Does any1 know when was When was the first OT and NT translated into Arabic?
pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee quote ur references and concrete evidences for ur answer.
If u can quote a certain book then it will be most appreciated
Array
Does any1 know when was When was the first OT and NT translated into Arabic?
pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee quote ur references and concrete evidences for ur answer.
If u can quote a certain book then it will be most appreciated
That is really interesting. First of all because I had no idea that modern Arabic vernaculars were so different - a Tunisian and Algerian version? Aren't they, well, the same? Second, they are all so late. Are you sure that is right? I would have thought that the Christian missionaries would have put in a lot more effort to convert Muslims a lot earlier. They mostly post-date colonialism!format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Do you know when was the first NT translated into Malay?
From what I've heard Munshi Abdullah (1796 - 1854), a muslim translated part of bible into Malay.
Abdullah served as as copyist and scribe for Sir Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, tramslated the Gospels into Malay Language for London Missionary Society in Malacca.
He died in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Known s 'Father of Modern Malay Literature'
According to Ethnologue
Bible translated into:
* Standard Malay (1733)
* Ambonese Malay (1877)
* Baba Malay (1913)
* Pattani Malay (1981)
* Kupang Malay (1999)
I must have heard these claims at least hundreds of times.format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
That is a different topic altogether.But what relevance does the translation of the Bible have?
Not so - the hadiths indicate that while Waraqa ibn Nawfal had read Hebrew scriptures, he only had a small collection of personal writings in arabic - not considered a translation of the Bible at all. Thus, the historical evidence is not contrary to the hadith in any way.Except the historians you cited claimed that the Bible was not translated into Arabic until much later. Now I agree if you discount the aHadith, the first texts are much much later. But if you believe the aHadith are historically valid texts then there must have been Arabic Bibles, perhaps only partial, well before Gaon.
Yes, you've quoted the abridged version of the hadith. The full version states that Ali refused to erase the name so he took the paper from him, asked where it was on the paper and then erased it (Sahih Muslim 1783). Then he continued to dicate. The wording in arabic does not necessitate the actual writing by an individual as it is also used for 'decree', 'dictate', and 'prescribe'. Even in the english language, if a person of status says, "I will write to you" it doesn't necessarily mean they will pick up a pen and write themselves - they may dictate the letter addressed from themselves. So the phrase is So Allah's Apostle took the document [from Ali, and erased the words in question] and dictated..., and this is in light of the other narrations which provide a more definite description of the incident in question.But there are Hadith that say he did more than sign his name. He crossed bits out for instance
Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863:
Narrated Al-Bara:
When the Prophet intended to perform 'Umra in the month of Dhul-Qada, the people of Mecca did not let him enter Mecca till he settled the matter with them by promising to stay in it for three days only. When the document of treaty was written, the following was mentioned: 'These are the terms on which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle agreed (to make peace).' They said, "We will not agree to this, for if we believed that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you, but you are Muhammad bin 'Abdullah." The Prophet said, "I am Allah's Apostle and also Muhammad bin 'Abdullah." Then he said to 'Ali, "Rub off (the words) 'Allah's Apostle' ", but 'Ali said, "No, by Allah, I will never rub off your name." So, Allah's Apostle took the document and wrote, 'This is what Muhammad bin 'Abdullah has agreed upon: No arms will be brought into Mecca except in their cases, and nobody from the people of Mecca will be allowed to go with him (i.e. the Prophet ) even if he wished to follow him and he (the Prophet ) will not prevent any of his companions from staying in Mecca if the latter wants to stay.' When the Prophet entered Mecca and the time limit passed, the Meccans went to 'Ali and said, "Tell your Friend (i.e. the Prophet ) to go out, as the period (agreed to) has passed." So, the Prophet went out of Mecca. The daughter of Hamza ran after them (i.e. the Prophet and his companions), calling, "O Uncle! O Uncle!" 'Ali received her and led her by the hand and said to Fatima, "Take your uncle's daughter." Zaid and Ja'far quarrel ed about her. 'Ali said, "I have more right to her as she is my uncle's daughter." Ja'far said, "She is my uncle's daughter, and her aunt is my wife." Zaid said, "She is my brother's daughter." The Prophet judged that she should be given to her aunt, and said that the aunt was like the mother. He then said to 'All, "You are from me and I am from you", and said to Ja'far, "You resemble me both in character and appearance", and said to Zaid, "You are our brother (in faith) and our freed slave."
Like I've said before, this isn't anything new. Non-muslims just pick the isolated narration that appears to support their view without doing the background research, examining the text or similar narrations. The conclusive evidence establishes that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh could not read or write. If I get time later, inshaa'Allah I may post something on the topic from Shaykh Muhammad Mohar Ali's book.
