Re: Islamic Borrowings
- From: "Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:08:20 -0600
Robert wrote:
> 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.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: American Muslims and the Rediscovery of America's Sacred Ground
- Next by Date: The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization
- Previous by thread: Re: Islamic Borrowings
- Next by thread: Re: Islamic Borrowings
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
