Why is the Quran so awkward to read?

[Anonymous No.19063397]

I'm an american, I've looked at multiple reputable english translations of this thing, why is the formatting and style of everything so weird?
How come entire sections just seem like copies of different phrases pasted throughout?
Why is there no coherent ordering of the Surahs? There seems to be a lot of weird capitalizations and sections that look weird as well.

It feels like someone mashed a bunch of different things together.

Can anyone who knows about this comment?

[Anonymous No.19063404]

Maybe because it's meant to be in Arabic? Retard

[Anonymous No.19063410]

You should just read the Bible, it's like the kiddy version of the Quran. Once you get through that, then attempt the Quran.

[Anonymous No.19063454]

>>19063397
The ordering has been done after Muhammad’s death so it could be totally wrong. Repetitions are used to make sure the meaning of the words isn’t corrupted. Reusing words and phrases is useful to make sure your understanding of it is accurate. Of course it only makes sense in Arabic. Also, we all know repetition is poetic and the Quran is structured like a poetic discourse.

[Anonymous No.19063467]

>>19063397
because it's written by sand eating goat fuckers, just like the bible

[Anonymous No.19063563]

it was an oral document assembled after the prophet's death from various sources. It's a mixture of poetry, song and speech, and the written version was compiled before there was a standardised arabic language. So it doesn't really resemble other abrahamic scriptures in terms of its structure.

[Anonymous No.19063645]

Because it’s hastily-assembled schizo nonsense. The Qur’an is one of the worst books I’ve ever read. Rambling, disjointed, confusing and a rejudaization of Christianity. Every translation I have required brackets on every page just to make the text even coherent. On top of that, it was probably ‘revealed’ by fallen angels or written with nefarious intent to deny the divinity of Christ, the resurrection and the trinity

[Anonymous No.19063689]

English translators are lazy and stupid

[Anonymous No.19063699]

>>19063397
Koran is out of order -- although order is allegedly important because earlier chapters were "abrogated" (i.e., all the passages that say "make peace" were written before Mohamed decided that strategy needed to be abandoned and he decided to kill everyone instead) -- because after mohamet's death his followers all killed each other and they had a hard time trying to re-assemble it - - so they just threw together what they liked and everything else they trashed and killed anyone who said there was stuff left out. That left out stuff ended up become the "haddiths" which are the actual teachings the mohametans follow and believe. Koran's weird letters are some sort of nonsense code that nobody knows what they mean. The entire book is garbage. Most likely author was not Mohamed - who was an illiterate camel trader - but his fist wife's uncle/cousin Ibn Waraka Newfaul, an old ebionite priest that was translating religious stories into Arabic who convinced Mohamet that he wasn't demon-possessed but was actually a "prophet".

[Anonymous No.19063724]

>>19063699
>trader from a patrician family in a big cosmopolitan city was illiterate
stupid ass

[Anonymous No.19063761]

>>19063397
Mere mortals canmot fully comprehend the Words of God. Which is why most of the books before the Qur'an were ((edited)) and ((reworked)) to be accessible for people like you.

[Anonymous No.19063764]

>>19063699
Do any of these "abrogated" chapters still exist in any partial form?

[Anonymous No.19063785]

>>19063699
idiot westerner. hadith are sayings of muhammad, the qur'an is what muhammad directly received from the Holy Ghost. Nothings is abrogated, there are both verses of peace and war in the Qur'an. nothing is hidden from you in Qur'an.

[Anonymous No.19063815]

>>19063724
mohametians brag about him being illiterate - it supposedly makes the koran more of a "miracle" lol

[Anonymous No.19063841]

>>19063764
Yes, the koran is filled with abrogated passages. Rodwell tried to put them in proper order, the earlier ones being the ones that are no longer applicable, but this is just his estimate, the islamic "scholars" all disagree which ones are which:

https://sacred-texts.com/isl/qr/index.htm

[Anonymous No.19063915]

>>19063785
Abrogation is not debatable.
https://answering-islam.org/Silas/abrogation.htm
Mohamet would pass out with epileptic fit and snore - then when he would wake up he would begin to speak
>"Say this..."
as if that was the command for him and he would begin to talk ... but he claimed the messages came from the "Jabril" (2 syllables, not "Gabriel" 3 syllables) and he said he was jostled by crowds of d'jinn that would listen to him when he talked. So this is obviously mental illness, what today we would call schizophrenia. He never claimed to hear anything from God, only from this other phantom that tried to choke him.

[Anonymous No.19063940]

>>19063764
They were probably conveniently destroyed by Uthman

[Anonymous No.19063951]

>>19063689
The ultimate cope. Many translations of books are beautiful, yet the Qur’an is still awful to read. Maybe it’s just bad

[Anonymous No.19063973]

>>19063915
>So this is obviously mental illness, what today we would call schizophrenia.
It’s called demonic possession, and it’s very real. The so-called ‘mental illnesses’ of today are largely the product of bad conditions and in many cases demonic activity.

