Why does Koran seem so stiff in style?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Madaglan

Guest
I’m reading the Koran in English translation. So far, I’m finding the style very stiff. I don’t understand the purpose of the Koran. So far, it seems very repetitive in its declarations. Btw, I’m not saying this as a put-down of the Koran; but I’m just saying that its style is much different from the Old Testament and even the New Testament.

Is the origianl Arabic much different from translations?
 
Arabic does not change the style. If you are lookin for chronology of events or coherent passages then you wont find it since there is neithr chronology of chapters nor coherent ideas but passages thrown one after the other.Of course it has nothing to do with OT and NT that fulfill each others in harmony.
 
For me the Holy Quran is a difficult book. I have read 'The Essential Koran" by some Sufi mystics…it is there I found it to come alive.

From what little I understand, so much is “lost” in the English translation…in fact as I understand the “English translation” is considered simply “commentary” as the depth of the Holy Quran can only be understood in the Arabic…layer upon layer, meaning upon meaning, depth upon depth.

That may be one reason, we are far removed in our understanding of the depth of the Arabic language.
 
The fact that the Koran only works in Arabic is, for me, a proof that it is not of God.

Real scripture is scripture in every language, in every culture and for every people.

Just my opinion.
Paul
 
yes but lets not forget that language does not change the fact that the book has no chronoloy or coherence.
 
Reading the Koran is alot like reading a book on how to play baseball written by a basketball coach. If Muhhamed wrote a book like Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” or “How to waterboard the Islamic Way” it might be worth reading but why read a book when the author knows very little about the subject he’s writing about. 🤷

If you want to read something that will tell you almost all you need to know about whether the Koran is worth reading pick up your Bible or read this about Islam:answering-islam.org/Nehls/Answer/index.html

Why read a book on how to cook the wrong way???
 
So much is lost to us from the Hebrew and Greek as well, one reason we have Greek and Hebrew scholars that “explain” obscure passsages or give a deeper meaning that the original language carried with it and English looses.

It’s “coherance” isn’t a big issue for me…they appear to me to be a collection of “sermons” for the lack of a better term…given in order of their lengths if I remember correctly…so that may be one reason for no “coherance.”

As I said, the “Essential Koran” or the “Heart of the Koran” are two excellent books that give meaning to it.

I think one of the reasons many “Westerners” find the Holy Quran difficult is we have removed ourselves from Arabic culture. We have immersed ourselves in Judeo/Christian “culture”, we have a self imposed ‘ignoranc’ of Arabic culture…it is this “ignorance” we as Westerners have a difficult time with our understanding.

Other “commentaries” on the Quran have provided me with a little better understanding…but those “commentaries” are Sufi in origin and authorship so a more “mystical” approach to Islam is one I’m more comfortable with in trying to find our commonality…and at times that is very difficult to do…especially for a Friend.
 
I think one of the reasons many “Westerners” find the Holy Quran difficult is we have removed ourselves from Arabic culture.

i happen to be an Arab and it is as difficult to me as to any average arabic reader (in terms of language difficulty).

As to coherance, i find myself unable to “go with the flow” without some commentary that sheds the light on why this or that passage is mentioned when question marks start to rise as to “what on earth brought this idea to this passage ecc” kind of questions…

In other words, the book cannot be understood without commentaries.
 
I’ve read an English translation of the Quran and found that it’s not grounded in history, like the Bible. It’s one continuous narrative with a few quotes from prophets mixed in, but little information about the events of the lives of those prophets and the times in which they lived.

The end result is that the information is not verifiable, as one cannot confirm that it is grounded in history. With the Bible, one can see how archeology and ancient historians agree with the events. This is not the case with the Quran. It’s vagueness and lack of detailed content and historical context shields it from criticism.

The Bible, on the other hand, is an open book, with many historical details that any critic can investigate closely. One example is the account of the ancient city of Nineveh where the prophet Jonah preached. For years, historians balked at the story as a myth, saying that there never was a city of Nineveh. Then, the ancient city of Nineveh was found and unearthed by archaeologists. This is just one example of how the Bible has withstood close scrutiny and demonstrated its historical reliability.
 
I really wouldn’t know, sounds like it would be interesting though.
 
Hi Magdalan,

i think a clue might be in the books compilation.
From memory it was only compiled after Muhammads death from people who came forward with quotes they remembered Muhammad had said while he was alive.

All of these quotes were gathered by a group of Islamic leaders and compiled into the different sufis we have today.

It is thought by Muslims to be a miracle that God performed in order to have all these people come forward and for the remembered texts to be compiled correctly by the leaders.

I also found it very ‘stiff’ reading. I think prophets of the old testament (Daniel, Ezekial, Isaiah etc) usually write their own stuff and prophesy on things but from memory there wasn’t a lot of prophecies made but more a list of do’s and don’t’s and heavy retribution promised for those ‘on the outside’.

From that definition of prophets i wouldn’t include Abraham, Moses or David who were more like men that God favoured for certain acts in history. I think Muhammad is seen in that vein by Muslims but from their perspective they call them all prophets.

Obviously there are a lot of saintly pious muslims, but from my perspective i don’t think the Koran reads well in English (which is the only language i can proficiently read in).
 
Here is a short illustration of the inimitable eloquence of the Qur’an that makes it really quite impossible to accurately translate into another language:

An Example of Eloquence in the Qur’an: The Preposition ‘of’ in Verse 42:43

Source: “The Miracles of the Qur’an” Shaykh M Mitwalli Al-Sharawi.

The language of the Qur’an is unsurpassed in its accuracy of meaning and expression. Each letter and word has its place while the language is free from fault. These unique features are found manifested in the use of one single letter or a preposition, as is demonstrated in the following verses:

**Ya bunayya aqimi alssalata wa/mur bialmaAAroofi wainha AAani almunkari waisbir AAala ma asabaka inna thalika min AAazmi al-omoori

“…and bear patiently that which befalls you; surely these acts require courage; ”… (Qur’an 31:17)**

Walaman sabara waghafara inna thalika lamin AAazmi al-omoori

“And verily whoso is patient and forgiveth - lo! that, verily is (of) the steadfast heart of things.”… (Qur’an 42:43)

In the second verse the preposition “of” (LAMIN) may pass unnoticed or be taken as an emphatic synonym. But this is not so, because every letter or word in the language of the Qur’an is selected with the utmost care to convey one intrinsic meaning and definite purpose.

There is no such thing as synonymity in the Qur’an. Each letter and word has its own fixed meaning which no other word can express as accurately, irrespective of their seeming similarity. If we consider thoughtfully the meticulous selectivity of the words in the above verses and their underlying meaning, we soon come to realize that there are two kinds of patience.

In the first kind there is no direct adversary or person responsible for hardship or misfortune; for example a brick falling from a building under construction onto the head of an unsuspecting pedestrian, or the collapse of a newly-built house over peacefully sleeping tenants. In all incidents and mishaps of this nature no individual bears the responsibility for the victim’s misfortune. It is therefore easy for the unfortunate man to restrain his anger and accept his misfortune as an act of Allah. This kind of patience does not require a great deal of energy and can be easily achieved.

But patience which is “verily of the steadfast heart of things“ is that which involves an antagonist against whom a victim has the freedom to retaliate and avenge himself, but prefers to suppress his anger and vengeful tendencies and forgive him. This kind of patience is deemed by Allah to be worthier than the first, because in this kind the aggrieved is dominated by his instinctive anger and feelings of injustice, and has to exercise a great deal of self-restraint. He is restrained by his fear of Allah, and refrains from responding to evil with evil. In the above verses, Allah defines the merits of the two types of patience and their corresponding heavenly rewards. He also describes the human responses of retaliation that ought to be observed in each case by the faithful.

Thus, in the first case they are commanded to accept what befalls them with humility and resignation to His will. In the second they are commanded to be forgiving and to maintain their faith in Allah’s justice.

The preposition ‘of’ has obviously been used to accentuate the distinction between the kind of patience in which forgiveness is not a necessity, and that in which forgiveness represents a test of endurance of injustice and of the believer’s trust in Allah’s providence and will. This shows how a single letter or preposition can bear such depth of meaning and discriminating power in the language of the Qur’an.

The above example clearly demonstrates just how very difficult it is to accurately translate even one short verse of the Qur’an involving the use of just a single preposition ‘of’ within it, such is the supreme eloquence of the language used in the Qur’an.

Therefore, as we can all imagine, it is simply not possible to translate the over 6,000 verses of the entire Qur’an into another language without losing much of the accuracy of their true meaning.
 
Here is a short illustration of the inimitable eloquence of the Qur’an that makes it really quite impossible to accurately translate into another language:

An Example of Eloquence in the Qur’an: The Preposition ‘of’ in Verse 42:43

Source: “The Miracles of the Qur’an” Shaykh M Mitwalli Al-Sharawi.

The language of the Qur’an is unsurpassed in its accuracy of meaning and expression. Each letter and word has its place while the language is free from fault. These unique features are found manifested in the use of one single letter or a preposition, as is demonstrated in the following verses:

**Ya bunayya aqimi alssalata wa/mur bialmaAAroofi wainha AAani almunkari waisbir AAala ma asabaka inna thalika min AAazmi al-omoori

“…and bear patiently that which befalls you; surely these acts require courage; ”… (Qur’an 31:17)**

Walaman sabara waghafara inna thalika lamin AAazmi al-omoori

“And verily whoso is patient and forgiveth - lo! that, verily is (of) the steadfast heart of things.”… (Qur’an 42:43)

In the second verse the preposition “of” (LAMIN) may pass unnoticed or be taken as an emphatic synonym. But this is not so, because every letter or word in the language of the Qur’an is selected with the utmost care to convey one intrinsic meaning and definite purpose.

There is no such thing as synonymity in the Qur’an. Each letter and word has its own fixed meaning which no other word can express as accurately, irrespective of their seeming similarity. If we consider thoughtfully the meticulous selectivity of the words in the above verses and their underlying meaning, we soon come to realize that there are two kinds of patience.

In the first kind there is no direct adversary or person responsible for hardship or misfortune; for example a brick falling from a building under construction onto the head of an unsuspecting pedestrian, or the collapse of a newly-built house over peacefully sleeping tenants. In all incidents and mishaps of this nature no individual bears the responsibility for the victim’s misfortune. It is therefore easy for the unfortunate man to restrain his anger and accept his misfortune as an act of Allah. This kind of patience does not require a great deal of energy and can be easily achieved.

But patience which is “verily of the steadfast heart of things“ is that which involves an antagonist against whom a victim has the freedom to retaliate and avenge himself, but prefers to suppress his anger and vengeful tendencies and forgive him. This kind of patience is deemed by Allah to be worthier than the first, because in this kind the aggrieved is dominated by his instinctive anger and feelings of injustice, and has to exercise a great deal of self-restraint. He is restrained by his fear of Allah, and refrains from responding to evil with evil. In the above verses, Allah defines the merits of the two types of patience and their corresponding heavenly rewards. He also describes the human responses of retaliation that ought to be observed in each case by the faithful.

Thus, in the first case they are commanded to accept what befalls them with humility and resignation to His will. In the second they are commanded to be forgiving and to maintain their faith in Allah’s justice.

The preposition ‘of’ has obviously been used to accentuate the distinction between the kind of patience in which forgiveness is not a necessity, and that in which forgiveness represents a test of endurance of injustice and of the believer’s trust in Allah’s providence and will. This shows how a single letter or preposition can bear such depth of meaning and discriminating power in the language of the Qur’an.

The above example clearly demonstrates just how very difficult it is to accurately translate even one short verse of the Qur’an involving the use of just a single preposition ‘of’ within it, such is the supreme eloquence of the language used in the Qur’an.

Therefore, as we can all imagine, it is simply not possible to translate the over 6,000 verses of the entire Qur’an into another language without losing much of the accuracy of their true meaning.
But doesn’t that limit the ability to spread your faith? Isn’t it more difficult when the Koran is only at its fullest literary effect in Arabic?
 
But doesn’t that limit the ability to spread your faith? Isn’t it more difficult when the Koran is only at its fullest literary effect in Arabic?
This is why the language of Arabic has spread so rapidly because Muslims believe it is necessary to learn this to understand the Koran.
 
This is why the language of Arabic has spread so rapidly because Muslims believe it is necessary to learn this to understand the Koran.
Possible answer. SO which is first, conversion or language? Also, if culture is so important, how would a westerner ever adjust?
 
Possible answer. SO which is first, conversion or language? Also, if culture is so important, how would a westerner ever adjust?
I think that conversion, came first and then the language changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top