Poll: Signs of eloquence of Quran

[Augustus]

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.

Thank you for your answer.

Would you agree that with any text, a miraculous origin has to be considered, by definition, the least likely explanation possible?

If I understand your argument, it is that a human would be capable of doing this several times, over a shorter time period, but not this many times over that long a time period? Is that correct?

 

[Link]

Thank you for your answer.

Would you agree that with any text, a miraculous origin has to be considered, by definition, the least likely explanation possible?

If I understand your argument, it is that a human would be capable of doing this several times, over a shorter time period, but not this many times over that long a time period? Is that correct?

Salam

I agree with you, which is why it's helpful to also dialogue about proofs for God, Messengers, Books, Angels, and see those truths, and then easier then to see if Quran is revealed from God (because then you are looking for a divine book).

I'm saying humans when they repeat same thing (and reward verses paraphrase the same accusation and have similar responses), don't do it perfectly subtle way that would be perfectly suited for the Surah, some of it with minor additions, some of it with exact same words etc, that are so perfectly placed where they are. Keep in mind, Surahs were dynamically built and not revealed at one time.

They would "place" at least one of these verses in a wrong Surah, that another Surah would be more suited for it. Given how Quran was dynamically built.

The subtle differences is something most humans reciting Quran have not even realized. And this is the nature of how perfectly placed verses are. When you try to see why words of God are in a specific place, phrased in a specific way, when the message is paraphrased similarly else where, things open, and you realize God is subtle in ways humans cannot be as far Quran goes.

 

[Augustus]

Salam

I agree with you, which is why it's helpful to also dialogue about proofs for God, Messengers, Books, Angels, and see those truths, and then easier then to see if Quran is revealed from God (because then you are looking for a divine book).

I'm saying humans when they repeat same thing (and reward verses paraphrase the same accusation and have similar responses), don't do it perfectly subtle way that would be perfectly suited for the Surah, some of it with minor additions, some of it with exact same words etc, that are so perfectly placed where they are. Keep in mind, Surahs were dynamically built and not revealed at one time.

They would "place" at least one of these verses in a wrong Surah, that another Surah would be more suited for it. Given how Quran was dynamically built.

The subtle differences is something most humans reciting Quran have not even realized. And this is the nature of how perfectly placed verses are. When you try to see why words of God are in a specific place, phrased in a specific way, when the message is paraphrased similarly else where, things open, and you realize God is subtle in ways humans cannot be as far Quran goes.

I obviously can't read the Arabic, but out of interest which are some of the verses in question so I can see them in context?

The reason I find it difficult to accept this line of reasoning is that, the argument against it would be that the Quran was composed over many years, but by a highly eloquent rhetorician who knew what had previously had been said. Moreover, this was apparently a time when the eloquence of poetry and rhetoric were far superior than in later centuries.

While humans progress in many fields, there are some skills and abilities that fall into disuse and are forgotten or regress.

Even if we accepted there is no one today who could replicate such a technique, how do we know if people in the past could replicate it to that standard?

IIRC one of the arguments against this position is that if someone had been able to do it, then we'd know about it, but given the paucity of surviving material from that era, this is highly debatable.

In addition, I find it hard to accept that a text that can be analysed and described using the same categories and concepts as can be identified as divine based on these without such a judgement being highly subjective, especially if one is specifically trying to prove a preconceived thesis of the text's divinity.

It requires one to, at least implicitly, draw a line somewhere in use of literary and stylistic concepts beyond which divinity is the only possible explanation.

As such, imo, the divinity of a text can only be self-evident and felt, it cannot be something that requires theoretical explanation and elucidation (which has been the position of some scholars anyway). But this brings the question of why only some people feel this way.

This is why this topic is generally insoluble: for most of those who do not start from the position it is divine, there is too high a barrier to make divinity the most probable option based on theoretical argumentation.

Just my opinion, anyway. You may disagree

 

[Link]

I obviously can't read the Arabic, but out of interest which are some of the verses in question so I can see them in context?

