• 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!

Poll: Signs of eloquence of Quran

Quran's eloquence is...

  • Beyond human calculated words, but possibly from misguided higher intelligent beings

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • One human can't do it but it's capable of many humans who have advance knowledge of eloquence

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Perfectly calculated words capable of only God or his exalted chosen ones

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • At a level capable of any human as it's not eloquent at all

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I'm going to make the challenge easier then Quran. I'm not saying bring a Surah like it. Just change a verse - one verse in the entire book, with better suited words. Let's see anyone do it.
That's easy. There are many instances where a small change would remove ambiguity or improve in some way. Here's one...

"Married couples should share responsibility for finances and family according to their ability. So righteous women and men are devoutly cooperative and understanding, both guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those wives or husbands from whom you fear arrogance - first talk with them; then try a trial separation; and finally divorce them. But if you can both reconcile, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." - (The New KWAD Quran, 4:34)

So was the Quran written by humans, or is Allah talking to me? Has to be one or the other, right?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The "but it's just a translation!" approach is fine if it is merely poetry, and the form is more important than the function. However, the entire purpose of the Quran is as a guide to convince people that Islam is true and the Quran is from god - and on that measure we should judge it by what it actually says, not the way it is said in one particular language.

There are dozens of English translations written over the last century or so, all by people fluent in Arabic, from a variety of cultures, many of them authoritative Islamic scholars. And here's the thing - they all say pretty much the same thing throughout. They may use different terms but the message is the same so it is entirely reasonable to accept translations as valid source material when assessing the Quran. The whole translation issue is a big, smelly red herring to deflect from the real problems apologists face.

I'm hardly here arguing that the Quran is elegant. But that line of argument is exactly about form over function.
Can't read the original, and don't have any reason to think translators are necessarily able to maintain the eloquence of the original.

That has nothing to do with whether I think the Quran is true (I obviously do not). Nor whether I wish it was true. (Again...no).

I have no issues with anyone assessing the messages of the Quran via English translation. I have no belief the original Quran has a level of eloquence beyond humans. And I answered 'I don't know' because I can't possibly assess it for myself.

It would be the same response if someone told me the original books of the Bible had an eloquence beyond humans (although it would raise other questions because if the different manner in which God's book was assembled between the two mythologies.)
 
Last edited:
Nope. I was showing the flaw in your argumentation.

You do realise making an obviously false analogy that illustrates you don't understand objectivity does not show flaws in someone else's arguments, but completely refutes your own, don't you?

Hence you refuse to address it.

Engage with the presentation of a most basic synopsis. If not, you are making a dismissal without knowing what the content is. That's hypocrisy.

How can I "dismiss" an argument you have consistently refused to make? I addressed the features and explained why they weren't objective evidence, you just keep ignoring this.

Yes I agree they are markers of eloquence. The Quran may well be by far the most eloquent of Arabic texts, but explaining why the Quran is eloquent, in your opinion, is not an argument for objective inimitability via eloquence.

Pretending it is while pretending this hasn't been addressed is hypocrisy.

So:

It is a unique genre - Why is a combination of 2 exiting things beyond human capability? Things form another time often sound different to our expectations.
Word choice - How is this anything but subjective preference?
Tonality - again how is this anything but subjective preference?
Intratextuality - perhaps eloquent and impressive, but objectively inimitable? How do you reach this judgement?

How many texts are there to actually compare the Quran to? And why are the standards derived form the Quran the objective reference point?

The Quran for Muslims and the contexts in which they interact with it and read/here it are unique. How can we rule out that this is impacting a subjective judgement like a Catholic finding something transcendent in the Latin mass?

The problem is that none of these things were arrived at objectively, but were a conclusion that was assumed true that required explanation. This, by definition, leads to motivated reasoning. That doesn't necessitate it being wrong, but it is another point that had to be explained and justified with stronger evidence.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You do realise making an obviously false analogy that illustrates you don't understand objectivity does not show flaws in someone else's arguments, but completely refutes your own, don't you?

Hence you refuse to address it.



