Poll: Signs of eloquence of Quran

[firedragon]

Prior to making any kind of criticism about a book, or a particular theory about a book, one should put effort to understand both. Without understand it if someone makes a criteria of their own to assess it, completely blindly, that seems like a statement of bias.

"I don't know you, I don't need to know you, I have no clue what you are saying, but I have already made my decision about you and to affirm those decisions without knowing anything you are saying, I have already developed my own so called "subjective argument" to make sure you don't pass".

I don't think something else could be better at defining bias.

Ciao.

 

[Augustus]

So based on what did you develop your theories? Did you just make them up based on your feelings? Are they are strawman attempt?

Read the previous post (more carefully this time).

Or is it that you just have no knowledge on the topic to make some objective argument against it with some decent analysis?

Feel free to make some objective argument with decent analysis then (if you are capable).

Or do you just have no knowledge on the topic which is why you refuse to discuss it?

 

[firedragon]

Feel free to make some objective argument with decent analysis then (if you are capable).

Cheap burden of proof fallacies.

Please repeat and show what you are.

You are absolutely ignorant on the subject so you have to make some cheap fallacy to =turn around and cover up your bias.

 

[firedragon]

Or do you just have no knowledge on the topic which is why you refuse to discuss it?

Did you make that decision without me making any assertion? Lol. You made the assertion, you made them all up.

 

[Augustus]

Prior to making any kind of criticism about a book, or a particular theory about a book, one should put effort to understand both. Without understand it if someone makes a criteria of their own to assess it, completely blindly, that seems like a statement of bias.

If someone doesn't read posts carefully, doesn't engage with posts, misrepresents posts, then simply asserts, without argument, that he is right, that seems like a statement of bias.

Cheap burden of proof fallacies.

Please repeat and show what you are.

You are absolutely ignorant on the subject so you have to make some cheap fallacy to =turn around and cover up your bias.

Yet further proof that, on RF, the people who cry "fallacy" the most loudly and frequently do so based on the fact they either don't understand the fallacy, or are really highlighting their poor comprehension.

I have no problem with people being pompous and self-aggrandising if they actually bother to make a substantial point, but if they do so in lieu of an actual argument it's just very, very boring.

So, unless you can actually make a point that directly addresses something I've said, or elucidates your own opinions I'll leave you to blow your own trumpet.

 

[firedragon]

If someone doesn't read posts carefully, doesn't engage with posts, misrepresents posts, then simply asserts, without argument, that he is right, that seems like a statement of bias.



Yet further proof that, on RF, the people who cry "fallacy" the most loudly and frequently do so based on the fact they either don't understand the fallacy, or are really highlighting their poor comprehension.

I have no problem with people being pompous and self-aggrandising if they actually bother to make a substantial point, but if they do so in lieu of an actual argument it's just very, very boring.

So, unless you can actually make a point that directly addresses something I've said, or elucidates your own opinions I'll leave you to blow your own trumpet.

A lot of crying after asking for "evidence for something someone never asserted".

Hilarious.

 

[firedragon]

A1: I make assertions.
A2: I have no evidence.
A3: But you have to provide evidence for what you didn't assert.
A4: If not, you are ignorant.

That's probably worse than any nonsense I have heard. Should make a list.

 

[Augustus]

A lot of crying after asking for "evidence for something someone never asserted".

Hilarious.

Whooooshhhhh!

Good grief, if you even spent 1/10th of the time reading carefully, thinking and engaging in good faith discussion as you do blowing your own trumpet, you might be less likely to miss the point quite so consistently.

A1: I make assertions.
A2: I have no evidence.
A3: But you have to provide evidence for what you didn't assert.
A4: If not, you are ignorant.

That's probably worse than any nonsense I have heard. Should make a list.

Of course those were my own thoughts. There are no objective standards to identify whether a text is divine in origin. There are no experts. There is no go to textbook. Everyone is ultimately making claims out of thin air as they are all based on their own personal criteria.

As such, one person can make their subjective argument, and another can make theirs. People can decide which one they want to believe. Is this really that hard for you to understand?

 

[firedragon]

Whooooshhhhh!

OHT.

