Messages

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.

[average modern Arabic speaker]

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.

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?

[does not]

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

Of course an Arabic Teacher will say that (if he is Muslim). That is what he gets paid to say.

Again an unsupported claim.

"Feeble"... "random"... again, sayin it don't make it so... you must show how these words apply accurately and honestly. But you just toss them out with no visible means of support.

I don't need to support anything. You are making the claim and you are the one who need to support it.

My valid points stand.

Hahaha. I can't see any valid point you have made up till now, just babbling.

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

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.

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. Again, my 20% does not apply to Puir's 20%, since his fifth-part-of-Quran cannot be translated and understood even by highly educated Arabs, while my 20% is the result of my lack of understanding of the language. This is not an educated debate we're having now.

This is the trump card and last refuge of the faithful when trying to dig their heels in and refuse to simply face reality.

This is your reality that you're making up.

To continue this debate, please bring me any part of the Quran which applies to Puir's claim [to quote him]:

simply doesn't make sense

is just incomprehensible

it can't even be understood in Arabic

it's not translatable

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'.

[The Quran is difficult to understand, but it is translatable and can be understood in Arabic in each and every piece of it.]

All what you have written in your post is merely your view based on a false understanding of the quote.
The Quran is difficult to understand, but it is translatable and can be understood in Arabic in each and every piece of it.

I honestly can't take your argument seriously when you can't even read the language. I'm not making an excuse, but that is the truth. If you debate me on the Hebrew Bible I'll shut up and simply say I don't know.

No. That is not my logic. As I just said, Puir is not claiming that he personally can't translate it -- he is saying NO ONE can translate it. Either key words are unknown or grammar is not understood or both.

False. Ask any Arabic teacher and he'll easily understand and translate any verse of the Quran. Of course there are difficulties in translating Arabic to other languages since the terms used in Quran are sometimes unique to the language. Each keyword in the Quran is understood, and the grammar is so perfect that Standard Arabic grammar is actually derived from the Quran.

How it is "written is so eloquent and intricate" I can't follow the meaning sometimes... !!   ahhh, people of Faith... gotta love 'em....

It's funny how you're making fun without experiencing the style of the Quran. You are making such a feeble argument while the unbelievers with the eloquent Arabic at the time of the Prophet were the ones who should have made such allegations.
Again, throwing random claims and clinging to a quote with your wrong understanding of it is not the way of educated debaters. I'll end this argument if no substantial claims are made. 

[wrong]

I did not base any of my "facts" on any literal comparison of Arabic to Shakespeare. Please stop making these deceptive claims. Back up what you claim about my words with an exact quote of my words or be revealed as a deceiver.
(please, look "fact" up in the dictionary).

You did compare them. For example when you said:

And that is nowhere near 1300 years old. Chaucer is more like 50% incomprehensible in the written form. And both of those authors are nowhere near as ancient as the Arabic of 700AD.

You were comparing Old English to Classical Arabic and saying that because the Classical is older, it should be more incomprehensible, which is wrong.

It does not destroy my argument at all. It is not a fatal mistake because you are misrepresenting his words in dishonest fashion. He did NOT say it had no meaning. Please stop making FALSE accusations. That is a very bad thing to do.

Let me paste the quote here again and let's see:
The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,' but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable.
We have countless English translations of the Quran, and I can't see what's the problem with fifth of the Quran.
I'll give you an example of you and Puir's logic again. Take this sentence: We must be thankful for his munificence.
I don't know what munificence means! "It can't even be understood in English" (Exactly like what the quote said). Therefore you and Puir conclude that fifth of this sentence is incomprehensible and can't be translatable. This is wrong, because that word can be understood in English, but my level hasn't reached the capacity to comprehend such advanced words.

How can you say that? Your own evaluation of your own ability to understand the classical Arabic closely agrees with Puir's 20% estimate as not translatable!

This is so biased. You're only taking my own evaluation and backing it up with the quote? The way the Quran is written is so eloquent and intricate for me to understand in some parts, but that does NOT mean "it can't even be understood in Arabic" [to quote the green quote].
I can claim the same thing about the Hebrew Bible. I can say [like you and Puir claim] that 20% of it can't even be understood in Hebrew, because a 17 years old Israeli can't understand it all. I don't speak Hebrew, but I won't believe what you, a native Hebrew speaker, say. That is your logic.
I'm so bored of this pointless conversation. If you want to continue, I need examples from the Quran backing up your claim. If you don't provide any then I see no point in continuing.

