Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi 莫哈末Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
When Dr. Christoph Heger, an Orientalist scholar with unknown qualifications and disputed credentials, wrote his commentary on the opening verse of Sura' al-Furqaan in July of 1999, his treatise was soundly responded to by Brother Shibli Zaman, who is quite familiar with the Semitic languages employed in the study.當克里斯托夫黑格爾博士，一個東方學者未知資格和有爭議的憑據，說他的評論在開幕詩句蘇拉'基地Furqaan於 1999年7月，他的論文是健全的回應，由兄弟史布利扎曼，誰是相當熟悉閃米特語言採用了這項研究。 While it is our opinion that Brother Shibli was quite successful in refuting Dr. Heger's treatise, two small criticisms can be raised.雖然我們認為，兄弟史布利是相當成功的批駁黑格爾博士的論文，兩個小可以提出批評。
Firstly, Brother Shibli's brilliance and command of the relevant Semitic languages caused him to overestimate the ability of his readers to fully understand his argument.首先，兄弟史布利的輝煌和指揮有關猶太人的語言使他高估了他的讀者能夠充分理解他的論點。 If nothing else, his article was meant to serve as a defense against a powerful missionary attack.如果不出意外，他的文章是為了作為一個強大的防禦傳教士的攻擊。 Unfortunately, not all Muslims on the Internet possess Brother Shibli's erudition, thus monolingual readers may find portions of his argument impenetrable.不幸的是，並非所有的穆斯林兄弟在互聯網上擁有史布利的博學，從而單語的讀者會發現部分他的論點令人費解的。 Secondly, Dr. Heger called to witness a number of sources that Brother Shibli did not consult.其次，黑格爾稱為博士見證了數源的哥哥史布利沒有諮詢。 In fact, he complained that the sources were no longer in print, and even resorted to mockery in a discussion on Usenet.事實上，他抱怨說，來源不再打印出來，甚至訴諸嘲弄了在Usenet討論。 While again, it is our opinion that though Brother Shibli's original response to Dr. Heger's article was sufficient, we consider that it is important to take a look at the sources that Dr. Heger had cited.雖然再次，這是我們認為，儘管兄弟史布利的原始響應黑格爾博士的文章已經足夠，我們認為重要的是要看一看黑格爾的根源，有博士引用。 We seek to build on the invaluable foundation laid by Brother Shibli, which will not only further explain his argument, but will also examine the sources cited by Dr. Heger that Brother Shibli had ignored.我們尋求建立的寶貴兄弟史布利奠定了基礎，這不僅將進一步解釋他的論點，但也將審查來源引博士黑格爾的哥哥史布利忽視了。
Brother Shibli states in his article that兄弟史布利國家在他的文章
“[t]his word is found in Hebrew, Aramaic and even Chaldee as the word 'PARAAQ' and not 'PURQAAN' as Dr. Heger says in errata.” “[t]的發現他的話是在希伯來文，亞蘭文，甚至沙爾因為這個詞'PARAAQ'而不是'PURQAAN作為黑格爾博士說，在勘誤表。”
This sentence may lead to confusion for those who are not familiar with Arabic, Hebrew, or other Semitic languages.這句話可能會引起混亂對於那些誰不熟悉阿拉伯語，希伯來語，或其他猶太人的語言。 What the Brother is actually doing in this instance is什麼是真正的兄弟這樣做是在這種情況下
- informing readers about the Hebrew equivalent of the tri-lateral root (PRQ/FRQ), and通知讀者約相當於希伯來文的三側根（PRQ / FRQ）和
- dispute any claim that “purqaan” is a Hebrew word.爭端的任何要求“purqaan”是希伯來文。
To quickly eliminate any claims about “purqaan” or “furqaan” being a Hebrew word, let us consider Yosef Yo'el Rivlin's Hebrew translation of the Qur'?1].為了盡快消除任何索賠有關“purqaan”或“furqaan”是一個希伯來字，讓我們考慮優素福 Yo'el里夫林的希伯來文翻譯的古蘭經'？1]。 Rivlin, an esteemed authority in both Hebrew and Arabic, translates Qur'?里夫林，一位受人尊敬的權威在這兩個希伯來文和阿拉伯文的翻譯古蘭經'？ 25:1 (Sura' al-Furqaan/Parashat ha-”Furqaan”) as follows: 25:1（蘇拉'al-Furqaan/Parashat公頃“Furqaan”）如下：
Yitbarekh (Elohim) asher horid et ha-”Furqaan” al yad abdo, L'ma'an yihyeh mazhir libnei-adam Yitbarekh（羅欣）舍horid等公頃“Furqaan”阿爾亞德瓦阿卜杜，歐萊雅馬安 yihyeh mazhir libnei -亞當