[Anonymous No.19064112]

>>19063973
How does one drive out demons? Through faith?

[Anonymous No.19064172]

>>19063699
>Koran is out of order
Hasn't it been like 1000 years? They should just put it in order.

[Anonymous No.19064251]

>>19064112
Yes, and through invoking the name of Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.19064365]

>>19064251
Do not call on names other than Allah. Though we are both from different faiths, can we agree not to worship others besides Allah and to not associate with Him partners and that we will not erect Lords among us besides Allah and that we will not insult our Prophets? If not, bear witness that we, the Muslims, are submitters to God alone.

[Anonymous No.19064384]

Look for a Shia approved edition. Sunnis are idiots.

[Anonymous No.19064463]

the quran is more comparable to something like the illiad or the odyssey. however, it should be acknowledged that it has the relevancy of the bible ofc
the quran is poetry, which means that shit is going to go badly in translation, even when given the best translation. if you know anything about the formulation and standardization of arab grammar, poetry is insanely important.
my best recommendation is to learn arabic unironically

[Anonymous No.19064497]

>>19064365
Jesus is God. It’s in the Bible, Old Testament and New. The Qur’an was written 600 years later is contrary to the scriptures and all historical evidence we have for Jesus. I was almost converted to Islam at one point and thought that it was clear that Jesus was ‘just’ a prophet and that the trinity was not biblical, but much further research, debate videos and most importantly prayers showed me that Jesus is the way, the truth the and the life. Muhammad never even talked with God.

[Anonymous No.19064510]

>>19064497
>Muhammad never even talked with God
this isnt true. also, the scriptures were corrupted. and werent the gospels written many centuries after the Torah?

[Anonymous No.19064537]

>>19064510
Muhammad got his revelations from a being claiming to be Gabriel, did he not?

>also, the scriptures were corrupted.
We have very very old manuscripts, fragments and quotations of books from both the Old and New Testaments which are identical to what we have today. There’s no evidence to this corruption, especially when we have over 5000+ New Testament manuscripts extant today.

>and werent the gospels written many centuries after the Torah?
Of course they were, Jesus had not come into this world yet, so no Gospels could be written. The prophecies existed long before Jesus in his human form was ever born though.

[Anonymous No.19064757]

>>19063761
>Mere mortals canmot fully comprehend the Words of God.
Are you saying that you aren't a mere mortal?

[Anonymous No.19064888]

>>19064537
>The prophecies
what prophecies were there of Noah or Moses? I'm not saying there are no prophecies of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Bible, but pretty much every prophet besides Jesus was not prophesied because the message they had and the Lord they worshipped and the miracles they performed revealed the truth of their prophethood sufficiently. They confirmed that which came before them and people knew they were prophets because they were truthful and because they worshipped nobody except God and did not call people to worship anyone but God. Saying that he isn't a prophet because he didn't call people to worship another prophet is not founded on prophetic tradition but on later innovation. If you truly followed the Bible you would follow Muhammad because the message he brought is completely indistinguishable from the prophets of yore. Your rejection of him is based on later invention.

[Anonymous No.19064986]

>>19063397
It's ordered from longest to shortest

[Anonymous No.19065038]

>>19064888
Your missing the point. I’m specifically and exclusively talking about prophetic mentions of Jesus Christ in the OT. They are remarkable in how closely they prefigure the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, and how he would suffer, die and rise again for the sins of mankind. This is how we know that what is said in the NT is fully in line with the OT. The fact that these scriptures are well-attested and well-preserved is the cherry on top.

I do not recognize Muhammad as a prophet because he denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion, his resurrection and the fact that he died for our sins. In denying all the past scriptures (while paradoxically affirming what they pick-and-choose), Muhammad denies the prophecies, and is free to claim whatever he wants and baselessly say everything else is error and corruption. And again, Muhammad never spoke with God. The entire Qur’an is from an ‘angel’. Now think—why would an ‘angel’, six hundred years after Jesus Christ was crucified, appear to Muhammad in a cave and claim that all of the central doctrines of Christianity were false and that all of the scriptures that predict and confirm these things were all false and corrupt as well? I don’t say this to shitpost or be intentionally insulting, but Muhammad was deceived by Satan, and as St. Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians 11:14, even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. Even in the lives of the saints what seem to be angels appear to them and attempt to lead them astray with false messages and temptations, such as St. Anthony the Great, who endured intense spiritual warfare.

Jesus also teaches us to be aware of false prophets who will come in his name (Matthew 7:15-23) and to judge them by their fruits. Since Muhammad was a man of eleven wives, some of them taken from his adoptive son, one of them a little girl, and due to the fact that he lived like a warlord, even having groups like the Bani Ghifar go around a rob caravans for him, offering only to give it back if they affirmed God’s oneness and the prophethood of Muhammad. The fruits are bad.

