on the Bridge of Death, and
when I ask for references you discourteously tell me to find them
myself. I can only obtain them if I can give my Library a precise
reference.
The use of the term "Indo-Europeans" is not gratuitous scientific
jargon, but part of the vocabulary of educated people.People do talk
about the Indo-Europeans, specialists in archaeology and linguistics
also use the term. I am aware of Zoroaster and his interest and
importance
but he was not a prophet to the Indo-Europeans, as I required, rather
to the Ancient Persians and his dates are very much contested.
The use of "Farsi" to mean Persian was not mine but Alothman's; the
gaffe was his. You say the discussion is a "non sequitur"(?) but the
irrelvance, again, was Alothman's not mine.
Abdalla Alothman
> I reply to Abdalla Alothman Dec 28
>
> Klein's "Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English
> Language" states that the Greek kubos is probably Semitic in origin and
> gives the Arabic ka'bah for purposes of comparison. The Greek word is
> use by Herodotus; it seems more likely that the Greeks took it from
> Semitic neighbours closer than the inhabitants of the Arabian
> peninsula, who were at a low level of culture.
I don't really care. I thought borrowing words from one nation to
another was a trivial issue to you. However, yes, there are many
Arabic words that are used in the English language.
http://www.zompist.com/arabic.html
See the entry for "Ka'aba." There are more words that are not
mentioned in the list found in the URL above.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa51
"During the centuries before Islam, large numbers of pilgrims
arrive in Mecca to perform a ritual act of walking seven times
round a small square building known as the Kaaba (Arabic for
'cube')."
Can you find one reference in English or Greek that mentions the word
"Cube," or a person who speaks English or Greek who uttered the word
"Cube" let us say 2 centuries before Hubal (the idol) was brought
from Syria (Way before your god took the form of a human being and
died on a cross)? (Note that the word "ka'ba" was mentioned in poems
in pre-Islamic history.)
If you do, I will believe you because you would prove to me that the
word Cube was known to others before the Arabs knew about it. If you
can't produce that evidence, give the case what you have given to the
false claim that the bible had no instructions to wipe out cities and
keep just the virgins alive when you discussed Bani Quraytha.
http://spanish.about.com/cs/historyofspanish/a/arabicwords.htm:
"If you speak either Spanish or English, you probably speak more
Arabic than you think you do."
> You seem to suggest that the Muslims brought either the Arabic word
> or the Greek word to the West. The Arabs did not teach the West Greek.
> The West did not learn it until the late 15th century when Greek
> scholars, fleeing the Muslim conquest of Byzantium, came to Italy with
> their manuscripts and knowledge.
This is not exactly correct.
There is also the time of the fall of Al-Andalus. Al-Andalus was a
bridge of knowledge between both civilizations. Ibn Rushd had
non-Muslim students from France, for example. Also, do not hide
the fact that numerous Muslim scholars, scientists, and warriors
were from Italy (all those who have a last name of Albunduqi,
Albunduqdari, Alsiqilli and others were from Italy or related to
others who came from Italia) and they are countless.
> But Latin adopted kubos from Greek, and the word was part of the
> language and of the medieval European learned class long before the
> rise of Islam.
I thought that was a "normal" issue for you. One word doesn't mean
anything to me to argue about it. It is enough to note that most of
the useful knowledge the west obtained was from the Muslims. Unlike
you, I tend to be objective. I wont deny that the West did improve on
what they took from the Muslims.
Examples of such figures is the famous mathematician Fibonacci. He
educated himself in the lands of the Muslims. You can't deny that.
For more information, see the book: History of Mathematics. A lot of
the basic and advanced mathematics your people learn came from the
Muslims. Encryption techniques, for example, was an art among the
Muslims (BTW, you will see in the link above that even the word
"cipher" comes from Arabic). If it wasn't for the Islamic Inheritance
System, you wouldn't have a computer (Al-Khwarizmi invented Algebra to
solve real life inheritance problems). The systematic procedures we
use to solve problems (algorithms -- a complicated topic in computer
science) is named after that man.