The translation is:翻譯是：
Blessed be He who sent down the “Furqaan” on His servant that he might be a warner for the worlds.願他誰下達了“Furqaan”對他的僕人，他可能是華納的世界。
What is the key here is the fact that Rivlin had left the word “furqaan” untranslated and put it in inverted commas.這裡的關鍵是什麼是事實，里夫林已經離開了這個詞“furqaan”未翻譯，並把它放在引號。 The translator, who is intimately familiar with both Arabic and Hebrew, simply transliterated the Arabic into Hebrew characters and left it untranslated, signifying that this is a wholly Arabic/Islamic term.譯者，誰是既通曉阿拉伯語，希伯來語，阿拉伯語音譯只是把它希伯來文字符，離開翻譯的，標誌著這是一個完全阿拉伯/伊斯蘭一詞。 From there Rivlin feels the need to explain this term and offers a footnote that says the following:從那裡里夫林覺得需要解釋這個詞，並提供一個腳註說如下：
Ha-Furqaan echad shemot sefer Elohim 夏Furqaan echad shemot之書瑩
“The Furqaan is one of the names for the book of God.”[2] “該 Furqaan是一種名稱為書的神。”[2]
The sum-total of this Hebrew scholar's attempt at elucidating the term is to tell readers that it is a reference to the Qur'?這個數目計這個希伯來學者試圖在闡明術語是告訴讀者，這是一個參考古蘭經'？
Rivlin, coupled with the sources cited by Brother Shibli, should be enough, but what about Dr. Heger's sources?里夫林，再加上兄弟史布利引用來源，應該夠了，但對於博士黑格爾的來源是什麼？ The first piece of evidence that Dr. Heger cites is Carl Brockelmann's article in Lexicon Syriacum.第一首的證據表明，黑格爾博士引用是卡爾 Brockelmann的文章在詞典 Syriacum。 Dr. Heger even supplies us with a scanned image of the relevant page.黑格爾博士甚至我們提供的掃描圖像的相關頁面。 First, it should be admitted that Heger is partially right, that this very respected Syriac dictionary does say that the Syriac purqaan means “salvation” (salvatio).首先，應該承認，黑格爾是部分正確的，這非常尊重敘利亞文詞典是說，敘利亞 purqaan手段“救贖”（salvatio）。 However, nowhere does the source ever attempts to tie it in with the Arabic furqaan.然而，沒有任何一個地方曾經試圖源，以配合它與阿拉伯furqaan。 Biblical verses cited are Genesis 49:17 (actually 18), and Exodus 14:13, and then it admits that the actual word used in the Hebrew is not from the PRQ/FRQ root, rather it is y'shoo'ah (), which is from a completely different root.聖經創世紀 49:17引用的詩句（實際上是18歲）和出埃及記 14時 13分，然後它也承認，實際的詞用在希伯來文是不是從 PRQ / FRQ根，相反，它是y'shoo'ah（） ，這是從一個完全不同的根。 This eliminates the word as being anything taken from any Judaic sources, as is implied in many of Dr. Heger's citations.這消除了任何Word作為正在採取任何猶太來源，是隱含在許多博士黑格爾的引文。 The word being discussed is an archaic Syriac conjugation of the PRQ/FRQ root.正在討論這個詞是一個古老的敘利亞共軛的PRQ / FRQ根。
The other source offered on Heger's page is Smith's Thesaurus Syriacum.其他來源提供的關於黑格爾的頁面是史密斯的詞庫 Syriacum。 Unfortunately, it never ties the word in with the Hebrew or Arabic renderings, thus establishing this archaic Syriac word as being totally outside the scope of Hebrew or Arabic conjugations of the FRQ root.不幸的是，它從來沒有關係的詞在希伯來文或阿拉伯文的渲染，從而確立為這個古老的文字被完全敘利亞範圍以外的希伯來文或阿拉伯文連詞的FRQ根。 So if Heger wants to claim that the Syriac word existed, neither of these sources lend weight to any borrowing theory.因此，如果黑格爾要聲稱敘利亞字存在，也沒有這些來源提供任何借貸理論重量。 What is really Heger's argument?什麼是真正黑格爾的說法？ That they sound alike and are from the same root?這聽起來很像，都是從同一個根？ This is not enough; usage is also needed.這是不夠的，還需要使用。