[Anonymous No.19065069]

>>19063404
If we can translate the psalms in a beautiful fashion there should be no reason we cant translate the Quran, the fact that we cant proves the Quran is not divinely inspired

[Anonymous No.19065078]

>>19063410
Nobody believes that, the Bible is a far deeper, broader and better written book.

[Anonymous No.19065088]

>>19064463
>the quran is poetry, which means that shit is going to go badly in translation
Wrong Psalms have beautiful translations.

[Anonymous No.19065127]

>>19065038
>They are remarkable in how closely they prefigure the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh
typological readings of scripture was not what made a prophet a prophet. You are the one who isn't quite getting this: You didn't reject a prophet because they were not prophesied, you rejected them if their message was strange or did not go in line with the traditional preachings of the past prophets. We can reject the subjective accounts of Mark, John, Luke, Matthew, and Paul precisely because they do not go in line with the traditional preachings of past prophets. We cannot reject the message of Muhammad (pbuh) without putting ourselves in great danger of damnation because his message does not call us to our desires but to our submission to the one true God. Rejecting an account of a prophet is safer than rejecting the direct message of one because this message will always be straight from revelation while the former which are second-hand accounts will most likely be subject to exaggeration and distortion.
>The fact that these scriptures are well-attested and well-preserved is the cherry on top.
Yes, the distortions were well-attested and well-preserved, but not the original. Again, we do not reject the scriptures based on desire but we do it based on the idea that the Prophets were infallible (they had to be, as they had to guide us from darkness) and that there is one God who cannot be likened to creation in any way shape or form. We know from history that the jews were enemies of God and that they killed prophets, so even a child could make the deduction that, as a result of them being handed the scripture, they monopolized it for their own gain and made the prophets appear sinful out of envy.
>And again, Muhammad never spoke with God
again, I think this right here proves you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.19065128]

no

[Anonymous No.19065172]

you're American

[Anonymous No.19065183]

>>19065127
We have far more to go on then typological readings of scripture. Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Daniel 7:9-28, Zechariah 12:10, etc., the numerous appearances of the Angel of the Lord in the OT, as is seen in Genesis 16 in particular where he is literally referred to as ‘Lord’ and ‘God’—the OT has numerous theophanies of this kind of the pre-incarnate Son.

>Yes, the distortions were well-attested and well-preserved, but not the origina
You believe this dogmatically. There is no evidence for this claim archeologically or in any other domain of research, just like there is no ‘Injil’ or any other fake scripture referred to in the Qur’an.

>I think this right here proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes or no—was the Qur’an revealed by Gabriel to Muhammad or did he get it from God directly?

[Anonymous No.19065291]

Daily reminder that Muslims think that this is the literal, verbatim, eternal word of God:

>O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.

[Anonymous No.19065315]

>>19063454
Precisely, the ordering is done by the scholars. The Quran originally was indiviually recited surahs by the angel Jebril to the prophet (pbuh) at different times through his life.

[Anonymous No.19065324]

>>19065315
>recited surahs by the angel Jebril to the prophet
And there we have it—from a demon, not God

[Anonymous No.19065333]

>>19063397
Simple: in Arabic it rhymes and is poetic.

[Anonymous No.19065341]

>>19063915
>answering-islam
LOL no wonder he calls people "mohametians", schizo website for a crusades larp

[Anonymous No.19065349]

>>19064888
Checked

[Anonymous No.19065365]

>>19065069
The fact that it can't shows that it is divinely inspired. Anything doesn't come close to the original. Any translation is a commentary, stuff are always lost in translation.

[Anonymous No.19065377]

>>19065078
Better book? The Bible is full of internal contradictions. The gospels contradict each other all the time one says they found an angel in the grave of Jesus on says two angels, one says a man, and the last says two men. They cannot all be true.

[Anonymous No.19065650]

>>19063645
>a rejudaization of Christianity

Anon, I've got some bad news for you...

[Anonymous No.19065657]

>>19064497
>much further research, debate videos and most importantly prayers showed me that Jesus is the way
>Christian 'scholarship' is now literally Facebook posts, Youtube videos and hoping and praying your beliefs are true

[Anonymous No.19065790]

The quran is a YA fanfiction of the bible written by an underage girl go figure.

[Anonymous No.19066365]

>>19065183
>There is no evidence for this claim
How could there be if they distorted it lol? Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, especially when we agree that the Jews were pieces of shit to both God and the Prophets. Trying to say this is just dogmatism is missing the point, since I could easily say your blind trust of scripture given to you by anonymous writers is itself dogmatism. You’re like those pagans who rejected their messengers because of blind trust of the tradition handed down to them from their ancestors. You reject Muhammad (pbuh) because he does not affirm the divinity of a Prophet when no prophets were asked to do that. I assure you if you heard of a prophet who was like Muhammad (pbuh) before the advent of Christ you’d believe his prophethood because both his message and his character attest to his truthfulness. The only thing keeping you from submitting (becoming Muslim) is arrogance and blind trust.
>was the Qur’an revealed to Gabriel to Muhammad (pbuh) or did he get it from God directly?
This is irrelevant. You said Muhammad never talked with God, peace be upon him, when we know that he did during the isra wal miraj. He received the Qur’an from Gabriel (as) who received it from Allah. God does as He pleases.