[if it can't even be understood in Arabic]

I can't even understand the random things you're writing. Comparing Classical Arabic with Shakespearean Plays is just to make the picture clear. It's funny how you took it literally and based your facts on it. For the sake of argument let's take it literally. I'll revisit the 'green' quote you have written to understand the 20% part he was talking about. In the quote Puir says:

If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable

He is saying that 20% of the Quran is not even comprehensible in any form of Arabic (even the Classical) and that it has no meaning. That just destroys your argument.

THAT is what I mean by ANCIENT. It is the equivalent of "Old English" to contemporary native English speakers, i.e. a completely different language.

This is a fatal mistake. Now who even told you that Classical Arabic in terms of Standard Arabic is "a completely different language"?! Making such claims without the knowledge of the language is so immature! You can never compare Old English to Modern English the same way you compare Standard to Classical! I don't even know why I'm arguing with a non-Arabic speaker, but I'll continue for the sake of you benefitting in a way.
You're even contradicting yourself by once saying there is no way "to realistically claim that 80%-90% of it is understandable...." then saying

You admitted right here to understanding only 80% (to 90%) which is basically what the quote I gave earlier was claiming!! 20% is untranslatable!

If you're going with the view the quote saying that 20% is not understandable even in Arabic, then I have to say that you and Puir are wrong. If your view is that 40% is not understandable like Shakespeare's play, then it is because of my not-so-vast knowledge of Standard and Classical Arabic, which I don't see how it affects the inimitability of the Quran.

It's late here and I'm going to sleep. You can continue the discussion and I'll reply tomorrow.

Edit: I just read your new post. Thanks a lot for the compliment  I did study The Canterbury Tales last year and I'm familiar with Chaucer. I already discussed Old English and Classical Arabic above. 

[7th to 9th centuries]

Well, now I do get the level of DEEP DENIAL and how pervasive it runs in contemporary mythology.

There is NO WAY the average modern Arabic speaker can read the earliest known versions of the Koran (1000-1300 years ago) and be able to realistically claim that 80%-90% of it is understandable....

   

Such a claim is laughable.

It's really funny how you are writing these words when you can't even read Standard Arabic.
I still can't get what you mean by 'Ancient Arabic'. If you're talking about the earliest manuscripts with their undecipherable calligraphy and without tashkeel, then surely I won't be able to read it. I'm tired of repeating the fact that the Quran everyone has today is the exact same one the Quraysh used to recite 1400 years ago. If you want to deny the facts, then its up to you. Please read what wikipedia says about Classical Arabic.

Classical Arabic (CA), also known as Qur'anic or Koranic Arabic, is the form of the Arabic language used in literary texts from Umayyad and Abbasid times (7th to 9th centuries). It is based on the Medieval dialects of Arab tribes. Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is the direct descendant used today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic
Now I won't beg you to believe me that almost all Arabs today understand Classical Arabic.

But now ...

You admitted right here to understanding only 80% (to 90%) which is basically what the quote I gave earlier was claiming!! 20% is untranslatable!

There.

We're done.

I didn't admit anything. I'm young and still learning more and more about the Classical Arabic. Next time I'll laugh at an English speaking teenager who doesn't understand part of a Shakesperean play, and I'll accuse Shakespeare of writing plays with a 30% untranslatable language. That is your logic.

[current]

By 'nonsense' I meant does not make sense [maybe I used the wrong term, but excuse me English is my second language], and your quote says so clearly.
lol, you seem to have completely misunderstood the green quote you have quoted. It clearly talks about the current, Uthmanic, Quraysh dialect Quran which we now use.

I know that the average modern Arabic speaker will NOT be able to understand the closest Arabic dialect of a thousand years ago. That's just the way it is.
That is why I ask you if you have tried to read a facsimile copy of the earliest known versions. Because I know that you will not be able to understand about 90% of it unless you are an Ancient Arabic Scholar. And according to Western Ancient Arabic Scholars 20% of it is untranslatable.

False. Your claim is baseless. The Quran I have in my house is written in the Quraysh dialect of 700 AD [compiled by Uthman] and I understand 80 if not 90% of it. In addition, the hadiths are the words Prophet Muhammad spoke (and they are in the Quraysh dialect since he was from that tribe, spoken more than a thousand year ago as well). He didn't speak except with great clarity and simplicity, and none of his words were changed, and I do understand all his hadiths without difficulty. There are three categories of Arabic: Classical Arabic, Standard Arabic, and Colloquial Arabic.
Classical Arabic is the Arabic in which the Quran is written, highly eloquent and strong with its meanings and words.
Standard Arabic which is used in newspapers, tv news, and books.
And colloquial Arabic, which is the common Arabic everyone nowadays speaks with a great variety of dialects according to each country.
Every normal Arabic speaker understands all, including the classical (which was spoken a thousand years ago).
The 20% mentioned in the quote refers to the current Quran which every educated Arab understands almost all.
NOW? Do you get it?

