7 replies to this topic

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Obviously we Muslims believe that Arabic is an essential language, at times the holiest of languages depending on who you talk to, but is the place of Greek? The oldest Old Testament is in Greek, The New Testament is in Greek, the Quran refers to the Gospel as the "Evangel" or "Injil" The figure Dhul Qarnayn in the Quran is associated, historically, with Alexander the Great whose conquests resulted in the establishment of Greek as the official language pretty much of the civilized world. I'm inclined to believe that Greek is one of those "chosen languages"

[y3qub]

The Bible is a mixture of languages, actually. It's quite fascinating to study the linguistic history throughout the Bible and compare it to the events that were happening at the time.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

Saintly_Jinn23, on 05 February 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

I'm inclined to believe that Greek is one of those "chosen languages"

I'm more inclined to see Hebrew and Aramaic along with Arabic, in the context that, Hebrew was the original language of the Torah (which makes the bulk of the OT), and depending on whether you believe the Injeel was a physical scripture revealed to the prophet Eesa a.s, then that , I would believe would have been in Aramaic (although Allah knows best).

No doubt Hebrew and Aramaic and Arabic are sacred languages, given their usage in the texts, and being related as it were.

With regards to the Greek language, I'm not so sure, it could be more situational and coincidental, that those earliest gospels happened to be recorded in Greek, as it was a lingua franca at the time.

But then who am I to say what language isn't "holy" and which isn't?

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Propaganda_of_the_Deed, on 05 February 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

I'm more inclined to see Hebrew and Aramaic along with Arabic, in the context that, Hebrew was the original language of the Torah (which makes the bulk of the OT), and depending on whether you believe the Injeel was a physical scripture revealed to the prophet Eesa a.s, then that , I would believe would have been in Aramaic (although Allah knows best).

No doubt Hebrew and Aramaic and Arabic are sacred languages, given their usage in the texts, and being related as it were.

With regards to the Greek language, I'm not so sure, it could be more situational and coincidental, that those earliest gospels happened to be recorded in Greek, as it was a lingua franca at the time.

But then who am I to say what language isn't "holy" and which isn't?

Of course Hebrew and Aramaic, but obviously when we consider the time period Jesus was born into, he would have had to be a fluent Greek speaker if he expected to get anywhere with his message, and if he preached to more than just Hebrews, then obviously he would have preached his message in Aramaic and Greek and probably would have been speaking Greek almost as often, if not more, than Aramaic.

When we take into consideration that Alexander the Great and Dhul Qarnayn are the same person, which is the position I hold, then the fact that Greek became the official trade language of the world was probably divine will.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

Saintly_Jinn23, on 05 February 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

he would have had to be a fluent Greek speaker if he expected to get anywhere with his message, and if he preached to more than just Hebrews, then obviously he would have preached his message in Aramaic and Greek and probably would have been speaking Greek almost as often, if not more, than Aramaic.

Implying Jesus was sent to preach to those other than Bani Israel.

The Islamic perspective says that Jesus was sent specifically to Bani Israel, and thus was the final Israelite messenger - for which as you know they mostly rejected.

Yet even some NT verses correlate with our view, for example:

KJV Matt 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Quran 3:49  ""And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

If anything it was Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) who began preaching to Gentiles... when Jesus himself didn't preach to Gentiles... the actual earliest followers were known as the Nazarenes.. who were essentially "Jews" who accepted his message but as a Prophet and continued to observe Jewish Law... whereas Paul preached one needn't follow the Law as Jesus has died for our sins.

I know there are some conflicting verses, but I believe Jesus was sent specifically to this tribe.. especially as the Quran mentions that every nation and tribe has been sent at least one prophet... whereas the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w was sent for all mankind.

Saintly_Jinn23, on 05 February 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

When we take into consideration that Alexander the Great and Dhul Qarnayn are the same person, which is the position I hold, then the fact that Greek became the official trade language of the world was probably divine will.

I am particularily weary of allegations that Alexander "the Great" (Only Allah is The Great), was Dhul Qarnayn, especially as it has been recorded that after having seen the Oracle, Alexander was convinced that he was the "Son of Zeus"...it's one thing to believe in a pagan diety, but quite another to believe one is the literal son of it too. Just my opinion.

Alexander and his followers also believed him to be invincible, which caused quite a shock when he died (Some say due to poisoning), furthermore, Alexander, after being heavily influenced by Persian culture having successfully incorporated the Persian empire into his own.... he increasingly began to act like a Persian king, and as such, expected prostration before him from his subjects... including his own Macedonian men - which caused resentment in his ranks as this was against their culture.