[Anonymous No.19066378]

>>19065365
The only divine inspiration it has is by virtue of copying the bible nigger

[Anonymous No.19066396]

>>19066378
It didn't copy the Bible. The Qur'an has no contradictions, it keeps the story straight. Someone can believe in the Qur'an without rejecting logic. Cannot believe in the Bible without accepting contradictory stories, makes no sense to even say believing in the Bible, which one of the stories do you believe? The gospels describe the same things, but claims 4 different things happening. If one is true then the others must be false.

[Anonymous No.19066419]

>>19066396
The Koran literally has rejected biblical gospels in it. The Koran has the infancy gospel of Thomas, which early Christians concluded was a made up fan fiction, keep coping tho buddy, you’ll get those 72 raisins in paradise

[Anonymous No.19066444]

>>19066419
We know that at least 3 of the gospels in the Bible is false. If one is true then the others contradict with it and has to be false. But most likely they all are false and maybe just contain a little bit of truth and they just made up shit to fill the story between.

[Anonymous No.19066467]

>>19066444
Notice how I named a false gospel which is in the Koran and you didn’t name any. Apparently the final revelation from God tells us it’s okay to take non Muslim sex slaves and labour slaves. The New Testament directly says slavery is bad, therefore Islam is contradictory because it contradicts the teachings of Jesus, because he was against slavery.

[Anonymous No.19066489]

>>19066365
>This is irrelevant.
It’s really not.
>You said Muhammad never talked with God, peace be upon him, when we know that he did during the isra wal miraj.
“Bro I totally flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse with a human head and talked with God, trust me!” — what a joke. His entire false ‘revelation’ cane straight from the mouth of a demon, and not God. This is as clear as day.

[Anonymous No.19066503]

>>19066467
Who cares about the new testament? its full of idolatry.

[Anonymous No.19066521]

>>19066503
>says the goatfucker who kisses and circumambulates a pagan idol

[Anonymous No.19066559]

>click on thread because curious about this topic
>it's just op filling it with bait and ill-intentions
you don't belong here

[Anonymous No.19066569]

>>19066559
Islam threads are routinely awful on /lit/ and Muslims are some of the worst posters on this site

[Anonymous No.19066583]

>>19066569
>Muslims are some of the worst posters on this site
judging by this thread it seems like the autistic christians are winning that contest of ridicule and insecurity

[Anonymous No.19066618]

>>19066583
We’re trying to save your soul from an anti-Christ heresy

[Anonymous No.19066688]

>>19066618
you sound less legitimate than a cultist and even less respectful than a silly pampered child so I'll pass on that

[Anonymous No.19066757]

>>19063397
The Quran was made up off the top of Muhammad's head based on his remembering or misremembering of the Bible and local Arabic traditions. There's a lot of repetition in the Book of Mormon too verily verily.

[Anonymous No.19066870]

>>19066688
Why would one respect your precious polygamist pedo?

[Anonymous No.19066933]

>>19063915
That's neat. Wish we had more info on Jesus like this.

[Anonymous No.19066945]

Because it was ooked and eeked out by the lips and filthy fingers of bronze aged cavemen.

[Anonymous No.19068179]

>>19063397
Salah Huacsa? No. Huacsala Salah.

[Anonymous No.19068184]

>We’re trying to save your soul from an anti-Christ heresy

[Anonymous No.19068752]

>>19066933 >duh duh duh

[Anonymous No.19068793]

>>19064365
Jesus is God bro. Jesus is God taken human form. If you believe that God couldn't do this, then you, infact, are the unbeliever.

[Anonymous No.19068819]

>>19065038
Fantastic post. Thank you for taking the time to put it so eloquently.

[Anonymous No.19068831]

>>19068793
you're not my "bro" christcuck

[Anonymous No.19068849]

>>19068793
I’ve noticed that Muslims frequently subordinate Allah to their idea of what is possible and to some sort of weird rationalism. This is why they are filtered so easily by Christianity

[Anonymous No.19068851]

>>19068831
Are we not all brothers?

[Anonymous No.19068887]

>>19068849
Yes they break fasting at night because supposedly allah can't see them. Again they subordinate their God.

[Anonymous No.19068987]

none of this shit is real lmao

[Anonymous No.19069215]

>>19068887
Kek classic pilpul

[Anonymous No.19069806]

>>19068793
>>19068849
its not out of rationalism. God not becoming man is not rational. God becoming man is also not rational. God is not logical or illogical; He is completely separate from the system. The reason why we say God does not have a son is because God is above having children whom He shares in glory with. The thing is, you guys don't think much of God's glory if you say He became a man, because man is a worthless dependent creature, while God is the rich, the self-sustaining, the free-of-need absolute whose so holy that to merely think of Him without any direct image or idea to compare Him too causes peace and tranquility in the hearts of the believers. Again, this is not a rational conclusion, this is purely dogmatic; we are fanatics for God and we will not let anyone indirectly insult God out of delusion. This is what the prophets taught.