Go and study subjects you pretend to be expert in and criticise them.

 

[Augustus]

OHT.

Go and study subjects you pretend to be expert in and criticise them.

A: "here is my subjective opinion on one of the most most subjective topics in the world."

FD: "Let me demonstrate my poor reading and critical thinking capacity..."

 

[firedragon]

A: "here is my subjective opinion on one of the most most subjective topics in the world."

FD: "Let me demonstrate my poor reading and critical thinking capacity..."

"If you don't provide evidence to an assertion you never made you are ignorant"

A great logic I found in this thread. Among one more which will also go in the hall of fame. Thanks for all of that. I learned a lot.

Again, learn about a subject you wish to make criticism of and if you don't know, just ask.

 

[Augustus]

"If you don't provide evidence to an assertion you never made you are ignorant"

A great logic I found in this thread. Among one more which will also go in the hall of fame. Thanks for all of that. I learned a lot.

Whooooshhhhh!

As I previously mentioned, you are missing the point again.

When your entire schtick is to simply call people ignorant in a overweeningly pompous manner while misrepresenting their posts and steadfastly refusing to enter into good faith discussion, maybe, just maybe, they might lampoon your childish style.

As this discussion is stunningly boring, would you like to have an actual rational, good-faith discussion like an adult?

I'll give it one more shot in a new post, feel free to use all the ad hominem you want here if you want to get it out of your system.

 

[Augustus]

Again, learn about a subject you wish to make criticism of and if you don't know, just ask.

First of all, as I have tried to point out several times, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. But before I explain your misunderstanding, would you say the following is accurate?

At some point within the first few centuries of Islam there were debates as to what inimitability meant: eloquence, specific knowledge, etc. There was no universal consensus on what it meant though.

One argument for inimitability was eloquence, specifically the combination of words, meaning and form/structures. But again, there was no universal agreement on what stylistic features marked it out as beyond human capabilities.

And to illustrate you are interested in rational, good-faith discussion, is it your opinion that we can establish the Quran's divinity by a stylistic analysis of its eloquence?

 

[firedragon]

At some point within the first few centuries of Islam there were debates as to what inimitability meant: eloquence, specific knowledge, etc. There was no universal consensus on what it meant though.

Debates must have been there all throughout. But what do you specifically mean by "eloquence" and "specific knowledge"? What is your personal understanding of these?

One argument for inimitability was eloquence, specifically the combination of words, meaning and form/structures. But again, there was no universal agreement on what stylistic features marked it out as beyond human capabilities.

Eloquence is a huge topic, and you are right. Different people will bring in different findings into it. But saying "there was no universal agreement" is false, because scholarship in a topic like that does not work that way. Different people will contribute different things. This is not a disagreement factor like criticism. Different scholars and philosophers will contribute different things.

Inimitability is a completely different ballgame, but this so called "eloquence" is only one side of scholarship. You are correct. It is one argument. There are several aspects to this. The Ilme Balagha is the so called "the science of eloquence" which is absolutely the wrong description of what that means in English. Then comes Anaaka which is the form and composition of the form which is completely different to how the arabs of the time used the language. There are many aspects to this. But Islamic scholarship never said that purely because of one aspect, the Quran is inimitable. This inimitability business is something that some people will deny till they die, and some will blindly embrace till they die. So it's a useless discussion. Most of this discussion throughout history has been with people denying and accepting without any clue about it. Scholars don't work that way. So in order to engage with them, one has to have a particular temperament and humility.

 

[firedragon]

When your entire schtick is to simply call people ignorant in a overweeningly pompous manner

When people pretend to know what they are talking about but make some blunders as bad as they get, you can call me pompous or what ever you like. To me, it's just a childish retort. If I don't know what is going on in the world of geology but am making assumptions on the go like a train, its pretty pathetic to be frank.

As this discussion is stunningly boring, would you like to have an actual rational, good-faith discussion like an adult?

It's not easy to have a conversation like an adult with an adult who is acting like a child when someone points out some absurd assumptions made up on the fly. Then for someone to ask for "evidence or ignorance" to an assertion I never made in this thread is just nonsensical.