Indeed, usage is actually highly relevant, particularly if we go back to the aforementioned Brockelman.事實上，使用實際上是高度相關的，尤其是當我們回到上述Brockelman。 In the Philosophy of Language, there is a notion of “intertranslation salva veritate,” which means translation can be done back and forth without any loss of truth.在哲學的語言，有一個概念的“互譯薩爾瓦 veritate”，這意味著可以做翻譯來回沒有任何損失的事實。 So, for example, the word “bachelor” has a relationship of mutual intertranslation salva veritate with the phrase “unmarried man.” Does this relationship exist between the Syriac purqaan and the Hebrew y'shoo'ah ?所以，例如，單詞“光棍”有關係的相互互譯薩爾瓦veritate改為“未婚男子。”這關係之間存在的敘利亞purqaan和希伯來文y'shoo'ah？
Dr. Heger wants us to believe first that the Arabic furqaan is synonymous with the Syriac purqaan , simply because they sound alike.黑格爾博士要我們相信：第一，是阿拉伯furqaan與敘利亞purqaan代名詞，僅僅是因為他們的聲音一樣。 After that he wants us to believe that purqaan is synonymous with salvation, because the Hebrew word y'shoo'ah (“salvation”) was translated “purqaan” when rendered into Syriac.之後，他要我們相信purqaan得救的代名詞，因為希伯來字y'shoo'ah（“救贖”）被譯成“purqaan”時作出了到敘利亞。 However, Dr. Heger seemed to neglect his own source (Brockelmann), which itself notes that other Hebrew words, which do not mean salvation, have also been translated as purqaan when rendered into Syriac.然而，黑格爾博士似乎忽視了自己的源（Brockelmann），這本身注意到，其他希伯來文的話，這並不意味著救贖，也被翻譯成purqaan時作出了到敘利亞。
If one reads just below the hi-lited part (within the same column) of the scanned page offered by Dr. Heger[3] they will find that the word in question not only means salvatio (“salvation”), but also secessit (“to separate”).如果一個內容下方的Hi - lited部分（在同一列）掃描的頁面提供的博士黑格爾 [3]，他們會發現有問題的話，不僅意味著 salvatio（“救贖”），但也secessit（ “分離”）。 Note the citation of Numbers 16:26, where the Hebrew sur () is also rendered purqaan.請注意引文數 16:26，那裡的希伯來文河畔（）也呈現 purqaan。 Sur means “to depart”, or as the Latin in Brockelmann puts it, recessit, which means “retreat.”蘇爾的意思是“離開”，或作為拉美在Brockelmann所說的那樣，recessit，意思是“撤退”。
Most ironic of all, in his article on furqaan , Brother Shibli cited Exodus 32:2-3, where people are told to remove their earrings.最具有諷刺意味的是，在他的一篇文章furqaan，兄弟史布利引用出埃及記32:2-3，那裡的人們被告知要解除他們的耳環。 According to Brockelmann, Syriac translations of those verses also employ purqaan in place of the Hebrew據 Brockelmann，敘利亞文譯本經文還採用 purqaan代替希伯來文
pereq pereq
or “remove,” or the Latin removit.或“刪除”或拉丁removit。 So, if even Dr. Heger's own source discredits any notion of mutual intertranslation salva veritate between purqaan and y'shoo'ah , there is no reason to assume that this word must be translated “salvation.”所以，如果連博士黑格爾自己的來源詆毀任何概念的相互互譯薩爾瓦veritate之間purqaan和y'shoo'ah，沒有理由認為，這個詞必須翻譯“救贖”。
Now that we have plowed right through the sources that Dr. Heger has made available to us, it is time to turn to the citations that he did not make accessible.現在我們已經耕種的權利，通過博士黑格爾的根源，已經提供給我們，現在是時候談談引用他不作訪問。 Brother Shibli wondered aloud why Dr. Heger would fail to quote a single one of these sources.兄弟史布利想知道為什麼大聲黑格爾博士將無法報價單其中一個來源。 Upon further reflection, it would seem that he either did not really check these sources himself, or was aware of their inconsistencies.經過進一步反思，這似乎是說他要么沒有真正檢查這些源本人，或者是了解自己的不一致。 First, a question must be asked: How many sources did Heger cite?首先，必須要問一個問題：如何做許多來源黑格爾舉？ The list on his page is quite intimidating.這份名單上他的網頁是相當嚇人的。 He cites such respected authorities as Richard Bell, Montgomery Watt, Joseph Horovitz, Arthur Jeffery, AJ Wensinck, and of course the legendary Theodor N?ke.他援引得到尊重當局理查德貝爾，蒙哥馬利瓦特，約瑟夫 Horovitz，亞瑟杰弗裡，歐塞爾 Wensinck，當然傳奇西奧多 ñ？克。 Upon closer inspection, however, one realizes that there is a great deal of redundancy.經仔細檢查，但是，人們意識到，有一個很大的冗餘。 Watt does nothing more than cite Bell.瓦特沒有什麼比舉貝爾。 Horovitz calls N?ke and Wensinck as his witness. Horovitz電話 ñ？客與 Wensinck為他作證。 In the end it seems that Dr. Heger, in all actuality, only cited a couple of sources.最後黑格爾博士似乎在所有的現狀，只列舉了幾個來源。
