more polemics: mr. rob adams
Jochen Katz
Since I am not really an expert in Jewish history of grammar and how
this relates to Muslim science, philosophy, linguistics and all,
I took the liberty to ask a professor of Hebraic studies for his
comments on Mr. Saifullah's excerpts.
His responses are initialled with "Price:" and mine with "JK:".
For his background [apart from being a prof of Hebraic studies]
I took a minor in Arabic (3 years) and have read portions of the
Quran and Islamic literature in Arabic. For the most part I found
it uninteresting. The Quran has little or nothing to say about
philosophy, science, linguistics, or Hebrew.
In article <5o6jg3$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Metallica <ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
in Response to Rob Adams:
} > For example, Stephen C. Neill, co-author with N.T. Wright
} > of "The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1986,"
} > Oxford University Press, 1986, has written:
} >
} > But far more difficult is it for the Muslim even to
} > think of applying criticism to the Quran. For him this
} > is the very word of God, eternal and uncreated; how then
} > subject it to the probe and scalpel of the surgeon? ...
} > But the Muslim scholar may rest assured that sooner or
} > later he will be driven, by the same irresistible
} > impulse as the Christians, to look on the Quran with
} > the same critical eyes as have been trained in other
} > fields. What the consequences for his faith may be it
} > is not for a Christian even to imagine.
} well, we have no end to polemics against islam and more so the holy ghost
} inspired ones. let us see what islam has done to the interpretation of the
} old testament. and at the end, inshallah, you will be regretting what you
} said.
JK: What a threat, we are all trembling. ;->
Price:
It was wise for the Islamic defender to change the subject. A critical
analysis of the Quran would be catastrophic for Islam. Take for example
textual criticism.
Although I personally have not studied the scientific criticism of the text
of the Quran, I have read that the text of the Quran is in great disarray,
having little integrity. Islamic tradition of the text provides little
support, because it records that some of Mohammed's surahs were written on
fig leaves and other aterials. It is no wonder that the earliest manuscripts
lack consistency and agreement. This is far different than the study of the
text of the OT and NT. The same could be said about the literary analysis
of the Quran.
JK: Now, he might not be too familiar with the textual history of the
Qur'an but he sure knows the textual criticism of the Bible. And it is
absolutely clear that nothing like this has ever been done on the Qur'an.
And when you look at the redaction criticism where theologians take apart
the different layers of the Biblical text [or so they think] which is
a coherent story, just imagine what they would redaction criticism would
do to the chaotic arrangement of the Qur'an. Not much would be left of
it after that. And the claim that the Torah is given in its literal form
by God [as the Jews uphold] didn't save the Torah from the documentary
hypothesis. Neither will the claim that the text even in its sequence
is given by Allah and as such transmitted to the Muslims by Muhammad
going to save the book from being disected by unbelieving scholars.
Just wait another 50-60 years and see what will happen.
} "jewish scholars in arab lands for the first time in history acquired the
} tools for proper contexual study of the scriptures. islam had spread the
} tenets of rationalism, mediating in part the philosophical teachings of
} classical greece." [pp. 221, [1]]
Price:
As I said, the Quran has little or nothing to say about rationalism and
philosophy. If Islam spread these tenets, they first borrowed them from
other people, for example, from classical Greek literature, as the above
author indicated. Jewish scholars have never needed to borrow from other
nations. Their literature on the study of Scripture dates much earlier
than that of the Islamic era. The Mishnah and the Talmud were already in
place long before the days of Mohammed. Rationalism and pagan philosophy
have no place in the proper contextual study of Scripture. They are the
friend of neither Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
} "IN ADDITION, ARAB GRAMMARIANS HAD DEVELOPED A SYSTEMATIC METHOD FOR
} ANALYZING THE STYLE AND THE STRUCTURE OF CLASSICAL ARABIC, THE LANGUAGE OF
} THE KORAN. THIS ENABLED THEM NOT ONLY TO INTERPRET THE KORAN BUT ALSO TO
} COMPOSE NEW WORKS IN THE STRICT STANDARDS OF THE CLASSICAL IDIOM."
} [pp.222, [1]]
Price:
In the standard works on hermeneutics and linguistics, I do not remember
the mention of any Arabic authorities. Evidently their contributions,
if any, were overshadowed by those of the Jews and Christians.
JK: By the way, what is the reason to scream those quotations?
