Poll: Signs of eloquence of Quran

[KWED]

A lot, most even, is lost in translation.

Bad planning by god then.

However, there are features of eloquence you can see even in translations. The thread I did, I showed, why words were perfectly placed and that doesn't need you to know Arabic.

Because of the different structure of other languages, the placement of words is determined by the translator.

The Quran is meant for the whole world,

But you need to be fluent in Classical Arabic to understand it.

 

[KWED]

No of course not. It's based on a lot of scholarship. Not just some "opinion" the way you are depicting an opinion to be.

So you are claiming that the consensus amongst Shakespearian scholars is that the Quran is more eloquent than Shakespeare?

 

[KWED]

But they are polls apart.

In your biased opinion.

Also, loving the pun. Hope it was deliberate!

 

[KWED]

That's great. So why do you believe some of them crept into the Qur'an? Which specific verses, ?

Thanks.

"Irrelevant to the topic"

 

[KWED]

Because I’m more interested in the history of The Middle East and Islam like the “One thousand and one nights” folktales and how poetry and storytelling in the oral tradition before Islam I came accross al Qais and his story,.

Funny how when I point out that the Quran is pretty turgid stuff, apologists use the "but you can't translate Arabic into English and maintain the flow and beauty", yet when I bring up the likes of 1001 Nights, they go all quiet.

 

[KWED]

According to some Christian, Anti Islamic polemicists who made careers out of it. One guy was arrested trying to burn his documents knowing he will get arrested for money laundering if the authorities got hold of his documents. He tried to burn them in the basement of the building he was living at. He was arrested for financial crimes.
The story is absolutely bogus.

This is the definition of the genetic and ad hom fallacies.

 

[Augustus]

I was showing the flaw in your argument.

No, you were just repeating the word objective in lieu of an argument.

You cannot say that with out engaging in it.

So that ends that conversation.

Cheers.

I engaged with it to explain why these are not objective markers of divine eloquence/inimitability. You ignored this. What form of engagement is necessary?

So, to sum up, you can't make any arguments as to why it is objective. You just state something subjective is objective and something entirely dependent on human perception has an objective existence akin to evolution.

 

[firedragon]

No, you were just repeating the word objective in lieu of an argument.

No. I was showing our flaw in argumentation.

I engaged with it to explain why these are not objective markers of divine eloquence/inimitability. You ignored this. What form of engagement is necessary?

So, to sum up, you can't make any arguments as to why it is objective. You just state something subjective is objective and something entirely dependent on human perception has an objective existence akin to evolution.

No. You are not engaging with it.

 

[KWED]

That is appealing to majority.

"Appeal to majority" (ad populum) is saying "many people believe it, therefore it is true".
That is not the argument here (which I have made and you ignored).
It is that if the genuine, miraculous eloquence of the Quran can only be understood in Arabic, then the fact that there Arabic speakers who have read the Quran and do not find it miraculously eloquent shows that such judgements are subjective and influenced by bias (ie, Muslims find it miraculous, non-Muslims do not).

 

[KWED]

There are none.

If there are no other sources
1. How do you know the degrees of separation of that one?
2. How do you know it is wrong?

 

[KWED]

Looks like it was just a claim made by Tisdall.

Doesn't mean it isn't accurate though. After all, the whole of Islam relies on people just accepting that someone said something 1400 years ago.

 

[danieldemol]

If not, let's see humans do something like that

We've not merely seen humans do something "like that" we have seen that it was humans who did exactly that. The Quran was most probably composed by al-Hajjaj from divergent regional codexes which were significantly different enough to cause tensions between the early believers.

In my opinion

 

[danieldemol]

I'm going to make the challenge easier then Quran. I'm not saying bring a Surah like it. Just change a verse - one verse in the entire book, with better suited words. Let's see anyone do it.

The Quran says bring a Surah "like" it, not "better" than it, and the challenge has already been met;


https://www.reddit.com/r/islam_ahma...the_bring_a_surah_like_it_challenge_abdullah/

In my opinion

 

[KWED]

If there is a discussion on Hebrew linguistics I will accept that I don't know anything about it. Not turn back and tell the Jew "You are being pompous".

All your cheap insults are useless. The fact is, there were no arabic writings that was in anyway even in the same genre of the Qur'an from the time period. And the best of writings are poetry of the time, and the Quran is not poetry, though it is poetic. Also the poetry of the time had a different rhythmic style, which is nothing like the Quran being not poetry anyway. But when the Qur'an is being poetic, the rhythm does not compromise the words used in the sentence that will have a sound that suits the mood, and a tone that suits the statement, and a rhythm that also suits the mood within the word itself, not only the sentence. Sometimes the same thing will be said twice but the sound of the recitation will be different just to suit the mood of the sentence and even the surrounding verses. And within the sentence, words also will change in sound to set a particular mood. Then there is a thing called the Shagr which is typically only present in poems, but thought the Quran is not poetry, you find it. It's like a control mechanism that poets use in their poems but that compromises the tone of words and they do that deliberately. The Quran somehow has managed to maintain both with no compromise as if it's a cakewalk. There are new forms of wakth introduced in the Qur'an which were never used before. It's like a system of ending a sentence which also has meaning, which corresponds with other sentences in other places in the Qur'an. This brings memory bells when reading. More so when reciting. This is a memory bell or reminding mechanism which harmonises with meaning, context and tonality. Only when you read and recite the Qur'an will you be able to understand it. Hard to explain. Ha and The sounds will be there in some verses, which will not only remind you of a verse in a completely different chapter, and also give it a meaning that could only be derived by the tone, not by word.

