Have you heard Quran recitation?

[NoY]

lobster

[Stillwater]

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say"

[Rudolph]

lol Quran is difficult for me and those with their Arabic level similar to mine. A grown up educated Arab would easily understand it.

Well, they might *think* they understand it because someone's best guess has been spoon fed to them and they accept it. I take the evaluation of a linguistic scholar over the the Arab grown up any day. But I am sure you would reject any scholar who does not parrot the company line. I can live with that.

Again an unsupported claim.

It was supported as well as you supported your claim about any Arabic teacher's translation skills.

I don't need to support anything. You are making the claim and you are the one who need to support it.Hahaha. I can't see any valid point you have made up till now, just babbling.They do not agree because the 20% of which I do not understand can be translatable and are understood in Arabic by those of higher knowledge, unlike Puir's claim.

Yes, you do. The burden of 'support' in all this is primarily upon you, because you were the OP and you made the dubious claims about the Koran which I challenged. Also, I have noticed that you have difficulty discerning and grasping what constitutes a valid point. I have made plenty. So once again, you make a false accusation. Now, if you want to quote a few of my "points" and show how they are not valid, be my guest, but until then your false accusation remains groundless.

You don't seem to understand the principles of a debate. You started by claiming that fifth of the Quran is not understandable in Arabic and can't be translatable. The burden of proof lies on your part. Up till now not a shred of evidence was presented by you to support your and Puir's claim.

I understand the debate game and I agree with you (well done:) on how and where the burden of proof lies -- only I do not agree with your selective application of the rule. I did not make the "claim". I quoted a scholar's opinion on the matter. You asked for Arabic examples which I already replied to you about - I do not understand a word of Arabic so I cannot proceed along that line. That is why I have referred to this exchange as a 'discussion' since that point. My reference to Puir's opinion is sufficient unto itself as expert opinion. If you want to challenge his credentials that is a separate matter.

Again, my 20% does not apply to Puir's 20%, since his fifth-part-of-Quran ...

Again, I did not say one applied to the other. I just got done straightening you out on this a couple posts ago. Why do you keep repeating this error? You are trying to refute something that I have not said. As I indicated, the 20% observation could just be a coincidence or it could actually be directly related. But I have not claimed such because I do not know that with any significant degree of confidence.

To continue this debate, please bring me any part of the Quran which applies to Puir's claim [to quote him]:
Bring me one part which applies to the criteria given in his quote, and I will consider your viewpoint.
If you don't, then I have no reason to take your point as 'valid'.

You have already asked this at least twice already in prior posts and my reply remains the same. I do not speak a word of Arabic so I can not comply. Your list of phrases at the end there all fall into this category. This 'discussion' ceases being a debate at the point you require me to speak Arabic in order to proceed. There is not much I can do about that in the near term.

[Verisica]

Well, they might *think* they understand it because someone's best guess has been spoon fed to them and they accept it.

You have no single idea on what bases the Quran is translated and how the Arabic language goes, and you're writing such a statement? I'm sorry, but that's pathetic.

But I am sure you would reject any scholar who does not parrot the company line. I can live with that.

I will simply reject any unsupported claim made by any scholar, be it you, Puir, a muslim or any non-muslim scholar.

Yes, you do. The burden of 'support' in all this is primarily upon you, because you were the OP and you made the dubious claims about the Koran which I challenged.

Hahah what support do I have to provide regarding the clarity of the Quran? Do you need me to translate all the verses here? I have nothing to prove about the Quran being clear and mubeen. It is you who must prove otherwise.

I understand the debate game and I agree with you (well done:) on how and where the burden of proof lies -- only I do not agree with your selective application of the rule. I did not make the "claim". I quoted a scholar's opinion on the matter. You asked for Arabic examples which I already replied to you about - I do not understand a word of Arabic so I cannot proceed along that line. That is why I have referred to this exchange as a 'discussion' since that point. My reference to Puir's opinion is sufficient unto itself as expert opinion. If you want to challenge his credentials that is a separate matter.

Referencing is never sufficient. If that's the way you make decisions and base your opinions on matters of life, then you're in trouble. You can have your blind faith in that Puir's quote without examining its validity yourself. I can flood you with quotes on how 20% of the Bhaghavad Gita is not understandable [just an example], but neither of us will be satisfied by that claim until we read the text in Hindu. 

Both your own assessment and that of Puir's agree.

By that statement I understood that you meant my 20% is applicable to Puir's 20%. This is actually what your sentence implies.

You have already asked this at least twice already in prior posts and my reply remains the same. I do not speak a word of Arabic so I can not comply. Your list of phrases at the end there all fall into this category.

If you can't speak Arabic and haven't read the Quran in Arabic, please answer me: What makes you so sure Puir's quote is true?
If I quote you a scholar saying that the Bible was not inspired by God, does that make me absolutely right even if I don't support my claim?

[Rudolph]

Referencing is never sufficient.

Yes, it is. In lots of cases. Even in a court of Law "Expert Opinion" is a standalone criteria of its own once the court accepts the credentials of the "expert". You have made a LOT of plain flat out FALSE claims of this nature. ( free advice: never say never).

By that statement I understood that you meant my 20% is applicable to Puir's 20%. This is actually what your sentence implies.

You are wrong again. It implies no such thing. Especially when I correct you the first time you make this error and explain they are separate observations and one is not meant to support the other.

If you can't speak Arabic and haven't read the Quran in Arabic, please answer me: What makes you so sure Puir's quote is true?