} "JEWS IN ARAB LANDS HAD THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME COMPARATIVE SEMITIC
} LINGUISTS." [pp.222, [1]]
Price:
This was true because they were forced by the Arabs to use and study Arabic.
Arabic is the most primitive of the Semitic languages, and it has retained
more of the characteristics of ancestral proto-Semitic. This was due to the
Arabic language, not to the Quran or to Islam. Such linguistic discovery
would have been made without any influence from Islam.
} "jews who studied arabic language and literature, as well as other
} academic disciplines, learned the new linguistic science and desired
} toexploit it in their exegesis of the bible and the analysis of hebrew
} grammer. ONLY THOSE WHO KNEW ARABIC GRAMMER DEVELOPED THE PROPER
} UNDERSTANDING OF THE HEBREW VERB AS THE STEM BUILT UPON THREE CONSONANTS.
} HEBREW VERB STEMS IN WHICH THE LETTERS alef, vav AND yod APPEAR FOR
} EXAMPLE, DO NOT DISPLAY THESE WEAK CONSONANTS IN ALL FORMS. THESE WEAK
} CONSONANTS DO APPEAR IN THE VARIOUS FORMS OF ARABIC VERB, HOWEVER. JEWISH
} SCHOLARS WITH LINGUISTIC SOPHISTICATION REALIZED THAT THE WEAK CONSONANTS
} WERE PART OF THE HEBREW VERB EVEN WHERE THEY ARE NOT EVIDENT. JEWISH
} EXEGETES, SUCH AS THOSE IN FRANCE, WHO DID NOT READ ARABIC, FAILED TO
} COMPREHEND THE TRICONSONANTAL BASIS OF THE HEBREW VERB-STEM AND AS A
} RESULT, CONFUSED CERTAIN STEMS AND MISINTERPRETED THEM. C'EST LA VIE.
} CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SPANISH JEWISH SCHOLARS WAS THEIR SUPERIOR INTEREST
} AND TRAINING IN LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS, A BENEFIT OF HAVING GROWN UP IN A N
} ARABIC MILIEU." [pp. 222, [1]]
Price:
As I have already stated, this is a characteristic of Arabic as a language.
It has no direct bearing on the Quran or Islam. This would have happened in
spite of Mohammed and Islam.
JK: Maybe it would have happened only later since without the expansion of
the Islamic empire those scholars living in these occupied territories
naturally had to to look at Arabic, but eventually, those linguistic
discoveries would have been made anyway. It is the political/military
component of the spread of Islam that is responsible for it, not its
"religious" or "moral" superiority or whatever Mr. Saifullah wanted to
convey through these quotes.
} "his (rabbi saadiah) arabic translation of the bible, however continues in
} use as the official version of jews from arab lands. IT IS ALSO A MINE
} OF ORIGINAL INSIGHT INTO THE MEANING OF DIFFICULT HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES
} IN THE BIBLE, OF WHICH THE MODERN SCHOLARS HAVE BARELY TAKEN ADVANTAGE."
} [pp.222-223, [1]]
Price:
The Islamic defender failed to note that the work of Saadia Gaon is no
longer in existence, and all that is presently known of his work comes from
quotations contained in the work of later scholars. How can modern scholars
take advantage of non-existent literature?
} "(ibn janah's) two-volume analysis of biblical vocabulary, grammer, and
} style remains the MOST BRILLIANT AND VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION OF ALL TIME TO
} THE STUDY OF BIBLICAL LANGUAGE. the two volumes "the book of roots" and
} "the book of embroidery" (his figure for grammer) exist ONLY IN THE
} ORIGINAL ARABIC AND A MEDIEVAL HEBREW TRANSLATION." [pp.223, [1]]
}
} [1] Back to the Sources: Reading the classic Jewish Texts: the first
} complete modern guide to the great books of jewish tradition: what they
} are and how to read them. edited by Barry W Holtz, published by Simon and
} Schuster 1992. ISBN 0-671-45467-6
Price:
Of course the work of Ibn Janah was important for its contribution to the
history of the study of Hebrew grammar. However, it is significant that the
work has not been translated into modern languages such as English. Evidently
such has not been done because it has been supplanted by the more advanced
and significant works of his successors who have contributed to the advanced
state of modern linguistics and Hebrew grammar without the aid of the Quran
or Islam.
