Furqaan and "the warner"
Dr. Christoph Heger
On 11 Jul 1999 I had submitted a contribution to sri under the above title. In
it I argued that the first verse of Surah 25 ("al-furqaan"), which usually is
translated like:
Blessed be He who sent down the furqaan on His servant
that he might be (or: become) a warner for the worlds
with the "furqaan" understood as the Qur'an and the servant as Muhammad, is
erroneous. Instead I came to the conclusion that the original meaning of 25:1
was:
Blessed be He, who sent down the redemption on His servant
that he might be (or: become) a sacrifice for the worlds
displaying the central Christian teachings on Jesus Christ.
To my satisfaction my thesis met with no opposition. May I invite the esteemed
critical reader to visit the URL
http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/surah2~1.htm
where you may find this contribution in a better readable formate.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Mohammad Ghoniem
Christo...@t-online.de (Dr. Christoph Heger) wrote:
> Blessed be He who sent down the furqaan on His servant
> that he might be (or: become) a warner for the worlds
>
> with the "furqaan" understood as the Qur'an and the servant as
> Muhammad, is erroneous.
It is not erroneous.
> Instead I came to the conclusion that the original meaning of 25:1
> was:
>
> Blessed be He, who sent down the redemption on His servant
> that he might be (or: become) a sacrifice for the worlds
>
> displaying the central Christian teachings on Jesus Christ.
This is erroneous.
> To my satisfaction my thesis met with no opposition.
The best treatment to your *claims* is to ignore them. Giving them
attention or time means giving them more than they deserve especially
when they are devoid of sensible arguments but only conjectures that
build up one on top of the other.
Go on with your dreams Mr. Heger.
Mohammad
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Yahya Mohasseb
fabricating a meaning for 25:1 and yet choose not to read 25:2 In which
Allah All Mighty says what is translated:
" He who owns the Heavens and the earth, DID NOT BEGET A SON, DID NOT HAVE
PARTNERSHIP in his creation.... "
In your tedious explanation there is nothing but conjecture..
Sorry, try another one ! Or better still.. try reading the Quran for what it
says not for what you want it to say..
Dr. Christoph Heger wrote in message <7pj3fj$9j2$1...@bolero.rahul.net>...
>Greetings to all,
>
>On 11 Jul 1999 I had submitted a contribution to sri under the above title.
In
>it I argued that the first verse of Surah 25 ("al-furqaan"), which usually
is
>translated like:
>
> Blessed be He who sent down the furqaan on His servant
> that he might be (or: become) a warner for the worlds
>
>with the "furqaan" understood as the Qur'an and the servant as Muhammad, is
>erroneous. Instead I came to the conclusion that the original meaning of
25:1
>was:
>
> Blessed be He, who sent down the redemption on His servant
> that he might be (or: become) a sacrifice for the worlds
>
>displaying the central Christian teachings on Jesus Christ.
>
Saqib Virk
> Greetings to all,
>
> On 11 Jul 1999 I had submitted a contribution to sri under
> the above title. In it I argued that the first verse of
> Surah 25 ("al-furqaan"), which usually is translated like:
>
> Blessed be He who sent down the furqaan on His servant
> that he might be (or: become) a warner for the worlds
>
> with the "furqaan" understood as the Qur'an and the servant
> as Muhammad, is erroneous. Instead I came to the conclusion
> that the original meaning of 25:1 was:
>
> Blessed be He, who sent down the redemption on His
> servant that he might be (or: become) a sacrifice for
> the worlds
>
> displaying the central Christian teachings on Jesus Christ.
SV
Are you a Christian and if so, what denomination?
> To my satisfaction my thesis met with no opposition.
SV
I claimed that I had psychic powers and could recieve
the thoughts of others using only the vast powers of my
mind. To my satisfaction, as of yet, no one has challenged
my claim or declared that I am a nut.
> May I invite the esteemed critical reader to visit the URL
>
> http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/surah2~1.htm
>
> where you may find this contribution in a better readable
> formate.
SV
Anyone wishing to learn more about my powers may contact me
through telepathy. Just concentrate on the message you want
to send and be sure to include your email address as your
simple mind may not be able to pick up my return thoughts.
I've seen some of your theories Dr.Heger and you will have
to excuse me for not taking you seriously. I'm sure you could
with a little work alter any part of the Quran to say
anything you wanted it to. My personal favorite was that
stunt you tried with the apes or as you called them, ticks.
I almost responded to that one. What's next? Are you going
to re-write and edit surah al-Baqarah to prove it is actually
the Gospel of Matthew?
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Abdalla Alothman
>
> Greetings to all,
>
> On 11 Jul 1999 I had submitted a contribution to sri under the above title. In
> it I argued that the first verse of Surah 25 ("al-furqaan"), which usually is
> translated like:
>
> Blessed be He who sent down the furqaan on His servant
> that he might be (or: become) a warner for the worlds
>
> with the "furqaan" understood as the Qur'an and the servant as Muhammad, is
> erroneous. Instead I came to the conclusion that the original meaning of 25:1
> was:
>
> Blessed be He, who sent down the redemption on His servant
> that he might be (or: become) a sacrifice for the worlds
>
> displaying the central Christian teachings on Jesus Christ.
The Quran is revealed in Arabic, according to how Arabs
understand their terms, not according to how Dr. Heger
defines their terms for them. Your post received no
attention because it could've easily been kicked away
with a simple logical test. Thus, any reply to your post
would have been a direct insult to the "Dr." title you
worked hard to obtain. So you should be thankful that
nobody replied to your article--it was for your own good.
If you have finally made your mind to translate Furqan as
Redemption and Natheer as Sacrifice, then you must apply
your flawed translation at each and every occurrence of
each terms. Meaning, whenever you find Natheer, you translate
it as Sacrifice, and whenever you find Furqan, then it must
be translated as Redemption. The final translation must make
sense of course. This is basic and common elementary logic, btw.
I took the trouble to help you in your quest. I searched the
Quran and found some places where Natheer and Furqan appear
separately from each other. You have the verses, so apply your
translation of the terms to the verses and try to make sense out
of them.
We will see insha'Allah that your intentions to interpret
these two terms will fire back at Christianity and your
simple logic as well.
- Furqan/Criterion (Redemption, according to Heger):
1) "And (remember) when We gave Musa (Moses) the Scripture
[the Taurat (Torah)] and the criterion (of right and wrong)
so that you may be guided aright." [Quran 2:53]
So, does Furqan in this verse also mean redemption? This can be
a serious problem for Jesus worshipers, since Moses came before
Jesus--and he had the "redemption" in his hands.
(Note: The Tawrah was called FURQAN due to its laws/Shari'ah. And
this Tawrah is the book given to Moses, not by Moses or about Moses.
It's a book that neither the Jews or the Christians have today.)
2) "The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a
guidance for mankind and clear proofs for the guidance and
the criterion (between right and wrong)..." [Quran 2:185]
And here, the Quran becomes a 'redemption' according to Heger.
3) "And indeed We granted to Musa (Moses) and Harun (Aaron)
the criterion (of right and wrong), and a shining light
[i.e. the Taurat (Torah)] and a Reminder for Al-Muttaqun."
[Quran 21:48]
That's another problem that jeopardizes the status of
Jesus, if Moses and Aaron received the 'redemption'
before Christianity came to be. If Mohammed (s) understood
FURQAN as REDEMPTION, then he was saying that the Christians
have no redeemer except, the Tawrah. As it is known, the
Christian's redeemer is Jesus, not the Tawrah. This is nothing
but how twisted Heger's understanding of Arabic and the Quran
is.
4) And now, we must show Heger that Furqaan, simply means the
mechanism used in the Quran to kick out falsehood and confirm
what's correct.
"It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you
(Muhammad SAW) with truth, confirming what came before it.
And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).
Aforetime, as a guidance to mankind, And He sent down the
criterion [of judgement between right and wrong (this Qur'an)].
..." [Quran 3:2-3]
5) ... [Quran 8:29]
6) ... [Quran 21:48]
It would also help if Heger studied some pre-Islamic poets
who used the term Furqan. I recall Al-Khansaa wrote a poetry
about losing her brother--she used Furqan to describe death as
a separation between her and her dead brother. As the Quran says
that it was revealed in Arabic, but Heger wants to change that to
Hegeric.