First, let us consider the two sources from Dr. Horovitz.首先，讓我們考慮兩個來源博士Horovitz。 Dr. Heger cites them as Koranische Untersuchungen and “Jewish Proper Names and Derivatives in the Koran”.黑格爾博士引用了他們作為 Koranische Untersuchungen和“猶太人的專有名詞及衍生物可蘭經”。 From the German source, only a single page is cited (p. 76), and that page recommends readers to consider N?ke's Geschichte des Qorans.從德國的來源，只有一個頁面引用（第76頁），以及該網頁建議讀者考慮 ñ？克的歷史館萬 Qorans。 As for the English source, an article from Vol.至於英文源，文章從卷。 2 of the Hebrew Union College Annual, it too has some problems. 2希伯來聯合學院的年度，它也有一些問題。 First of all, one wonders why Dr. Heger cited some 82 pages (pp. 145-227) of text, when the portion that discusses Furqaan covers only three pages?首先，人們不禁要問，為什麼黑格爾博士舉出一些82頁（第145-227）的文字，當部分，討論 Furqaan只包括三頁？ It seems highly probable that either看來極有可能，要么
- (a) Dr. Heger preferred anyone who attempted to check his source would drown in the many pages, or （一）博士黑格爾的首選任何人誰試圖檢查他的源代碼將淹沒在眾多的網頁，或
(b) Dr. Heger himself had not consulted this work, rather he merely lifted the citation from somewhere else. （二）博士黑格爾本人也沒有諮詢這個工作，而他僅僅是取消了從其他地方引用。
Horovitz, however, does agree with Dr. Heger that the Arabic Furqaan has been taken from a Jewish or Christian source, but, as was stated above, he mostly just claims such and cites N?ke and Wensinck as proof. Horovitz但是，這同意黑格爾博士說，已採取阿拉伯文Furqaan從猶太人或基督徒來源，但是，正如上文所述，大多只是聲稱他這樣並列舉 ñ？客與 Wensinck作為證明。 Oddly, Horovitz makes the same mistake that so many of these sources make: claiming that the word is foreign while at the same time arguing that it was influenced by the Arabic “FA, RAA, QAAF” tri-lateral root.奇怪的是，Horovitz犯同樣的錯誤，那麼多使這些來源：聲稱，這個詞是國外，而在同時他們認為這是受阿拉伯語“法，慰安婦，QAAF”三側根。 Sadly, what this boils down to is an arrogance brought on by a combination of a bias in favor of Hebrew (the可悲的是，這是什麼歸結為是一種傲慢用組合帶來的偏見贊成希伯來語（即 Bible聖經 's language) and an ignorance of the的語言）和一個無知的 history歷史 of that language's relationship with Arabic.這種語言的關係阿拉伯語。 The FRQ root (“to divide,” “to separate”) is found in both Arabic and Hebrew, and if the word stems from that root in either language, it essentially stems from it in both.該 FRQ根（“分裂”，“分開”）被發現在阿拉伯語和希伯來語，如果這個詞源於兩種語言的根，它基本上都源於它。 This is because the root is exactly the same in both languages, and is probably a cognate that predates both languages.這是因為根是完全相同的兩種語言，可能是同源的早兩種語言。 Aside from that point, in the realm of common cognates between Hebrew and Arabic, scholars should (and now do) lean towards the Arabic, since it is the Arabic cognates that often help us understand archaic Hebrew words.除了這一點，在共同的同源詞之間的境界希伯來語和阿拉伯語，學者應該（現在做的）偏向阿拉伯語，因為它是阿拉伯語的同源詞，經常幫助我們了解古代希伯來文的話。 As the famous Orientalist Guillaume informs us:作為著名的東方紀堯姆告訴我們：
