The Alleged Dogma Of Influence Of and Aramaic/ Syriac On

Arabic in general
and on 'Al Qur'a:n in particular.
(An analytic discussion)

A number of OBJECTIONS upon Holy Quran is based upon the following

SUPPOSITIONS
a] Islamic Commentaries upon the Holy Arabic Scripture Al Quran are
UNRELIABLE.
B]qURAN MUST BE STUDIED INDEPENDENT OF Ahadith.
c]Quran must be studied Not according to Arabic Laxiton but according to
Hebraic or Aramaic Laxitons.
These Objection Makers neither believe in Arabic Grammar nor believe in Arabic
Laxitons.
The DO Try to understand AlQuran as according to their OWN SET UP
Principles and Rules.
They DO opine that Quran is borrowed from Hebrew, Aramaic and some
distant Arabic Dialects.
This is a very unusual way. To deny Islamic SENSIBLITY and Islamic
UNDERSTANDING Of Al Quran is almost to deny the Very Quran
ITSELF.
The Alleged Dogma Of Influence Of Hebrew and Aramaic/ Syriac .
Itmay be noted that Hebrew and Aramaic both were used by Hebrews.
During the time of Moses P.B.U.H Hebrew was used by Hebrews, and During
the time of Iesus P.B.U.H Aramaic and its dialect
Syriac was used by them. This is a shift of language from one to another by
Hebrews.
This is a different case from Sanscrit ,which was never a language of common
man ,but of scholars.
Hebrew , Aamaic and Arabic have several features in common.

How ever it is incorrect and wrong to claim that Arabic is a borrowed

language just because it has several thing
common with Hebrew and ARAMAIC.
Such resemblance and commoness Implieth Not borrowing.
Arabic is not a hybrid language, and Not borrowed from Aramaic and Hebrew.
KINDS OF RESEBLANCES AND SIMILARITIES.
Some of the similarities in regard to words are given below.
a] A word in Arabic may be similar to a word in Aramaic or Hebrew or in
both ,but in SIGNIFICANT CONSONENTS or in in significant
approximation of consonents .If it is so then some times the meaning or
sense of the Arabic word is in approximation with the
Aramaic or Hebrew word or both.
If such a word has some corresponding approximate vowel sounds in regard
to consonts or approximate consonents then it is some time
more probable that they have approximately similar meanings or senses.
But this is not an strict rule. Since in Arabic it self there are a large number of
words with same CONSONENTS and different in meanings
or senses or both.
Therefore No Conclusion Can Be Drawn With Certainity and Nessicity, sinse
contingency and possibility of otherwise is always
there.
b] There are a number of words in any two of the three stated above
languages which do resemble in SIGNIFICANT consonents,
and some times in approximate vowel sounds in addition , yet they may have
different meanings orsenses or both.
Existance Of such words do not Imply the supposition of borrowing.
These OBJECTION MAKERS always try to trace back Arabic words in Holy
Quran in Aramaic or Hebrew.
The reject not only Islamic Commentaies and Ahadith, but also Arabic
Laxitons[LUGHAT], and Arabic Grammar [ILM ASSARF VAN NAHV]

They even deny the opinions of Authentic and Authorative Arabists over the
languages in their zeal to prove their
Supposition Of Borrowing.
MOST FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE of their all arguments is that Arabic
Authorities DID NOT Know Hebrew and ARAMAIC, so they
are in Error As Hebrew and ARAMAIC is known to these OBJWCTION MAKERS
,they think that openion, remarls and comments

This is a GREAT FALLACY.

Let the problem be discussed in some proper details.
a] Arabic is a different language ,different from Hebrew and Aramaic, just like
Hebrew is a different language from Aramaic.
b] If an Arabic word is similar to a word in Hebrew or in ARAMAIC ,it is
incorrect to claim that the Arabic word is borrowed
either from Hebrew or Aramaic or Both ,on this basis.
c]A Similarity in fundamental consonents of any two words between the
words of any two of the two languages oramong all
of them doeth no imply a similarity in meanings.
Athough Hebrew , Aramaic, and Arabic have several features in common ,it is
incorrect to claim that each and every Arabic
word IS borrowed either from Aramaic or frpm Hebrew , even if there is some
resemblance between the fundamental
consonents or in vowel sounds as well.
There are several kind of similiraties and resemblences between the words of
respective languages in general.
a] A word in Arabic may be similar to a word in Hebrew or a word in Aramaic
or in both in FUNDAMENTAL CONSONENETS.
Some time there is an approximate similarity in their respective meanings but
not exactness.
But this doeth not prove that any one of them say Arabic has borrowed it
either from Aramaic or from Hebrew or both.