--From Heger's original article:
> The same lexica on the other hand report that the feminine variant of the
> masculine form "nadheer" which reads "nadheera has the meaning "a votive gift":
> that which he gives who makes a vow, a child appointed by his parents by a vow
> to become a minister of the Church etc. (see Lane s.v.) This is really strange:
> that the masculine noun "nadheer" should have a totally different meaning than
> the feminine noun of the same grammatical structure.
If the feminine form was intended to be used, it would have been
Natheerah/Natheeratan, and NOT natheeran or natheera[a]. So,
there's nothing strange. This is another clumsy mistake.
> not the causative (IV.) form "andhara" -- it should originally not have had the
> meaning "warner", but the same significance as registered for the feminine form
> "nadheera" (which also can be understood as a nomen unitatis of the masculine
> noun), namely "votive gift" or "sacrifice".
No habibi, you're wrong here. We read in Surat Al-Qamar:
"Fakayfa kana 'athabi wa nuthur.."
....where we are dealing with a plural. What is the singular of
Nuthur? Natheer. So if you translate Natheer as sacrifice, this
verse would end up being:
"How was My torment and My sacrifices?" <???>
which makes absolutely no sense.
-- Natheer/Warner (Sacrifice, according to Heger):
1) Quran 38:70
"Qul innama yuHaa illaya innama ana natheerun mubeen."
Mohammed (s) becomes a clear Sacrifice? Sorry, doesn't make sense.
2) Quran 51:51
"Wa la taj'aluu ma'a Allaha ilaahan Akhara inni lakum
minhu natheerun mubeen."
This is a clear warning. Translating it to Sacrifice becomes a joke.
3) And most amazingly, Quran 53:56
"Hatha natheerun min annuthurul uulaa."
A sacrifice from the old sacrifices? How many
sacrifices were there? Sorry, it doesn't make sense.
4) And he probably missed another occurrence in Ch. 25, V. 7.
"... lawla unzila ilayhi malakun fayakuna ma'ahu natheeran."
An angel who is also a sacrifice? Sorry, it doesn't make sense.
5) And another example in 25:51
"wa law shi'na la-ba'athna fi kulli qaryatin natheeran."
A standalone sacrifice for all villages? That makes
the christianity useless. Unless the sacrifice Heger has
in mind is abundant and comes in bundles. Well, that also
doesn't make any sense.
The Muslims understandd the Quran with perfect sense. But, if
Heger wants to force the Muslims into believing his translation
then he must make sense out of his translation, and this is the
least. The only way he can prove that his translation makes sense
is by stepping through where those terms occur separately, and then
he should apply his translation and make sense out of the final
result. Can he do that?
It is illogical--in fact, it's insane--to select one single verse
and chose two terms from it in order to Christianize it. Those two
terms must be applicable throughout their occurrence in the Quran.
Heger's feeble attempt to retranslate the Quran reflects nothing
but the Christian ignorance when they interpret God's revelations.
We see their poor understanding of God's revelations when they
interpret their own Books; of course, their ignorance shines in
brilliance when they try to interpret the Quran.
Alhamdulilah that the Quran was not revealed where those people
were dominant, else, they would have interpreted God's book
according to their mythological desires. And Alhamdulilah that
the Quran has its own Ummah that protects it from Heger and his
likes who play games with God's words.
"Look! How they lie against themselves! But the (lie) which
they invented will disappear from them." [Quran 6:24]
"And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against
Allah. Such will be brought before their Lord, and the
witnesses will say, "These are the ones who lied against
their Lord!" No doubt! the curse of Allah is on the Zalimun
(wrong-doers, oppressors, etc.)" [Quran 11:18]
Salam,
Abdalla.