} and also let us see another quote:
}
} "the quraan is undeniably a book of great importance even to the
} non-muslim, perhaps more today than ever, if that is possible. one aspect
} of islam that is unexpected and yet appealing to the post-christian
} secular mind is the harmonious interplay of faith and reason. ISLAM DOES
} NOT DEMAND UNREASONED BELIEF. RATHER, IT INVITES INTELLIGENT FAITH,
} GROWING FROM OBSERVATION, REFLECTION, AND CONTEMPLATION, BEGINNING WITH
} NATURE AND WHAT IS ALL AROUND US. ACCORDINGLY, ANTAGONISM BETWEEN RELIGION
} AND SCIENCE SUCH AS THAT FAMILIAR TO WESTERNERS IS FOREIGN TO ISLAM" [PP.
} VII]
Obviously Mr. Saifullah had to put it in upper case in order to emphasis
it and wants us to draw the conclusion that the West and Christianity
are unreasonded. To this he gets the answer:
Price:
It is false implication that Christianity demands unreasoned belief.
Likewise, it is a false declaration that Islam has no antagonism with
modern science. Let them assent to the truth of atheistic evolution
and all its implications for morality and personal righteousness. The
"post-Christian" secular mind is primarily secular, not religious, more
interested in eastern mysticism than in logically reasoned theology.
Who are the modern "post-Christian" secular thinkers that have praised
the merits and contributions of Islam to their system of thinking?
} and further:
}
} "THIS CONNECTION BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON ENABLED ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION TO
} ABSORB AND VIVIFY USEFUL KNOWLEDGE, INCLUDING THAT OF ANCIENT PEOPLES,
} WHEREBY IT EVENTUALLY NURSED EUROPE OUT OF THE DARK AGES, LAYING THE
} FOUNDATION OF RENAISSANCE. WHEN EUROPE GOT ON ITS CULTURAL FEET AND
} EXPELLED ISLAM, HOWEVER, THE EUROPEAN MIND WAS RENT BY THE INABILITY OF
} THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHTO TOLERATE THE INDIVISIBILITY OF THE SACRED AND THE
} SECULAR THAT CHARACTERIZED ISLAM AND HAD ENABLED ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION TO
} DEVELOP NATURAL SCIENCE AND ABSTRACT ART AS WELL A PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL
} SCIENCE." [PP.VII]
}
} from "The Essential Koran" by Thomas Cleary, 1993 HarperSanFrancisco ISBN
} 0-06-250196-8
Price:
The author of that source has been reading different books than I have. The
outworking of Islam is characterized by the behavior of the Islamic nations
led by Islamic leaders. Their history has been to spread Islam by the sword,
not by reason and logical persuasion. In the past they have suppressed
Christianity by fear, prison, and death, instead of by the power of the pen.
The present day Islamic nations suppress religious freedom, making the
practice of Christianity and Judaism illegal, and imprisoning or killing
anyone who converts from Islam. These nations suppress the equality of women,
swear to the annihilation of the nation of Israel, stand by unconcerned while
their Islamic brothers in Africa die of starvation, and promote international
terrorism. That is a new brand of sociology that I would not regard as
civilized.
James D. Price
JK: Now, I recognize that Thomas Cleary might be speaking about the past
while Dr. Price speaks of what he sees in the present, and as such one
might come to very different conclusions. But a fair evaluation has to
take into account both sides and all ages. Some of what was glorious
in the past of the Islamic empire is no more or less real than that which
we see today and which is not exactly glorious. And one might ask, how
much of what we see was really due to Islam, or instead due to a strong
united empire? At the hight of the Greek or Roman Empire, when there
was a large united and secure area, then people can concentrate on
arts and philosophy and science and they florish. The Roman Empire didn't
fall apart and plunge into the Dark Ages because of the adoption of
Christianity but because of the assault of the gothic tribes and the
Vandals and the Germans who attacked the Empire and rent it apart. Because
of the hundreds of years of attacks from the outside and the energies sapped
by the need to defend and eventually the defeat, that is what caused the
arts and sciences to fall prey to the more immediate needs of defense.
In a similar way, the arts and sciences only started to flourish after
a long time into the Islamic empire. They didn't develop immediately
while the Arab Empire was in constant warfare of expansion. Most energies
were taken up in making ever more gains and overrunning new countries.