[understands]

You didn't say anything actually. I was talking about this part of your quote:

The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,' but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.

I asked for an example but you ignored me.
If you meant the dialects, then yes everyone knows the Quran was revealed in seven ahruf [dialects] for every Arab tribe at the time of the prophet would understand. I personally haven't read other dialects, but the dialect everyone nowadays use and understands is that of the Quraysh tribe which prophet Muhammad (pbuh) belonged to.
I don't see what this has to do with the original green quote you have quoted.

Don't worry, you don't.
I did see how old Arabic Qurans were written, without dots on the letters and without tashkeel (short vowels or symbols put above and under letters). Old Arabic native speakers were professional at reading Arabic without the help of dots, but when Islam spread and new people converted and learned Arabic, these dots and tashkeel were added to help them read. (I and all Arabic speakers nowadays, for example, would have a hard time reading without dots and tashkeel). However, adding dots wasn't random. There are minor variations where dots can be placed in different places, but that does not affect the text at all.
However, the quote you have quoted claims that the Quran in itself (with its meanings) is nonsense, which is different than what you have just written.

Of course the Quran is mubeen and clear in its laws, stories, and messages. Throwing such an uneducated and random claim is so old and typical of Quran enemies. I'd like to see some examples of the verses that 'simply don't make sense'

I won't reply on your first two statements, there's nothing to say.

Heh, okay. You can "insist on the Quran being superior in every way" but you can't even begin to make a decent, rational case for such a claim. But you are allowed your "belief". No one begrudges you that much.

Please bring me an Arab non-muslim to begin making a 'decent, rational claim'. I can't start anything with people who do not speak the language of Quran.
Actually, volumes have been written proving the superiority of Quran and the miraculous nature of it. I don't think a post would do enough for such a broad topic. You can read this brief page to have an idea of what I'm talking about:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html

I know most religious websites are biased, but this page is mostly quoting other people.

[did]

No, I did not miss that. But I was replying to your statement that I quoted directly before my reply. (Which came AFTER that other statement so this misdirect of yours is mere obfuscation)

I didn't get you. You were replying to the first post I posted.

well then... I believe there is life on Mars...but like your comment in stating that random belief... it is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything anyone said. (But it did share a few words and thus serves as obfuscation in these sorts of discussions. Refuting something that no one has said is a fairly common semantic trick that I easily spot nowadays).

I didn't say anything irrelevant. I was only stating my view regarding the statement that said "Yes, "cultural pre-conditioning" is most likely at the root of it. Maybe even a certain amount of indoctrination as well."

umm... it basically does suggest "borrowing". Especially when it occurs in close proximity to the borrowed source in time and space.  I did not say "striking" similarity. I said "obvious" similarity because it is, well... OBVIOUS.

I agree that it suggests, but you were talking previously as if it did borrow.

Anyways, I see what we're doing now is fruitless, just picking about what the other said. I already made a statement about "the Quran being the only text..." but then found I'm wrong after seeing other videos. I still however insist on the Quran being superior in every way (in its content, message, literary style, and the effect it does on the listener), but that's not my main topic of the thread

Actually, that's not what you said.
From your OP; "I believe (and I strongly do) that the Quran is the only text that could create this majestic, spiritual, melodious feeling without the aid of music, just by a human's voice."
But yes, an Arabic speaker would likely have been indoctrinated in similar fashion.

I replied that it is NOT the "only" text and/or recitation style that elicits that sort of response... Christian scripture sung in the Old Roman and Greek chant style is nearly indistinguishable from the examples you gave. The most apparent distinguishing element is the difference in language - Arabic sounds a little different.

Did you miss my response where I said:

I'll admit there are relaxing pieces sung by men and alone without a choir.

No one said it did.

I'm just stating my belief.

The Koran recitations you linked to were obviously a simple variation of the more ancient Greek and Old Roman chant style. Any objective listener can hear it. Those who express the inability to detect the obvious similarity is either tone deaf or in deep denial, imo.

I can't really find that striking similarity, but if you believe so then be it. Similarity doesn't imply borrowing at all.

The first one was more soothing than the second link that Verisica gave. The second one had a reader who did not sing as well and it had the translation, which had parts about evil coming to those who don't respect Allah properly and that was not very relaxing or inspiring at all. This runs counter to Verisica's guess that maybe understanding the Arabic helps in generating that soothing feeling.

