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

[shunyadragon]

How does literary excellence imply divine providence? This is just silly apologetics.

Your correct. This true for all religions including Judaism and Christianity.

 

[David T]

Mohammed was illiterate and could not even write His own name it is said.

I believe the most reasonable explanation for the sophistication of His recital was inspiration from spiritual sources.

That's like saying he used words, the song lacks originality. Since it's unoriginal because it used words it's invalid. Your logic is... Never mind.

 

[blü 2]

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 association of high quality writing with divinity would turn Shakespeare into a pre-eminent prophet, though a secular one.

And the same test would blow the Church of LDS well clear of the water, since you'll travel far and long before you find a more clumsy, prolix, stilted work than the Book of Mormon.

Further, people with more expertise in Koine Greek than I have. say that the author of Mark is easily the worst stylist of the four gospel authors and was unlikely to have been a native speaker of Greek. Since he wrote the only purported biography of Jesus that we have ─ the others are simply re-writings and expansions of it ─ Christians too may have every reason to hope the 'writing quality' notion is wrong.

Still, it seems reasonable to suppose that a perfect God would express [him]self through perfect spelling, punctuation, grammar and style. Unless of course [he] was simultaneously silly enough to entrust the business to humans.

 

[George-ananda]

Your logic is... Never mind.

Ditto

 

[George-ananda]

How does literary excellence imply divine providence? This is just silly apologetics.

When an illiterate man produces such unprecedented astounding literary excellence claiming revelation I certainly think it warrants serious consideration at the least.

 

[David T]

Ditto

Of course you are "systematic". Ever watch good will hunting? Robin Williams is mocking you in the intro to Poetry class!! Kierkegaard mocked you. Which then led to systematic theogians becoming kierkegaard scholars!!! Apparently systematic thinkers never realize you are a monty python skit. Burn the witch!!!

 

[George-ananda]

Of course you are "systematic". Ever watch good will hunting? Robin Williams is mocking you in the intro to Poetry class!! Kierkegaard mocked you. Which then led to systematic theogians becoming kierkegaard scholars!!! Apparently systematic thinkers never realize you are a monty python skit. Burn the witch!!!

Come clean....Are you attempting to be serious on this forum or having a game? Trolling?

 

[David T]

Come clean....Are you attempting to be serious on this forum or having a game? Trolling?

Hey Robin Williams is calling you a clueless hack in the documentary "good will hunting" obviously clueless hack you won't understand that he is pointing you out!!!!

 

[David T]

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.

In regards to Poetry an intro to Poetry is called for apparently I suggest the documentary "Good will hunting" professor Robin Williams PhD GENIUS teaches what is the correct way to understand poetry, and the incorrect way to understand poetry. Now the incorrect ways will not understand the intro I would suggest accounting, science, census taking, anything but poetry. I refuse now to make any more comments to the clueless systematics at all.

 

[sun rise]

You're right, that's one of the reasons I started studying Arabic. Because only by understanding classical Arabic can you really appreciate the Quran's linguistic excellence. The linguistic beauty of the Quran gets lost in the translation.

Anyone who has read poetry that has been translated knows that a typical outcome is that you are reading the translator's poetry not the authors. So what you wrote makes perfect sense to me.

And you have to know poetic conventions of the time. When sufis write that people should 'drink wine', they're not writing that people should literally drink wine but seek to experience bliss. If you don't know that, a logical conclusion is that they are drunkards in the conventional sense.

 

[Vouthon]

@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".

 

[idav]

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'm sorry my friend but Pink Floyd has much more along with acccurate prophecy.

 

[Augustus]

When an illiterate man produces such unprecedented astounding literary excellence claiming revelation I certainly think it warrants serious consideration at the least.

That he was illiterate is not a fact. The passage this idea comes from could equally be interpreted as 'the gentile prophet' or 'The prophet unversed in [previous] scripture'.

 

[Augustus]

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]

This has marked similarities with a contemporary Byzantine eschatological text:

According to Theophylact, Khosrau II prophesied that “the Babylonian race will hold the Roman state in its power for a threefold cyclic hebdomad of years [591-612]. Thereafter the Romans will enslave the Persians in the fifth hebdomad of years [619-26]. When these very things have been accomplished, the day without evening will dwell among men and the expected fate will achieve power, when the transient things will be handed over to dissolution and the things of the better life hold sway.”66 The similarities of this prophecy to Kor 30, 2-5 are striking (at least according to the most widely accepted vocalization), particularly when one recalls that “the Command” (or “dominion, reign”: al-amr) is a Qurʾānic term for the eschaton: “The Greeks have been vanquished in the nearer part of the land; and, after their vanquishing, they shall be the victors in a few years. To God belongs the Command before and after, and on that day the believers shall rejoice in God’s help.”6

https://www.academia.edu/7800509/_T..._and_Empire_in_Late_Antiquity_and_Early_Islam

Which raises the question of whether it was a 'prophecy' or a rhetorical reworking of a contemporary religious narrative.

 

[Augustus]

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.

This is the wrong way round. During the Mihna, you were repressed if you believed it was eternal and uncreated. The Caliph's view aligned with the Mutazilites that it was created.

There is a famous hagiographic story about ibn Hanbal resisting a beating and refusing to recant his view that it was created after drawing strength from a lock of Muhammad's hair.

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,

One problem with this is that the earliest known 'Muslim' graffiti is in the region of Mecca.

 

[George-ananda]

That he was illiterate is not a fact. The passage this idea comes from could equally be interpreted as 'the gentile prophet' or 'The prophet unversed in [previous] scripture'.

This Mohammed was illiterate belief does not come from any one passage and is also the predominate belief among scholars.

 

[Vouthon]

This is the wrong way round. During the Mihna, you were repressed if you believed it was eternal and uncreated. The Caliph's view aligned with the Mutazilites that it was created.

You're quite right, I meant to say the opposite! How on earth did I get the two factions' roles mixed up.

I was working from memory and got my facts muffled in the telling.

It was actually the persecution by the Mutazili supporting authorities that led to their ideology falling out of favour with the masses.

I had intended to say that the Mihna led to the (in the long run) unfortunate fall of a belief system which would have been more amenable to critical engagement with the text.

But for some reason I told it in a topsy-turvy manner. Thanks for the correction.

One problem with this is that the earliest known 'Muslim' graffiti is in the region of Mecca.

Could you tell me the date and nature of this graffiti?

It's my understanding that in terms of Mecca, contrary to the pivotal role accorded the city in Islamic tradition and its depiction as a major trading hub, no source prior to the Qur'an so much as mentions it. The first dateable reference to Mecca in any foreign text appears in 741 – more than a century after the death of Muhammad – and locates it south of Iraq.

For that reason, I would be most interested to know the date and nature of the graffiti you refer to.

 

[Augustus]

This Mohammed was illiterate belief does not come from any one passage and is also the predominate belief among scholars.

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.

 

[Augustus]

Could you tell me the date and nature of this graffiti?

Tend to be pretty nondescript, its the 20-30AH dating that is most significant.

Documented here

Can't remember where I've seen discussions of them unfortunately. Could be in this, but I'm pretty sure it isn't as I think it was online rather than an article.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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.

Just to clarify, why do you view polytheism and agriculturalism as being two divergent possibilities in this context?