Only when the expansion stopped and there was a long period of stability
then in this huge and unified empire [just like under Rome, or like the
Chinese stable dynasties] the sciencies and arts flourish. But this is
probably more a social phenomenon than a religious one. Also, many of the
greatest philosophers in the Muslim Empire like ibn Sina and ibn Rushd
and others were considered heretics by the theologians. I find it
interesting how they are condemned in their own time by the Islamic
authorities and today Muslims point back and claim them for Islam and
how great Islam is because it produced scientists/philosophers/artists
like them. That is like saying Christianity is true because Galileo
lived in "Christian" Italy, never mind his clash with the religious
authorities.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
AbdulraHman Lomax
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Since I am not really an expert in Jewish history of grammar and how
>this relates to Muslim science, philosophy, linguistics and all,
>I took the liberty to ask a professor of Hebraic studies for his
>comments on Mr. Saifullah's excerpts.
Jochen, if nothing else, does bring in some interesting sources.
This one does not appear to be particularly objective. But, hey, spice
of life.
>His responses are initialled with "Price:" and mine with "JK:".
>For his background [apart from being a prof of Hebraic studies]
>I took a minor in Arabic (3 years) and have read portions of the
>Quran and Islamic literature in Arabic. For the most part I found
>it uninteresting. The Quran has little or nothing to say about
>philosophy, science, linguistics, or Hebrew.
The Qur'an is a reminder of our relationship with God. If one
considers this irrelevant to "philosophy", then we can understand Mr.
Price's comment, though it says much more about him than it does about
the Qur'an. "Uninteresting" is a measurement of the meeting of a
person with some event, situation, or object; it is actually a quality
of the person and not of the object. Since even an empty hole in a
generic object of unknown composition is of interest to a scientist
(and the measurement of radiation from such a hole was the foundation
of modern physics), we know that Mr. Price is not a scientist. So his
comment about "uninteresting" shows us *his* limitations, not the
limitations of the Qur'an.
On the other hand, I find it *interesting.* What does that prove? Only
that I can see something in the Qur'an which apparently escaped the
notice of Mr. Price. Am I surprised? No.
>Metallica <ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>} well, we have no end to polemics against islam and more so the holy ghost
>} inspired ones. let us see what islam has done to the interpretation of the
>} old testament. and at the end, inshallah, you will be regretting what you
>} said.
>JK: What a threat, we are all trembling. ;->
We should *all* tremble. No smiley face here. But the heedless imagine
that they are safe.
>Price:
>It was wise for the Islamic defender to change the subject. A critical
>analysis of the Quran would be catastrophic for Islam. Take for example
>textual criticism.
An assertion which Mr. Price does not go on to substantiate. Indeed,
he is clearly not any kind of authority on the subject, merely relying
on what he has "read" and he did not tell us, at all, where he read
such a thing. His comments show no particular knowledge.
>Although I personally have not studied the scientific criticism of the text
>of the Quran, I have read that the text of the Quran is in great disarray,
>having little integrity.
This ("disarray") is an old charge, generally based on Qur'anic style,
which is not like a textbook, for example. It is, rather, an extended
conversation, and it is quite redundant. This serves *its* purposes,
not the purposes of one who expects a text with an outline, and
focused progression from one subtopic to another. The chapter titles
in the Qur'an are mnemonic devices and not necessarily representative
of the content. This puts off a lot of readers. But "little integrity"
is completely baseless, and so Mr. Price has disqualified himself at
the outset as any kind of dispassionate scholar. The Qur'anic text
shows a uniformity of style that points to a single author, for
example, and there is no serious criticism of the Qur'an that alleges
multiple authorship. To this reader, the Qur'an is of the highest
integrity, that is, singleness of authorship and unity of purpose.
But that purpose is not what we normally call "science" (except that
it appeals to experience and observation and reflection, which are
fundamental to science, but the Qur'an is not the *result* of
scientific investigation, as would be a work of science), nor is it
speculation about the nature of reality, which we call philosophy, nor
is it about linguistics, though it would certainly be of interest to
anyone interested in the Arabic language, since it is the oldest
extant piece of any substance in Arabic, nor is it about Hebrew, by
any stretch of the imagination. Its purpose is to remind us of our
relationship with God, and that is the beginning and the end of it.
>Islamic tradition of the text provides little
>support, because it records that some of Mohammed's surahs were written on
>fig leaves and other aterials.
Fig leaves? I've never heard that. I've heard of scraps of leather and
vellum, shoulder blades, and palm risp. I have seen a famous
photograph of "Allah" written on a fig leaf; perhaps that confused Mr.