Since the beginning of the nineteenth century there has been a constant recourse to Arabic for the explanation of rare words and forms in Hebrew; for Arabic though more than a thousand years junior as a literary language, is the senior philosophically by countless centuries.自十九世紀開始出現了不斷求助於阿拉伯的解釋罕見的詞語和形式在希伯來人阿拉伯語，但千餘年初級作為一種文學語言，是由無數的高級哲學世紀。 Perplexing phenomenon in Hebrew can often be explained as solitary and archaic survivals of the form which are frequent and common in the cognate Arabic.令人費解的現象，在希伯來文往往被解釋為孤立的陳舊殘餘的形式頻繁，常見的同源阿拉伯語。 Words and idioms whose precise sense had been lost in Jewish tradition, receive a ready and convincing explanation from the same source.詞和成語的確切意義上已經失去了猶太人的傳統，接受一個現成的和令人信服的解釋來自同一來源。 Indeed no serious student of the Old Testament can afford to dispense with a first-hand knowledge in Arabic.事實上，沒有嚴重的學生對舊約都不能省去第一手知識阿拉伯語。 The pages of any critical commentary on the Old Testament will illustrate the debt of the Biblical exegesis owes to Arabic.[4]該網頁上的任何評論文章將說明舊約聖經的債務訓詁學欠阿拉伯語。[4]
We also read that我們也讀到
Jews who studied Arabic language and literature, as well as other academic disciplines, learned the new linguistic science and desired to exploit it in their exegesis of the Bible and the analysis of Hebrew grammar.猶太人誰學習阿拉伯語語言文學，以及其他學科，學了新的語言科學和期望利用它在訓詁學的聖經和希伯來文語法分析。 Only those who knew Arabic grammar developed the proper understanding of the Hebrew verb as the stem built upon three consonants.[5]只有那些誰知道阿拉伯語語法發展的正確認識，希伯來文動詞的幹建立在三個輔音 [5]。
Horovitz' (and others) mistake behind us, we should consider the other sources he called to witness that also appeared in Dr. Heger's list. Horovitz'（和其他）的錯誤在我們背後，我們應該考慮其他的來源，他呼籲目擊者，也出現在博士黑格爾的名單。
First on the list would have to be Theodor N?ke's very well-known Geschichte des Qorans.名單上的第一個就必須西奧多 ñ？克的非常著名的歷史館萬 Qorans。 All that he has to say on Furqaan is the following:所有這一切，他說對Furqaan如下：
[6] [6]
The translation is:翻譯是：
Well, that is certainly not much!嗯，這肯定是沒有多少！ However, N?ke does have a footnote that says:然而，氮？柯確實有一個腳註，上面寫著：
Das Wort stammt, wie das ?iopische ferqan, von dem aram?chen [purqaana]. [7] 達斯麥汁stammt，魏聖美格？iopische ferqan，馮DEM的亞蘭辰[purqaana] [7]。
Translation: The word comes, like the Ethiopic ferqan, from the Aramaic purqaana. 翻譯：這個詞來了，像埃塞俄比亞ferqan，從阿拉姆purqaana。
N?ke claims such without offering any real evidence. ñ？柯聲稱如不提供任何真正的證據。 However, he does follow with one very revealing statement:不過，他並跟隨一個非常揭示聲明：
Die Bedeutung “Offenbarung” ist im Aram?chen nicht nachgewiesen.模具Bedeutung“Offenbarung”北京時間即時亞蘭辰nicht nachgewiesen。 Es ist daher m?ch, da?sie sich erst auf arabischen Sprachgebiete gebildet hat.[8]斯北京時間達希爾米？通道，大？女士自發性腦出血往昔奧夫 arabischen Sprachgebiete gebildet帽子。[8]
Translation: The meaning “revealing” is not known in Aramaic. 翻譯：意思是“揭露”不知道在阿拉姆語。 It is possible therefore that it formed only in areas where Arabic is spoken.因此，有可能只在它形成的地方講阿拉伯語。
This is an incredible admission on the part of N?ke!這是一個令人難以置信的入場部分的N？克！ We know that there are many different conjugations of the FRQ root common to the Semitic languages – this has been thoroughly demonstrated in Brother Shibli's article.我們知道，有許多不同的連詞的FRQ根猶太人共同的語言 - 這已被徹底體現在兄弟史布利的文章。 However, if a usage that is not found in the other languages is present in Arabic, this makes the Arabic word more original, and hurts claims about the word being borrowed.但是，如果使用的是沒有發現在其他語言存在於阿拉伯語，這使得阿拉伯字更原始，傷害索賠這個字被借來的。 This is a rather simple rule of linguistics and the Philosophy of Language.這是一個相當簡單的規則的語言學和語言哲學。 As one of the greatest Philosophers of Language, Ludwig Wittgenstein, put it:正如一位最偉大的哲學家，語言，維特根斯坦所說的那樣：
