Foreign terms in the Holy Quran

 The Orientalists accepted the theory put forward by Schwali in his book (History of the Quran) that "the Quran" was derived from the Syriac word "Qaryana" (meaning holy reading and lesson). The prevailing view in Islamic circles is that the word is a noun from the verb "qara'a". The writer points out that both opinions find support for themselves in the Quran, where the verb "qara'a" appears but not as it is repeated in the meaning of reading or recitation. Then he says: "Perhaps the most appropriate and most acceptable result is that the term Quran was rooted in the Quran itself to represent the Syriac word "Qaryana" but it was based on an Arabic source in the form "Fa'lan" from the verb "qara'a". Thus the author of the article deviated from the truth after it became clear to him, as the Arabic word was derived from reading, and the first Surah of the Quran - according to the chronological order of the Surahs which the Orientalists themselves prepared, begins with the word: Iqra'a, an imperative verb from the verb "qara'a", which is the same Arabic material from which the word Quran was derived . The writer preferred to introduce the arbitrary opinion fabricated by the German orientalist Schwali and those orientalists who followed in his footsteps that the word is derived from Syriac Christian sources (based on a Syriac manuscript from the sixth century in the British Museum), which are sources that no one can provide evidence of their appearance and influence when the Holy Quran was revealed . There is no doubt that the writer aims, by introducing the article with this arbitrary linguistic discussion, to show that there is a close connection between the Holy Quran and the aforementioned sources, and that this connection begins with the word “Quran” itself, which is in fact nothing but a word taken from Syriac, all of this in order to make it easier for the reader to accept the opinions that will be presented in this context. The author of the article continues: “The meaning of the word Qur’an and the source of the holy book for Muslims cannot be fully clarified without taking into account the use of a number of other terms closely related to the subject, and the matter here is not limited to “verse” and “book” only, but also includes “surah,” “remembrance,” “repeated,” “wisdom,” and others. Then he says: “The original meaning of the word “verse,” like the similar word in Hebrew “Oth,” and Syriac “Atha,” is the sign and evidence and comes as a symbol of an invisible truth,” but he adds: “However, its derivation is not certain.” After that, he presents the word “surah,” quoting Shafali as saying: It seems to be derived from the Syriac “Surta” or “Surtha,” which means the holy book. He also presents the word “repeated,” quoting what some orientalists have said, that it is derived from the Hebrew “Mishna,” and others from the Syriac or Aramaic “Mathnitka,” but the word, as the author of the article confirms, must be Influenced by the Arabic word "thana", meaning to repeat. Then the writer comes to the word “wisdom” and says that it may have come from the Aramaic word “Hakhma.” The writer, as much as he denies that some of these words go back to Hebrew, Syriac, or Aramaic origins, indicates the correctness of the derivation of some of them from these origins.

He traces each of the previously mentioned words and presents their meanings in the Meccan and Medinan verses of the Holy Quran , following the method of minimal criticism, as we have previously indicated. If we contemplate the results that the Orientalists have reached in this research - according to what the author of the article has presented - we find that they have not brought anything new, as they have confirmed what the Muslims have declared that the words: Quran, verse, surah, book represent units of revelation, and that the book means the book of God, etc. Therefore, this discussion only includes what some Orientalists have raised of doubts about the derivation of some words in the Holy Quran and their attribution to Hebrew or Syriac origins, or in other words, their attribution to Jewish or Christian origins. There is no doubt that the goal behind this doubt about the authenticity of the main terms in the Holy Quran and their attribution to Hebrew, Semitic or Aramaic origins is to lure the reader and pave the way to convince him that the Quran is the invention and composition of Muhammad, and that he learned these words from the Jews and Christians . Al-Qurtubi said: They agreed that there is nothing in the Qur’an of foreign constructions , and they agreed that it contains names of foreign languages ​​such as Ibrahim, Noah, and Lot, and they differed as to whether there is anything other than that in foreign languages. Al-Baqillani and Al-Tabari denied that and said that whatever is in it that agrees with foreign languages ​​is from the category of what languages ​​agree on.