Because Puin's words had the ring of truth to them. (Plus again, I did not say I was *sure* his claim was true, only that I accept his assessment for the expert opinion that it is).
His words are also consistent with my life experience on this issue.
I worked daily for over a year with a group of native Farsi speakers (some devout and some not so devout Muslims) and they agreed that the typical native Arab speaker could not understand half the Classical Arabic in the Koran.
I worked 15 years with a native Urdu speaker who was not just devout but a leader in the local Muslim community and he said most native Modern Arabic speakers could not make heads or tails out of half the passages in the Koran.
Just on language morphing over time, in general... I knew a native French speaker who said he could not understand most of the quatrains in the Nostradamus prophecies (the language changed a LOT in a mere 500 years). And then there is my own witness in the changes in English over the span of 1000 years. I am conversant in Spanish and I see it there too. I have studied Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and NT Greek to Modern Greek and ALL these other languages change A LOT in 1000 years.

Maybe Classical and Modern Arabic are not so far apart and it is unique among languages... but I doubt it.

Your claim strains credulity.

And then there is your own admission to not understanding a significant portion, yourself! This is nearly a de facto demonstration of the lack of clarity just by itself. Then when you fall back on the need to consult Arabic Teachers and "older, better educated" Arab scholars you undercut your own position. Why the need to consult older, better educated speakers for explanations? These replies you made of your own experience is sufficient to demonstrate the error of your claim.

If I quote you a scholar saying that the Bible was not inspired by God, does that make me absolutely right even if I don't support my claim?

You did it again!! I did not claim to be "absolutely" right.
Understand also that your 'scholar' would have to be accepted as an "expert" on God. And that might be a tough vetting process to survive.

[Xanth]

Is this a message board or a formal debating forum?  O_o

This is a place where people come to have fun.  Not get grilled.

Let's ALL try to remember that please. 

[Rudolph]

But, this *is* fun.

I do not mind getting grilled. I enjoy thinking through my replies to the questions put to me.
It is much more interesting than following another thread about astral sex, imo.

People who don't like this sort of discourse are free to not follow the thread, right?

[Verisica]

You spoke with native Farsis, Urdus, but not with native Arabic speakers. Their claims are as unsupported as yours.
Anyways, I want to clearly know your view with respect to Puir's quote. Is it that:
1) The Quran "simply doesn't make sense" "is just incomprehensible" "it's not translatable" "it can't even be understood in Arabic" even with people of high education in Arabic regardless of their religion?
2) Or the Quran is only incomprehensible by the average modern Arabic speaker (a phrase you keep repeating)?

These two views are completely different, and you do not seem to differentiate between them. Puir's quote supports point 1, while your posts support point 2.

Why the need to consult older, better educated speakers for explanations?

Because the style in which the Quran is written is not like any ordinary book you read in Arabic. More like poetry but still not considered in that category. The grammar is not of ordinary speech and therefore (about 20%) needs to be broken down for an average Arabic speaker like me. The vocabulary is sometimes difficult because in Arabic, for example, you can derive tens of words just from a single root, so I often refer to the people of higher education to help understand the root of a word and thus its meaning. This is only one example to demonstrate the need for better educated speakers.

Okay, let me for instance agree with you that an average Arabic speaker doesn't understand 30% of the Classical Arabic in the Quran. This is not the Quran's fault. We were the ones who neglected the Classical Arabic with its rich meanings and became less inclined to using it in everyday life. Again I cannot see how this affects the Quran in any way.

[Rudolph]

Both 1. and 2. are off base, as in - no one said that.

On item 1 you left off a critical qualifier; "every fifth sentence" (NOT The Koran entirely)

It looks like Item 2 mixes two separate comments and again states "The Koran" with no qualifiers which ends up being a characterization that hasn't been made.

Puir's quote supports point 1, while your posts support point 2.

false & false

[Verisica]

On item 1 you left off a critical qualifier; "every fifth sentence" (NOT The Koran entirely)

I didn't say the entire Quran. You should have understood I was talking about fifth of it.

false & false

I'm so sick of repeating my viewpoints now, and I can see no reason to complete the debate.
100% of the Quran is comprehensible, translatable, makes sense, and is understood in Arabic by people of strong background in Arabic. If you want to deny that, then I respect your blind belief.
If you have anything to argue about, bring your proof and I will wholeheartedly continue.

[O.O.P]

Why think thus O men of piety
I have returned to sobriety
I am neither a Moslem nor a Hindu
I am not Christian, Zoroastrian, nor Jew

I am neither of the West nor the East
Not of the ocean, nor an earthly beast
I am neither a natural wonder
Nor from the stars yonder

Neither flesh of dust, nor wind inspire
Nor water in veins, nor made of fire
I am neither an earthly carpet, nor gems terrestrial
Nor am I confined to Creation, nor the Throne Celestial

Not of ancient promises, nor of future prophecy
Not of hellish anguish, nor of paradisic ecstasy
Neither the progeny of Adam, nor Eve
Nor of the world of heavenly make-believe

My place is the no-place
My image is without face
Neither of body nor the soul
I am of the Divine Whole.

I eliminated duality with joyous laughter
Saw the unity of here and the hereafter
Unity is what I sing, unity is what I speak
Unity is what I know, unity is what I seek

Intoxicated from the chalice of Love
I have lost both worlds below and above
Sole destiny that comes to me
Licentious mendicity

In my whole life, even if once
Forgot His name even per chance
For that hour spent, for such moment
I'd give my life, and thus repent

Beloved Master, Shams-e Tabrizi
In this world with Love I'm so drunk
The path of Love isn't easy
I am shipwrecked and must be sunk.

Rumi