Die Bedeutung eines Wortes ist sein Gebrauch in der Sprache.[9]模具Bedeutung eines Wortes北京時間盛Gebrauch在明鏡 Sprache。[9]
Translation: The meaning of a word is its use in the language. 翻譯：一個詞的含義是它使用的語言。
Of course others could argue that the word was borrowed and then evolved after the fact, but this would have to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.當然其他人可能會說，這個詞是借來的，然後演變後的事實，但是這必須被證明，而不是僅僅斷言。 The fact that the cognate exists in Arabic, and is used the same way as in other Semitic languages, hurts the possibility that it had to be borrowed.事實上，在阿拉伯語中存在的同源，並用同樣的方式，與其他閃族語言，傷害的可能性，它必須是借來的。 The word furqaan () is from the root word faraqa, literally meaning “to separate, divide, sever, sunder; to make a distinction, distinguish, differentiate, discriminate”[10].這個詞 furqaan（）是從詞根 faraqa，字面意思是“獨立，分裂，割斷，破甲;作出區分，辨別，區分，區別”[10]。 When the FRQ root is employed in Hebrew to mean “salvation,” it is only in the sense that one is separated from the danger, such as Psalms 136:24 which says God “saved us from our enemies” (YiFRQenu mitsaareinu).當 FRQ根受聘於希伯來文的意思是“拯救”，它只有在這個意義上，一個是脫離了危險，如詩篇 136:24這說上帝“救了我們，從我們的敵人”（YiFRQenu mitsaareinu）。
Let us consider AJ Wensinck's article.讓我們考慮歐塞爾 Wensinck的文章。 Wensinck, from the start, offers a statement that is almost contradictory: Wensinck，從一開始，提供了一個聲明，幾乎是矛盾的：
The word is found in Arabic literature as an original Arabic word and also as one borrowed from the Aramaic.[11]這個詞是阿拉伯文學中找到作為原始阿拉伯語單詞，也可以作為一個借鑒阿拉姆。[11]
Is it an original Arabic word or is it borrowed?它是一個原始阿拉伯語單詞還是借來的？ If it is both, then it is a paradox, because an original word is surely not borrowed.如果是兩個，那麼它是一個悖論，因為原來的那個字肯定不是借來的。 The only argument for borrowing that Wensinck has to offer is in yet another perplexing passage:唯一的參數為借貸，Wensinck所提供的是另一個令人困惑的一段話：
In the meaning “salvation” the word is certainly and Aramaic loanword.在意思是“拯救”這個詞肯定是和阿拉姆語借詞。 Thus Sura viii.因此，蘇拉八。 42 “…and what we have revealed to our servant on the day of the Furkan, on the day when the two hosts met”. 42“...和我們有我們的僕人透露，在當天的Furkan，當天會見時，兩位主持人”。 Here the battle of Badr is called “the day of the Furkan”.在這裡，戰鬥的巴德爾被稱為“天的Furkan”。 Some of the commentators on this passage give the meaning al-nasr “victory”.一些評論員對這段話的意思給予鋁納斯爾“勝利”。 But this is the Aramaic furkana, synonymous with the Hebrew yesha' “salvation”.[12]但是，這是阿拉姆furkana，同義與希伯來夜攝的“救贖”。[12]
Wensinck feels that the verse (which is actually Qur'?8:41) is making reference to the battle of Badr, and thus the proper interpretation is “salvation”. Wensinck認為，詩（這實際上是古蘭經'？20:41）現正參考戰鬥的巴德爾，從而正確的解釋是“拯救”。 He has given no valid argument for why readers should take such an interpretation rather than “the day of testing” or “day of discrimination”.他有沒有有效的參數為讀者為什麼要採取這樣的解釋，而不是“天測試”或“天的歧視”。 The FRQ root means to divide, separate, thus why not see this as the day the believers were separated from God's enemies?該 FRQ根手段來劃分，分開，從而為什麼不看到這一天為信的人脫離上帝的敵人？ Amazingly, Wensinck offers nothing, and his bibliography includes N?ke!令人驚訝的是，Wensinck提供什麼，和他的書目包含了n？柯！
Richard Bell's Introduction to The Qur'?makes the same argument as Wensinck, resting almost everything on his own personal interpretation of the verse from Sura' al-Anfaal.理查德貝爾介紹古蘭經'？使得相同的論點 Wensinck，休息幾乎都對自己的個人解釋的詩句從蘇拉'基地Anfaal。 As stated, he writes that the readers might如前所述，他寫道，讀者可能