[Anonymous No.19069850]

>>19063397
>Can anyone who knows about this comment?
I'm an Arab myself and grew up memorizing the Quran and studied Islam well.
You aren't wrong. The reason is that Mohammad was repeating himself alot, unlike Jesus who preached for 3 years, Mohammad was there for decades and he said alot of things, some of them went on to become hadiths and others as verses. There is alot of repeating because he faced alot of new people that he wanted to convert so he kept using the same message of fearing God and hell and God is great again and again but through different poetic verses.
It really dependent on the situation he faced. Like the verse where it says that God allowed him to have sex with his sex slaves so he should forbid himself from it because of his women jealousy.
The Quran wasn't actually completely written when Mohammad was alive, it was later on and no one can have any good proof that the current Arrangement of the verses is the correct one.

[OP No.19069861]

>>19063397
Muhammed is a hack

[Anonymous No.19069870]

>>19065377
From a secular pov it's the superior book obviously. It has way more depth than the Quran.

[Anonymous No.19069880]

>>19063951
Possible, or maybe the translations are just bad.

[Anonymous No.19069901]

>>19063761
Isn't this an argument for the trinity too?
We can't understand God fully so the trinity not being fully comprehensible to us is not an issue or something against it.
You're literally using the same logic but instead of comprehension problem it's to defend a badly written book.

[Anonymous No.19069931]

>>19064497
>Debate videos
You cannot be serious

[Anonymous No.19069993]

>>19069931
What is wrong with watching academic debates? It’s not like I’m watching internet bloodsports or some shit

[Anonymous No.19070058]

>>19069806
Do you think Islam will save us from the New World Order/Great Reset/Fourth Industrial Revolution?

[Anonymous No.19070293]

>>19070058
Islam and Christianity are the tools of the New World Order. The increase in fundamentalist extremism from those two sects of Judaism is no coincidence.

[Anonymous No.19071798]

>>19063404
RETARD

[Anonymous No.19071816]

>>19065365
A book is divine by virtue of its beauty and or clarity.

[Anonymous No.19071826]

>>19065377
A religious work can have contradictions. Religions are not specially made for autists.

[Anonymous No.19071840]

>>19069806
>because man is a worthless dependent creature
literal satanism.

[Anonymous No.19071893]

>>19065324
>A messenger Can't send messages...

[Anonymous No.19072043]

>>19071840
compared to God this description is accurate

[Anonymous No.19072260]

>>19066945
>Because it was ooked and eeked out by the lips and filthy fingers of bronze aged cavemen.
But enough about the greeks.

[Anonymous No.19072266]

>>19070293
>Islam and Christianity are the tools of the New World Order. The increase in fundamentalist extremism from those two sects of Judaism is no coincidence.
Why wonder who is behind this post...

[Anonymous No.19072279]

>>19072043
>compared to God this description is accurate
We arent seperate purely material blobs of self reproducing matter, but beings with souls. You are an atheist.

[Anonymous No.19072331]

why should i believe in the quran

[Anonymous No.19072339]

>>19072331
Because of the scientific miracles that no Muslim said it contained until the last 100 years

[Anonymous No.19072345]

People will give you a lot of cope replies but the short answer is that it's poetry, not prose, and that doesn't translate well

[Anonymous No.19072381]

>>19072345
So are the Psalms

[Anonymous No.19072588]

>>19072381
Tbh I think the Bible just gets better translators. That, and the poetry of the Qur'an is comparatively of a higher register than that of the OT. I can't speak definitively of course as I don't know Hebrew or how complex it is, but what I've gathered from the bits I do know of Arabic verse is that its complexities are more than untranslatable, and that becomes apparent to me whenever I read up on the linguistics of the Qur'an or simply read an ayat written in Arabic vs English. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Jews don't obsess over the poetic density of the OT the way we do about the Qur'an because it doesn't seem as significant. But I am by no means claiming to be informed on that matter. Just going off the different reputations of the respective books. And despite all that, I think the Qur'an IS beautiful in English, if you can appreciate the beauty of conciseness and cosmic truth.

[Anonymous No.19072635]

>>19072588
Consider Surah 2:23-24. The challenge of bringing a "Surah like it" is meaningless if it immediately says no one will be able to. If one was to accept the truth of the Qur'an, they would have to a priori accept that no one can create anything like it so therefore, they're bound to that whatever someone might bring. It's a meaningless challenge.

Moreover, certain books have moved me to tears and have had a profound impact upon me. Does that mean that they are revelation as well? Point to this objective criteria against which the Qur'an should be judged. I'm willing to accept that the rhetorical devices it uses in Classical Arabic are skilful etc. But does that mean I must bring a Surah like it in Classical Arabic as well? What does that say for the universality of the message of God's book. Is the profundity/fullness of God's words confined to a specific language? If so, why that language. The point is arguing that it s revelation on the basis of textual complexity is a fool's errand. This is not an appeal to the existence of subjective tastes. It's wanting a more fleshed criteria notwithstanding what I've said about Surah 2:23.