> The knowledge of Greek science and philosophy which was imparted in
> the Arabic language is owed, not to the Muslims - who provided only the
> language - but to Syriac Christians who did the translating for them.
> The Arabs owe their civilization to the ancient civilizations of
> Christendom and Persia.
I would take that as a wish...
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Greek_sources_1.html:
"vi) The first versions of the Elements to appear in Europe in the
Middle Ages were not translations of any of any of these Greek texts
into Latin. At this time no Greek texts of the Elements were known and
the only versions of the Elements were those which had been translated
into Arabic."
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html:
"Recent research paints a new picture of the debt that we owe to
Arabic/Islamic mathematics. Certainly many of the ideas which were
previously thought to have been brilliant new conceptions due to
European mathematicians of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries are now known to have been developed by Arabic/Islamic
mathematicians around four centuries earlier. In many respects the
mathematics studied today is far closer in style to that of the
Arabic/Islamic contribution than to that of the Greeks."
To flood you with more and more references and opinions, I need to
have a mentality like yours. Fortunately, I don't have it.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Robert
I show you that, contrary to your assertion, according to the leading
authority in English, "cube" does not derive from Arabic but from an
unknown Semitic language. Your response is to say that you do not care:
that is you do not care for the truth, although you are very ready to
make assertions. We now know what your assertions are worth.
When it comes to deciding whether a notion comes from God or a secular
source, the derivation of a word may have key importance. I said that
the borrowing of words from one language to another is normal, not that
it is a trivial issue.
As regards the pagan circumambulation of the Kaaba, Patricia Crone has
shown that the status of Mecca as a place of pilgrimage does not
predate Islam.
You ask for a use of the word "cube" that antedates Hubal's move from
Syria by 200 years (Can you prove the historicity of this? What is your
source and what is its date?). Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon cites
the Greek historian Herodotus as using it, and we can give that a date
of about 400BCE.Do you think they derived it from the Arabs at that
date? A more likely candidate would be the Phoenicians.
You drag it up as an irritant - but the Bible does not give
instructions to wipe out cities and save only virgins. This is a
vicious lie, no doubt believed among Muslims.Make good your allegation.
What you have to say about al-Andalus in no way refutes my assertion
that the Arabs did not teach Greek to the West. The Greek works on
mathematics, science, and philosophy had to be translated into Arabic
for them by their Christian Syriac speaking subjects. The transmission
is owing to them; let us honour them, they are still a minority
presence in the Islamic world, emigrating as fast as they can.
You say that most of the useful knowledge the West obtained was
obtained from the Muslims.What do you include? law? architecture? But
many of the Muslims were previously Christians of the Empire forced by
dhimmitude to change their faith and avoid wretchedness, and most of
the culture the Muslims had (the Arabs were notoriously primitive) came
from the Roman and Persian Empires. The Muslims were parasites on
earlier cultures and the Arab Muslims originated little of themselves;
so many of the great figures in Muslim culture and history were
non-Arabs.
It is absurd to say that Western advanced mathematics came from the
Muslims, though it is quite true that real advances in mathematics were
made by them. Algebra, I know, was founded by the Arabs. It is also
arrogant absurdity to say that we owe the computer to Muslims. The
mathematics that lie behind the computer was a nineteenth-century
European development.
You do nothing to challenge my assertion of the importance of the
Syriac Christians as translators for the Arabs. In the West it is a
commonplace of intellectual history. A mere dismissal counts for
nothing. The assertion stands.
hur...@my-deja.com
"Robert" <robe...@onetel.com> wrote:..
>I reply to Abdalla Alothman 30 Dec
<big snip>
> You say that most of the useful knowledge the West obtained
> was
> obtained from the Muslims.What do you include? law?