[...] note that there [ie in Sura' al-Anfaal 8:29] the furqan is associated with absolution from evil deeds and forgiveness.[13] [...]注意，[即，在蘇拉'基地Anfaal 20:29]的furqan是與赦免和寬恕的惡行。[13]
From there, he writes that從那裡，他寫道：
This gives a slight presumption that it was from Christian sources that the word was derived, but這給出了一個輕微的推定，這是從基督教的來源，這個詞是派生的，但 Muhammad穆罕默德 must have associated it with the Arabic root faraqa, 'to separate'[.][14]必須有相關的它與阿拉伯根faraqa，'分開 '[.][ 14]
In passing, he did indeed argue that the word furqaan is originally of an Aramaic root when he notes that the word may be a順帶一提，他的確認為，這個詞最初是一個 furqaan阿拉姆根時，他指出，這個詞可能是一個
derivation either from the Syrian purqana or from the Jewish-Aramaic purqan.[15]推導無論是從敘利亞 purqana或從猶太人阿拉姆purqan。[15]
but he ends up appealing to Authur Jeffrey as a source for his reference.但他最後呼籲瑟杰弗裡作為來源，他參考。
Surely this appeal to one's own subjective brand of hermeneutics is fallacious, but this is all Bell has to offer.這無疑呼籲自己的主觀品牌詮釋學是荒謬的，但這是所有貝爾所提供的。 Watt, as was already mentioned, simply parrots Bell and cites him as evidence.瓦特，正如已經提到的，只是引用鸚鵡貝爾和他的證據。 He writes the following:他寫道如下：
In 8.41/42 'the day of the furqan, the day the two parties met' must be the day of Badr; and furqan, in virtue of its connexion with the Syriac word purqana, 'salvation', must mean something like 'deliverance from the judgement'.在8.41/42'的天的furqan，雙方當天會見了'必須是一天巴德爾和furqan，憑藉其在聯接與敘利亞字purqana，'拯救'，一定很喜歡'救我們脫離判決'。 This being so the furqan which was given to Moses is doubtless his deliverance when he led his people out of Egypt, and Pharaoh and his hosts were overwhelmed.在此情況下的furqan這是摩西，無疑是給他解脫時，他帶領他的百姓出埃及，法老和他的主人被淹沒。 Similarly, Muhammad's furqan will be the deliverance given at Badr when the Calamity came upon the Meccans.同樣，穆罕默德的furqan將給予巴德爾解脫災害時，來到了麥加。 This was the 'sign' which confirmed his prophethood.[16]這是'想'這證實了他的先知。[16]
It seems that all of Heger's sources have fallen, save one: Jeffery.看來，所有的黑格爾的來源有所下降，節省一：杰弗瑞。
Arthur Jeffery's Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'? is a very difficult work to navigate through, mainly because every page is littered with Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, Ancient Persian and various other scripts.阿瑟Jeffery的外交詞彙的古蘭經'？是一個非常困難的工作，以瀏覽，主要是因為每一個頁面充滿了阿拉伯語，希伯來語，敘利亞，埃塞俄比亞，亞美尼亞，古代波斯和其他各種腳本。 However, the book is a joke.然而，這本書是一個笑話。 At one point[17] Jeffery even argues that the Arabic salaam (“peace”) is borrowed from the Hebrew shalom.在一個點 [17]杰弗裡甚至認為，阿拉伯達累斯薩拉姆（“和平”）是借用希伯來語沙洛姆。 Jeffery notes the Arabic tri-lateral root “FA, RAA, QAAF” is the same root as in Hebrew and Aramaic, but still sees it as foreign.杰弗瑞注意到阿拉伯文三側根“法，慰安婦，QAAF”是同根在希伯來文和阿拉姆語，但仍認為它作為外國人。 In his own words:在他自己的話說：
This uncertainty and confusion is difficult to explain if we are dealing with a genuine Arabic word and is sufficient of itself to suggest that it is a borrowed term.[18]這種不確定性和混亂是難以解釋的，如果我們處理的是一個真正的阿拉伯字，足以本身就表明，它是一個借來的術語。[18]
