The literary miracle of the Quran

  • Thread starter Thread starter preacher_of_christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProdglArchitect said:
Erm… you do know what the word unique means… right?
Click to expand...
Literary unique. What makes a piece of text, any text a literary unique work, unlike anything else written. The question and premise of uniqueness in not about content, but the way the piece is crafted.

For example Two paintings, one a traditional photo like image of a person, not unique, no rules are being broken, new rules set. The second is the first in the van gough syle or the abstract French style. It was unique for its time, innovative, new, nothing like it had been done before. The content was the same as the traditional painting, the style and craft unique.
 
Last edited:
Even per this definition, there is nothing unique about the Quran. You’ve not demonstrated that there is, and no Muslim has ever demonstrated that there is, because there is nothing unique about it. It’s not some masterful work of art, it’s the ranting of a self-aggrandizing warlord.

They’re the one’s making the claim, so it’s on them to prove it.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
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
Click to expand...
I am not upset at you. I am calling your words offensive. I dont think anyone on this thread here taking the interpretation of ‘literary unique’ as one of how the koran is a blasphemous work, full of error , lie and as someone said, witchcraft is addressing the topic. Or even thinking of what is being asked in an unbiased way.

If we want to discount claims like this, we must look at the claim of how it is unique, as a text, and then say well yes , it is like that first abstract painting and is unique. Or show other works crafted similarily.

It is ok for a literary work of another religion to be utterly unique,. However, the Koran is a big text. I cannot imagine it being only one genre ,

can you?

It would have poetry, narrative, legal writing, geneology. So all of these must be written in unique forms.

@Niblo what genres does the Koran have?
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Even per this definition, there is nothing unique about the Quran. You’ve not demonstrated that there is, and no Muslim has ever demonstrated that there is, because there is nothing unique about it. It’s not some masterful work of art, it’s the ranting of a self-aggrandizing warlord.

They’re the one’s making the claim, so it’s on them to prove
Click to expand...
We are not literary experts and have not studied the koran in its original language. We cannot claim that, it would just be opinion.

I am sure if you were , you would have proof in literary critique of each different genre in its original language.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
If we want to discount claims like this, we must look at the claim of how it is unique, as a text, and then say well yes , it is like that first abstract painting and is unique. Or show other works crafted similarily.
Click to expand...
The issue is that we have nothing to argue against. They say it is unique, but completely fail to ever cite an actual reason for that. It’s an assertion without evidence which cannot be disproved because there is nothing to disprove. You cannot disprove a null claim.

If you attempt to disprove it by discussing genre, form, style, rhythm, etc, they move the goal post and say that it’s unique for some other reason. When you ask them why, they just talk about its supposed inherent beauty, which is a wholly subjective notion.

Given that they are making an unprovable faith statement, this argument ultimately falls into the category of belief, and it is their belief in Islam which allows them to believe it. The only way to disabuse them of the notion is to help them stop believing in Mohammad.
 
Last edited:
OurLadyofSorrows said:
@Niblo what genres does the Koran have?
Click to expand...
In a nutshell:

Legal; euphemistic; dynamic; narrative; coherent; evidential; and rhetorical.

In his book ‘Exploring the Qur’an – Context and Impact’ Muhammad Abdel Haleem, OBE, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and one of the world’s leading authorities in Qur’anic studies, discusses each of these styles at some length (beyond the scope of this thread, perhaps). He quotes Abū ‘Ubayda , an early Muslim scholar of Arabic philology:

‘Since the Qur’an was revealed in the language of the people of the Prophet, the early generations and those who were present at the time of the Prophet did not ask about its meanings because they were Arabs and Arabic was their language and their knowledge gave them no need to ask about its meanings. The ways of expression and conciseness were similar to what the Arabs had in their tongue.’

And goes on to say:

‘So, the Qur’an conformed to Arabic speech: it provided the reason for codifying Arabic grammar and stylistics and was used as a criterion for these disciplines. It was in order to make sure that all Muslims, especially non-Arabs, could read the Qur’an accurately that Muslims began to think of writing down a grammar of their language, based on the text of the Qur’an, on Arabic poetry and speech. Arabic phonetics originated in the quest to describe exactly the proper pronunciation and articulation of the Qur’an and developed into the science of tajwīd and the art of reciting the Qur’an. Similarly, the study of Arabic rhetoric flourished for the service of the Qur’an, culminating in the works of the outstanding scholar ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, particularly his Dalā’il al-i‘jāz and Asrār al-balāgha (see bibliography), which investigate the style and rhetoric of the Qur’an in an attempt to identify the reasons for the inimitability (i‘jāz) of its language. In his opinion, the central issue of Arabic grammar is ta‘līq or ‘syntactic relations’, which is closely bound up with stylistics. In fact, it is only by studying these two disciplines together in the Qur’an that one gains a true understanding of how they work.’

I hope this helps.
 
Its uniqueness stems, perhaps, from its source. It is markedly different from all God-inspired documents. A sudden change, as in the BoM being “Another Testament of Christ” Questions are bound to arise.

I apply critical thinking and a “big picture” perspective to all of this.
 
So, am I understanding that Arabic itself molded its language on the Quran? If so, it sounds like it would of course be a profound unique text since everything in Arabic was shaped around it. Perhaps I’m not getting it…😦
 
abucs said:
That is not being very clear or logical in your thinking.

This is not a case of wanting to one-up someone. I am sure you know and have expertise in so many things I am lacking. But in order to continue any future dialogue I need to know that you value logic and honesty and are not interested in falsely attributing ideas to other people in a case of one-upmanship.

Logic and truth have a close relationship and for a good priest, truth should be important.
Click to expand...
I took not one, but three semesters of logic in college and in seminary. The third semester of logic I took I had a 100% average, and was actually academically qualified to have taught the class. My professor asked me why I was even in it, and hadn’t been exempted from it. I explained that the Dean didn’t accept my credit from college, since I had taken two semesters of mostly formal symbolic logic, and the class at the seminary was Aristotlean logic. He said that was stupid, it was like making me take 18th century physics because all I had had was 20th century physics. He didn’t make me take the exam, which was a moot point anyway; I could’ve skipped it and still gotten an A in the class. I used to tutor my fellow seminarians in logic with some regularity. Furthermore, I have not one, but two degrees in Philosophy.

I have argued logically, and you continue to insist that I haven’t. I’m not sure exactly what you think is wrong with my argument, other than that I’m making an argument you don’t like, so you keep arguing against me.

I have long since quit following this thread, and I will not waste my time arguing the point further, especially since you include that little dig about how “truth should be important” to a priest. That makes it personal and insinuates that somehow it is not for me.

Good day to you.
 
Last edited:
You’re welcome to that interpretation, but I personally do see it as an evil book. Not on the same level as, say, the satanic bible, but evil nonetheless for the falsehoods it proclaims, and doubly so for it’s use as justification for genocide.
 
Last edited:
Well then the claim is as easy to refute as a claim that a moon of Jupiter has aliens that look exactly like LBJ.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
You’re welcome to that interpretation, but I personally do see it as an evil book. Not on the same level as, say, the satanic bible, but evil nonetheless for the falsehoods it proclaims, and doubly so for it’s use as justification for genocide.
Click to expand...
I think there are a lot of problems as you allude to and many of them stem from the understanding that it is the direct dictate from God. I found it’s general attitudes of how to view and treat disbelievers very worrying and not from God, especially as a Christian would be considered one of those disbelievers (if still a person of the book).

I think it is important to not directly set out to rile Muslims but also very important to stick to truth as we see it. Diverting away from truth is always a bad thing in my opinion and the worst outcome in the long run.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut
Click to expand...
Its better then flagging as off topic. I would note we are also on the non catholic forum and rules are to be respectful of other religions. The question was not a free for all to discuss points of Islam and its writings in the way that have been here. Now was it?
 
Last edited:
Honestly they basically say the same thing about the book of Mormon.

There is a difference between truth and beauty though.
 
We are now 90 posts in and I still haven’t seen anyone show where or how the Quran is a literary masterpiece? If someone agrees that it is, could they post a verse or two that they think is exceptional? Is it in its poetry? An example would be nice to discuss.

I read the Quran years ago so I’m not recently familiar with it but I do not recall, when I did read it, anything that made say WOW, that’s amazing! Or Beautiful! So please help me…what literary style are we talking about? Thank you.
 
I understand that at the time that the Koran was first dictated, Arabic was not an established developed literary language. As such it is difficult to comment on style and composition being a uniquely AND brilliant quality within that literary language.

Like Shakespeare largely shaped and reshaped the English language by being such an important literary breakthrough, my understanding of the Koran is that it largely shaped the written use of Arabic for the coming centuries.

If a writing largely defines a language then it cannot be said to be a brilliant composition within that language, since it largely creates and modifies that language.

Instead, like Shakespeare, the quality of the writing largely depends upon the ideas conveyed to the reader. It is in this aspect I think the Koran is lacking. Certainly in comparison to Shakespeare.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
We are now 90 posts in and I still haven’t seen anyone show where or how the Quran is a literary masterpiece? If someone agrees that it is, could they post a verse or two that they think is exceptional? Is it in its poetry? An example would be nice to discuss.

I read the Quran years ago so I’m not recently familiar with it but I do not recall, when I did read it, anything that made say WOW, that’s amazing! Or Beautiful! So please help me…what literary style are we talking about? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Hello Pattyit. I think we also have to remember how the Koran was compiled and this does not lend itself to being a literary masterpiece but, as I commented above, the opposite of such.

The Koran is not a direct dictation. Everyone agrees that it was compiled after Muhammad’s death by scholars who received partial texts and sayings from people who claimed to have copied or mentally remembered what Muhammad had dictated. The compilation was necessary because the Muslims started losing soldiers in war and it was feared the teachings were being lost.

It was ordered for all people to hand over any texts they had or rememberings of Muhammad’s words. Chosen scholars took these submission (in different dialects) and as best they could would cobble together a coherent text that would become the Koran. As you would expect, trying to sift through a large collections of submissions and tie them together so as not to leave anything out does not lend itself to a beautiful, stylish composition and I think this can be seen in the result.

Also the scholars were not sure of the chronological order of the submissions and how they related to each other and so arranged the writings in different chapters based on subject matter. These chapters were simply arranged from the largest chapter to the smallest chapter so again this works against a literary flow or coherence of a developed message throughout the book.

Also there were many sayings that clearly are articulated from the human perspective rather than from God. Sentences such as (the like) ‘I will trust God’. These saying all have the bland ‘You say’ in front of them. This has the result of changing it to the perspective of God, as you would expect of a Divine dictation but this decreases the readability of the overall passages. ‘You say I will trust Allah’. ‘You say I will kneel before Allah’ ‘You say Allah will be my strength’ You say Allah will vanquish my enemies’

It has been speculated (quite reasonably I suggest) that this prefix ‘you say’ was added so as to change the perspective. Whether you accept this hypothesis or not it does not make for good reading but it is quite repetitive and cumbersome. There are whole parts of chapters that begin, line after line with ‘You say’, You say’ ‘You say’ etc etc.

Because it does not make for good reading, this means it is not good writing.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top