There are no documents in arabic, in history found so far that is similar or even close. Anyway, for you to understand this even to begin this path you have to have arabic knowledge. These are just superficial otherwise. So though you think this is about being smart, it's not. It's just that different people have knowledge in different things so don't have that knowledge in this field. This is not just polemics, nor is it construction in theology.

You can insult all you want and think you are being insulted all you wish.

Cheers.

Just dropping in the odd transliteration of an Arabic term does not make you an expert in Arabic linguistics. If you really were such, you would be prepared to engage in reasonable discussion to support a position rather than just deflecting, calling people ignorant and ignoring points and questions.

 

[KWED]

The fact is, there were no arabic writings that was in anyway even in the same genre of the Qur'an from the time period. And the best of writings are poetry of the time, and the Quran is not poetry, though it is poetic. Also the poetry of the time had a different rhythmic style, which is nothing like the Quran being not poetry anyway. But when the Qur'an is being poetic, the rhythm does not compromise the words used in the sentence that will have a sound that suits the mood, and a tone that suits the statement, and a rhythm that also suits the mood within the word itself, not only the sentence. Sometimes the same thing will be said twice but the sound of the recitation will be different just to suit the mood of the sentence and even the surrounding verses. And within the sentence, words also will change in sound to set a particular mood. Then there is a thing called the Shagr which is typically only present in poems, but thought the Quran is not poetry, you find it. It's like a control mechanism that poets use in their poems but that compromises the tone of words and they do that deliberately. The Quran somehow has managed to maintain both with no compromise as if it's a cakewalk. There are new forms of wakth introduced in the Qur'an which were never used before. It's like a system of ending a sentence which also has meaning, which corresponds with other sentences in other places in the Qur'an. This brings memory bells when reading. More so when reciting. This is a memory bell or reminding mechanism which harmonises with meaning, context and tonality. Only when you read and recite the Qur'an will you be able to understand it. Hard to explain. Ha and The sounds will be there in some verses, which will not only remind you of a verse in a completely different chapter, and also give it a meaning that could only be derived by the tone, not by word.

There are no documents in arabic, in history found so far that is similar or even close. Anyway, for you to understand this even to begin this path you have to have arabic knowledge. These are just superficial otherwise. So though you think this is about being smart, it's not. It's just that different people have knowledge in different things so don't have that knowledge in this field. This is not just polemics, nor is it construction in theology.

So in your opinion (based to some degree on other people's opinions), none of the poetry from 5th-7th century Arabia is as good as the Quran, and any differing opinion is wrong.
Does that just about sum up your position?
If not, feel free to actually explain what your actual position actually is.

 

[KWED]

The objective criteria is inimitability. That's an objective criteria, not subjective.

In literature, "inimitability" itself is a subjective issue based on opinion. The courts are sometimes called on to determine if a work of art is "the same" as another one, and the decision often seems to depend on who has the best legal team!

But even if it was objective how does one know if someone yet born will not produce something the same? At best, all you could say is "So far, no one has produced anything like it".

And who decides if something is "the same" or "as good" as the Quran?
Not any Muslim, because they have a vested interest in rejecting any challenge, as well as being subject to confirmation bias.
Obviously the challenger will think they have met the challenge, or they wouldn't have presented it.
Also, it would need to be a blind test. The judges should not be aware of the sources of the individual passages or ideally even the context.
So it is just the opinion of people with no dog in the fight and no specific knowledge of the Quran. I am doubtful if any such test has ever taken place.

 

[KWED]

There is many ways to know Quran is true. One of them is to just let the Quran speak to your soul.

How does one do this if one doesn't accept that there is "a soul"?
Do you mean "see how it makes you feel"? That happens by default whenever I read anything.

If you do, you will see how Quran heals and reminds.

With all due respect, meaningless platitudes should not be used as "evidence" for anything.

It's exalted spirituality is also a sign and the way God talks about it not being wussy flowery like Rumi nor Wahabi military scholars "worship God" style (I'm speaking metaphorically, I have nothing against Rumi poems), the way God talks and the exalted personality it reveals is a sign from God.
This perhaps the easiest way to recognize it's from God.

If one doesn't already believe that there is a god, how should reading the Quran make one feel about god? How does one recognise the word of god if one does not accept god exists in the first place?

 

[Augustus]

No. I was showing our flaw in argumentation.

Freudian slip?

Saying aesthetic judgements are as objective as evolution is objectively a bad argument and shows you don't understand what objective means.

This is probably why you think you made an argument for objectivity, whereas you really just stated your opinion on Quranic eloquence.

No. You are not engaging with it.

As I asked, what do you want beyond a direct argument against your unsupported claims of objectivity?

But if you realise you can't support your claims fair enough, always best to pretend it's someone else's failing...

 

[firedragon]

Saying aesthetic judgements are as objective as evolution is objectively a bad argument and shows you don't understand what objective means.

This is probably why you think you made an argument for objectivity, whereas you really just stated your opinion on Quranic eloquence.

Nope. I was showing the flaw in your argumentation.

As I asked, what do you want beyond a direct argument against your unsupported claims of objectivity?

But if you realise you can't support your claims fair enough, always best to pretend it's someone else's failing...

Engage with the presentation of a most basic synopsis. If not, you are making a dismissal without knowing what the content is. That's hypocrisy. maybe as I said earlier you don't have the capacity to engage with it, so you have to tell others that they are pretending while all the while you think others as hypocritical as you are.

 

[firedragon]

@Augustus

Maybe you might be more comfortable with this topic. Objective, Subjective, Confusion, Reconciliation