The following post was made the "Signs of Eloquence in Quran" thread : Signs of eloquence in Quran




Salam

First I'm going to list all of these verses I'm talking about, and you will see, this is a repeated theme that does keep the meaning together, but, I will then later in separate posts show, each phrase is perfectly suited where it is for that Surah it is found in.

The verses:

Surah Anaam

These are they who God has guided, so by their guidance follow; say: no reward do I ask for it in that is only a reminder to the worlds.


أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَى اللَّهُ ۖ فَبِهُدَاهُمُ اقْتَدِهْ ۗ قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا ۖ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا ذِكْرَىٰ لِلْعَالَمِينَ


Then in Surah Yonus:

فَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَمَا سَأَلْتُكُمْ مِنْ أَجْرٍ ۖ إِنْ أَجْرِيَ إِلَّا عَلَى اللَّهِ ۖ وَأُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

So if you turn your back, so what reward have I asked of you in that my reward (in this case) is only upon God and I've been commanded to be of the submitters.


In Surah Hud:

وَيَا قَوْمِ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مَالًا ۖ إِنْ أَجْرِيَ إِلَّا عَلَى اللَّهِ ۚ وَمَا أَنَا بِطَارِدِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ إِنَّهُمْ مُلَاقُو رَبِّهِمْ وَلَٰكِنِّي أَرَاكُمْ قَوْمًا تَجْهَلُونَ


And o my people, I ask you no wealth regarding it, indeed my reward (you accuse me of) is only upon God (in reality to establish) nor am I going to drive away those who believe for they will meet their Lord but rather I see that you are a people who behave ignorantly.

يَا قَوْمِ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا ۖ إِنْ أَجْرِيَ إِلَّا عَلَى الَّذِي فَطَرَنِي ۚ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ

O my people I ask you no reward in that my reward (in this case) is only upon the one who originated me will you not understand?

In Surah Yusuf:

وَمَا تَسْأَلُهُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أَجْرٍ ۚ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا ذِكْرٌ لِلْعَالَمِينَ

And what reward do you ask them but that it is only a reminder to the worlds?



In Surah Mominoon


أَمْ تَسْأَلُهُمْ خَرْجًا فَخَرَاجُ رَبِّكَ خَيْرٌ ۖ وَهُوَ خَيْرُ الرَّازِقِينَ

Or do you ask them recompense? So the recompense of your Lord is better and is best of those who provide sustenance.

وَإِنَّكَ لَتَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ

And surely you call them to a straight path.


In Surah Furqan:

قُلْ مَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أَجْرٍ إِلَّا مَنْ شَاءَ أَنْ يَتَّخِذَ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِ سَبِيلًا

Say: What reward do I ask for it except that for who wants to, to take towards their Lord a path?

In Surah Shuara:

وَمَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أَجْرٍ ۖ إِنْ أَجْرِيَ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

(repeated verse many times in the same chapter of different Messengers saying it)

And what of a reward do I ask of it in that (in this case) my reward is only upon the Lord of the worlds?

In Surah Saba

قُلْ مَا سَأَلْتُكُمْ مِنْ أَجْرٍ فَهُوَ لَكُمْ ۖ إِنْ أَجْرِيَ إِلَّا عَلَى اللَّهِ ۖ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

Say: whatever reward I have asked of you so then it is for yourselves indeed my reward (you accuse me of) is only upon God and he is a witness upon all things.



In Surah Yaseen

اتَّبِعُوا مَنْ لَا يَسْأَلُكُمْ أَجْرًا وَهُمْ مُهْتَدُونَ

Follow who asks you no reward and they themselves are guided.



In Surah Saad

قُلْ مَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أَجْرٍ وَمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُتَكَلِّفِينَ

Say: what reward do I ask of it - and I am not of the pretentious -

إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا ذِكْرٌ لِلْعَالَمِينَ

In that is only a reminder to the worlds

وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ

And you will know of it's tiding after a time.