We find the statement by Jeffery above to be rather perplexing.我們發現上述的聲明杰弗裡是相當令人費解。 If the word has a root in the language, it is almost certainly not foreign.如果Word有一個根本的語言，它幾乎肯定不是外國。 Why would a speaker need to go outside their language to conjugate a verb-root that is in their language?為什麼會去外面演講者需要他們的語言來共軛動詞根是在他們的語言？ This is a difficult question to answer, not that Heger or any of his sources attempt to do so.這是一個難以回答的問題，不是黑格爾或任何他的消息來源嘗試這樣做。 Jeffery simply asserts that it was taken from Christian terminology, and calls to witness Bell, N?ke and Wensinck for support.杰弗裡只是聲稱，它是從基督教的術語，並呼籲目擊者貝爾，氮？科和Wensinck支持。
Conclusions 結論
It is quite interesting to see that Dr. Heger's long list of sources, which at first seemed so imposing, is actually quite circular, with everyone citing everyone else, or citing one another.這是很有趣地看到，博士黑格爾的一長串的來源，起初看起來是那麼氣勢，其實是很圓，大家引用其他人一樣，或引用彼此。 All these citations made reference in some way or another to the Battle of Badr as an appeal to their reason, in the sense that it is a “separation” from danger, and not to “an old Christian hymn” as Dr. Heger tries to assert.所有這些引文提到一些這樣或那樣的戰役巴德爾作為吸引他們的理由，在某種意義上說，這是一個“分離”的危險，而不是“一舊基督教讚美詩”作為博士黑格爾試圖斷言。 Moreover, we have seen that by referring to Rivlin's Hebrew translation of the Qur'?此外，我們已經看到，參照里夫林的希伯來文翻譯的古蘭經'？ the word Furqaan is treated as a wholly Arabic word, and hence the theory that Furqaan is a borrowed Hebrew-Syriac word does not hold water.這個詞Furqaan被視為全阿拉伯語單詞，因此理論Furqaan是一個借來的希伯來文，敘利亞文詞是站不住腳的。
And only God knows best.只有上帝最清楚。
Acknowledgement 鳴謝
The author would like to thank Abook Alam Riki for the helpful discourse on the linguistics and the observations regarding Brockelmann that were offered.筆者要感謝Abook阿拉姆裡基上的有益的話語語言學和有關Brockelmann的意見被提出。
References 參考文獻
[1] Yosef Yo'el Rivlin, Alkur'an / tirgem me-`Arvit, Devir, Tel Aviv (1936-1945). [1]優素福 Yo'el里夫林，Alkur'an / tirgem我-`Arvit，Devir，特拉維夫（1936-1945）。
[2] Ibid. [2]同上。
[3] Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, (Hildesheim 1966), p. [3]卡爾 Brockelmann，詞彙 Syriacum（希爾德斯海姆1966年），第 606 606
[4] Alfred Guillaume, The Legacy Of Islam, (Oxford, 1931), p. [4]阿爾弗雷德紀堯姆，傳統的伊斯蘭教，（牛津，1931），第 ix九
[5] Barry W Holtz (ed.), Back to the Sources: Reading The Classic Jewish Texts, (Simon and Schuster, 1992), p. [5]巴里W霍爾茨（編輯），回到來源：閱讀經典猶太人文本，（西蒙和舒斯特，1992年），第 222 222
[6] Theodor N?ke, Geschichte des Qorans, (Leipzig, 1909), p. [6]西奧多 ñ？珂，史德Qorans，（萊比錫，1909年），第 34 34
[7] Ibid., p. [7]同上。，第 34, n. 34，北 1一
[8] Ibid. [8]同上。
[9] Wittgenstein, Philophische Untersuchungen, pt. [9]維特根斯坦，Philophische Untersuchungen角。 I, sect.一，A節。 43 43
[10] JM Cowan (ed.), The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, p. [10] JM科安（編），漢斯韋漢弗辭典現代書面阿拉伯語，第 708 708
[11] AJ Wensinck, “Furkan,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, (EJ Brill, 1927), Vol. [11]歐塞爾 Wensinck，“Furkan，”伊斯蘭教百科全書（EJ布里爾，1927年），第一卷。 2, p. 2，第 120 120
[12] Ibid. [12]同上。
[13] Richard Bell, Introduction to the Qur'? [13]理查德貝爾介紹古蘭經'？ p.第 137 137
[14] Ibid. [14]同上。
[15] Ibid., p. [15]同上。，第 136 136
[16] W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford, 1960), p. [16]瓦特蒙哥馬利瓦特，穆罕默德在麥地那（牛津，1960），第 16 16
[17] Arthur Jeffery, Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'? [17]阿瑟杰弗裡，外交詞彙的古蘭經'？ pp. 174-175 174-175頁
[18] Ibid., p. [18]同上。，第 226 226
Welcome to Bismika Allahuma , your premier source of counter-missionary information from an Islamic perspective!歡迎來到Bismika Allahuma，你的主要來源反傳教士的信息從伊斯蘭的角度！ If you are new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新這裡，您可能想要通過定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!謝謝您的來訪！