Price. As to palm leaf, in my early twenties I translated the Prajna
Paramita Hridaya Sutra, written in Sanskrit on palm leaf. I was
working with a photocopy, of course, from the University of California
at Berkeley library. I think the copy was dated from a time not much
different from the time of the Qur'an. It was quite clear and easy to
read. So palm leaf, at least, under the right conditions, could last a
long time.
>It is no wonder that the earliest manuscripts
>lack consistency and agreement. This is far different than the study of the
>text of the OT and NT.
It appears that either Mr Price is reading poorly-informed sources, or
mere anti-Qur'an polemic, or he has not retained or understood what he
has read. The "earliest manuscripts" of the Qur'an are *highly*
consistent, so consistent that we must search them diligently to find
*any* variations at all. Yes, there are variations, generally
attributable to copyist error, but even these are *very* rare. And
compared to the NT, they are truly insignificant.
>The same could be said about the literary analysis
>of the Quran.
I once took a class titled "The Literary Criticism of the Qur'an,"
given at a local community college. Provocative title, eh? Well, it
turns out that the teacher of the class had no idea that Muslims might
think the title offensive; in fact, his intention was merely to inform
his students about the Qur'an -- and he was, shall we say, a
sympathetic teacher, though he was a Protestant minister himself; his
goal was to present Islam and the Qur'an in such a way that Muslims
would say, "yes, that is what we believe." He did fairly well. Once he
knew that I was there, he invited me to interrupt him any time I
thought anything he said was wrong, he had me speak to the class at
length on certain topics, and he actually encouraged me to see if I
could take over the class for the future at that college. Why had he
called it what he had called it? Well, classes in comparative religion
were required to be expensive in the fee structure set up by the
college and the state government, and classes in "literature" could be
free.
I am not sure, at all, what Mr Price meant by "the same could be
said." What would literary analysis have to do with fig leaves? I
suspect that we are seeing, instead of rational argument, word salad;
sequences of letters designed to look like cogent speech but really
with no content, only some vague intention to criticise.
>JK: Now, he might not be too familiar with the textual history of the
>Qur'an but he sure knows the textual criticism of the Bible.
So, apparently Jochen does recognise that Mr Price is "not too
familiar with the textual history of the Qur'an," an understatement if
I have ever seen one. Praise God. Perhaps there is a shred of hope for
Jochen.
>And it is
>absolutely clear that nothing like this has ever been done on the Qur'an.
Yes. Jochen is not the first to notice this. But textual criticism, of
the kind undertaken with the Bible, where there were, undeniably, many
hands working with identifiable character and purpose, may well not be
applicable at all to the Qur'an, coming as it appears to come, through
a single person. There are no serious scholars out there proposing
that the Qur'an is anything other than a message spoken by Muhammad,
SAS, and written down by his companions. Yes, there are disagreements
about details, and some scholars who claim that the arrangement of the
material was not fixed until later.
Now, what *might* be done, and it has been done to some degree, is to
study the development of this message over time. It is obvious that
there is a shift in language and emphasis, for example, between the
early Meccan revelations and the later Medinan ones. The techniques of
textual criticism may well be of interest and value here. But I don't
think that they are going to uncover multiple authorship and thus the
introduction or slanting of material according to the beliefs or
motives of the persons doing the writing, whereas the Gospels clearly
do include material so introduced.
>And when you look at the redaction criticism where theologians take apart
>the different layers of the Biblical text [or so they think] which is
>a coherent story, just imagine what they would redaction criticism would
>do to the chaotic arrangement of the Qur'an. Not much would be left of
>it after that.
"Chaotic" is a term used by one who does not understand the underlying
order of a thing. Chaos itself, in modern terms, is subject to law and
order. And one can learn a great deal about the physics of a system,
for example, when it behaves in an apparently chaotic way. Apparent
chaos does not imply lack of purpose or order, it merely means that
the order exists on a different level than what one expects. It is
clear to me that the mere fact that the Qur'an jumps from one topic to
another would not imply any disunity of authorship or purpose. If one
took my writings and put them together in one book, without appending
the context in which these writings occurred, one would see that I
jump from one topic to another. So would "redaction criticism" of what
I have written, because it shows such chaos, leave nothing unscathed?