In Surah Shura

ذَٰلِكَ الَّذِي يُبَشِّرُ اللَّهُ عِبَادَهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ ۗ قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَىٰ ۗ وَمَنْ يَقْتَرِفْ حَسَنَةً نَزِدْ لَهُ فِيهَا حُسْنًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ شَكُورٌ

That is good news God gives to his servants that believe and do good/setting aright deeds; say: I ask no reward for it except the love in the kinsfolk and whoever does goodness we increase him therein in it's beauty, indeed God is Forgiving, Thankful.


In Surah Toor:

أَمْ تَسْأَلُهُمْ أَجْرًا فَهُمْ مِنْ مَغْرَمٍ مُثْقَلُونَ

Or do you ask them a reward so that they are by debt overwhelmed?


In Surah Qalam:


أَمْ تَسْأَلُهُمْ أَجْرًا فَهُمْ مِنْ مَغْرَمٍ مُثْقَلُونَ

Or do you ask them a reward so that they are by debt overwhelmed?



---------------
Comment: You can read the posts that follow to see proof of how perfectly place some of these verses are (not done showing all of them).

 

[Link]

Salam

Humans have limitations (they don't perfectly calculate)
God perfectly calculated these words in sound (only can see in Arabic) but also in meaning (shown in the thread regardless if you know Arabic or not).

If it was humans, the meaning would be off somehow. One of these verses would be switched with another and one of them would be in a wrong place or with at least one wrong wording way. By wrong, I mean, one Surah would have a better theme with the verse. I don't mean "wrong" in that it has no meaning, but that one of the Surahs would not be perfectly suited for how it's phrased specially how much the same message is repeated.

See how calculated and perfectly placed they all are, and then, think about it if humans can calculate this perfectly.

 

[Link]

It requires one to, at least implicitly, draw a line somewhere in use of literary and stylistic concepts beyond which divinity is the only possible explanation.

Salam

A difference between a miracle and magic, is not a small line, but a big gap. We don't have a line, but a big gap.

The way Quran is calculated speech - nothing comes close, the Gap is big, it's not a line.

The reward accusation seems to boring repeated to the novice, till you begin to see how they all come together, and how each is specifically suited in the Surah.

Then this opens up doors to the Quran, and also keeps the position of the family of Mohammad (s) clear in the Quran.

And this is another thing. Mohammad (s) and any human, cannot have the patience and subtle way of talking about Ahlulbayt the way Quran does. They would be explicit in one place, just as Mohammad (s) is in the hadiths.

The balance to be clear yet in a way that allows enemies of the family of Mohammad (s) to play word games in which they perish by with the Quran, is something that God alone knows to do.

Make it unclear, and then they have a case, Quran would not be a clear book in designation of family of Mohammad (s). Make it too explicit, and the Quran would have faced changes unless God does something drastic and forces people to submit to guidance.

And this middle way is something no one has patience for nor would be able to perfectly calculate words to this effect.

 

[firedragon]

The reason I find it difficult to accept this line of reasoning is that, the argument against it would be that the Quran was composed over many years, but by a highly eloquent rhetorician who knew what had previously had been said. Moreover, this was apparently a time when the eloquence of poetry and rhetoric were far superior than in later centuries.

Would you be able to point out one single piece of writing of the time that is equal or close to the Qur'an in the eloquence?

 

[Augustus]

Would you be able to point out one single piece of writing of the time that is equal or close to the Qur'an in the eloquence?

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.

As someone who explicitly stated has no interest in engaging on a topic, why do you keep inserting yourself into other people's conversations on that topic?

As you said you have no interest in good faith discussion, I'll tell you what, to save us both time, I'll just assume you wrote another 500 words misrepresenting everything I said and calling me an idiot while not making a single positive contribution to the thread.

It's less boring for everyone this way

If you have changed your mind and are now interested in good faith discussion, you can start by briefly explaining your perspective on the issue, and your criteria for judging divinity.

 

[firedragon]

As someone who explicitly stated has no interest in engaging on a topic, why do you keep inserting yourself into other people's conversations on that topic?

