The literary miracle of the Quran

[Niblo]

Asking a typical Christian audience this question is meaningless.

Yup! Anyone who believes that the Qur’an is wholly (or largely) bunkum is hardly going to agree that it’s a literary miracle.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This is a losing battle. Believers will never accept that it’s anything other than a masterpiece, while outsiders will rarely see it as much more than the supposed lighting of a warlord.

Christians see it as a blasphemous and evil book, filled with error and the teachings of an anti-Christ.

 

[JustLOL]

Christians see it as a blasphemous and evil book, filled with error and the teachings of an anti-Christ.

While they may be right, it is sad that they make those assumptions in ignorance without having read the Quran in totality or in perspective, but only by cherry-picking verses and chapter to support their assumptions…not surprising because many those who claim to be Christians are just as lacking in knowledge of the Bible.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Research it off CAF might give more answers then this thread is offering.

How is it so different, might need an expert in text and linguistics

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Yup! Anyone who believes that the Qur’an is wholly (or largely) bunkum is hardly going to agree that it’s a literary miracle.

Here is the problem, conflating Literary genius with belief in a religion.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

While they may be right, it is sad that they make those assumptions in ignorance without having read the Quran in totality or in perspective, but only by cherry-picking verses and chapter to support their assumptions…not surprising because many those who claim to be Christians are just as lacking in knowledge of the Bible

You don’t need to cherry pick verses to determine that it is a blasphemous book.

It claims that Christ did not die on the cross and that He was not the Son of God, but rather just another prophet. That is blasphemy, and the nature of those blasphemies makes Mohammad an anti-Christ, and therefore evil from the Christian perspective.

I don’t need to read the whole book to arrive at the conclusion that it is not of God, and subjecting myself to its errors isn’t going to change anything.

It is important to know about it in order to refute it, but there are people who dedicate their study to doing so in order that the average person can be given an adequate response to it’s blasphemies and errors.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

You don’t need to cherry pick verses to determine that it is a blasphemous book.

Blasphemous or not does not negate or equate to literary genius. The problem here is conflating two topics when that is not what the OP is asking.

 

[CoffeeFanatic]

I’m trying to recall some university class I took over twenty years ago, but we did look at Quranic passages in Arabic with an English translation next to it. I vaguely recall something about the Quran rhyming or having a pentameter or something similar. So, that may make it charming to listen to to them, I don’t know.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Blasphemous or not does not negate or equate to literary genius. The problem here is conflating two topics when that is not what the OP is asking.

I wasn’t attempting to discuss the OP’s question with that, I was responding to another poster’s comments on my original post.

 

[CoffeeFanatic]

I’ve read the whole thing in English. I’ve also read the entire Bible. I’m not a fan of the Quran’s content.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Isnt that all going off topic? I was flagged for being off topic on another thread.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m trying to recall some university class I took over twenty years ago, but we did look at Quranic passages in Arabic with an English translation next to it. I vaguely recall something about the Quran rhyming or having a pentameter or something similar. So, that may make it charming to listen to to them, I don’t know.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. Genesis used a similar form for it’s opening passages. Apparently it has a rhyming, melodic sound when read in Hebrew. Given that Mohammad was imitating aspects of the OT with his own work, it wouldn’t be odd for him to incorporate that style.

Isnt that all going off topic? I was flagged for being off topic on another thread.

It was the end link in a chain of responses to the OP, which had deviated from the original question as conversations tend to do. This, what we’re doing right now, is off topic.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Be great to get back to the specific topic and not have everyone conflate it with belief or not.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Mohammad’s writings are distinctly unoriginal. They are not unique in any way. He rhymes a little, mimics large swathes of the OT with a perverted re-imagining of Genesis, and then says a whole bunch of stuff not dissimilar from other heretical groups at the time, nor dissimilar from the sort of nonsense we see modern “prophets” and dictators spouting off about themselves.

There is nothing in his style that is unique to him, or somehow special. The only reason believers think there is is specifically because of their belief. Hence, the question of belief is the core issue at hand in the discussion, and therefore not off topic.

Why don’t you stop trying to be the thread police. If you don’t think a particular thread is on topic, then just don’t respond to it. If it gets out of hand, then report it. I had made literally two posts before you started nagging on me for being off topic, seems like you’re jumping the gun a little.