> architecture? But
> many of the Muslims were previously Christians of the Empire
> forced by
> dhimmitude to change their faith and avoid wretchedness, and
> most of
> the culture the Muslims had (the Arabs were notoriously
> primitive) came
> from the Roman and Persian Empires. The Muslims were parasites
> on
> earlier cultures and the Arab Muslims originated little of
> themselves;
> so many of the great figures in Muslim culture and history
> were
> non-Arabs.
<snip>
> It is absurd to say that Western advanced mathematics came
> from the
> Muslims, though it is quite true that real advances in
> mathematics were
> made by them. Algebra, I know, was founded by the Arabs. It is
> also
> arrogant absurdity to say that we owe the computer to Muslims.
> The
> mathematics that lie behind the computer was a
> nineteenth-century
> European development.
> You do nothing to challenge my assertion of the importance of
> the
> Syriac Christians as translators for the Arabs. In the West it
> is a
> commonplace of intellectual history. A mere dismissal counts
> for
> nothing. The assertion stands.
<...>
I wouldn't try to engage in Roberts' and racist diatribes
especially against Arabs and Muslims in general that he is
spouting over SRI.
It suffices to provide two shining examples as shown below,
which refute
his far fetched claims outright. I hope the moderators will not
reject this post, because it's not directly related to Islam,
but rather
to (just a few among many!) Muslims' achievements.
Wassalam
friend
1. In Rushd (Averroes):
Averroes came from a family of Maliki legal scholars; his
grandfather Abu Al-Walid Muhammad (d. 1126) was chief judge of
Cordoba under the Almoravids. His father, Abu Al-Qasim Ahmad,
held the same position until the coming of the Almohad dynasty
in 1146.
It was Ibn Tufail ("Abubacer" to the West), the philosophic
vizier of Yusef al-Mansur, who introduced Averroes to the court
and to Avenzoar (Ibn Zuhr), the great Muslim physician; both men
became friends. In 1160 Averroes was made cadi of Seville and he
served in many court appointments in Seville and Cordoba, and in
Morocco during his career.
He wrote commentaries on Aristotle and a medical encyclopedia.
Jacob Anatoli translated his works from Arabic to Hebrew in the
1200s."
and:
"Averroes is most famous for his translations and commentaries
of Aristotle's works, which had been mostly forgotten in the
West. Before 1150 only a few translated works of Aristotle
existed in Latin Europe, and they were not studied much or given
much credence by monastic scholars. It was through the Latin
translations of Averroes's work beginning in the 12th century
that the legacy of Aristotle was recovered in the West.
Averroes's work on Aristotle spans almost three decades, and he
wrote commentaries on almost all of Aristotle's work except for
Aristotle's Politics, to which he did not have access. Hebrew
translations of his work also had a lasting impact on Jewish
philosophy. Averroes's ideas were assimilated by Siger of
Brabant and Thomas Aquinas and others (especially in the
University of Paris) within the Christian scholastic tradition
which valued Aristotelian logic. Famous scholastics such as
Aquinas believed him to be so important they did not refer to
him by name, simply calling him "The Commentator" and calling
Aristotle "The Philosopher." Averroes left no school in the
Islamic world, and his death marks the eclipse of liberal
culture in Moorish Spain.
In his work Fasl al-Maqal (translated a. o. as The Decisive
Treatise), Averroes stresses the importance of analytical
thinking as a prerequisite to interpret the Qur'an; this is in
contrast to orthodox Muslim theology, where the emphasis is less
on analytical thinking but on extensive knowledge of sources
other than the Qur'an."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes
2.Arabic mathematics : forgotten brilliance?
"There is a widely held view that, after a brilliant period for
mathematics when the Greeks laid the foundations for modern
mathematics, there was a period of stagnation before the
Europeans took over where the Greeks left off at the beginning
of the sixteenth century. The common perception of the period of
1000 years or so between the ancient Greeks and the European
Renaissance is that little happened in the world of mathematics
except that some Arabic translations of Greek texts were made
which preserved the Greek learning so that it was available to
the Europeans at the beginning of the sixteenth century.