Also, the language of English enjoys this status more so than any language in the history of mankind at an unprecedented level, the fact that I'm typing it as I think speaks volumes. Would you consider English to be "chosen" based on this logic that I highlighted?

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed, 05 February 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Propaganda_of_the_Deed, on 05 February 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

I know there are some conflicting verses, but I believe Jesus was sent specifically to this tribe.. especially as the Quran mentions that every nation and tribe has been sent at least one prophet... whereas the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w was sent for all mankind.

I think the notion that Jesus was sent only for Bani Israel makes little sense from an Islamic perspective, and is moreso just Muslims kind of looking for something to use against Christians in debate. From an Islamic perspective, if Jesus was a prophet just to Israelites, then his message becomes completely irrelevant to anyone but Hebrews. First off, Hebrews are not some independent entity outside of Islam nor are they given specific independent rules to follow based on the matter of their race. Hebrews, or Jews, are expected to follow the same rules and faith that is expected of everyone else and so is everyone else expected to follow the same laws and faith as the Hebrews. To say that Jesus' message is not relate-able by all people with a heart for God, Jew or Gentile, or any of the prophets' messages for that matter, before or after Jesus, basically means that you are saying that God appoints specific religious rules and practices for specific people based on their nationality or race that no other race or nation is expected to follow. Which has no real basis in Islam as each prophet's message was the same basic message just tailored to a given people and if one race that was not the main focus of the prophet's ministry overheard the message and found sense in it, then he was not forbidden the religion or shunned away because "this message is just for these people, wait for your prophet to come and show you how your tribe is supposed to worship," rather he was encouraged to accept and spread it to his own people.

The second matter is that Jesus is mentioned as a sign to "mankind" and is mentioned as one of the five most important prophets of the world sent unto man since God was sending prophets, which includes Muhammad. And his message is one of the most important and is held in the same line of scriptural succession that the Holy Quran is the peak of. If Jesus is an apostle ONLY unto the Hebrews, than his message is completely irrelevant and perhaps not even understandable to any one that isn't Jewish. By this token also, we can't say Jesus preached "Islam," because to say he preached Islam is to say that he preached a religion that was universally understandable and required of all men regardless of race or ethnicity.

Yes, Jesus was sent as an apostle to Bani Israel, but this by no means implies that his message was not of world importance, as the land of Palestine at the time was of world importance, at least in the eyes of God I mean, and simply being an "apostle unto Bani Israel" doesn't make you an apostle only unto Bani Israel. We would be politically correct to say that Muhammad was an apostle unto the Meccans, but by this do we say he was an apostle of the Meccans only? Of course not, but we cannot deny that the main focus of his mission was Mecca, but by this we mean that his mission unto Mecca was of world importance and that his message is still relate-able to everyone. We can say the same about Jesus and, to some extent, even lesser prophets than he.

Propaganda_of_the_Deed, on 05 February 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

I am particularily weary of allegations that Alexander "the Great" (Only Allah is The Great), was Dhul Qarnayn, especially as it has been recorded that after having seen the Oracle, Alexander was convinced that he was the "Son of Zeus"...it's one thing to believe in a pagan diety, but quite another to believe one is the literal son of it too. Just my opinion.

Also, the language of English enjoys this status more so than any language in the history of mankind at an unprecedented level, the fact that I'm typing it as I think speaks volumes. Would you consider English to be "chosen" based on this logic that I highlighted?

Yes, the key word though is PAGAN histories. The truth is that all the remaining historical accounts, pagan and non-pagan alike, of Alexander the Great are more or less legends that from a secular standpoint could be written off as simply "mythology." Even the pagan biographies that are used as the basis for much of modern history on him are filled with various romantic accounts of his life. Truth be told, if one is looking for a historical account of Alexander that doesn't paint him as an emissary of whatever religion the chroniclers were, you aren't going to find any. He is painted as everything from a pagan demi-god to even an emissary of the God of Israel (according to Jewish accounts).


My point though is that if you believe that Alexander the Great's conquests, with the intention of uniting everyone in the world, was divine will, then it become obvious that Greek becoming the world's universal language was a divine goal as well since this was only made possible by the success of Alexander's war.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23, 05 February 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

Saintly_Jinn23, on 05 February 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

First off, Hebrews are not some independent entity outside of Islam nor are they given specific independent rules to follow based on the matter of their race. Hebrews, or Jews, are expected to follow the same rules and faith that is expected of everyone else and so is everyone else expected to follow the same laws and faith as the Hebrews. To say that Jesus' message is not relate-able by all people with a heart for God, Jew or Gentile, or any of the prophets' messages for that matter, before or after Jesus, basically means that you are saying that God appoints specific religious rules and practices for specific people based on their nationality or race that no other race or nation is expected to follow. Which has no real basis in Islam as each prophet's message was the same basic message just tailored to a given people

I am not downplaying the role or immense importance of the Prophet Eesa a.s, as well all know he is the only prophet that didn't yet have an earthly death and will eventually slay the Dajjal personally.