If so, then we have a reductio ad absurdem of redaction criticism. But
sound analysis (which is a better word than "criticism," because the
latter implies negative moral judgement) would not do this. In fact,
it would show that all my writings come from a single person, even
though his purpose at the moment might vary. Does the Qur'an show
variation of purpose? I'm going to leave off here....
>Price:
>As I said, the Quran has little or nothing to say about rationalism and
>philosophy. If Islam spread these tenets, they first borrowed them from
>other people, for example, from classical Greek literature, as the above
>author indicated.
Mr Price is quite confused, I am afraid, or perhaps he is not confused
and is merely incoherent in expression. "Philosophy" is not a "tenet."
There is also quite a gap between "little" and "nothing." Which is it.
Since we do not think that Mr Price is sufficiently familiar with the
Qur'an, his comments about it carry little weight. He may know a great
deal about the Hebrew scriptures. This does not qualify him to comment
on the Arabic Qur'an. It would have been better for him to remain
silent about it, for his willingness to voice his opinion as if it
were a fact does color our perception of the other things he says.
>Jewish scholars have never needed to borrow from other
>nations. Their literature on the study of Scripture dates much earlier
>than that of the Islamic era. The Mishnah and the Talmud were already in
>place long before the days of Mohammed. Rationalism and pagan philosophy
>have no place in the proper contextual study of Scripture. They are the
>friend of neither Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
The division of the world into Islam/Christianity/Judaism vs.
Rationalism and pagan philosophy is not an Islamic division. Lovers of
truth are, inherently, friends of Islam. This is why Islamic
theologians *did* consider the arguments of "pagans," on points where
the pagans were informed. We could speculate a bit about Mr Price's
own system of thought, based on what he has written, but I will
restrain myself.
>} "IN ADDITION, ARAB GRAMMARIANS HAD DEVELOPED A SYSTEMATIC METHOD FOR
>} ANALYZING THE STYLE AND THE STRUCTURE OF CLASSICAL ARABIC, THE LANGUAGE OF
>} THE KORAN. THIS ENABLED THEM NOT ONLY TO INTERPRET THE KORAN BUT ALSO TO
>} COMPOSE NEW WORKS IN THE STRICT STANDARDS OF THE CLASSICAL IDIOM."
>} [pp.222, [1]]
>Price:
>In the standard works on hermeneutics and linguistics, I do not remember
>the mention of any Arabic authorities. Evidently their contributions,
>if any, were overshadowed by those of the Jews and Christians.
Or, alternatively, those "standard works" were prepared by persons who
were unfamiliar with Arabic materials in the field. Would "standard
works on herenuetics and linguistics" -- presumably in a European
language -- be concerned with analysis of the style and structure of
Classical Arabic? The classical works in this field are still not
available in English, and would generally be known only to specialists
who know Arabic.
By the way, I have seen people take three years of Arabic, as did Mr
Price, and walk away with little ability to read the classical
sources. Arabic is famous for this kind of phenomenon.
>JK: By the way, what is the reason to scream those quotations?
>} "JEWS IN ARAB LANDS HAD THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME COMPARATIVE SEMITIC
>} LINGUISTS." [pp.222, [1]]
>Price:
>This was true because they were forced by the Arabs to use and study Arabic.
Or simply because it was to their advantage to do so. Were Jews who
found themselves in the United States "forced by the Americans to use
and study English"? Perhaps. If one does not know the language of the
ruling class in a place (or even of the majority, even if it is a
powerless one), one is at a disadvantage. The comment is hostile and
irrelevant.
>Arabic is the most primitive of the Semitic languages, and it has retained
>more of the characteristics of ancestral proto-Semitic. This was due to the
>Arabic language, not to the Quran or to Islam. Such linguistic discovery
>would have been made without any influence from Islam.
Mr Price is here indulging in speculative prophecy, that is,
predicting what would have happened if such-and-such had not occurred.
But without the advent of Islam, who, until very modern times, would
be concerned much about the language of this isolated corner of the
world? But I would agree that specialists in language would have made
such a discovery. But would it have cross-fertilized the field of
biblical exegisis? Certainly it is reasonable to consider that
improbable. But here we are coming closer to Mr Price's field of
expertise. Perhaps he knows whereof he speaks; but his earlier
comments cast doubt on his intentions.
>} "jews who studied arabic language and literature, as well as other
>} academic disciplines, learned the new linguistic science and desired
>} toexploit it in their exegesis of the bible and the analysis of hebrew
>} grammer. ONLY THOSE WHO KNEW ARABIC GRAMMER DEVELOPED THE PROPER
>} UNDERSTANDING OF THE HEBREW VERB AS THE STEM BUILT UPON THREE CONSONANTS.
