Language Barrier - Part 1
Pondering Mind
I am herein reproducing the article of Brother Ayman in parts which one could access in full at the following link: http://www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htm
Language Barrier - (Part -
1)
26:224. And the poets are followed by the deceived/unreasonable.
43:3. We have made it as an Arabic reading, so that perhaps you will be logical.
12:2. We have sent it down as an Arabic reading, so that perhaps you will be logical.
How is it that the great reading being in Arabic contributes to logical and reasonable as opposed to unreasonable understanding?
What is special about a text being in Arabic or non-Arabic? Or more precisely, at the time that the great reading was descended, what was special about a text being in Arabic or non-Arabic?
WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT ARABIC?
A possible answer may be found in the sign in 16:103.
16:103. And indeed We know that they say: "It is but a human that is teaching him." The language of the one they falsely attribute to is non-Arabic, while this is a clarifying Arabic language.
The sign in verse 16:103 refutes the statement "It is but a human that is teaching him" by saying that the language of such human religious teachings is non-Arabic, while the great reading is in Arabic. The sign in 16:103 indicates that at the time the great reading was revealed there was another non-Arabic language that was used for "religious" teachings and that Arabic was not used for "religious" matters.
Looking back at archeological evidence from the period before the great reading was descended, we see a very interesting phenomenon. We see plenty of inscriptions in Arabic. However, those inscriptions are mostly informal writings that do not talk about formal religious or political affairs. They are like graffiti written by average people. They talk about average people's issues such as hunting, finding water, tribes and families, the caring for livestock, love, grief, and other normal everyday aspects of desert life.
On the other hand, in the same areas of Arabia where those informal Arabic graffiti are found, thousands of Nabataean inscriptions can be found. Nabataean is a close cousin of Aramaic and comes from the same branch of Western Semitic languages. Arabic, on the other hand, comes from the Southern Semitic branch. All the Nabataean inscriptions are very formal and talk exclusively about religious and royal affairs and there are no Nabataean inscriptions talking about the average Nabataean citizen life. Hence, the life of the average Nabataean citizen has remained a mystery.
Until recently, archeologists thought that there were two unrelated people using two different languages that lived in that area, the Nabataeans and the Arab nomads. An inscription found near the Negev region changed all that. The inscription talks about a Nabataean king and dedicates the setting up of a statue to him in the Nabataean language. Added to the Nabataean text there is an explanation in Arabic of why the people made the dedication. Here is a translation of the Arabic portion:
"For (king) Obodas works without rewards or favor, and when death tried to claim us, when a wound of ours festered, he did not let us perish."
When the subject of the inscription changed from formal religious/royal matters to the common people's explanation of why they loved their king, so did the language. It shifted from Nabataean to Arabic. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there weren't two people living in the same region who were using two different languages. They were one people all along who simply used two languages for different purposes. They used Arabic as an informal language for common everyday matters and Nabataean as a language for religious and formal affairs. Most commoners would not have understood the religious language of the elite and this helped the religious and political elite to monopolize power.
More importantly, this archeological evidence is confirmed by the sign in 16:103 that clearly points out to Arabic not being the language of religious teachings. So here we have agreement between the evidence from the great reading and archeological evidence.
At the time of the prophet, if a Jew wanted to learn religious matters, they would be taught in Hebrew, which like Nabataean, is also a Western Semitic language. If a Christian wanted to learn religious matters, they would be taught in Aramaic or Greek. If a pagan wanted to learn about his Nabataean idols, he would be taught in Nabataean Aramaic.
Throughout history, one of the ways that the religious clergy maintained control over the common people has been to erect a language barrier. For example, until the 14th century, the language of religion in England was Latin. Change was brought about by the death of over half of the Latin-speaking clergy during the plague of 1348-54 because they lived in close quarters at monasteries. English speaking commoners replaced these clergy and English services became widespread. Shortly thereafter, English translations of the Bible started to appear and not long afterwards, reformers, such as Protestants, began to challenge the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The event of the plague had a significant impact on the English language and how it is used. English words and expressions that had no religious connotation started to take a strong religious meaning. For example, expressions such as "your worship", which used to simply be a respectful way to address someone, might now denote a religious ritual.
The sign in 16:103 has significant implications on how we can properly understand the great reading and on demolishing the "after-the-fact" dogmatic religious corruptions and the myths surrounding the story of the prophet. In this article an attempt will be made to construct a coherent theory on "pre-quranic" Arabia. The theory will be validated based on evidence from the great reading and archeological evidence. Also, unlike all existing theories we will avoid relying on hearsay or using it to fill in the blanks.
(To be Continued)IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
2:2. This is the book no doubt in it, a guidance for the forethoughtful.
This article reflects my personal interpretation of the verses of the reading as of February 3, 2005. I will try to improve my understanding of the great reading and the universe, except if The God wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality. Please verify all information within for yourself as commanded in 17:36, and remember that simply "none" is the forethoughtful answer to 45:6. If The God willed, the outcome of this article will be beneficial.