The Astral Pulse

I have followed this website for quite a while and finally decided to register  :-D 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

Indeed I have, its almost like it carries you away on a journey I guess, that's if you allow it though. It soothing and realaxing and awe inspiring.

Quote from: Verisica on March 15, 2012, 18:44:51
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.

I agree that it can be beautiful, but I wouldn't go as far and say "the only text" that it can happen with. There are no absolutes when it comes to man's creativity and everyone has a different opinion on what is beautiful and what they find relaxing or thoughtful. Whatever uplifts you, use it.

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 :)

Quote from: Verisica on March 15, 2012, 18:44:51
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.

Whaa?? Are you kidding? I mean... that was nice and all, but...

I agree with Stookie.

I much prefer Christian polyphony, Sequentia, etc. for sheer beauty to peaceful serenity...
I think it beats every other form of inspirational and majestic spiritual sound, hands down. No other form comes close.
From this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSHUwpTezK0
and this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Sj3blczB8&feature=related
to this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE   <-- must see!


And this has a similar sound to your piece, only much better;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HswNka-jXU8&feature=related

But to me, the most beautiful, most sublime choral voice sound ever is without doubt;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh6s71MicgY&feature=related
(breathtaking)

Of course it started by building on the beautiful foundation of Hebrew chant, with the Christian sound gaining a Greek & Roman overlay and the Muslim tradition built on those;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36_gFK3mHyc&feature=related


Here is an old Greek chant sung in what is termed the "Old Roman" style dated to about 100 years before Mohammed was born. It was popular all over the Mediterranean and the Islamic Quranic recitations clearly build on this style and method.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDJtBh3LGJg&feature=related

This one is from Christian folk artist and he really always gives me the ultimate goosebumps whenever I listen to him, especially this (master)piece of music, called 'Consecration', check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrA4f_9yq0U

:-)

Usually, of spiritual music (including recitations), I also love some of the (renovated, "neo") Pagan/Medieval and also some of the Christian medieval stuff. It should be based on folk or medieval though, and it always lifts me up. Folk is (for me) the 'real' Soul Music.

I also listen to Arabic-influenced folk tunes (called "World music" in Europe). I love the harmonies and instrumentation, but I do not know always if the lyrics are about spiritual things though.

Ok, guys, just another one, I am sure this won't be everyones cup of tea, but since it's spiritual too, here's 'Prayer' by Huun Hur Tu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuqiOMdoP2c

Whatever floats your boat use it, after all, we are in the situations and religions we are to better understand ourselves and the divine. I still believe anyone can make beautiful awe inspiring music as long as the person is attuned to the right "waves"
Whatever floats your boat use it.... One man's meat.....

Quote from: ZiggyMike on March 16, 2012, 20:28:41
Whatever floats your boat use it, after all, we are in the situations and religions we are to better understand ourselves and the divine. I still believe anyone can make beautiful awe inspiring music as long as the person is attuned to the right "waves"
Whatever floats your boat use it.... One man's meat.....

Some music floats the boat better than others in a semi-universal fashion.

When I read posts about problems with negs and dark, sinister environments while OBE, nightmares, etc.  I wonder what sort of music they listen to. What TV do they watch, or movies. People focus their Awareness on the Darkside and stuff their consciousness with negativity and then they wonder why they have bad dreams and dark OBEs.

About a year ago there was a discussion on negs and such and someone said "everyone has nightmares".
Not true.

Quite right, the kind of emotions you exude shows the kind of emotions you receive, like they say, garbage in garbage out, in the astral, I don't ever have problems negs or darkness. Once I was walking down an alley and noticed a neg I guess trying to attack me from behind, I just turned to t and said, you know you can't handle what will be the outcome when do that and walked away, it sulked and walked away. I guess what you expect from something becomes a reality. Especially in the astral! Can't wait for 5d!

Quote from: ZiggyMike on March 17, 2012, 15:49:54
Quite right, the kind of emotions you exude shows the kind of emotions you receive, like they say, garbage in garbage out, in the astral, I don't ever have problems negs or darkness.

Heh, "exude", what a great word.

My outer studies do color the entire inner realms that I explore to a large degree. When I was with a Rosicrucian group - during one exercise I came upon a creature straight out of the The Goetia: The Lesser Key of Solomon the King -- only different (it wasn't in there).

This thread helped me find some amazing music. Thanks guys.

Quote from: Verisica on March 15, 2012, 18:44:51
Please no hateful replies. I'm looking for an educated conversation :)

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.

Quote from: Rudolph on March 20, 2012, 22:59:32
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 :D

Thanks :)

Oh good, glad you're back.  :-)

Quotebut I have noticed that almost all the videos you posted were sung by a chorus, aided by music...

NOT true!!!

I think, on the contrary, nearly all of the examples I linked to were without musical accompaniment. Voice only. ??

In the case of the food court flashmob Halleluiah Chorus the organ was barely audible 90% of the time and is really superfluous (it could be left out completely with zero loss in the sound and inspiration).
The 4 syllable mantra was the Hebrew chant? that I gave merely as an example of the historical base that these ancient sounds grew from.

My point was in showing that the Christian Polyphonia is the hands down winner in voice only inspirational recitation.

The first example was plain chant, voice only and had no musical accompaniment.
(type "plain chant" in the search at Youtube and get tons more like it)

The second example was voice only had no musical accompaniment

The third was the Halleluiah Chorus with barely audible organ most of the time.

The fourth example of Old Roman chant was voice only.