I'm not being facetious btw.

[Anonymous No.19072664]

Inbred camelfucking sandnigger reply: ITS A HOLY BOOK IT ONLY MAKES SENSE IF YOU READ IT IN ARABIC AND ARE AN ARAB LIKE ME
Non-inbred response: because it's an incoherent recollection of the nonsense ramblings of the O.G. inbred camelfucking sandnigger. It's clear as day that Mohammed comes up with his "holy truths" on the spots, then often changes idea afterwards. That's why it doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.19073210]

>>19063689
>>19063951
You're both right.

[Anonymous No.19073264]

>>19072635
Oh I'll bite don't worry, facetious or not. I'll start by saying that your premise of using the seeming ambiguity of "Surah like it" to argue that the only possible interpretations of said claim are confirmation bias or disagreement is ill-judged, and possibly even ahistorical. I say this because, the Arabs of the Prophet saw's time were immensely skilled and familiar with gorgeous poetry. Their poetic tradition was rich as any, so they too would have likely known many poets who have moved them to tears or profound emotions. Poets who, being that they were classical Arabs, were likely of an even richer quality than those you read (presuming you are an English speaker or at best a polyglot of modern European language). That being said, these Arabs STILL recognized the uniqueness and strangeness of the Qur'an, to the point that they accused the Prophet saw of witchcraft for his recitations! Whether or not they deemed it of being "good" poetry, they were able to recognize the supernatural quality of it, which eliminates the idea that you have to believe the Qur'an's message to recognize that it is of at least a supernatural quality.

Now of course, that one example does not engross the whole of your argument. You may still ask "Well what if people in the modern day don't think it's beautiful?" and that is fair enough. Just as people may not find Shakespeare, Dante, or Goethe beautiful too. But just as we establish those poets as of the highest standard based on their historical reputation and despite their various naysayers, we likewise establish the Qur'an in its throne for its reputation. That's to say, even if YOU personally don't buy it, billions already have and do, and being that the quantity and credibility of people testifying to the value of any work of art is the only means by which we decide on its value, it's only fair to concede that there is at least SOMETHING about it that people recognize as unique and unearthly.

And finally I will say this, it's misguided to think the "nothing else like it" quality of the Qur'an is in the rhetoric or literary devices alone. Just ask yourself, listen to any recitation, in person or online, have YOU honestly heard anything of its sonic quality? I know you're inclined to disagree with the idea that it makes a notable impression at all. But plenty of non-Muslims, upon hearing the Qur'an, can at the very least recognize the immense beauty of it. And that beauty unfolds like any flower the more your faith deepens and its message is understood. So your original point has truth, those that believe in the Qur'an do have the best understanding of what it means to say "there is nothing like it", but even non-believers have historically been at the very least been able to note that it is unusual, regardless of if they submit to its message.

It's one think to say "Well I just don't think is that great", it's another to argue that the Qur'an is baseless in challenging others to match its quality.

[Anonymous No.19073285]

>>19073264
Not who you replied to but I really just have to assume that Arabs were ultra-based poets and they knew the Qur'an had a bad vibe just from reading it? That's the end all be all proof?

[Anonymous No.19073324]

>>19072635
Oh I realized I missed two parts of your question. The points of language and textual complexity. Why was the Qur'an revealed in Arabic? I have no idea, how could anyone know? Why was the Torah revealed in Hebrew? Why the Vedas in Sanskirt? Who knows why people are chosen to receive revelation, there is no scientific answer to that question. You might say "most large religions start in various parts of Asia, so there may be a divine preference for that region" but that's just a hunch.

As for textual complexity, I think it'd be silly to define the whole of poetic quality to its complexity on an analytical level. Eliot is often more complex than Yeats or Blake, yet I prefer the latter as they are more moving. The haikus of Basho are surely less complex than poetry of George Herbert, yet I find Basho more moving. And as our friend Eliot said "poetry communicates before it is understood". The beauty of the Qur'an surely does exist in its complexities, but is it encompassed by them? Hardly. The soul of the Qur'an is deeper than what any literary analysis can unveil, and if you refuse to acknowledge poetic impressions being of such an ethereal nature, then I'd question whether or not you understand poetry at all. When you are moved to tears by a great poem, is it because you've spent years parsing its literary value, or were you simply moved by an inexplicable feeling? Surely it's the latter, it is for most. So I hope that answers your question anon.