Chapter: Are there words in the Qur’an that are outside the languages ​​of the Arabs:

First, there is no disagreement among the imams that there is no speech in the Qur’an composed in the styles of non-Arabs and that it contains names of people whose language is not Arab, such as Israel, Gabriel, Imran, Noah, and Lot. They differed as to whether there are words in it that are not individual names from other than the speech of the Arabs. Judge Abu Bakr Al-Tayyib and others went to the view that that is not found in it and that the Qur’an is pure Arabic, and what is found in it of words that are attributed to other languages ​​only happened in them because the languages ​​converged on them and the Arabs, Persians, Abyssinians, and others spoke them. Some of them went to their existence in it and that those words, due to their fewness, do not remove the Qur’an from being clear Arabic nor the Messenger of God from being a speaker in the language of his people. Al-Mishkat: the window, and Nasha: he got up at night, and from it, “Indeed, the rising of the night” and “And He will give you two parts” means double, and “Faraat min Qasura” means the entire lion in the language of Abyssinia , and Al-Ghasaq: the cold, stinking cold in the language of the Turks , and Al-Qistas: the scales in the language of the Romans , and Al-Sijjil: the stones and clay in the language of the Persians , and Al-Tur: the mountain, and Al-Yam: the sea in Syriac, and Al-Tanur: the face of the earth in Persian. Ibn Atiyah said: The truth of the expression of these words is that they are originally foreign, but the Arabs used them and Arabized them, so they are Arabic in this way, and the Arabs had the pure language on which the Qur’an was revealed.

















In her language there was some mixing with other languages ​​through trade and the journeys of Quraysh, and the journey of Musafir ibn Abi Amr to the Levant, and the journey of Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the journey of Amr ibn al-Aas and Ammarah ibn al-Walid to the land of Abyssinia, and the journey of al-A’sha to al-Hirah and his company with its Christians, despite being an authority in the language. The Arabs attached to all of this foreign words, some of which they changed by reducing their letters, and they moved to lighten the weight of the foreignness and used them in their poetry and dialogues until they became the correct Arabic language and the statement was made of them. And on this level the Qur’an was revealed with them . If an Arab is ignorant of them, then he is ignorant of the explicit meaning of what is in the language of another, just as Ibn Abbas did not know the meaning of Fatir, and so on. Ibn Atiyah said: What Al-Tabari, may God have mercy on him, went to, that the two languages ​​agreed on a word, that is far-fetched, rather one of them is the root and the other is the branch in most cases, because we do not also reject the permissibility of a small, unusual agreement.



Another said: The first is more correct, and his saying: It is the root in the speech of others and an intruder in their speech is not more appropriate than the opposite, because the Arabs are not free from having spoken with it or not. If it is the first, then it is from their speech, since there is no meaning to their language and speech except what was like that for them, and it is not far-fetched that others agreed with them on some of their words.

The great Imam Abu Ubaidah said this

. If it is said: These words are not according to the Arabic language, so they are not from it, we say: And who can accept that you have confined their language to the point that you have excluded these from it? The judge has researched the origins of the Arabic language and traced these names back to them in the grammatical manner. However, if the Arabs did not speak to them or know them, it is impossible for God to speak to them in a way they do not know. Then the Qur’an would not be clear Arabic, and the Messenger would not be speaking to his people in their language. And God knows best. Dr. Abdul Rahman Badawi discusses the claims of the Orientalists in this regard, saying: “In order to assume the validity of this claim, Muhammad must have known Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek, and he must have had a great library that included all the Talmudic literature, the Christian Gospels, various prayer books, decisions of church councils, as well as some works of the Greek fathers and books of various churches: Christian sects and denominations.” Abdul Rahman Badawi comments on this by saying: "Can this strange talk of these writers be reasonable, and it is a talk for which there is no evidence?







The life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, before and after the emergence of his message is known to everyone... and no one, ancient or modern, can confirm that the Prophet knew anything other than Arabic, so how can he benefit from these sources as they claim?"

However, the Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac languages ​​belong to one linguistic lineage, which is the lineage of the Semitic languages, and for that reason there must be a lot of similarity and similarity between them.

Therefore, saying that one language borrowed certain words from its sisters is a kind of arbitrariness, unless there is evidence for it.

It is possible that these words existed in Arabic long before the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and settled in the Arabic language until they became part of it and became part of its vocabulary that is widely used among the Arabs.

It is also impossible now, due to the ambiguity of the history of the Semitic languages, to determine who borrowed these common words from the other: Arabic or Hebrew?

This is sufficient to prove the insignificance of the arguments of those Orientalists who expanded on the topic of derivation from Semitic languages.