How can I "dismiss" an argument you have consistently refused to make? I addressed the features and explained why they weren't objective evidence, you just keep ignoring this.

Yes I agree they are markers of eloquence. The Quran may well be by far the most eloquent of Arabic texts, but explaining why the Quran is eloquent, in your opinion, is not an argument for objective inimitability via eloquence.

Pretending it is while pretending this hasn't been addressed is hypocrisy.

So:

It is a unique genre - Why is a combination of 2 exiting things beyond human capability? Things form another time often sound different to our expectations.
Word choice - How is this anything but subjective preference?
Tonality - again how is this anything but subjective preference?
Intratextuality - perhaps eloquent and impressive, but objectively inimitable? How do you reach this judgement?

How many texts are there to actually compare the Quran to? And why are the standards derived form the Quran the objective reference point?

The Quran for Muslims and the contexts in which they interact with it and read/here it are unique. How can we rule out that this is impacting a subjective judgement like a Catholic finding something transcendent in the Latin mass?

The problem is that none of these things were arrived at objectively, but were a conclusion that was assumed true that required explanation. This, by definition, leads to motivated reasoning. That doesn't necessitate it being wrong, but it is another point that had to be explained and justified with stronger evidence.

You have not engaged with that simple synopsis.
 
You have not engaged with that simple synopsis.

Yes I have, it's in the post you replied to. It's childish to pretend otherwise.

Also your synopsis is not an argument for objectivity, but a statement of "why FD thinks the Quran is eloquent" or perhaps why you think it is superior to other tetxs you have read.

Do you actually think it is an argument for objectively inimitable eloquence?
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Funny how when I point out that the Quran is pretty turgid stuff, apologists use the "but you can't translate Arabic into English and maintain the flow and beauty", yet when I bring up the likes of 1001 Nights, they go all quiet.

I wonder why lol,it’s a bit too close to the bone for some people I guess.
 
Nah. That's just ad hominem because you cant engage with it.

An ad hominem? Another term you don't understand the meaning of along side objective...

Explaining what you wrote is not "ad hominem", it is an explanation of what you wrote and why it doesn't support your claim.

I can concede everything you say below is true, and it still means you have never made a single argument to support your assertion of objectivity.

And it's childish to pretend I didn't address it directly, even more so to say "you can't engage".

Also your synopsis is not an argument for objectivity, but a statement of "why FD thinks the Quran is eloquent" or perhaps why you think it is superior to other tetxs you have read.

What you wrote:

The fact is, there were no arabic writings that was in anyway even in the same genre of the Qur'an from the time period. And the best of writings are poetry of the time, and the Quran is not poetry, though it is poetic. Also the poetry of the time had a different rhythmic style, which is nothing like the Quran being not poetry anyway. But when the Qur'an is being poetic, the rhythm does not compromise the words used in the sentence that will have a sound that suits the mood, and a tone that suits the statement, and a rhythm that also suits the mood within the word itself, not only the sentence. Sometimes the same thing will be said twice but the sound of the recitation will be different just to suit the mood of the sentence and even the surrounding verses. And within the sentence, words also will change in sound to set a particular mood. Then there is a thing called the Shagr which is typically only present in poems, but thought the Quran is not poetry, you find it. It's like a control mechanism that poets use in their poems but that compromises the tone of words and they do that deliberately. The Quran somehow has managed to maintain both with no compromise as if it's a cakewalk. There are new forms of wakth introduced in the Qur'an which were never used before. It's like a system of ending a sentence which also has meaning, which corresponds with other sentences in other places in the Qur'an. This brings memory bells when reading. More so when reciting. This is a memory bell or reminding mechanism which harmonises with meaning, context and tonality. Only when you read and recite the Qur'an will you be able to understand it. Hard to explain. Ha and The sounds will be there in some verses, which will not only remind you of a verse in a completely different chapter, and also give it a meaning that could only be derived by the tone, not by word.

There are no documents in arabic, in history found so far that is similar or even close. Anyway, for you to understand this even to begin this path you have to have arabic knowledge.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
An ad hominem?