At most they may have a common source yet it is equally possible that
parallel words originated independent of each other.
Some times there is a n approximate similarity in vowels as well . But the law
is the same .
Some time inspite of such similarities the meanings are different.
In such cases in is primerily wrong to claim the act of borrowing from one
another.
If in some cases some additional evidences do shew a case of borrowing, no
conclusion can be drawn just based on
similarities.
These bases do not support the claim of borrowing.
b] There are cases where a word in one language doeth resemble an other
word in any one of the two languages
or in both f them in fundamental consonents
yet different im meanings.
It cannot prove any thing ,raither it is incorrect to claim such a donation
-acceptance formula since there are several
words in Arabic itself which resmble on an other in fundamental consonents
but different in meanings. If two words in one language
cannot be claimed to be borrowed on this basis it is more in correct to claim
such an alleged borrowing on this basis
if such words belongeth to two different languages.
c] If an Arabic word is borrowed from any one of the two languages or from
any other language it is incorrect to claim that
the author of Quran has borrowed it directly from these languages. If any one
of the non Arabic language is a doner of a word and Arabic
is the Accepter of the word , then this acceptance must have occurred long
before the appearence of Quran.
Such a claim is as in correct as to claim that any word in SHECKPERE'S PLAYs
with GREEK OR LATIN origin is directly borrowed
from SHECKPARE from Greek or Latin for the first time. Actually English had

borrowed them long before him , and he only used these

words in his Masterpiece works. The same can be said for master pieces of
any hybrid language with out any exception.
From theological p[oint of view the Arabic Scripture Nounly 'Al Qur'a:n is a
Book Of Divine Speech and the Supreme
Existent is the Author of 'Al Qur'a;n.
For sake of an argument LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT the Author Of 'Al Qur'a:n
is not the Deity,but a created rational
suppositum say a human being, even then there is no proof/evidence for the
claim that if the Text Of Al Qur'a:n containeth
a word borrowed from Aramaic or Hebrew , then it it is borrowed for the first
time by the alleged Non Divine Author of
The Arabic Scripture Nounly 'Al Qur'a:n directly from any one of them. If there
are words in the Text Of 'Al Qur'an Borrowed
from any one of the Non 'Arabic Languages say Aramaic, then it is just like
the case of English language or German language
borrowing words from Latin and Greek languages.
For an example it is INFINITELY INCORRECT to claim that each and every word
in the work of Shakespare, which has Latin or
Greek or Anglosaxon Origin is borrowed for the first time by him, in his
works.Since English language did borrow them but
in some Ante Shakespare period.The same is true for the Author of Al Qur'a:n,
even if the Author Of Qur'a:n is not the
Divinity Of the Only Deity Itself.
But a part from Nouns which Shall be dicussed latter,it is incorrect to claim
that if a word in Arabic is similar in fundamental
consonents to a word in Aramaic then it is Necessarily borrowed from the
ARAMAIC WORD with or with out Arabitization of
the word.
There are two arguments generally advanced by those who claim such a
thing.

1] Arabic Authorities were ignorent about Aramaic therefore there

classification whether a word is pure Arabic or Borrwed
(DA-KHI:L) cannot be accepted.Since the some time commit mistakes and
errors in discovering the non Arabic origin of such
DA-KHI:L words.
2] Arabic came in writing latter then Aramaic then it is natural (as according
to them) that Aramaic is the Doner and Arabic
is the Accepter.
Both of them ore incorrect, invalid and wrong arguments.
First:
'Arabic Laxitonists,Linguistics and Grammerian are Super sensitive in
classifying whether an 'Arabic word is Da-khi:l
or not. It is irrelevent if they commit a mistake or an error in discovering the
language and the word of the language from
it is borrowed. Such an Error or a mistake does not imply any error or any
mistake in identifying whether the word in Arabic is
Da-khi:l or not.
It is a great raither infinte fallacy if both of them are unified or an implication
is supposed between them or both.
For an example let it be supposed that there is a word X is Arabic. Suppose
that Arabic Authorities do Judge that this word is
Dakhi:l (alien). There this Judgement or decission is perfectly authorative and
completely thrustworthy.How ever they may
err in identifying the original language say Y from it is borrowed and the
original word say X' Of the language Y.
Second:
It is not necessary that Aramaic is always the doner and Arabic is always the
acceptor.
It may be the case that It is Arabic which did donate some of its word to
Aramaic .It is a weak proof that Arabic is the
Acceptor and Aramaic is the doner ,since Arabic came into written latter.