>} HEBREW VERB STEMS IN WHICH THE LETTERS alef, vav AND yod APPEAR FOR
>} EXAMPLE, DO NOT DISPLAY THESE WEAK CONSONANTS IN ALL FORMS. THESE WEAK
>} CONSONANTS DO APPEAR IN THE VARIOUS FORMS OF ARABIC VERB, HOWEVER. JEWISH
>} SCHOLARS WITH LINGUISTIC SOPHISTICATION REALIZED THAT THE WEAK CONSONANTS
>} WERE PART OF THE HEBREW VERB EVEN WHERE THEY ARE NOT EVIDENT. JEWISH
>} EXEGETES, SUCH AS THOSE IN FRANCE, WHO DID NOT READ ARABIC, FAILED TO
>} COMPREHEND THE TRICONSONANTAL BASIS OF THE HEBREW VERB-STEM AND AS A
>} RESULT, CONFUSED CERTAIN STEMS AND MISINTERPRETED THEM. C'EST LA VIE.
>} CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SPANISH JEWISH SCHOLARS WAS THEIR SUPERIOR INTEREST
>} AND TRAINING IN LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS, A BENEFIT OF HAVING GROWN UP IN A N
>} ARABIC MILIEU." [pp. 222, [1]]
>Price:
>As I have already stated, this is a characteristic of Arabic as a language.
>It has no direct bearing on the Quran or Islam. This would have happened in
>spite of Mohammed and Islam.
And as I have stated, Mr Price's position is probably pure
speculation. It does appear that he is confirming what was said, only
claiming that it would have happened anyway. Now, Saifullah is quoting
a source. I did not begin this piece knowing the source he is quoting.
[1] Back to the Sources: Reading the classic Jewish Texts: the first
complete modern guide to the great books of jewish tradition: what
they are and how to read them. edited by Barry W Holtz, published by
Simon and Schuster 1992. ISBN 0-671-45467-6
Essentially, Mr Price would expect us to accept his rejection of what
is quoted, solely on his presumed personal authority. There is no
cogent counterargument given, only a terse dismissal. We would not be
likely to accept this, even if we knew who he is. And what does Jochen
expect, other than a muddying of the waters?
>JK: Maybe it would have happened only later since without the expansion of
>the Islamic empire those scholars living in these occupied territories
>naturally had to to look at Arabic, but eventually, those linguistic
>discoveries would have been made anyway. It is the political/military
>component of the spread of Islam that is responsible for it, not its
>"religious" or "moral" superiority or whatever Mr. Saifullah wanted to
>convey through these quotes.
Jochen's polemic position stands out clear in this case. Contact with
Arabic scholarship *did* seed the Renaissance, that it might have
happened eventually does not change that fact. And whether the spread
of Islam was through a political/military component or through
voluntary conversion, or whatever, is not relevant to the points here.
When Jochen speaks the truth, I confirm it. That is the duty of a
believer in truth. Is he a believer in truth? Or does he prefer to
emphasize what furthers his purpose, and cover up and conceal what
does not? This is the test, which Allah arranges for those who would
approach him. Woe to those who imagine that they have safety from God,
who will conceal what they know for a small price.
>} "his (rabbi saadiah) arabic translation of the bible, however continues in
>} use as the official version of jews from arab lands. IT IS ALSO A MINE
>} OF ORIGINAL INSIGHT INTO THE MEANING OF DIFFICULT HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES
>} IN THE BIBLE, OF WHICH THE MODERN SCHOLARS HAVE BARELY TAKEN ADVANTAGE."
>} [pp.222-223, [1]]
>Price:
>The Islamic defender failed to note that the work of Saadia Gaon is no
>longer in existence, and all that is presently known of his work comes from
>quotations contained in the work of later scholars. How can modern scholars
>take advantage of non-existent literature?
Through those quotations. There are many examples in Christian
history, for example, where major works are only known through
quotations, and they can be extremely useful. Who is this guy? Jochen,
where did you dredge him up?
Enough. I got things to do....
Remainder of message not read, lack of comment implies neither
agreement nor disagreement.
AbdulraHman Lomax
abdul...@worldnet.att.net
P.O. Box 10316
San Rafael, CA 94912