That such views should be generally held is of no surprise. Many
leading historians of mathematics have contributed to the
perception by either omitting any mention of Arabic/Islamic
mathematics in the historical development of the subject or with
statements such as that made by Duhem in [3]:-
... Arabic science only reproduced the teachings received from
Greek science.
Before we proceed it is worth trying to define the period that
this article covers and give an overall description to cover the
mathematicians who contributed. The period we cover is easy to
describe: it stretches from the end of the eighth century to
about the middle of the fifteenth century. Giving a description
to cover the mathematicians who contributed, however, is much
harder. The works [6] and [17] are on "Islamic mathematics",
similar to [1] which uses the title the "Muslim contribution to
mathematics". Other authors try the description "Arabic
mathematics", see for example [10] and [11]. However, certainly
not all the mathematicians we wish to include were Muslims; some
were Jews, some Christians, some of other faiths. Nor were all
these mathematicians Arabs, but for convenience we will call our
topic "Arab mathematics".
The regions from which the "Arab mathematicians" came was
centred on Iran/Iraq but varied with military conquest during
the period. At its greatest extent it stretched to the west
through Turkey and North Africa to include most of Spain, and to
the east as far as the borders of China.
The background to the mathematical developments which began in
Baghdad around 800 is not well understood. Certainly there was
an important influence which came from the Hindu mathematicians
whose earlier development of the decimal system and numerals was
important. There began a remarkable period of mathematical
progress with al-Khwarizmi's work and the translations of Greek
texts. "
....
and:
"We should emphasise that the translations into Arabic at this
time were made by scientists and mathematicians such as those
named above, not by language experts ignorant of mathematics,
and the need for the translations was stimulated by the most
advanced research of the time. It is important to realise that
the translating was not done for its own sake, but was done as
part of the current research effort."
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html
Yusuf B Gursey
> I reply to Yusuf B. Gursey 29 Dec
>
> The Eastern Romans spoke Greek. The use of Latin in inscriptions would
> not generate effective linguistic contact.
depends on what you mean by "Eastern Romans" and in what period.
Greeks, Aramaic speakers,incl. Jews, Arabs and a host of other
Near Eastern people had contact with Latin speakers ever since
Roman soldiers set foot in the region. and sa I said a substantial
amount of Latin origin words in Greek after that period is well known.
I am not arguing for a whole host of Latin origin word in Arabic,
but only a few associated with Roman civilization, of which this
happens to be one.
>
> You refuse to 'rehash' what is generally accepted, but you have joined
> in the argument on precisely this issue, and to make your case you are
it's not *my* case.
> under an obligation to produce the Greek and Aramaic words which bridge
obligation? I have not seen that in SRI moderation rules, on
the contrary they tell us not to venture too far afield into other
topics. and I could always simply not post.
> the Latin and the Arabic. You forget that the derivation may be
> generally accepted among the small group of specialists in Semitic
> linguistics, but it is not known among the generality of educated
and for which reason I gave a reference.
> people and followers of this forum. You say go and discover it for
> yourself - but it is your case, not mine, and I and other interested
> persons do not have access to a library with a section on Arabic
the particular reference I gave is available on-line in the same
polemical website that contains "Tisdall". I wrote my own post at
home searching over the internet.
> linguistics. You can't enter an argument and then discourteously drop
> it and tell other participants to make good your case for you.
the idea is that if you had spent a modicum of the effort you spend
on "cutting and pasting" polemics against Islam, you could find
the answers to many of the arguments yourself. besides, the point
about Sira:T in the Qur'an doesn't influence your points. it is
quite striaghtforward, it is widely accepted and shouldn't be
one of the type that requires a high standard of proof. the derivation
of al-Sira:t (proper name) from persian is not straighforwad yet you
simply stated it as a fact.
all this adds up for me (and I suspect others) that you that you are
after arguments and polemics rather than intellectual curiosity. and
I, and probably others, don't appreciate your badgering people to
respond in a certain way.
otherwise I would be posting more detail just for the fun of it.