And yet, this would suggest that Muhammad pbuh had recorded enough information from Waraqah to derive arguments and stories from it for the next 23 years! Would Prophet Muhammad pbuh have the confidence to challenge the Christian and Jewish tribes on the basis of faint memories of their teachings from decades ago?Except that Muhammed must have known Waraqa quite well.
Actually, see my post here for an excellent refutation of the whole notion that Prophet Muhammad pbuh learned from Waraqa ibn Nawfal.
By which standards?Mecca was a small place after all.
And yet, from the narrationsFor instance,
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah's Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering." Zaid bin 'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, "Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as something abominable.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to Sham, inquiring about a true religion to follow. He met a Jewish religious scholar and asked him about their religion. He said, "I intend to embrace your religion, so tell me some thing about it." The Jew said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah's Anger." Zaid said, "'I do not run except from Allah's Anger, and I will never bear a bit of it if I have the power to avoid it. Can you tell me of some other religion?" He said, "I do not know any other religion except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" Then Zaid went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him the same as before. The Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid replied, "I do not run except from Allah's Curse, and I will never bear any of Allah's Curse and His Anger if I have the power to avoid them. Will you tell me of some other religion?" He replied, "I do not know any other religion except Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He replied, Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" When Zaid heard their Statement about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that place, and when he came out, he raised both his hands and said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the religion of Abraham."
Narrated Asma bint Abi Bakr: I saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing with his back against the Ka'ba and saying, "O people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of Abraham except me." He used to preserve the lives of little girls: If somebody wanted to kill his daughter he would say to him, "Do not kill her for I will feed her on your behalf." So he would take her, and when she grew up nicely, he would say to her father, "Now if you want her, I will give her to you, and if you wish, I will feed her on your behalf."
So clearly Muhammed met people who had heard about Christian and Jewish ideas.
-Zayd ibn Amr did not spend time studying Jewish or Christian sources but rather after his inital meeting with the religious leaders he abandoned all that and chose the religioin of Prophet Abraham
-Zayd ibn Amr was persecuted by Al-Khattab for his religious views so he went to the heights of Makkah; Al-Khattab hired a young group of Qurayshi thugs to ensure that Zayd did not reenter the city
-Zayd ibn Amr died 3 years prior to the Prophethood of Muhammad pbuh, and he spent much of his time travelling
-If Prrophet Muhammad pbuh had learned anything from Zayd, he would be challenging the religion of Christianity and Judaism on the basis of third-party hearsay
-And still, there are no recorded incidents of the two consulting eachother on religion, anyway!
Regards
No, prophet Muhammed indeed was illiterate as described in many places of the quran such as 7:158. Also it is stated in quran he couldnt read nor write in 29:48:I often wonder when the idea arose that Muhammed was illiterate. He is described as "Ummi" but I would have thought that meant he was sent to the Nation of the Arabs. After all there are hadith which seem to show, clearly, that he could read and write. Which is odd because you would think that Bukhari would have thrown them out immediately. However I have enough black marks against my name and so I do not care to discuss it.
And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.
And which hadith were u referring to? Do u mean the hadith when PRophet Muhammed was on his deathbed and said bring me paper so i can write something?
i agree that there could be minor knowldge of christianity & judaism in the region of Mekkah, for example there lived certain christians in Mekkah, isolated though. But the majority were pagans and idol-worshippers. Therefore the stories of christians and jews, if any, must have not been very popular -- history testifies to this.Yes but clearly Muhammed lived in an environment where Biblical stories were around. Presumably he heard them being told, presumably Waraqa would have talked about his Faith - just try and shut Christians up. Not that there is anything much else to say about that.
Quran goes in very much detail about the life of the prophets, such as yusuf/jesus/moses etc. it mentions 25 prophets by name out of which 23 r mentioned in bible, unless i am mistaken. Therefore we cant just say he made the quran up from those random stories, which would be contraty to both logic and history.
I doubt it, Mekkah by no means is as small as u r stating. Back in the days, it would take very long to travel from one place to another. they had to walk or use camels. And as far as i know there is no mention of Waraqah knowing prophet muhammed very well. Sure there might have been occasional and brief meetings, consisting mostly of greetings. But logically speaking it would be foolish to say those random meetings were the source of Quran.Well come on now. Waraqa was his wife's cousin who was in her turn his cousin as well. Mecca was a small place. Presumably everyone knew everyone else. Just because only two meetings are mentioned, doesn't mean that only two meetings took place.
And if they were very well aquainted, or there was any connection between prophet and waraqah then the Pagans would have realised it immediately and exposed the prophet -- they were very watchful over him. Indeed, why would waraqah have promised to help the prophet if he was the one who was teaching him the Quran, him being a pious and noble and wise man?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks