Editing Openai/67f9c019-88f0-8007-a867-29e6f1beeb8b (section)

=== Assistant: The critique centers on the idea that Murad’s translation often leans on identifying Syriac or Aramaic roots for Arabic… ===
The critique centers on the idea that Murad’s translation often leans on identifying Syriac or Aramaic roots for Arabic words in the Quran, thereby suggesting that the language—and by extension its message—is derived from a later, human tradition rather than an original, divine source. This approach has drawn sharp criticism from academic circles for several reasons:

===== While it is true that Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic all stem from a common Semitic ancestry, modern linguistic studies emphasize that shared roots do not automatically transfer identical meanings between languages or even between different historical layers of the same language. =====
* Context Matters: Every language develops its own semantic trajectories. A single root may branch into a variety of meanings over time and across communities. For example, as you noted with the Bahasa example, even words sharing an etymological base can take on entirely different connotations in closely related linguistic environments. This demonstrates that local cultural and historical contexts significantly affect meaning.
* Methodological Issues: By consistently favoring a Syriac etymology, critics argue that Murad’s translation seems to cherry‐pick elements from one branch of the Semitic language family while neglecting the internal development and autonomous evolution of Arabic. In doing so, his work might imply that the Quranic text is merely a later compilation of ideas borrowed from an earlier, non-divine source rather than reflecting a unique, original revelation.

===== Scholars in Arabic and Semitic linguistics generally use a wide array of historical, grammatical, and contextual tools when interpreting texts: =====
* Comparative Semitics: While noting parallels is an important method in historical linguistics, it requires a careful comparison of usage, structure, and historical continuity. Robust analysis looks at the full evolution of language—not just isolated root similarities—to understand both form and meaning.
* Semantic Nuance: Just as with your Bahasa example (where one similar root yields quite different meanings in Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu), Arabic words in the Quran must be read within their own cultural and linguistic milieu. A proper academic treatment would account for the evolution of those words within the Arabic-speaking world rather than defaulting to a cross-linguistic argument that might oversimplify or misrepresent their unique meanings.

===== Critics contend that by implying that key Quranic terms owe their meanings predominantly to Syriac or Aramaic origins, Murad’s translation might inadvertently support the argument that the Quran is a product of later, human elaboration rather than a divinely revealed text. This is because: =====
* Selective Etymology: Focusing narrowly on Syriac roots can be seen as a way to undermine the independent semantic framework of Arabic. It risks portraying the text as simply a rehashed linguistic construct—a view that conflicts with traditional understandings that see the Quran as an inimitable work.
* Polemical Overtones: Such an approach may be viewed as serving a polemical agenda rather than a strictly academic one. In genuine scholarly practice, one must consider both shared etymological heritage and the localized development of meaning, without forcing an external narrative onto the source text.

===== In summary, while drawing comparisons between related Semitic languages can provide interesting insights, it must be done with rigorous attention to context, historical development, and internal linguistic evolution. The criticism levied against Murad’s translation is that his method of repeatedly attributing Arabic words to their Syriac roots oversimplifies and misrepresents how meaning is constructed in Arabic. Just as the difference in meaning for a shared root in Bahasa shows, local usage and context are indispensable for understanding any language—and especially a complex, ancient text like the Quran. =====

This balanced approach to linguistic scholarship underscores why many academics recommend relying on translations that thoroughly consider the internal evolution of Arabic language and context, rather than overly simplistic cross-linguistic comparisons.