I didn't say it helps generating the soothing feelings, I meant that it helps in appreciating the spiritual meaning behind the Quran with its exquisite Arabic form which no one up till now has been successful in surpassing it. An Arabic speaker would understand what I'm saying clearly.

Yes, "cultural pre-conditioning" is most likely at the root of it. Maybe even a certain amount of indoctrination as well.

I do not have a problem with a "beauty contest" - I think the comparisons are a worthy study.
There is research showing that people hooked up to EEGs and other equipment have the same physiological response to music regardless of the culture they were raised in. From Mongolian and Siberian peasants, to Africans to Native Americans to Europeans... all had nearly identical physiological responses to different types of music.

I don't believe cultural pre-conditioning is required to live the spiritual feeling of the Quran.
And I can't see why you're insisting on the Quran building up its recitation form from previous cultures. There are endless ways to recite the Quran and this is just one, and I can't see the similarity between the Quran and the videos you posted.

[men]

Okay I'm not the kind of person who's stubborn ^^ I'll admit there are relaxing pieces sung by men and alone without a choir. I still however didn't hear anything that could make my heart tremble as much as the Quran does. It's maybe because I do understand Arabic which adds to the spiritual experience, I don't know. My intent of this thread was to know what people feel upon hearing the Quran even without understanding it 
Thanks for not turning this thread into a flaming war

[harsh]

{whoa! - I just noticed your bolded requirements... "man" only, single voice only... hmmm odd restrictions but okay... I have to think about that. Culturally that will be rare in the Western styles since they are more inclusive by nature... I do not think I can even search "male voice only" and expect the search engine to have a clue about what it is that I am after}

I do understand most of them were 'voice only'. But you see, I would be interested in hearing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSHUwpTezK0) being sung by a man [we all know women have a magical voice even when speaking naturally ). Or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HswNka-jXU8&feature=related) being sung by a single man himself, and not by a choir. The beauty of Quran is that it can be recited by a single man with a harsh voice and still sound solemn and relaxing. Maybe that's only my opinion

I'm not Catholic so not sure about this but I think this is usually part of traditional Catholic Mass. I came across this video in a quick search which has some Latin recitation. After flicking through it I found a part that starts around 12:50. The language is supposed to be Latin but the Man reciting seems to be French so it sounds... wrong.

Not to sound rude, but the man singing at 12:50 doesn't even come close to Quran or to the other videos posted here. You can say he was merely reading 

[man]

So... does the conversation so far seem educated enough for you ? Verisica?... or what?
I think it is a great topic you started here. But you have not replied.

I'm sorry I was very busy due to midterm exams, but now I finally got my vacation. Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate them.
Now Rudolph I may be wrong about the Quran being the only text that could be recited melodiously, but I have noticed that almost all the videos you posted were sung by a chorus, aided by music, or a woman repeating four syllables (similar to mantra). Just to be fair comparing anything with the Quran, I would like to hear a man reciting something alone, without a chorus or music (I hope I don't sound overly restrictive, but that's how the Quran goes), and see how that feels

Thanks

Thanks for your replies
Stookie: I agree issues like these are sometimes subjective, but you will find almost all Arabs who understand Arabic approve of the unique beautifulness of Quran recitation. In fact, it was narrated that when the Quran was first revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the unbelievers made sure their followers did not listen to it being recited lest their hearts would be affected and believe it is God's words. At that time Arabic poetry was at its peak, yet no one was able to produce anything similar to it. God even challenges people to write anything like it when he says in 2:23 [And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant (Prophet Muhammad), then produce a Sura (which means a chapter) like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true]. Unbelievers even called Prophet Muhammad a magician, a sorcerer, and a madman when they listened to it, all because they didn't want to admit it was from God.
I just wanted to comment on your statement when you said "There are no absolutes when it comes to man's creativity.." You may be right, but we have yet to find someone who could write a whole book of guidance using a language in its finest poetic style that permits the reader to recite it without music yet energize the heart with spirituality and relaxation

I have followed this website for quite a while and finally decided to register   My intent of this thread is not to force my beliefs upon anyone, but just to have some opinions I'd like to know what you think of Quran recitation as almost all of you here are spiritual. Here's a sample of a verse from Quran called Verse of Light being recited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaf2bPpXdJA

Another chapter being recited here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zbp-rpJKvE

Do you feel relaxed, stressed, or thoughtful hearing it? I believe (and I strongly do) that the Quran is the only text that could create this majestic, spiritual, melodious feeling without the aid of music, just by a human's voice.
Please no hateful replies. I'm looking for an educated conversation
Thanks