Dr. Christoph Heger
Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> on 22 Aug 1999 21:51:40 -0700
claimed that "it could've easily been kicked away with a simple logic
test" what I had put forward initiating this thread and what now can be
read in full detail at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/surah2~1.htm
namely that surah 25:1 actually has to be understood as
Blessed be He, who sent down the redemption on His servant
that he might be (or: become) a sacrifice for the worlds
displaying the central Christian teachings on Jesus Christ. The center
of my argument was scholarly evidence that "furqaan" as an Aramaic
loanword originally had the meaning of "salvation, redemption" and
evidence from the Arabic grammar and lexicography that "nadheer"
originally had the meaning of "votive gift", "sacrifice" and only later
was given the meaning of "a warner" - so as to say by brute force of the
exegets.
Now, let's see what Abdalla Alothman considered as valid
counterarguments!
> The Quran is revealed in Arabic,
I don't argue with a believer whether the Qur'an is "revealed" or not.
But it is by no means clear that it originally was Arabic at all. It's
open to further research whether it wasn't Syriac in its oldest parts.
But even if it were Arabic from its beginnings, the next statement must
be taken with care:
> according to how Arabs understand their terms,
At least Mr Alothman should have said: "according to how Arabs
*understood* their terms *originally*", since as Dr. James Bellamy from
the University of Michigan said it: Whenever a word appeared difficult
to be connected with an exegesis wanted for, "the exegetes attempted to
redefine it, as was their custom." Look his article "More proposed
emendations to the text of the Koran" (in Journal of the American
Oriental Society (JAOS), vol. 116, issue 2 (1996), p. 196-204, here p.
201, 2nd column).
This was the case also with "furqaan" and "nadheer", as I had
elaborated.
> not according to how Dr. Heger defines their terms for them.
That's ridiculous. I don't define them. I show their original meanings
with sound arguments from the Arabic grammar and lexicography.
> If you have finally made your mind to translate Furqan as
> Redemption and Natheer as Sacrifice, then you must apply
> your flawed translation at each and every occurrence of
> each terms. Meaning, whenever you find Natheer, you translate
> it as Sacrifice, and whenever you find Furqan, then it must
> be translated as Redemption. The final translation must make
> sense of course. This is basic and common elementary logic, btw.
No, that's an erroneous idea. "Basic and common elementary logic" states
that as soon as a newly invented meaning of a word has been carried
through successfully and entrenched normal usage of language, you will
find enough examples for this usage. So dealing with old Arabic
literature you have to be very diligent as to where the old meaning
still is transparent and where only the new one is present.
This applies also to the Qur'an. It definitely is not homogeneous in its
linguistical substance, but displays different textual layers. This, by
the way, was always known to Muslim scholarship, too, which
differentiated between texts which were said to be "muHkamaat"
("decided, unambiguous") and texts which were said to be
"mutashaabihaat" ("being similar to something else") - though there was
no overall agreement in view of the whole text of the Qur'an which
verses were to be attributed to the first class of texts and which to
the second one.
> I took the trouble to help you in your quest. I searched the
> Quran and found some places where Natheer and Furqan appear
> separately from each other. You have the verses, so apply your
> translation of the terms to the verses and try to make sense out
> of them.
That's nice, but actually I have them myself.
1. Concerning "furqaan":
> - Furqan/Criterion (Redemption, according to Heger):
There can be no doubt that "furqaan", indeed, was an Aramaic loan word
with the (original) meaning "salvation, redemption". I gave you the
scholarly literature where you can realize the evidence for it.
> 1) "And (remember) when We gave Musa (Moses) the Scripture
> [the Taurat (Torah)] and the criterion (of right and wrong)
> so that you may be guided aright." [Quran 2:53]
>
> So, does Furqan in this verse also mean redemption?
Certainly! As one of the scholars whose works a have cited in connection
with the history of the word "furqaan", namely W. Montgomery Watt in his
book "Muhammad at Medina" wrotes on page 16: "... the furqan which was
given to Moses (Q. 2,53; 21,48) is doubtless his deliverance when he led
his people out of Egypt, and Pharaoh and his hosts were overwhelmed."
Therefore Qur'an 2:53
wa-idh aataynaa Moosaa l-kitaaba wa-l-furqaana
simply is to be understood as:
And when we gave Moses the book and the salvation,
> This can be a serious problem for Jesus worshipers, since Moses
> came before Jesus--and he had the "redemption" in his hands.