Yes. Ad hominem. Because you cant address a simple synopsis but can only skirt around. ;) Ad hominem is not always an insult which you started with anyway a little while ago. ;)

What you wrote:

The fact is, there were no arabic writings that was in anyway even in the same genre of the Qur'an from the time period. And the best of writings are poetry of the time, and the Quran is not poetry, though it is poetic. Also the poetry of the time had a different rhythmic style, which is nothing like the Quran being not poetry anyway. But when the Qur'an is being poetic, the rhythm does not compromise the words used in the sentence that will have a sound that suits the mood, and a tone that suits the statement, and a rhythm that also suits the mood within the word itself, not only the sentence. Sometimes the same thing will be said twice but the sound of the recitation will be different just to suit the mood of the sentence and even the surrounding verses. And within the sentence, words also will change in sound to set a particular mood. Then there is a thing called the Shagr which is typically only present in poems, but thought the Quran is not poetry, you find it. It's like a control mechanism that poets use in their poems but that compromises the tone of words and they do that deliberately. The Quran somehow has managed to maintain both with no compromise as if it's a cakewalk. There are new forms of wakth introduced in the Qur'an which were never used before. It's like a system of ending a sentence which also has meaning, which corresponds with other sentences in other places in the Qur'an. This brings memory bells when reading. More so when reciting. This is a memory bell or reminding mechanism which harmonises with meaning, context and tonality. Only when you read and recite the Qur'an will you be able to understand it. Hard to explain. Ha and The sounds will be there in some verses, which will not only remind you of a verse in a completely different chapter, and also give it a meaning that could only be derived by the tone, not by word.

There are no documents in arabic, in history found so far that is similar or even close. Anyway, for you to understand this even to begin this path you have to have arabic knowledge.

Thanks for a cut and paste. You have not engaged with it.
 
Yes. Ad hominem. Because you cant address a simple synopsis but can only skirt around. ;) Ad hominem is not always an insult which you started with anyway a little while ago. ;)

That you think explaining, with evidence, why your argument is subjective constitutes an "ad hominem" is quite telling.

The entire problem is you don't understand what objectivity is and continue to use it incorrectly.

Then cry its an ad hominem to explain this to you, and use other disingenuous dodges to avoid supporting your claim.

Oh well, can lead a horse to water...

Thanks for a cut and paste. You have not engaged with it.

A very childish dodge.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's easy. There are many instances where a small change would remove ambiguity or improve in some way. Here's one...

Salam

Thanks for your response. I'm going to say many verses can be said in non-ambiguous way especially about Ahlulbayt for example in 42:23, it can be said "my Ahlulbayt", instead of Al-Qurba, which leaves wiggle room.

It's clearness + ambiguity combined, where it's clear to the sincere and unclear to the misguided hearts, is part of it's trial and is actually a sign it's from God, because no has patience to be clear yet room for misinterpretation by foolish hearts, and it's way of God safeguarding Quran from corruption like the past revelations were changed and lost.

There is this questions from an atheist about Quran to Imam Ali (a): Final_draft_Questions_of_Zanadiqa_on_Quran (hubeali.com)

The relevant part I will quote:

Indeed, the elevated status of His Prophet saww has been revealed in those (explicit) Verses which are clearly understood by literate as well as illiterates, which is, for example, ‘Those who obeyed His Prophet in fact have submitted to their Lord’122 and at another place Allah azwj Says: ‘Indeed, Allah and His angels send Salwat on His Prophet, so those who have embraced Eman should also sand Salwat and be submissive as perfectly as one could’123 . The preceding verse has both inner as well as outer meanings, thus explicitly it is ‘Salu Alay’ (send salwat) whereas its implicit meanings are ‘salimu taslema’ which in fact says that they should bow down to the will of His Prophet saww regarding the choice of his successor asws, after him. He asws has been given superiority over their lives so they should fulfil their pledges of allegiance to him asws . This is the ‘news’ which I have disclosed to you, and no one else knows about its implicit explanations, the way I have described to you, except those whose thoughts are unpolluted, have clear conscious and have the righteous approach. And similarly, Allah azwj’s words on ‘Salam to the children of Yaseen’124, as Allah azwj called His Prophet saww with the name of ‘Yaseen’, and Says: Yaseen, by the wisdom filled Quran, You are indeed among the Prophets’125 . This title was used due to the fact that it was in the knowledge of Allah azwj that they will eliminate His azwj Words ‘Salam ala Alay Mohammed’ in the similar manner as they did so to some of His azwj other Words (revealed in the Book). Rasool Allah saww always demonstrated the status of his ‘Aal’ (progeny) to everyone by keeping them asws closer to him saww, showing his saww affection for them asws, making them asws always sit besides him saww and until Allah azwj sent His azwj Commands to move his saww enemies away from his saww proximity. As per Allah azwj‘s Words: ‘Dissociate yourself from them with politeness’.126 Similarly, at another place Allah azwj Says: What has happened to these Kafir who are flocking around you from all directions, with the hope of getting access to paradise. Of course, they do not know for what they were created from127 . And also Says: on that day everyone will be called together with his Imam’128 rather than saying ‘We shall call them with their names together with the names of their father and mother


My comment: The relevance is that "family of Mohammad" would be more clear, but since those who want to oppose them would have corrupted Quran, God said "Peace be upon the family of Yaseen" and in the Surah before links it to calling Mohammad (s) Yaseen in a similar way the Messengers are addressed in the following Surah.

So ambiguity as I mentioned where it's clear enough but still left for room for misinterpretation is actually tactically done so that Tahrif doesn't occur.

Make it too clear, problems, and make it not clear enough, and then they would have a case that the Quran is not clear in what it says.

This compromise where it's clear to the sincere but unclear to the "hard" hearts, as by own verses it says that the hard hearts take God's words out of their intended place, is one of it's features, that point to a patience and wisdom no human really has and can't do.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Salam

Going to the verse about women, Allah (swt) tactically wrote it in a way, to expose hard hearts. Hard hearts and their scholarship would succumb to the Shayateen and their interpretation, and interpret to "beat women", as in physically beat.

But when Imam Mahdi (a) comes, he will interpret Quran in a better way, that honors women and doesn't include Slavery as condoned or ever allowed by God in anytime in history before Mohammad (s) and after Mohammad (s).

This will be a sign for him.
 
Last edited:

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Bad planning by god then.

Because of the different structure of other languages, the placement of words is determined by the translator.

But you need to be fluent in Classical Arabic to understand it. :tearsofjoy:

Salam

Some signs and features of Quran can be found in translations as long as they are not too much off point.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Salam

Going to the verse about women, Allah (swt) tactically wrote it in a way, to expose hard hearts. Hard hearts and their scholarship would succumb to the Shayateen and their interpretation, and interpret to "beat women", as in physically beat.

But when Imam Mahdi (a) comes, he will interpret Quran in a better way, that honors women and doesn't include Slavery as condoned or ever allowed by God in anytime in history before Mohammad (s) and after Mohammad (s).

This will be a sign for him.
I have literally no idea what you are on about here.

You asked for an example of improving one verse by changing the words.
I provided an example.
You ignored it.
Challenge completed!
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have literally no idea what you are on about here.

You asked for an example of improving one verse by changing the words.
I provided an example.
You ignored it.
Challenge completed!

Salam

I didn't ignore it, I tried to explain how it is, is better and why.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Salam

Thanks for your response. I'm going to say many verses can be said in non-ambiguous way especially about Ahlulbayt for example in 42:23, it can be said "my Ahlulbayt", instead of Al-Qurba, which leaves wiggle room.

It's clearness + ambiguity combined, where it's clear to the sincere and unclear to the misguided hearts, is part of it's trial and is actually a sign it's from God, because no has patience to be clear yet room for misinterpretation by foolish hearts, and it's way of God safeguarding Quran from corruption like the past revelations were changed and lost.