>
> If you are not interested in discussing with me, what *are* you
> interested in in joining in?
I enjoy the topic (language, hsitory) but not discussing it with you.
>
> I do not assert that the word "sirat" occurs in the Koran; Alothman
but it does! 45 times! but it is the *common noun* ("word") not
the *proper name* ("name"), the Sirat Bridge, which is of
different (persian) origin and is found in a Hadith.
incidentally, IMHO in 33 times it's al-Sira:Tu~l-mustaqi:m
i.e. "the Straight Path", the phrase harkens to well engineered
Roman roads.
> wrongly charges me with having "a problem that the Arabic used in the
> Quran contains words from nearby regions."
you don't have a problem with it, but you or your sources claim or
imply that it constitutes a problem for muslims and use it as a
polemic.
>
> Tisdall's Christianity does not vitiate his scholarship. One must, of
it does. he, and you as well, limit empirical criticism to Islam.
> course, distinguish between his writings as a missionary and his
> scholarly investigations. You use his Christianity as a smear. That in
> some books he writes frank Christian apologetic and rejects Muslim
> theology in no way impugns his intellectual integrity and scholarship.
> I have found no instances of Tisdall's using such expressions as
> "ignorant Jew" or "ignorant Arab", rather he always wrties as a
it does occur in his books, particularly in the book in which
he discusses "the Bridge of Sirat". I didn't say all his factual
claims are wrong.
> gentleman. Please give references to substantiate your charge.
>
> Again, you point to more up-to-date work on the Bridge of Death, and
> when I ask for references you discourteously tell me to find them
> myself. I can only obtain them if I can give my Library a precise
> reference.
I was refering to the study of Islam and Islamic culture in general.
as for the details, you don't motivate me to help you becaue of the
reasons previously discussed.
>
> The use of the term "Indo-Europeans" is not gratuitous scientific
> jargon, but part of the vocabulary of educated people.People do talk
it is when it is used wrongly and out of context. proto-Indo-European
is a reconstructed language. the speakers may not have constituted a
single community.
> about the Indo-Europeans, specialists in archaeology and linguistics
confusing non-epigrpahic archaeological artifacts with language
is hazardous. this goes for religious beliefs and also BTW for
genetics as well.
> also use the term. I am aware of Zoroaster and his interest and
> importance
> but he was not a prophet to the Indo-Europeans, as I required, rather
well, it seems you have introduced "Indo-Europeans" on the
grounds of a binary comparison between Scandinavian and
Iranian religion (doing just binary comparisons is in principle
wrong). admittedly I have not followed all the details of this
thread. it's not clear that the particular religious belief in
question was transmitted along with language.
at any rate, muslims admit that not all of the names of the Prophets
are known and they appeared during many periods in history and to
various peoples, finally all, in addition to the primordial revelation,
but that they got distorted. whether or not one accepts this, one must
admit that "they have covered their bases".
> to the Ancient Persians and his dates are very much contested.
>
> The use of "Farsi" to mean Persian was not mine but Alothman's; the
at least he made what ended up with a true statement. his
native language does not seem to be english.
all that being said, I am not here as a "scorekeeeper" in what you
have turned into a "debating contest". I am not interested in that.
> gaffe was his. You say the discussion is a "non sequitur"(?) but the
> irrelvance, again, was Alothman's not mine.
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Abdalla Alothman Dec 28
>
> The knowledge of Greek science and philosophy which was imparted in
> the Arabic language is owed, not to the Muslims - who provided only the
> language - but to Syriac Christians who did the translating for them.
that's untrue as a sweeping statement. while initially syriac
served as an intermediary for the greek sources, arabs and other
muslims eventually started learning greek (and initially the teachers
were usually aramaic speaking or aramaic using christians) on their
own. muslims also developed the works and added their own
contributions. very importantly, the social, intellectual, political
and religious environment this was done under was that
dominated by muslims.
> The Arabs owe their civilization to the ancient civilizations of
> Christendom and Persia.
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> 1. The Arabic language is older than Farisi.
>
english confines "Farsi" to arabic influenced persian, and also the
to the particular standard used in modern Iran as opposed to that in
Afghanistan or that in Tajikistan. this is also frequent persian
usage (and in languages like turkish), and also of some arab authors.
> 2. Anyone who bothered to look at a good book about the sciences
> of the Quran (e.g., Al-Itqaan fi 'uloom al-qur-aan) will notice that
i.e. Suyuti's work.
> there is a section about Arabized words in the Quran.
>
> Arabized words are words that Arabs adopted from nearby regions
> to the extent where those words became part of the Arabic vocabulary
> just like Robert's people took words from Arabic and those words
> became part of their language (for a tiny list, see below).
the above is a good response, but you overdid it, making mistakes.
> 7. Magazine - makhzan
>
> 8. Coffee - qahwa (Qahwa -> jawa -> java -> coffee)
>
the above are are genuine.
coffee comes from qahwa through turkish kahve (from arabic)
and european (fromturkish) intermediaries, not from unrelated
ja:wa (Java). coffee planting in Java is late.
Robert
Make good your accusation that I am a racist.
In your very extensive quotations you do not show what, in my posting,
you are refuting; you just give a run-down on intellectual history in
the medieval Muslim world. What do you wish to contradict in my article?
hur...@my-deja.com
>I reply to Hur... Jan 4
>Make good your accusation that I am a racist.
Your own words, not mine, speak for themselves.
I quote from your answer to Abdalla:
"...most of the culture the Muslims had (the Arabs were
notoriously primitive) came from the Roman and Persian Empires.
The Muslims were parasites on earlier cultures and the Arab
Muslims originated little of themselves; so many of the great
figures in Muslim culture and history were
non-Arabs."[sic]
> In your very extensive quotations you do not show what, in my
> posting,
> you are refuting; you just give a run-down on intellectual
> history in
> the medieval Muslim world. What do you wish to contradict in
> my article?
Again, I quote from your same answer to Abdalla:
"...The Greek works on
mathematics, science, and philosophy had to be translated into
Arabic
for them by their Christian Syriac speaking subjects."
My post has merely shown that your assertion is in its essence
not true.
It's that simple.
friend
Robert
You take offence, it seems, at my observation that the Arabs were
notoriously primitive. The Arabs had very little culture apart from
their pre-Islamic poetry, and before the Islamic explosion had a
primitive social organisation. Their contributions to the Islamic
civilization which their empire produced were their language and their
religion, the rest developed from the cultures of Hellenistic
Christendom and Persia. To hold this is not racism, it's a matter of
cultural history.
My point about the translation of the Greek corpus and its transmission
to Western Europe stands: it was in the hands of Christians and, to
some extent, Jews.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Tisdall's Christianity does not vitiate his scholarship. One must, of
> course, distinguish between his writings as a missionary and his
> scholarly investigations. You use his Christianity as a smear. That in
> some books he writes frank Christian apologetic and rejects Muslim
> theology in no way impugns his intellectual integrity and scholarship.
> I have found no instances of Tisdall's using such expressions as
> "ignorant Jew" or "ignorant Arab", rather he always wrties as a
> gentleman. Please give references to substantiate your charge.
Comment:-
In that case, I question whether you have actually read any of "Rev. W. St.
Clair Tisdall's" works firsthand? Besides his "The Original Sources Of The
Qur'an", what are his other books or writings that are being referenced by
yourself? Can you give us with a authoritative bibliography of Tisdall's
other so-called "scholarly" works that you have purported to have studied in
depth? Tell us who originally published ""The Original Sources Of The
Qur'an"? Does this publisher not give you some promotional hint about the
referent nature and motive of this publication?
But why shouldn't gentlemanly "straight thinking" bigots, like myself, not
challenge the "Tisdall's Christianity does not vitiate his scholarship"
fallacy, that is being artfully suggested? Surely not on your questionable
"authority" as a practising missionary Christian (i.e. someone who attempts
to convert others to a particular doctrine) in SRI?
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
As I have said to you before, I do not have to account to you for my
reading. In argument one doesn't have to actually prove that one has
read books one mentions.
You might be in a stronger position if you gave grounds for thinking
that I have not read any works of Tisdall, but you don't, and can't.
Again you don't even make an attempt to show that Tisdall's scholarship
is vititated by his Christianity. You smear.
I claim no authority.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> As I have said to you before, I do not have to account to you for my
> reading. In argument one doesn't have to actually prove that one has
> read books one mentions.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Are you now suggesting that, for instance, subscribers should naively accept
that commentators, Muslim or otherwise, can freely quote from books they
have never read or provide confirmatory substantiation of their quoted
citations as proof of their purported reading? Isn't this tantamount to
saying that you don't have to demonstrate to other subscribers that you have
actually read the Qur'an before criticising it?
You say you have read "The Arabs in History" by Bernard Lewis and then go on
to artfully misquote sections of his work [ref. my post:
news:43cd841a$0$32317$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au... ] to substantiate
your vainglorious argument. How should subscribers, Muslim or otherwise,
then judge this behaviour? Do you, in all conscience, believe this to be
truly Christian behaviour, now you have been found out?
For the sake of consistency, haven't you constantly demanded 'evidence' from
others, Muslim or otherwise? Haven't you frequently said that you do not
accept their word because, in your opinion, they haven't substantiated their
claims against you inquisitorial accusations? Are you now trickily
suggesting that you are immune from these same rules?
Doesn't this totally unreasonable and unscientific method once again confirm
the epitome of "crooked thinking"?
<snip> ...
> You might be in a stronger position if you gave grounds for thinking
> that I have not read any works of Tisdall, but you don't, and can't.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But I am in a "stronger position" because of the clearly demonstrated
grounds elicited above. Isn't this sufficient evidence to question your
credibility about anything you say in SRI? Why should I give you the benefit
of the doubt when your own actions deem otherwise?
<snip> ...
> Again you don't even make an attempt to show that Tisdall's scholarship
> is vititated by his Christianity. You smear.
<snip>...
Comment:-
But I have, you just haven't been paying any attention. As a demonstration,
who published Tisdall's original work? How many credible scholars, Muslim or
otherwise, in this specialist area actually cite his works? Doesn't, your
frequently quoted, 'peer review' count in this instance? How many times is
his work referenced in the standard bibliography on the 'history of the
Qur'an' subject?
<snip> ...
> I claim no authority.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
In that case it's best to keep silent, is it not! For feigned bliss is
ignorance in matters of religion, as most discerning subscribers, Muslim or
otherwise, will attest.
But, "straight thinking" bigots, like myself, make no a priori claim to
superficial authority, since they have no vainglorious aims in their sane
pursuit of wisdom and truth.
Robert
Of course I don't suggest that one may make fraudulent 'quotation', and
nothing I say implies this. My position about what one is committed to
in quoting is perfectly clear, reasonable, and generally accepted.
I do not *quote* "The Arabs in History," but give a perfectly accurate
summary of the edition I used.Your allegation is quite false, neither
do you you give any evidence of "artful" misquotation.
Again you produce no evidence that I have not read Tisdall.
The identity of Tisdall's publishers, and the extent of his citation in
contemporary work have no bearing on the integrity of his scholarship.