However, the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w cannot be compared with the others, in the sense that he is a ra7ma for the universe, and the messenger for all races and tribes for our times. No prophet has this status, and I still contend that Jesus was sent specifically as the final messenger for Bani Israel.

I'd also like to add that, although the basic message remains the same for every prophet, the rules and shariah may change with time, I'll give a rather crude example, the first literal generation of Adam and Hawa's children, had to have children themselves, and from an Islamic narration, there were 2 boys and 2 girls, at that time it would have been legitmate for there to be consumation between these siblings for the procreation of mankind... in today's shariah this would be of course out of the question. I am basing this narration from Ibn Kathir's Stories of the Prophets.. though I'm not sure if Shias share this perspective.

Saintly_Jinn23, on 05 February 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

My point though is that if you believe that Alexander the Great's conquests, with the intention of uniting everyone in the world, was divine will, then it become obvious that Greek becoming the world's universal language was a divine goal as well since this was only made possible by the success of Alexander's war.

Couldn't the civilization that came after him with this goal be considered a result of God's Divine will too? The Romans. As such their Latin language became the universal language for their time, in which the language of knowledge was Latin for the most part even long after the Roman empire. Also to be incorporated into Christianity due to Roman Catholocisim.

I think when a language becomes entwined with empire building, as with the cases of many, such as Greek, Latin, Spanish and English (and Arabic), it becomes more a matter of situational factors, such as the language becoming a lingua franca for its time, and a language of knowledge, etc.

With this rationale you have applied, you are looking at the Greek language in isolation, but what I am saying, is that these same arguments can in many ways be applied to all the major languages in human history - the languages that became lingua francas and universal for their respective eras. So the criteria can be extended to others, being defined as "chosen" too.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Propaganda_of_the_Deed, on 05 February 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

However, the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w cannot be compared with the others, in the sense that he is a ra7ma for the universe, and the messenger for all races and tribes for our times. No prophet has this status, and I still contend that Jesus was sent specifically as the final messenger for Bani Israel.

Of course, I'm not contending otherwise, nor am I trying to make Muhammad and Jesus perfect equals. I'm only stating that no prophet, as prophets of Islam, would refuse followers based on race nor would was their message, though perhaps politically targeting a specific tribe or race, not have a universal message for all mankind that others who were not the political targets could relate to. I'm only saying that Jesus, by his being the last prophet to Bani Israel, a tribe of world importance, with a message preaching the universal religion of mankind (Islam), is thus a prophet of world importance. In fact, every prophet is of world importance and has plenty of things to say that everyone can relate to. Jesus however, along with Moses, Noah, Abraham, and Muhammad, though some may be more important than others, are those prophets whose world importance is much greater.  

Propaganda_of_the_Deed, on 05 February 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Couldn't the civilization that came after him with this goal be considered a result of God's Divine will too? The Romans. As such their Latin language became the universal language for their time, in which the language of knowledge was Latin for the most part even long after the Roman empire. Also to be incorporated into Christianity due to Roman Catholocisim.

I think when a language becomes entwined with empire building, as with the cases of many, such as Greek, Latin, Spanish and English (and Arabic), it becomes more a matter of situational factors, such as the language becoming a lingua franca for its time, and a language of knowledge, etc.

With this rationale you have applied, you are looking at the Greek language in isolation, but what I am saying, is that these same arguments can in many ways be applied to all the major languages in human history - the languages that became lingua francas and universal for their respective eras. So the criteria can be extended to others, being defined as "chosen" too.

Well what I think is different about Greek personally is Alexander . It was Alexander's desire to unite the world under a single language, he's even recorded mentioning this as his goal to help bring an age of universal brotherhood. If he was divinely guided according to our religion, than technically  that would make Greek one of the more important languages from a Cosmological perspective as out of all the languages God could have risen above others at that time, he chose Greek to be that language (since Alexander's wish was the direct will of God, if you agree with me that Alexander is the Dhul Qarnayn), the language that actually would later be the main tool for spreading the messages of the Israelite prophets (including Jesus') to all the known civilized world.

With languages like Latin and English, do we have any proof that God ordained these languages to become staple? Or did he just allow humans to do it but it didn't really matter either or?

Likewise, the same question comes when we ask why the Quran was delivered to us in Arabic and not any other language if it is a book of such a level of world importance. Even though we know that obviously if Muhammad needed to, he could have delivered in any other dialect.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23, 05 February 2012 - 10:56 PM.