Please complain to the Admins that FD is "inserting himself". Maybe because of your habit of being irrelevant you couldn't see yourself being relevant in the passage I highlighted.

As you said you have no interest in good faith discussion

Complain to the admins that though you made that up, FD did not submit to your strawman.

So, can you show me, during the time of the Qur'an, any other writing that is equal to the Qur'an in "eloquence" as it is termed?

Thanks.

 

[Augustus]

Please complain to the Admins that FD is "inserting himself". Maybe because of your habit of being irrelevant you couldn't see yourself being relevant in the passage I highlighted.

Complain to the admins that though you made that up, FD did not submit to your strawman.

I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us is misrepresenting/being dishonest here.

So, can you show me, during the time of the Qur'an, any other writing that is equal to the Qur'an in "eloquence" as it is termed?

Read my posts and address what I already said on the issue if you want to discuss it.

 

[firedragon]

I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us is misrepresenting/being dishonest here.

I have no issue with you looking for approval.

But as you claimed I never said I "don't want to engage in discussions in good-faith". So you can show the "crowd" where I said that and seek their approval.

Read my posts and address what I already said on the issue if you want to discuss it.

I did. I quoted your passage. So you should know some other "eloquent" arabic writing of the time that is equal to the Qur'an.

If you can't find any, either you have to accept there are none, or that you don't know how to make that assessment. I am not saying you were dishonest there so that's fine if you say any of those.

 

[Augustus]

But as you claimed I never said I "don't want to engage in discussions in good-faith". So you can show the "crowd" where I said that and seek their approval.

Even here you get what I said wrong. Not "discussions", this discussion.

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?

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.

If you still don't understand, try to define what a good-faith discussion is

I did. I quoted your passage. So you should know some other "eloquent" arabic writing of the time that is equal to the Qur'an.

If you can't find any, either you have to accept there are none, or that you don't know how to make that assessment. I am not saying you were dishonest there so that's fine if you say any of those.

You quoted me without reading the context for the quote. Look at what comes before and after, then try to work out why your line of questioning is fallacious.

 

[firedragon]

Even here you get what I said wrong. Not "discussions", this discussion.

What ever discussion, I never said that so you see, please seek the crowds approval if that makes you happy.

You quoted me without reading the context for the quote. Look at what comes before and after, then try to work out why your line of questioning is fallacious.

First address this because this is the basic of your whole thing and the "inimitability" is not a discussion I wish to engage with because you don't have that capacity. That's not to demean you and you can if you like ask your crowd to make that judgment if you please, but that's a fact.

But anyone is capable of trying to at least find some writings of that time and have some foundation to the discussion of the eloquence that is in question. That is why.

But if you don't wish to engage in that discussion because you cant find anything, that's fine.

 

[Augustus]

What ever discussion, I never said that so you see, please seek the crowds approval if that makes you happy.

Even this "crowd" shtick is based on your inability to understand simple words in context.

First address this because this is the basic of your whole thing and the "inimitability" is not a discussion I wish to engage with because you don't have that capacity. That's not to demean you and you can if you like ask your crowd to make that judgment if you please, but that's a fact.

Before pomposity insisting you are the only one snart enough to offer an opinion on a topic, it usually helps if you don't do it while continually demonstrating you are incapable of actually understanding the posts you are replying to or what the opinion being offered was. It seems your biases and prejudices are causing you quite a few problems in this thread.

The easiest way to fix these problems is for you to try to explain what you think I am saying, and I'll point out your errors, ok?

 

[firedragon]

Even this "crowd" shtick is based on your inability to understand simple words in context.

Nice.

Before pomposity insisting you are the only one snart enough

I didn't say anything about being smart.

it usually helps if you don't do it while continually demonstrating you are incapable of actually understanding the posts you are replying to or what the opinion being offered was. It seems your biases and prejudices are causing you quite a few problems in this thread.

To engage with that topic, there are some basics you don't have. It's not about being smart or stupid. That's some assumption you made to reverse it without feeling bad about it.