And while you may be moved to tears by say, Keats, or even Homer, you have to account for the fact that they are not doing just what the Qur'an is doing. You were not moved to tears in a religious context and that is also the point of "nothing like it". It's not just to say "produce a good work of poetry" but, "produce your own work of a cosmic nature that can bring millions of people to its influence". And obviously other holy texts exist, but I don't think a Taoist or Hindu would say their books are much "like" the Qur'an. They're all unique. So anyone who reads the Qur'an will surely be unable to produce something of its quality, and anyone else who ever produced a notable holy text is long dead and there likely won't be any more. But in all honesty I don't think the challenge needs to be understood to even these depths of logic. If you interpret the Qur'an as, say, Bachelard might, in its pure poetic value, again, it's a bit obvious what is meant by "nothing else is like it". Putting all of this logic to it kind of defeats the point. It's something to be felt. Though not everyone will feel it of course.

[Anonymous No.19073333]

>>19073285
>supernatural
>bad vibe
Don't put words in my mouth anon, you know I didn't connotate those things, be honest. And you should also know that I immediately said that that one example does not engross his argument. Your reply is a complete perversion of my post.

[Anonymous No.19073368]

>>19073264
>Arabs STILL recognized the uniqueness and strangeness of the Qur'an, to the point that they accused the Prophet saw of witchcraft for his recitations! Whether or not they deemed it of being "good" poetry, they were able to recognize the supernatural quality of it, which eliminates the idea that you have to believe the Qur'an's message to recognize that it is of at least a supernatural quality.
That's really not it. You're either ignorant or dishonest. The Arabs weren't impressed, they actually told him that what he's saying isn't anything new and it's all stories from the Bible or folk ancient ones.
They didn't think Mohammad was actually able to come up with these verses through magic. One evidence against this is when Omar himself wasn't able to tell if a verse was from the Quran or not. The whole collection of the Quran caused a conflict because people weren't able to tell the authentic verses from ones that were created by randoms.
This dude is an Arab who was a Quran reciter who has great videos about how the Quran was verses were made and if they really are special or not and also the changes that happened to some verses.
https://youtu.be/wMVZKKwts7s
https://youtu.be/kBbO27Wdwgk

[Anonymous No.19073498]

>>19073368
If the anon wants to follow your sources then he can. I was only relaying what I've learned and been taught by other Muslims, with my own added knowledge about the nature of poetry itself. I will say that it s kind of clear that the videos you linked are in blatant bad faith and are trying to antagonize the Qur'an / Islam. Which I get if your point is to make a counterargument, but just as you might say "Well you are biased because you are a Muslim" I think it'd be obvious even to a non-believer that these videos have an anti-Islamic agenda. And no me saying "these have an anti-Islamic agenda" isn't to say "no one should listen to them" but that the intentions are obvious and that should be taken as one wills.

Evidently, due to the nature of religion, it's hard to get any unbiased "scientific" account of history. But we should both be candid about what we are doing here. For example, you note that the Arabs believed he was simply relaying stories of the ancient, yes this is true, but it is also true that he was accused of witchcraft. Why leave that out? Do not suggest that I am being dishonest while you are leaving historical facts out of your argument. And note that I never claimed the Arabs were "impressed", my whole point was that they recognized a supernatural element to the poetry. Or at least, if I want to be very fair, that is MY interpretation of why he was accused of being a magician. But I expect as much transparency from you anon.

[Anonymous No.19073504]

>>19073368
If the anon wants to follow your sources then he can. I was only relaying what I've learned and been taught by other Muslims, with my own added knowledge about the nature of poetry itself. I will say that it's kind of clear that the videos you linked are in bad faith and are trying to antagonize the Qur'an / Islam. Which I get if your point is to make a counterargument, but just as you might say "Well you are biased because you are a Muslim" I think it'd be obvious even to a non-believer that these videos have an anti-Islamic agenda. And no me saying "these have an anti-Islamic agenda" isn't to say "no one should listen to them" but that the intentions are overt, and that should be taken as one wills.

Evidently, due to the nature of religion, it's hard to get any unbiased "scientific" account of history. But we should both be candid about what we are doing here. For example, you note that the Arabs believed he was simply relaying stories of the ancient, yes this is true, but it is also true that he was accused of witchcraft. Why leave that out? Do not suggest that I am being dishonest while you are leaving historical facts out of your argument. And note that I never claimed the Arabs were "impressed", my whole point was that they recognized a supernatural element to the poetry. Or at least, if I want to be very fair, that is MY interpretation of why he was accused of being a magician. But I expect as much transparency from you anon.