 

[JustLOL]

I don’t need to read the whole book to arrive at the conclusion that it is not of God, and subjecting myself to its errors isn’t going to change anything.

and then…

It is important to know about it in order to refute

I agree in general with your assessment of the Quran as it applies to my Christian beliefs, but you do see the oxymoronic problem of your two statements, when considered together, don’t you?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I agree in general with your assessment of the Quran as it applies to my Christian beliefs, but you do see the oxymoronic problem of your two statements, when considered together, don’t you?

Not really.

I can know about the content of a work without reading it cover to cover. We do this for pretty much every topic we know anything about. If there is a specific sura I am discussing, then it makes sense to read the greater context, but for the most part it is reasonable to rely on the work of others who have put in the effort to read the entire text. I can trust that when a person who has devoted their life to the refutation of Islam has read the book and is giving an accurate response.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Mohammad’s writings are distinctly unoriginal. They are not unique in any way. He rhymes a little, mimics large swathes of the OT with a perverted re-imagining of Genesis, and then says a whole bunch of stuff not dissimilar from other heretical groups at the time, nor dissimilar from the sort of nonsense we see modern “prophets” and dictators spouting off about themselves.

There is nothing in his style that is unique to him, or somehow special. The only reason believers think there is is specifically because of their belief. Hence, the question of belief is the core issue at hand in the discussion, and therefore not off topic.

Whether they are original in ideas or not, heretical or not, for believers or not, this has nothing to do with literary uniqueness. That is the point I am making.

Literary genius and uniqueness does not discriminate the way people on this thread are. The topic is ,

the claim is that its unique in its style, and that all other literary masterpieces follows a certain style, but not this.

Why don’t you stop trying to be the thread police. If you don’t think a particular thread is on topic, then just don’t respond to it.

Your comment about my being thread police is insulting and out of line.
I continue to respond with stop conflating topics because it serves no point in answering the original question and leads the topic down the proverbial garden path.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Whether they are original in ideas or not, heretical or not, for believers or not, this has nothing to do with literary uniqueness. That is the point I am making.

Erm… you do know what the word unique means… right?

Mohammad’s works are derivatives of other works mixed with the same sort of nonsense most every dictator comes up with, with a tinge of religiosity added in.

There is nothing special about it, and if it weren’t for the Islamic conquests which forced us to have to still be dealing with it today, Mohammad’s work would have long been dismissed as just another one of those pseudo-religious books self-proclaimed religious leaders like to write about themselves.

It is not Unique in it’s style. It copies certain forms from the Old Testament, and from there is just a big collection of sayings and stories, not dissimilar from Confucian writings or Buddhist teachings.

The only reason people claim it is unique is because it says it’s unique. It’s circular logic. That is why belief is the core quality at issue here.

Your comment about my being thread police is insulting and out of line.
I continue to respond with stop conflating topics because it serves no point in answering the original question and leads the topic down the proverbial garden path.

So you get upset about me calling you the topic police, and then immediately get onto me because you personally don’t think I’m on topic.

If the shoe fits…

 

[Nigel7]

I’ve read the Koran. I found no literary miracles. Nothing even remotely resembling literary miracles. To the contrary, actually, I find it quite base and poorly written.

 

[Niblo]

Here is the problem, conflating Literary genius with belief in a religion.

I agree, if that is what we do.

It was not a problem for me when, after decades as a Catholic, I came to accept Islam. The notion that the Qur’an is a ‘miracle’ was not a consideration then, and it isn’t a one now.

I accept the Qur’an for what it has to say. How it does so – especially when recited in Arabic by one who does that well – can stir the heart; bring tears to the eyes. However, the ‘how’ of any document does not guarantee its veracity.

Alfred Guillaume writes:

‘The Quran is one of the world’s classics which cannot be translated without grave loss. It has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic effect that makes the listener indifferent to its sometimes strange syntax and its sometimes, to us, repellent content. It is this quality it possesses of silencing criticism by the sweet music of its language that has given birth to the dogma of its inimitability; indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it.’ (‘Islam’).

Is the Qur’an a miracle (‘An extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.’ – Merriam-Webster)? Comes the answer ‘Yes!’…….Comes the answer ‘No!’ – the former if one is a Muslim; the latter if one is not.

Does it matter? Not for me. I’ve said before that my stance on ‘miracles’ is captured, beautifully, by Kaufmann Kohler, who writes:

‘Miracles are never adduced in support of the faith by Jewish writers; and Mendelssohn, in his answer to Bonnet, who referred to the miracles of the New Testament as proof of the truth of Christianity, was perfectly justified in declaring, in the name of Judaism, that miracles may be appealed to in support of every religion and that therefore they can not serve as proof of any .’ (‘Jewish Encyclopaedia’ – my emphasis).