There is this questions from an atheist about Quran to Imam Ali (a): Final_draft_Questions_of_Zanadiqa_on_Quran (hubeali.com)

The relevant part I will quote:

Indeed, the elevated status of His Prophet saww has been revealed in those (explicit) Verses which are clearly understood by literate as well as illiterates, which is, for example, ‘Those who obeyed His Prophet in fact have submitted to their Lord’122 and at another place Allah azwj Says: ‘Indeed, Allah and His angels send Salwat on His Prophet, so those who have embraced Eman should also sand Salwat and be submissive as perfectly as one could’123 . The preceding verse has both inner as well as outer meanings, thus explicitly it is ‘Salu Alay’ (send salwat) whereas its implicit meanings are ‘salimu taslema’ which in fact says that they should bow down to the will of His Prophet saww regarding the choice of his successor asws, after him. He asws has been given superiority over their lives so they should fulfil their pledges of allegiance to him asws . This is the ‘news’ which I have disclosed to you, and no one else knows about its implicit explanations, the way I have described to you, except those whose thoughts are unpolluted, have clear conscious and have the righteous approach. And similarly, Allah azwj’s words on ‘Salam to the children of Yaseen’124, as Allah azwj called His Prophet saww with the name of ‘Yaseen’, and Says: Yaseen, by the wisdom filled Quran, You are indeed among the Prophets’125 . This title was used due to the fact that it was in the knowledge of Allah azwj that they will eliminate His azwj Words ‘Salam ala Alay Mohammed’ in the similar manner as they did so to some of His azwj other Words (revealed in the Book). Rasool Allah saww always demonstrated the status of his ‘Aal’ (progeny) to everyone by keeping them asws closer to him saww, showing his saww affection for them asws, making them asws always sit besides him saww and until Allah azwj sent His azwj Commands to move his saww enemies away from his saww proximity. As per Allah azwj‘s Words: ‘Dissociate yourself from them with politeness’.126 Similarly, at another place Allah azwj Says: What has happened to these Kafir who are flocking around you from all directions, with the hope of getting access to paradise. Of course, they do not know for what they were created from127 . And also Says: on that day everyone will be called together with his Imam’128 rather than saying ‘We shall call them with their names together with the names of their father and mother


My comment: The relevance is that "family of Mohammad" would be more clear, but since those who want to oppose them would have corrupted Quran, God said "Peace be upon the family of Yaseen" and in the Surah before links it to calling Mohammad (s) Yaseen in a similar way the Messengers are addressed in the following Surah.

So ambiguity as I mentioned where it's clear enough but still left for room for misinterpretation is actually tactically done so that Tahrif doesn't occur.

Make it too clear, problems, and make it not clear enough, and then they would have a case that the Quran is not clear in what it says.

This compromise where it's clear to the sincere but unclear to the "hard" hearts, as by own verses it says that the hard hearts take God's words out of their intended place, is one of it's features, that point to a patience and wisdom no human really has and can't do.
Why would making a guide "too clear" cause problems?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Salam

I didn't ignore it, I tried to explain how it is, is better and why.
Really? How did you do that? There wasn't a single reference to my version in that rambling and nonsensical post.

Try again, and show why my changes are not improvements.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Really? How did you do that? There wasn't a single reference to my version in that rambling and nonsensical post.

Try again, and show why my changes are not improvements.
Salam

As I explained the trial version of Quran, where hard hearts misinterpret it and sincere hearts see clear meaning is better, because otherwise, you are forcing the truth to misguiding forces.

Your way would be better for any holy book except the last one that needs to be safeguarded. The final book has to be not to explicitly clear or else it will face corruption and removal of words or change of words.

The Quran has multiple faces for a reason. It's an easy trial, soften your heart and everything will be clear, don't and things will get ambiguous real quick and you won't understand.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Salam

@KWED, if Mohammad (s) was not the seal of the Anbiya (a), you would have a point and it would be a sound argument you made.

But because it's the last book to humanity from God as a sign from him - it has to be this middle ground approach. Not too explicit but not unclear either.

For wise reasons, his family aren't Anbiya (don't receive divine scripture from God channeling new surahs to humanity for current situation), because this is the last Ahlulbayt (a) and it's part of the design that they are there to safeguard interpretation but that they don't bring Surahs lest Islam and Quran lose it's prestige.

The Quran being final book is part of an over all plan.
 
Top