It is possible that a language which is not a written langguage does donate

some of its words to a language which is written.
The claim of its impossibility is proofless.
Rules and Regulations of Excogitation.
1] Stamements,comments,remarks,judgement etc.of Arabic Laxitonists,
Linguistics , grammarians etc. are valid,significant,
authorative and Trustwordy and credible.
2]No word of Arabic can be said to be borrowed just because it has some
similirarity to a word of a written language
what so ever.
3] If Arabic Expers stated above did lack that knowledge of ther languages
there comments,remarks,judgement may
not be accepted as soon as the do leave the domain of Arabic and do enter in
the domain of the any one of the Non Arabic
Language , say Aramaic. But with in the boundaries are Arabic they are valid
with certanity and their crediblity cannot be
denied. If some one suggest that a word in Arabic is borrowed from a non
Arabic language ,and his suggestion
contradicts Arabic Authoritiesthen his suggestion is invalid.
4] If Arabic did adopt a word from any Non Arabic language say Aramaic and
disassociates the original meaning or principle sense
of the word and did assign a new meaning or a new sense to the word , then
in any speech or text or sentence which
doeth use this word the Arabic meaning or sense is considerable ,significant
(Mu''tabar),authorative and authentic.
The Non Arabic meaning or sense of the original language is discarded.
Thus one may divide the types of meanings of Dakhi:l words into two
fundamental groups.
4.1] Post Adoptation meanings and senses. Those meanings and senses
assign to them by Arabic after adopting them or while
adopting them. (i.e posterior to adoptation).

4.2]Ante Adoptation. Those meanings or senses assinged to them prior to

their adoptation.
The second group of meanings are incvalid in Arabic and may be valid in their
respective languages where they had got their
origination some how.
4.3] If Arabic doeth Adopt a word from a non Arabic language and does not
assign a complete new meaning to it but
modifieth it then in Arabic literature the modified meaning is significant and
considerable , only the Arabitized meaning
hath the cradibility.This is a corrolary of 4.2 .
The funtamental Axiom Of the System of the dogma.
All these objections are based upon the supposition that Aramaic is prior to Arabic and Arabic is

posterior to Aramaic and some other languages like Persian etc and Arabic is not a contemporary of Aramaic

Therefore 'Arabic cannot donate words to them but it can

accept words
,Persian etc.

from them.
This is not even a theory but a Dogma, pressented as if it is a theory,
raither
presented as if it is a fact.
But This is incorrect and wrong.
F irst it is based on the argument that :- Arabic literature was produced posterior
to Aramaic, there fore Arabic is Posterior to Aramaic.
And a posterior language can not loan words to a language which is proir to it.
But the posteriority production of written written literature is no proof that the
language is also posterior. It is based on the denial
on oral literature.Oral literatues is undeniable and its cradibility is certain. So the
axiom which say Oral literature is unauthentic and
unauthorative , cannot be accepted.
Second it is also incorrect and false that a language which is posterior to a language
cannot donate words to a language which predates it.
1] I can lend a word after its emergence. 2] Second , the proto of the posterior
language may lend a word to the language which may be

contemporary or prior.

FOR SAKE OF AN ARGUMENT.

For sake of an argument let it be suppoesd that ARABIC is a hybrid languafe like
English and directly borows words from Hebrew and Aramaic
AS eNLISH BORROW WORDS FROM LATIN, GREEK AND ANGLOSEXON. In this case
there is no influence of these two languages upon Quran.
To influance a language is one thing and to influance a particular work is another
thing.