So since you don't seem to understand this simple logic, maybe you have no capability of having such an "adult discussion".

 

[Augustus]

Debates must have been there all throughout. But what do you specifically mean by "eloquence" and "specific knowledge"? What is your personal understanding of these?



Eloquence is a huge topic, and you are right. Different people will bring in different findings into it. But saying "there was no universal agreement" is false, because scholarship in a topic like that does not work that way. Different people will contribute different things. This is not a disagreement factor like criticism. Different scholars and philosophers will contribute different things.

Inimitability is a completely different ballgame, but this so called "eloquence" is only one side of scholarship. You are correct. It is one argument. There are several aspects to this. The Ilme Balagha is the so called "the science of eloquence" which is absolutely the wrong description of what that means in English. Then comes Anaaka which is the form and composition of the form which is completely different to how the arabs of the time used the language. There are many aspects to this. But Islamic scholarship never said that purely because of one aspect, the Quran is inimitable. This inimitability business is something that some people will deny till they die, and some will blindly embrace till they die. So it's a useless discussion. Most of this discussion throughout history has been with people denying and accepting without any clue about it. Scholars don't work that way. So in order to engage with them, one has to have a particular temperament and humility.

One more

And to illustrate you are interested in rational, good-faith discussion, is it your opinion that we can establish the Quran's divinity by a stylistic analysis of its eloquence?

 

[firedragon]

One more

One more

No thanks. There is no need to "illustrate" I am anything to you mate, and I am not interested in engaging with a topic I did not engage with here. Hope you understand. I have already explained this anyway in the text you did not reply to.

Cheers.

 

[Link]

Why should anyone believe its eloquence is demonstrably miraculous?

Salam

There are 13 Surahs that mentioned the reward accusation. Each way it's mentioned is particularly perfectly suited for the Surah (I've proven this so far, still yet to show some Surahs, but so far, shown this to be true of what I've shown). But it's so subtle how it's perfectly suited. Given how Quran was brought, how is this possible?

Humans when they repeat words, are not going to repeat and paraphrase in a way that is different in a subtle way, but yet is perfectly different. For example, just where "la" appears instead of "ma" or vice versa, I talked about, how that subtle difference did all the difference between two similar verses.

The reward accusation verses are all saying the same message practically except one 42:23 identifies it more specific to all of the family of Mohammad (s), but they all perfectly placed and suited most in the Surah.

Humans would not do this. They would get at least one of these switched wrong. One of these verses would be more suited somewhere else.

 

[Augustus]

No thanks. There is no need to "illustrate" I am anything to you mate, and I am not interested in engaging with a topic I did not engage with here. Hope you understand. I have already explained this anyway in the text you did not reply to.

Cheers.

Usually when I am not interested in engaging with a topic, I don't interject myself in someone else's conversation purely to write 500 words of ad hominem and strawmen while completely ignoring half a dozen plus attempts to correct my multiple misrepresentations while making no arguments of my own.

I simply do something I actually want to do instead. Just a thought

IThen for someone to ask for "evidence or ignorance" to an assertion I never made in this thread is just nonsensical.

See what I mean? I corrected you on this 3 times already, and you still insist on repeating it.

Someone with your nuanced and scholarly understanding of textual analysis should be able to deduce the following quite easily:

When you demonstrate you have no interest in discussion or reading someone's post with sufficient effort to understand them, but instead simply repeat "you are ignorant" ad nauseam and someone imitates your style for satirical purposes, you don't actually take their words literally, but understand they are lampooning your refusal to engage in a rational discussion

 

[firedragon]

Usually when I am not interested in engaging with a topic, I don't interject myself in someone else's conversation purely to write 500 words of ad hominem and strawmen while completely ignoring half a dozen plus attempts to correct my multiple misrepresentations while making no arguments of my own.

Usually if I don't know head or tail about a topic I don't come up with my own bias criteria out of thin air and demand others to prove themselves refusing to prove that I had some standard. So thanks for introducing yourself.

See what I mean? I corrected you on this 3 times already, and you still insist on repeating it.

You should correct yourself. You asked me to prove an assertion I never made. That's the most absurd thing one could hear.