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

[atanu]

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.

I cannot judge the poetry of Holy Quran.

What I understand about all scripture is that they point to what mind-senses cannot know. For example, Holy Quran repeats very often "Allah is the seer of all. Allah is the knower of all." I think that a very small proportion of people comprehend what that means. And so with the Bible and the Vedas.

 

[George-ananda]

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'.

I am looking at the very existence of the Quran itself when forming my position.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But the most important part of this thread, for me, is WHY IS GOOD WILL HUNTING EQUATED WITH DEAD POETS' SOCIETY?

 

[Augustus]

I am looking at the very existence of the Quran itself when forming my position.

And, aside from one very ambiguous passage where it is possibly mentioned, what about the very existence of the Quran makes you highly confident that Muhammad was illiterate?

The Quran itself acknowledges that the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." As such it is theologically very convenient to make the claim that he was illiterate, as many theologians have. However, gentile, or perhaps more specifically Arab seems to fit a lot better as 1) previous prophets (at least since Moses) had all been Jews 2) the Quran emphasises its "Arabicness" 3) the language used:

The phrase is al-nabi al-ummi, you might have heard Muslims refer to the ummah, the community of Muslims.

In Hebrew, umma signified a 'nation of Gentiles,' or non-Jews, implying by this the idea of 'peoples who did not have a Scripture and did therefore not read it.'

Ibn Abbas: the term ummiyyun refers to all Arabs, i.e., those who did write and those who did not; [they were called in this way] since they were not People of the Book.

Tabari: He [it is who] sent a prophet to the ummiyyun, who was from amongst them;' [the expression 'from amongst them'] means 'from amongst the ummiyyun.' Furthermore, it is said 'from amongst them' because [Muhammad] as [an] ummi, [i.e.] arising from the Arabs.1

There are no incident in the Quran of the term ummi or related terms meaning 'illiterate'. Source

So what makes you so confident?

 

[Jumi]

That's one way of putting it, only Chinese is harder and has multiple inflections and meanings to a single word.

Chinese isn't really that "hard"... it's the reading part that people are really scared of.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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.

The short psalms of the Bible are remarkable

psalms 117 (2 verses) an invitation to the nations to enjoy the covenant goodness of God and worship God and prelude to the song Jesus sang after the last supper which is also followed by the longest psalm 119
psalms 131 133 134 ( 3 verses) three short psalms remarkably packed, muddle around and highlight the longer psalm 132 to remember the sufferings of David

One rhymes, one is full of paradox, all pack a great deal into a small package. Some are like staccato notes to give a little punch to some flow of thought in the psalms around them. They also frequently contain ideas found in the sermon on the mount, punching important points.

but a good sampling is the12 shortest here:
Discussion guide week 12 - Psalm 117
Discussion guide week 11 - Psalm 100
Discussion guide week 10 - Psalm 93
Discussion guide week 9 - Psalm 134
Discussion guide week 8 - Psalm 133
Discussion guide week 7 - Psalm 131
Discussion guide week 6 - Psalm 127
Discussion guide week 5 - Psalm 125
Discussion guide week 4 - Psalm 123
Discussion guide week 3 - Psalm 15
Discussion guide week 2 - Psalm 70
Discussion guide week 1 - Psalm 43

A comparison with short passages from other religious views would be interesting

 

[George-ananda]

And, aside from one very ambiguous passage where it is possibly mentioned, what about the very existence of the Quran makes you highly confident that Muhammad was illiterate?

You are flipping the question I am addressing.

The question I was addressing: What is most reasonable to believe about the origins of the Quran; is it the most reasonably the work of human creation alone or is it more reasonable to believe it is the work of a human with spiritual inspiration?

The question you are now asking: How does the Quran show Mohammed to be illiterate?


Anyway, I believe that the literary genius described in the OP after listening to discussions for decades now, is most reasonably explained as being revealed/inspired/channeled.