[Anonymous No.19073566]

>>19073504
That's not the same anon you were talking to earlier. This why this board needs IDs.. Anyway:
>I'll start by saying that your premise of using the seeming ambiguity of "Surah like it" to argue that the only possible interpretations of said claim are confirmation bias or disagreement is ill-judged, and possibly even ahistorical.
The first paragraph was a purely analytic argument so it was intentionally ahistorical. If someone were to accept the Qur’an as divine revelation they would accept the totality of what that worldview entails if they’re being intellectually honest. Surah 2:23-24 makes a challenge but then also denies the possibility of meeting that challenge. It is not open for a Muslim to encounter some work that is not the Qur’an and be able to judge it as superior or like the Qur’an because it has closed that possibility in the first place. If they accept the extrinsic work as “like” the Qur’an then they’ve negated the divinely foreseen outcome of that challenge and therefore, negated their own worldview. It’s not a mere confirmation bias of a Muslim who is not willing to accept some other text of being “like” the Qur’an. It’s the fact that it is no true challenge because epistemically, there is no avenue to meet that challenge without violating the parameters of your worldview. If the Qur’an didn’t additionally say that one won’t be able to meet the challenge then I wouldn’t be making this argument.
>That being said, these Arabs STILL recognized the uniqueness and strangeness of the Qur'an, to the point that they accused the Prophet saw of witchcraft for his recitations!
Sorry to be Reddit, but source?
>have YOU honestly heard anything of its sonic quality?
Byzantine chant
>It's one think to say "Well I just don't think is that great", it's another to argue that the Qur'an is baseless in challenging others to match its quality.
It’s not baseless. It’s just that it is an empty statement because the Qur'an declares itself to be revelation. The divine prediction of a person not meeting that challenge is contained within that paradigm.

[Anonymous No.19073648]

Muhammad didn't understand narrative as well as thousands of years of much wiser writers. That's it

[Anonymous No.19073760]

>>19073566
I disagree with your opinion that argument is closed. I think the emphasis on "you won't be able to" is more in a matter of self-surety rather than an epistemological treatise. I think it's more akin to say, a great basketball player who knows he's the greatest saying "if you think you can play better than me, try it, but I bet you can't!" as a testament to their own confidence, rather than a literal rejection of peoples attempt to try. You can find further elaboration in this tasfeer and many others http://alhassanain.org/english/?com=book&id=295 (use the index). Now, this scholar does not emphasize the "never shall you do it" the way you do, nor have I heard of any scholar taking such a position. So while I understand your argument from the basis of your personal interpretation, it is not really in agreement with those who've dedicated their lives to studying the book. Take that as you will.

As for source on the witchcraft claims, it's in the Qur'an itself (10:2). And you might argue "Well how can I trust that for a historical account?" but even >>19073368, someone trying to antagonize my claims, is using the Qur'an for historical accounts of the Arab response to the Prophet saw. This is simply the information we have available. Hope these answers suffice.

[Anonymous No.19073986]

>>19073264
>the quantity and credibility of people testifying to the value of any work of art is the only means by which we decide on its value
Argumentum and numerum and appeal to authority.

[Anonymous No.19073994]

>>19073986
ad numerum*

[Anonymous No.19074024]

>>19073986
https://keystotheunseen.com/2017/09/20/the-miracle-of-the-quran-for-non-arabic-speakers/
the miracle of the quran for non-arabs is that arabs saw it as a miracle

[Anonymous No.19074042]

>>19074024
Okay?

[Anonymous No.19074071]

>>19063397
To quote Schopenhauer, the man who combined the western and the eastern philosophy himself:

"It is the poorest of the theism's. I am sure that much is lost in translation but i have not found one single thought of importance. It stands as a testament as to how little people need to create a morality that can be lived by. No wonder it has created only bloody wars"

[Anonymous No.19074234]

>>19063397
>Sandnigger writes knock off of Christianity and some other religions
>If fucking sucks
Surprise!!!

[Anonymous No.19074273]

>satan
>angel
>.miracle
>all these /x/ shits
bible and quran are just books made by human you schizos.

[Anonymous No.19074624]

>>19072279
what? if you think humans or angels can even be compared to God you are mistaken. this is why we are under law and God is under nothing. also everything can be said to have a soul because everything partakes of the glory of God

[Anonymous No.19075266]

>>19063397
>written by pedophile warlord in a cave
>said to be "word of Allah and irrefutable"
>Jesus was king to his people but lived amongst lepers, lame, and weak
>Mohammed was king to his people but lived as a God amongst men.
Basically the guy was a scammer.

[Anonymous No.19076610]

>>19063724
>trader from a patrician family in a big cosmopolitan city was illiterate
>stupid ass
Traditional “storytellers” from the middle East and elsewhere used to have to memorize their stories, and those of others, rather than writing them down.
Simply being “illiterate” doesn't mean a person is an idiot,
It just means the person hasn’t learned an artificial system for recording narratives or other information like laws, or whatever.
Arguably, a person that can memorize something as long as the Koran, is likely far from an idiot, and possibly more knowledgeable than a “literate” person.
The main issue, is that mistakes can happen when reciting what was memorized, which is the reason there are differences in different copies of ancient works, since authors quoting other works routinely did so from memory, snd sometimes screwed up or paraphrased.

That said, the small portions of the Koran I have read did seem a bit like Schizo rambling.

[Anonymous No.19076611]

>>19075266
read a book you retarded christshit

[Anonymous No.19077602]

>>19064365
>I respect your difference in religious views, but could you just, like, agree to adhere to mine because I'm right?

[Anonymous No.19078003]

>>19064510
>also, the scriptures were corrupted.
Literally the ultimate cope.