Before Mr. Alothman made them aware of it Christians apparently didn't
realize this "serious problem". On the contrary, the remembrance of this
deliverance of the Jews from the hands of the Pharao always played some
role in Christian liturgy, and the salvation out of the Red Sea was
considered as a prefiguration of the salvation through baptism.
> (Note: The Tawrah was called FURQAN due to its laws/Shari'ah. And
> this Tawrah is the book given to Moses, not by Moses or about Moses.
> It's a book that neither the Jews or the Christians have today.)
The Thora (Tawrah) was called FURQAN by whom? By later Islamic exegets
of the Qur'an who can be credited any nonsense! Though "furqaan", as I
said, definitely is an Aramaic word, neither the Syriac Christians nor
the (Aramaic speaking) Jews termed the Thora (Tawrah) "furqaan" at any
time.
Concerning the "Tawrah" which "neither the Jews or the Christians have
today": It's like talking about the anatomy of the unicorn. Nobody has
ever seen it, but since its anatomy in some corners has become a
scholarship with its own disciples and a rich pictorial material pious
people are afraid to term it a superstition.
> 2) "The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a
> guidance for mankind and clear proofs for the guidance and
> the criterion (between right and wrong)..." [Quran 2:185]
>
> And here, the Quran becomes a 'redemption' according to Heger.
Why not? The transmitted Arabic text of 2:185 goes as:
shahru ramaDaana lladhee unzila feehi l-qur'aanu hudan li-n-naasi
wa-baiyinaatin min al-hudaa wa-l-furqaani
You only have to leave out arbitrary insertions like "between right and
wrong" and to translate precisely:
"The month of Ramadan, in which was revealed the Qur'an,
a guidance for mankind and clear proofs of the guidance
and the salvation."
Though the wording is a bit complicated - obviously a trace of later
tempering with the text -, the idea put forward by this verse is clear:
The Qur'an was revealed in the month of Ramadan, it presents a guidance
for mankind which will lead to salvation. No need to use the later
meaning "criterion" for "furqaan" and to insert this superfluous bracket
"(between right and wrong)".
> 3) "And indeed We granted to Musa (Moses) and Harun (Aaron)
> the criterion (of right and wrong), and a shining light
> [i.e. the Taurat (Torah)] and a Reminder for Al-Muttaqun."
> [Quran 21:48]
The transmitted Arabic text of 21:48 goes as:
wa-la-qad aataynaa Moosaa wa-Haaroona l-furqaana
wa-Diyaa'an wa-dhikran li-l-muttaqeena
A precise translation would be:
We had given Moses and Aaron the salvation
and a light and a reminder for the self-protectors.
(For the sake of brevity I abstain from elaborating on the word
"muttaqoona" and its original meaning "self-protectors".)
Again, there is no need to use the later meaning "criterion" for
"furqaan" and to insert superfluous brackets like "(between right and
wrong)" or doubtful comments like "[i.e. the Taurat (Torah)]".
> That's another problem that jeopardizes the status of
> Jesus, if Moses and Aaron received the 'redemption'
> before Christianity came to be. If Mohammed (s) understood
> FURQAN as REDEMPTION, then he was saying that the Christians
> have no redeemer except, the Tawrah. As it is known, the
> Christian's redeemer is Jesus, not the Tawrah. This is nothing
> but how twisted Heger's understanding of Arabic and the Quran
> is.
Again, nobody will doubt God gave Moses and Aaron "redemption", namely
His deliverance when he led His people out of Egypt, and Pharaoh and his
hosts were overwhelmed" - as W. Montgomery Watt had expressed it. And I
don't speculate how Muhammad understood "furqaan" or whether he was
saying this or that, I only are dealing with the transmitted text of the
Qur'an.
> 4) And now, we must show Heger that Furqaan, simply means the
> mechanism used in the Quran to kick out falsehood and confirm
> what's correct.
You can spare your efforts. It is simple fact that "furqaan"
*originally* had the meaning of "salvation, redemption", notwithstanding
any later use in the sense of "revelation scripture" or "criterion".
> "It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you
> (Muhammad SAW) with truth, confirming what came before it.
> And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).
> Aforetime, as a guidance to mankind, And He sent down the
> criterion [of judgement between right and wrong (this Qur'an)].