The fact that I claim no authority does not mean that I have no right
to contribute to this forum.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Of course I don't suggest that one may make fraudulent 'quotation', and
> nothing I say implies this. My position about what one is committed to
> in quoting is perfectly clear, reasonable, and generally accepted.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Yes, you are quite correct, this is no longer one of tricky suggestions,
because you have been actually caught in the "fraudulent quotation" act, is
that not so? You think that one's "position", Catholic or otherwise, is
somehow mitigated by your blustering excuses? Is that the moral Catholic
thing to do? Or is it more to do with the Catholic end justifies the means
when falsely attacking its main rival Islam? Isn't "fraudulent quotation"
not counterfeiting, and, hence a reprehensible and a disingenuous act,
whether done by Christians or Muslims?
But, I suppose, anyone who naively relies on the "scurrilous attacks" (using
your expressed sentiments about Bernard Russell's, "Why I'm not a Christian"
in another earlier thread) from odd-ball and obscure polemical writers, of
the infamous missionaries variety, like the Reverend William St. Clair
Tisdall? Here's one of his notorious racist quotes:- "Here again ... seems
to have had a wonderful talent for rejecting the true and accepting the
false, just as in the case of the Jewish traditions." from "The Sources of
the Quran" pp. 140-143. Doesn't this pronounced racism vitiate his
scholarship in you book? Should discerning subscribers, Muslim or otherwise,
then interpret this appalling sentiment as the current Catholic view? Isn't
the current pontiff apologising for the previously held racist doctrine of
the Church?
What is "perfectly clear" to anyone that has a hard copy of the 5th Edition
of "The Arabs in History" is that you modified what Bernard Lewis actually
wrote to suit your argument? Is that form of misquotation "reasonable, and
generally accepted" practice in any serious forum, Islamic or otherwise? Is
this another example of your frequently quoted so-called intellectual
disinterest and detachment? When you say, in your earlier thread, "According
to Bernard Lewis in "Arabs in History", what does this mean if you have
altered the text to suit an argument that he didn't represent? Is it still
then, after such disingenuousness, still "According to Bernard Lewis" or
"according to Robert Houghton"?
<snip> ...
> I do not *quote* "The Arabs in History," but give a perfectly accurate
> summary of the edition I used.Your allegation is quite false, neither
> do you you give any evidence of "artful" misquotation.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This is what you actually wrote "According to Bernard Lewis in "Arabs in
History", so you now concede this wasn't what he wrote but an inaccurate
summary to substantiate your own artful arguments against Islam? Reference
your own post:-
news:000001c60f0a$2596d790$dd6b4ed5@rhdt...
What nonsensical "perfectly accurate summary" of the purported "edition"
were you using? Why summarise it when it could have been given in full - as
i did? And even if you were using another edition, which I doubt, would that
misrepresented summary then make it "according to Bernard Lewis" or
yourself?
<snip> ...
> Again you produce no evidence that I have not read Tisdall.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Again one can deduce from the hard evidence presented above that what you
say isn't credible. Isn't this confession not evidence of malefaction
sufficient to question the believability and integrity of any witness,
Muslim or otherwise, let alone, anything that you now say?
<snip>
> The identity of Tisdall's publishers, and the extent of his citation in
> contemporary work have no bearing on the integrity of his scholarship.
<snip>
Comment:-
Which means you either don't know or you are avoiding the question because
it weakens your dubious arguments against Islam. So now "peer review" and
frequent citation isn't important in the academic world? Have you ever asked
an academic about that? Let's take a somewhat neutral, if not well-known,
analogy, its like saying the integrity of Heidegger's scholarship was not
affected by his expressed Nazi sympathies. I'm sure discerning subscribers,
Muslim or otherwise, can draw their own parallels between the two authors in
this regard.What's yours?
<snip> ...
> The fact that I claim no authority does not mean that I have no right
> to contribute to this forum.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
That's quite correct. Nevertheless, one shouldn't falsely assume
'authority', or create the impression that one is speaking from 'authority',
when one doesn't hold any such qualification or 'authority'. And, certainly,
no one should wittingly misquote, modify or edit other peoples, Muslim or
otherwise, ideas and represent them as though they were still a facsimile of
original text by the 'authoritative' writer themselves.
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot explain
to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com