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.

 

[England my lionheart]

I agree.

From a non believer perspective an eloquently written book doesn’t make the content true,Tolkiens “Lord of the Rings” among others like Shakespeares “A midsummer nights dream” ,as eloquent as they are the content is fiction so maybe eloquence in the Quran means very little and apparently takes 50 years to understand how to spot it according to fire Dragon.

 

[Augustus]

To engage with that topic, there are some basics you don't have. It's not about being smart or stupid. That's some assumption you made to reverse it without feeling bad about it.

The problem is you have completely musunderstiod what I have actually been saying throughout the thread.

There are no "basics" required before one can speculate on what could make a text divine, as it is a purely subjective exercise.

What I have been discussing is pretty much this:

This is why this topic is generally insoluble: for most of those who do not start from the position it is divine, there is too high a barrier to make divinity the most probable option based on theoretical argumentation.

It is not even specifically about the Quran, but how anyone could create anything other than highly subjective arguments on which to base a "divinity proved by eloquence" argument,especially when those seeking to prove it start with the conclusion and try to find an argument to support it.

There are no objective criteria, people are ultimately just making up their own rules, hence the disagreements even among "experts".

Your other misunderstanding was that I was arguing there were similarly eloquent texts, when what I actually said was there are insufficient texts from that era to make such an argument given the incredibly high barrier to claim a miraculous origin.

At least you made an actual attempt to engage though (albeit mostly not really relevant to what I said), imagine how much more productive it would be if you learnt to reply in good faith without presumption and bias from the start

 

[firedragon]

highly subjective arguments

It's not a subjective argument. It's an objective argument. The problem is you don't understand it, and are not willing to engage with it.

All you are doing is to ignore it.

Your other misunderstanding was that I was arguing there were similarly eloquent texts,

No. I didn't say that. I just asked you bring another document from that time hoping you would try and learn something.

There are no "basics" required before one can speculate on what could make a text divine, as it is a purely subjective exercise.

Now you will go on a tirade about subjective and objective (among a few attempts to insult) And you are bringing your go-to word "divine" which I never said in this thread.

Subjective or objective, you don't understand the book and you don't care. You cant engage with it.

 

[Augustus]

It's not a subjective argument. It's an objective argument. The problem is you don't understand it, and are not willing to engage with it.

I'm more than happy to engage with it.

There are no objective criteria for establishing a text's eloquence as being divine.

If you think there are feel free to state what they are and how these are objective.

You have a tendency to misuse the term objective though, so I guess this is the root of the issue.

You can make a case that there are some objective criteria that mark eloquence, and objective methods for measuring the relative merits of texts based on these characteristics. Even this is debatable though.

Even if we accept there are for the sake of discussion, these would not be grounds for "objectively" declaring a text divine via comparison with a small number of other texts (or even a large number).

No. I didn't say that. I just asked you bring another document from that time hoping you would try and learn something.

"Bring a document that is irrelevant to your argument to support a point you didn't make"?

Oh-kay...

And you are bringing your go-to word "divine" which I never said in this thread.

"go to word"? It's the topic, dear.

You inserted yourself into two conversations on divinity/eloquence.

Perhaps you are confused and thought we were discussing something else.

 

[firedragon]

I'm more than happy to engage with it.

There are no objective criteria for establishing a text's eloquence as being divine.

If you think there are feel free to state what they are and how these are objective.

You have a tendency to misuse the term objective though, so I guess this is the root of the issue.

You can make a case that there are some objective criteria that mark eloquence, and objective methods for measuring the relative merits of texts based on these characteristics. Even this is debatable though.

Even if we accept there are for the sake of discussion, these would not be grounds for "objectively" declaring a text divine via comparison with a small number of other texts (or even a large number).



"Bring a document that is irrelevant to your argument to support a point you didn't make"?

Oh-kay...



"go to word"? It's the topic, dear.

You inserted yourself into two conversations on divinity/eloquence.

Perhaps you are confused and thought we were discussing something else.

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.