> ..." [Quran 3:2-3]
I let it remain undecided whether in this case for "furqaan" still the
meaning of "salvation" is intended or already the later, though
arbitrarily introduced meaning of "revelation scripture" or "criterion".
Both seem to be possible here.
> 5) ... [Quran 8:29]
>
> 6) ... [Quran 21:48]
Mr. Alothman can elaborate himself about these passages.
> It would also help if Heger studied some pre-Islamic poets
> who used the term Furqan.
I guess that a have studied a lot of more pre-Islamic poets than Mr.
Alothman.
> I recall Al-Khansaa wrote a poetry
> about losing her brother--she used Furqan to describe death as
> a separation between her and her dead brother.
It's nice that Mr. Alothman recalls it. It would however be more helpful
if he could quote it or cite where it is edited. Otherwise it seems
impossible to comment.
2. Concerning "nadheer":
> --From Heger's original article:
>
> > The same lexica on the other hand report that the feminine variant of the
> > masculine form "nadheer" which reads "nadheera has the meaning "a votive
> > gift": that which he gives who makes a vow, a child appointed by his
> > parents by a vow to become a minister of the Church etc. (see Lane s.v.)
> > This is really strange: that the masculine noun "nadheer" should have a
> > totally different meaning than the feminine noun of the same grammatical > > structure.
>
> If the feminine form was intended to be used, it would have been
> Natheerah/Natheeratan, and NOT natheeran or natheera[a]. So,
> there's nothing strange. This is another clumsy mistake.
The "clumsy mistake" is on Mr. Alothman's side. Nowhere I have said that
in 25:1 the feminine form was intended. I only pointed to the fact that
it
is unbelievable that the masculine noun "nadheer" should have a totally
different meaning than the feminine noun of the same grammatical
structure. But Mr. Alothman preferred to misunderstand.
> > not the causative (IV.) form "andhara" -- it should originally not have
> > had the meaning "warner", but the same significance as registered for the
> > feminine form "nadheera" (which also can be understood as a nomen
> > unitatis of the masculine noun), namely "votive gift" or "sacrifice".
>
> No habibi, you're wrong here.
Not at all! I am not wrong with my grammatical arguments. It is
worthwile to remark that Mr. Alothman doesn't refer to this grammatical
evidence at all. By the way, in the meantime I had the opportunity to
look into further Arabic dictionaries, and indeed they confirmed the
meaning "vowed", "sacrificed to God" even for modern times.
> We read in Surat Al-Qamar:
> "Fakayfa kana 'athabi wa nuthur.."
It would have been no mistake if the exact citation had been added:
surah 54:18, which reads correctly:
fa-kaifa kaana `adhaabee wa-nudhuri
> ....where we are dealing with a plural. What is the singular of
> Nuthur? Natheer. So if you translate Natheer as sacrifice, this
> verse would end up being:
>
> "How was My torment and My sacrifices?" <???>
One could make a more intelligent use of my hints. I said that "nadheer"
originally had (and as I learnt in the meantime, has till now) the
meaning of "a vowed thing", i.e. from the point of view of man "a votive
gift" or "a sacrifice", from the point of view of God "a promise". And
"nudhur" is more of a collective noun "all what has been vowed/promised"
than a plural. Therefore the above verse
"And how were my chastisement and my promise?"
referring to the alternative that man is thought to be destined to earn
divine revenge or divine reward.
I think that may suffice for the moment - the more as in the following
instance we cannot agree on the Arabic text of the Quran:
> 1) Quran 38:70
>
> "Qul innama yuHaa illaya innama ana natheerun mubeen."
The verse 38:70 reads in my Qur'an:
"in yooHaa illaa ilayya annamaa ana nadheerun mubeenun."
We should postpone our discussion till we manage to agree on the text of
the Qur'an.
Nonetheless, it should be clear that it would be by no means a
contradiction to my thesis if there actually were passages where
"nadheer" clearly is intended as "warner". As I have said above: After a
word has been pressed upon a newly invented meaning, younger layers of
the Qur'anic text may have been phrased using this new meaning of the
word from the beginning. We have to allow for the inhomogeneous
character of this text.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger