• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Most Plausible of Islam's Claims: The Qur'an's Linguistic Prowess

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Just to clarify, why do you view polytheism and agriculturalism as being two divergent possibilities in this context?

I don't, I was saying that rich agriculturalism and the barren desert of Mecca in the sixth century before the Abbasids introduced irrigation much later on, don't go together.

My point about the polytheism is that the mushrikun in the text appear to be Abrahamics with extensive knowledge of Judeao-Christian figures.

Two separate points.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I don't, I was saying that rich agriculturalism and the barren desert of Mecca in the sixth century before the Abbasids introduced irrigation much later on, don't go together.

My point about the polytheism is that the mushrikun in the text appear to be Abrahamics with extensive knowledge of Judao-Christian figures.

Two separate points.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know if I can see any weakness in your argument, but perhaps the Qu'ran only has to cover limited subject matter. Also how do we know the diacritical marks are older than the Qu'ran? Maybe someone used word frequency studies to select diacritical marks that would work best. That could give the Qu'ran an unfair advantage. I also observe that the culture is about the words of the Qu'ran. That is another advantage comparable to the way English culture surrounds the KJV Bible, and it always sounds classy with its Thees and Thou's. In other words sometimes the shoe fits nicely once your foot is broken in to it.

If you have a look at early exegesis, it is perfectly clear that the exegete has no idea about how to interpret the specific passage and they are literally guessing. Tabari often mentions 5-10 mutually incompatible interpretations of passages. Over time these disputes disappeared as people got more confident the further removed the actual historical context they were.

The precision of meaning was thus something that was established long after the fact.

An example would be in this verse. To protect a rhyme scheme, Abraham's wife laughs before rather than after hearing the surprising news of her pregnancy (as she does in the Bible).

They said, “Do not fear. We have been sent to the people of Lot.” (71) His wife was standing by, then she laughed. We gave her the good news of Isaac and, after Isaac, Jacob. “Woe is me! Shall I give birth as an old woman, when my master is aged? This is truly a strange thing.”

This led to a range of interpretation from she laughed as she was worried that the guests were sodomites, or that she was annoyed they wouldn't eat the food on the table, or even that, in this case, the word laugh meant menstruated (GS Reynolds: The Quran and its biblical Subtext)

There are also numerous hapax legomena, often loanwords, that have caused problems for historical exegetes.



I don't now much about Arabic grammar, but was grammatical soundness, again, something that was established after the fact? It can't break the rules because it establishes the rules so to speak.

What are your thoughts on these as you obviously know a lot more about Arabic than I do?

I'm responding to these two posts together because the answers to both are very similar.

The rules of Arabic grammar weren't codified and formally laid out except after the Qur'an had been written. They were, however, based on established practices in the writing, pronunciation, and syntax of Arabic. So the diacritics themselves weren't in their current form when the Qur'an was first written, but their placement didn't correct anything either. Generally, the rules had already been established via circulation; they mainly just hadn't been codified yet.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article about Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali (the founder of codified Arabic grammar) isn't very detailed, but you can read more about him there:

Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali - Wikipedia

Regarding clarity of meaning, this also touches on another post:

Vivid & precise meaning?
This is at odds with the differing interpretations inferred by Muslims.

The issue of interpretation is still there to this day, since there are multiple interpretations of many verses, and some of said interpretations are very much at odds with each other. A lot of that stems from a theological issue rather than a linguistic one, however: a word like "good," for example, can have multiple interpretations even if a writer expresses very clearly in text that he or she encourages "good" deeds.

Also, it seems to me that if the Qur'an weren't the central text of a major world religion, there would definitely be less dispute and possibly fewer conflicting interpretations regarding what its verses meant. This goes back to my point that conflicting interpretations are more of a theological issue than a linguistic one, and there are people who have offered unpopular interpretations of very clear passages as well because they disagreed with the theological ideas expressed in said passages.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
How does literary excellence imply divine providence? This is just silly apologetics.

Where did I say it implied that? Because I believe there's a difference between saying a claim is the most plausible among a specific set of claims (Islam's, in this case) and saying it is a plausible claim full stop.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
This is impossible to discuss without knowing Arabic. How does it compare with Iliad, Aenid, Rig Veda etc.?

I don't know how it compares to those works, since I have never read them in their original languages. It's the best poetic and literary work in the Arabic language, though.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Since Islam's inception, a lot of people have claimed that the Qur'an's most renowned quality, its linguistic prowess, has been matched or surpassed, with the idea that doing so "refutes" Islam's claimed divine origin. In this thread I will delve deeper into some aspects that, in my opinion, render said claim rather mistaken.

Regardless of what one has to say about the theological, philosophical, or legislative content of the Qur'an, it remains the single most distinguished linguistic work in the Arabic language and, quite possibly, in any language as well, especially in terms of poetry. I will cite some examples as to why.

• First, the Qur'an is not all poetry, as it contains a considerable portion of prose, so poetic strength is not all it has going for it. Throughout its 114 surahs, the grammar, choice of words, and syntax are all concise, correct, and precise to the point of managing to be the primary reference in the Arabic language for all three. This is despite the fact that the Arab world has had some magnificent poetry over the centuries, dating all the way back to before Islam even appeared.

While not exhaustive in the slightest, three of the primary factors of what makes an Arabic poem well-written are (in no particular order)

1) sound grammar

2) contextually proper use of rhetorical and poetic devices, and

3) being able to express vivid and/or precise meanings without using many words.

Again, the Qur'an fulfills all three criteria to the point where it is the Arabic language's primary reference thereof. For example, the shortest surah in the Qur'an, Surat al-Kawthar, has only three verses but more poetic devices than some poems of much greater length. This is without taking poetic liberty either, since the grammar and syntax are perfectly sound as well.

• Second, the Qur'an wasn't just an excellent linguistic work for its time; it has also stood the test of time to this day. The Arabic language has had some extremely talented and skilled poets and writers, so it is more than a little difficult for a single book to remain the magnum opus among a language's poetic and literary endeavors for over 1,400 years. And with how long it is, the fact that its grammar is as sound as it is all throughout makes it stand out further.

• Third, Arabic has a diacritical system that relies on grammar: the pronunciation of words can change depending on where they are in a sentence or what meaning they serve—the same word could be pronounced differently depending on whether it functions as a subject or an object in a sentence, for example. This has led some poets to take poetic liberty with grammar in order to maintain rhyme, but the Qur'an doesn't do that: it manages to maintain both rhyme and grammatical soundness. So it also excels in terms of how it employs words, not just in how it chooses them.

Since the Qur'an basically can't be translated without sacrificing many of the qualities I mentioned above, this post only scratches the surface of what's there. One would need to understand Arabic and be familiar with Arabic grammar in order to fully appreciate the Qur'an's linguistic excellence. It seems to me that the most plausible of all of Islam's claims is indeed that the Qur'an is linguistically unparalleled.

Discuss.

Good grammar has nothing to do with truth. I can write a book with perfect grammar and fill it full of BS.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
@Debater Slayer , @columbus and @George-ananda the Qur'an is arguably the pre-eminent literary masterpiece in classical Arabic, yes indeed. When sung, the emotive power of the text is deeply moving and soul-stirring, even to listeners without a modicum of linguistic capability in the mother tongue.

But it is important to stress, contrary to the traditional Islamic accounts based upon spurious hadith from at least two centuries after the reputed lifetime of Muhammad, that we don't actually know "who" composed its surahs and ayats. The one fact I am absolutely certain of, beyond all reasonable doubt, is that the Muhammad of the traditional narrations is a "heroic fiction".

Critical Qur'anic scholarship has been severely restricted by verbal (and sadly physical) violence from Muslim fundamentalists convinced that the the holy book - ever since the wholesale repression of the more rationalist Mu'tazila during the Mina (Islamic inquisition under the Abbasids) - is an "eternal", uncreated revelation effectively co-eternal with Allah.

The Qur'an is thereby treated as something exempt from any historical contextualization within the intellectual milieu of a given time period, and as not being subject to mediation through the fallible minds of time-bound human beings - as Christians have traditionally accepted with regards to the Bible.

If one subjects the Qur'an to criticism as a literary text with a historiographical perspective, it becomes clear that the Sunnah massively diverges from the internal evidence of the holy book itself. Muslims locate the Qur'anic revelation in the arid deserts of Mecca and Medina, interpreting the Mushrikun (disbelievers) - those characterised in the scriptural accounts as the opponents and permanent interlocutors of the prophet - as Arabian, idol-worshipping pagans.

By contrast the Qur'an, if read in isolation from the much later but traditional backgrounds assumed by the hadith, would not lead the objective reader to presuppose the identity of the author as being an Arabian prophet preaching in a desert to polytheists. Rather the text makes it abundantly and incontrovertibly clear that the mushrikun are agriculturalists (Sura 6:141):


(6:141) It is He Who has brought into being gardens - the trellised and untrellised - and the palm trees, and crops, all varying in taste, and the olive and pomegranates, all resembling one another and yet so different. Eat of their fruits when they come to fruition and pay His due on the day of harvesting. And do not exceed the proper limits, for He does not love those who exceed the proper limits.


The author (I'm refraining from calling him Muhammad) is clearly at home in the agricultural setting described in the above ayat, reflected in the wealth of local attention to detail which he is able to bring to the fore in addressing himself to people whose livelihoods consist in their fields, harvests and fruits. Note how the speaker invites his listeners to "eat of their fruits" on the day of "harvest".

So we know, from a plethora of similar details, the Qur'an was not delivered to a desert-dwelling audience.

Neither were the mushrikun pagans as the traditional Islamic accounts would have one believe. They are extremely familiar with the biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and the like. Their shirk (ascribing partners to God) should be understood in this context.

A final point to note is that the Qur'an even provides the reader with an implicit but highly significant geographical detail as to its setting which, once again, conflicts hugely with the Sunnah, in 26:172 where the author (in some versions) refers to the remains of Sodom which are on a well-travelled route which the mushrikun "pass by night and day" - that is, the Dead Sea. Pretty far removed from Mecca.

The Qur'an is actually an apocalyptic work originating from a milieu populated by unorthodox Jewish-Christian sects on the outskirts of the Eastern Roman Empire, likely among a group of Arabs living in Syria near to Palestine, around the time of Byzantine Emperor Heraclius' campaigns in Persian lands from 613 to 626 which are celebrated in the text as a victory for Abrahamic monotheism, namely in the 30th surah entitled Al-Rum - "The Romans".

In this chapter, the author reflects on the Byzantine defeat by the Persians at the Battle of Antioch in 613 and predicts that the Christian Roman forces will ultimately prevail over the Zoroastrians, something that will give heart to Abrahamic monotheists like the author: "The Romans [Byzantines] have been defeated. In a land close by; but they will soon be victorious-Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice."[Quran 30:2-4]

Note how Antioch in Syria is described as "close by".

If you look at how the sirah developed, there's actually a pretty good chance that it does.

Much of Islamic history is really theology. It's like uncritically quoting the Gospels as being historical fact in their entirety.
A million years can be spent debating all that stuff from the various perspectives. But I think the question the OP is getting at is does Mohammed's recital of the Quran seem more reasonable as a personal creation or as a creation aided by spiritual sources. All in all I believe the latter as the more reasonable position.

People here also argue that Jesus never existed or was just a common man. On that one too, I believe Jesus existed and that he was a advanced spiritual person.

I listen to the consensus of historical scholars on these things and realize that some people will cherry-pick and obfuscate everything to support a minority opinion because of their religious or philosophical bent.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
A million years can be spent debating all that stuff from the various perspectives. But I think the question the OP is getting at is does Mohammed's recital of the Quran seem more reasonable as a personal creation or as a creation aided by spiritual sources. All in all I believe the latter as the more reasonable position.

People here also argue that Jesus never existed or was just a common man. On that one too, I believe Jesus existed and that he was a advanced spiritual person.

I listen to the consensus of historical scholars on these things and realize that some people will cherry-pick and obfuscate everything to support a minority opinion because of their religious or philosophical bent.

I never said "Muhammad" didn't exist.

A historical person is described in the Qur'an as debating with the mushrikun and we can learn a significant amount about his beliefs.

I'm only saying that we can't trust the traditional Islamic hadith and sunnah because the earliest date from two centuries after his death, and they diverge mightily from "Muhammad" as given to us in the Qur'an, not to mention that their are innumerable historical anachronisms.

The most widely respected and quoted collection is by Bukhari, who died in 870 well over two hundred years after Muhammad. His nine-volume Sunni collection was completed around 850 and is titled Sahih al-Bukhari.

That's a fact.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I never said "Muhammad" didn't exist.
I know you never said that. That's more of a Jesus controversy by some.
A historical person is described in the Qur'an as debating with the mushrikun and we can learn a significant amount about his beliefs.

I'm only saying that we can't trust the traditional Islamic hadith and sunnah because the earliest date from two centuries after his death, and they diverge mightily from "Muhammad" as given to us in the Qur'an, not to mention that their are innumerable historical anachronisms.

The most widely respected and quoted collection is by Bukhari, who died in 870 well over two hundred years after Muhammad. His nine-volume Sunni collection was completed around 850 and is titled Sahih al-Bukhari.

That's a fact.
I understood the gist of what you were saying.

The key question of the OP is; all things considered, is Mohammed's recital of the Quran more reasonable to understand as a personal intellectual creation or as a creation aided by spirit inspiration?

I gave my opinion for the latter.

It think you are saying it is too unclear to know what happened.

EDIT: I feel there is enough consensus on the basics for me to form my position.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know how it compares to those works, since I have never read them in their original languages. It's the best poetic and literary work in the Arabic language, though.
Usually that is the case isn't it? Iliad is considered the best poetic work in Greek. Same with Rig Veda in Sanskrit (though it's very archaic Sanskrit). The trend does seem to be that an early poetic work sets the standard in a language. Similar to classical music, viz. Mozart.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
This reminds me, in part, of the question of whether or not Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. Given the lack of modern record keeping, there's no way of knowing for sure absent a surprise finding which can be dated exactly.

The problem with authenticating Hadith is will known to Muslims who assign a strength to the likelihood of a saying being authentic based on who reported it and the number of individuals reporting it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The issue of interpretation is still there to this day, since there are multiple interpretations of many verses, and some of said interpretations are very much at odds with each other. A lot of that stems from a theological issue rather than a linguistic one, however: a word like "good," for example, can have multiple interpretations even if a writer expresses very clearly in text that he or she encourages "good" deeds.

Also, it seems to me that if the Qur'an weren't the central text of a major world religion, there would definitely be less dispute and possibly fewer conflicting interpretations regarding what its verses meant. This goes back to my point that conflicting interpretations are more of a theological issue than a linguistic one, and there are people who have offered unpopular interpretations of very clear passages as well because they disagreed with the theological ideas expressed in said passages.
If theology cannot be clearly expressed in a language which is "vivid and/or
precise meanings without using many words" then this raises a question.....
Is the Koran really not such a great linguistic work,
or is it that Arabic, the language itself, imprecise?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
If theology cannot be clearly expressed in a language which is "vivid and/or
precise meanings without using many words" then this raises a question.....
Is the Koran really not such a great linguistic work,
or is it that Arabic, the language itself, imprecise?
That's one way of putting it, only Chinese is harder and has multiple inflections and meanings to a single word.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's one way of putting it, only Chinese is harder and has multiple inflections and meanings to a single word.
Multiple meanings in one word is quite common.
While Pinyin is used in Chinese, they still use
ideographs, which strike me as the hardest part.
Wo tai ben le.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
That's one way of putting it, only Chinese is harder and has multiple inflections and meanings to a single word.
I am no linguist by any stretch.
But I can't help but notice that some languages just sound better than others. Arabic and Chinese are inherently more mellifluous than English and German.
It's like the difference between making sculptures of poured bronze compared to sculptures of stacked bricks.
Tom
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Not taking much of side in this stance, but I have seen the observation made that Muhammad, as a trader, probably had at least the basics of literacy before becoming a preacher.

Also, one has to wonder how illiterate one can remain after being strongly attached for decades to an influential scripture.

Incidentally, the same emphatic claim of illiteracy is also made of Chico Xavier, a major figure of Kardecist Spiritism in Brazil. I raise the same question in that case as well.
 
I listen to the consensus of historical scholars on these things and realize that some people will cherry-pick and obfuscate everything to support a minority opinion because of their religious or philosophical bent.

There is no 'consensus of historical scholars' on the accuracy of the sirah traditions when they are studied as actual history. Like I said, theology and history use different methodologies.

It is also the opposite of 'cherry-picking'.

Do you believe he flew to Jerusalem on a winged donkey for example? This is one of the strongest of all Islamic traditions, mutawatir. To uncritically accept one at face value, but not the other, would be indeed be 'cherry picking'.
 
Top