Objection of terms:If Arabic is a Hybrid language even then it is not necessary that the terms
used in Qur'a:n ahd 'Ahaddis' are not borrowed
but are purely used from Arabic even if the orin of the word is not 'Arabic.
The Terms are made from 'arabic itself irrespective
of the origin of the word.
If a person who did only know Arabic did want to coin a term for his
theological and religious system atmost and at least
can choose words from Arabic irrespective and regardless of their PURE
ARABIC Origin or Borrowed Origin.
If Arabic after borrowing a non Arabic word from a language absorbs it and
change it meaning com-pletely or partially,
and a persons say Person A who only did know Arabic use some of these
words for making terms for his system then
it is independent
of the not only the meanings of them in their original languages say Aramaic
but also independent of possible termonological
meanings used by any person or community of the languages prior to That
person say Person A.
SUCH A PERSON did not
know the meaning or the uses of the words uses only their Arabic
meanings,So non Arabic use of the words of these
Non Arabic languages are totally irrelevent to him and his termonological
meanings.
This is not pecular to Arabic but it is general for a number of different

languages.
Even if a pesron who know a language say language Z which has lended a
number of words to His language say language
Y uses words of his languages for a system say a theological system it is not
necessay that he is influenced by the original
words of the doner language, or their termonolical use if any prior to him,
since he used it only from Arabic independent
of not only its not Arabic literal meaning(s) but also independent of Non
Arabic Termonological meanings.
Example:- Some people have suggested that the Word Al-Qur'a:n is just an
influance of Aramic word Qrn used by a prior
religious community in some other meaning.
But this is totally incorrect for reasons stated above.Some counter examples
of such incorrect traces:
It is incorrect to say that that the word AMEM is repeatedly said after Prayers
is SUPPOSED to be traced back TO the Noun
Of Egyptian Deity AMON or AMEN. Similarly it is incorrect to trace back El of
Hebrew to IL, the father of Ba'l/Baal.
These two examples are sufficient to prove that such incorrect form of
reasonings can yeild very negative and incorrect
results.

Some Inverse Extremism:Just like some who try to traceback Aramaic Influance on Arabic on their self
reasonings, some have also tried to trace back English
to Arabic, particularly some scholars of languages of a new religion
Mirzaiasm/Qadyanism. Actually their methodology
is roughly similar to those who want to trace back nopt only Arabic to
Aramaic but un this supposed trace try to prove Aramaic
termonological influance on Qur'an or Ahadis or both.
A follower of Qadyanism, Mohammad Ahmad Mazhar a former advocate of
High Court Former West Pakistan had

developed a method to prove that Arabic is the source of all Languages, and
wrote ''English Traced to Arabic''.
How ever inspite of his labourous work this work did not gain any significance
in the eyes of scholars. But it appears that
Alphonse Mingana and some other people of his mind somehow got copies of
Mohammad Ahmad Mazhar's labourous
work '' ENGLISH TRACED TO ARABIC'' and used his invented methodologies
toTrace Arabic to Aramaic/Syriac.
Any one who may read Mazhar's work and works of people like Alphonse shall
be convinced that the latter has used the
methodologies invented by the former, and tried to prove Syriac influence on
Qur'an. Inspite of difference in aims and
objections the basic principles are either same or similar.
One may read the work of Mazhar and compair it with the works of Alphonse
etc. himself and himself/herself see
that the methods used by Mazhar were for more advanced then then the
author of Influence of Syriac on the Style of Quran.
Raither the latter author crudifies the methods of the former writer.

WE AS MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT MIRZAISM WITH ALL ITS FORMS IS A

DIFFERENT RELIGION , OTHER THAN ISLAM.
OUR OPENION:ABOUT ARABIC LANGUAGE:
ARABIC IS THE FIRST LANGUAGE , AND IT WAS INITIALLY SPOKEN IN HEAVENLY
PARADISE. WHEN GOD MADE ADOM TO
DESCEND HE BEGAN TO USE AN OTHER LANGUAGE. SO ON EARTH IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO SHEW THAT ALL LANGUAGES CAN BE
TRACED TO ARABIC. ARABIC REAPPEARED ON EARTH LIKE ANY OTHER
LANGUAGE SHOULD. THE HEAVENLY ORIGIN OF ARABIC
MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE EARTHY ORIGINS.