The fifth example, Misereri Mei Deus was voice only
(as well as the single most beautiful and sublime music ever sung by humans;)

The sixth and last example was Greek chant in Old Roman style and was  voice only

{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}

Quote from: Verisica on March 22, 2012, 14:05:37
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 :D

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enWiFcsBqIE) 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. :P

Quote{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 :wink:). 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 :)

QuoteI'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  :|

Okay, your first post said only "just by a human's voice" and my suggestions met the criteria.

But single male voice only...

I had to think a minute but then the Irish came to mind;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyJVE4MzXbE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Tt9HgPXDo&feature=fvwrel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVwIZUSbKP4&feature=related


That was just a quick search. The land where a man often could only sing for his supper produced some masterpieces that easily stand toe to toe with Quranic recitation.

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  :lol:
Thanks for not turning this thread into a flaming war :)

Quote from: manwesulimo2004 on March 22, 2012, 18:06:24
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enWiFcsBqIE) 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. :P

Oh YEAH! That's the stuff...

Father Frenchy gargles his R's a little there (ok - maybe a LOT) but other than that his Latin pronunciation is Primo.

me rikey!

Pick it up again at 23 minutes in... awesome.

Thanks Manwesulimo. Good find.

Quote from: Verisica on March 22, 2012, 19:06:23I still however didn't hear anything that could make my heart tremble as much as the Quran does.

What it all boils down to is that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. To put it more simple: It's all a matter of taste. :wink: Some cultural pre-conditioning might play a role though, as always with what we are raised and what forms our enviroment in our formative years leaves its imprint somehow and also influences 'taste'.

I believe we should not do such thing as a 'beauty competition' between religions or whatever ideological-philosophical systems. We can find beauty in a lot of things, especially if we remember (next to the influence of sheer personal taste) the very beauty of diversity in expressional possiblities, be it in arts, music, architecture or any other cultural achievement. There is no 'master standard' to adhere to as creativity is boundless, so is beauty. If we apply certain categories of 'beautiness' to beautiful expression, and thereby actually falling prey to excessive "comparaddiction", then we already diminish it.

I think what the author meant was... How do you feel when you hear a quaran recitation? Is it as soothing for you as it was for me? For me it really was, I had this consciousness elevation and goose pimples when I heard it.

Quote from: ZiggyMike on March 23, 2012, 09:29:30
I think what the author meant was... How do you feel when you hear a quaran recitation? Is it as soothing for you as it was for me? For me it really was, I had this consciousness elevation and goose pimples when I heard it.

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.

QuoteSome cultural pre-conditioning might play a role though, as always with what we are raised and what forms our enviroment in our formative years leaves its imprint somehow and also influences 'taste'.
I believe we should not do such thing as a 'beauty competition' between religions or whatever ideological-philosophical systems.

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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 22, 2012, 18:16:30
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 :wink:). 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 :)
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  :|

It does not sound "rude" so much as it sounds ridiculously biased.
"Merely reading"?! gimmee a break!

It is an ancient ritual sung in an ancient language based on even more ancient tradition of worship sung in an even more ancient and holy language. It is an awesome sound that inspires millions. It is the solo male voice that you requested and it easily comes at least close to the Koran recitation examples you gave, if not surpassing it. I think it wayyy surpasses the koran reading, imho.

Also note that the old Greek and Roman chants usually begin with the solo male voice you require and that section has a very similar sound to the Koran recitation (because the latter is obviously based on those traditions).

It is not reasonable to heap praise on a rare style that is particular to one culture and eliminate other styles based on such a tightly defined and contrived criteria. 99.99% of the scriptural compositions and readings in other traditions are not naturally constrained in that way so it doesn't make sense to point out the singular qualities of a particular highly constrained style.
Especially when there are plenty of examples (albeit much shorter duration) of nearly identical sound in other traditions and scriptural sources.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteYes, "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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 14:31:14
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.

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.

QuoteI don't believe cultural pre-conditioning is required to live the spiritual feeling of the Quran.

No one said it did.

QuoteAnd 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.

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.

QuoteActually, 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:

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

QuoteNo one said it did.

I'm just stating my belief.

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 15:50:30
Did you miss my response where I said...

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)

Quote:I'm just stating my belief.

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).

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

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.

QuoteNo, 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.

Quotewell 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."

Quoteumm... 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 :)

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 18:57:13
I didn't get you. You were replying to the first post I posted.

That is an absurd claim to make. I was obviously replying to the text that was in a quote box immediately prior to my reply. You then tried to refer back to some non sequitur from earlier posts.  :|

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

Yes you did -- Your reply was completely irrelevant. Nothing in that quote states or claims what your irrelevant reply was addressing and refuting.

I am glad that you "agree that it suggests" because it clearly does. At least you are trying to be rational.

QuoteAnyways, 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 :)

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.
:-)

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

QuoteHeh, 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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 19:38:37
I won't reply on your first two statements, there's nothing to say.
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.

Sure it does.
(Volumes have also been written to discredit it)

But for some reason it does not quote this scholar;

In a 1999 Atlantic Monthly article, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:[2]
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. 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. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts


I am thinking you probably do not want to continue down this road....

:-)

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' :)

Verisica, have you ever seen a copy of any single version of the oldest known Koran in the original Arabic?

I am talking about the oldest known editions.

It would be written in the Arabic dialect of 700AD to 1000AD.

Most of it would be incomprehensible to you or any modern Arabic speaker unless you were an Ancient Arabic Scholar.

At best, it would read to you the way this following script reads to modern English speakers
Middle English example:

Ormulum, 12th century
Further information: Ormulum
This passage explains the background to the Nativity:

Forrþrihht anan se time comm
  þatt ure Drihhtin wollde
ben borenn i þiss middellærd
  forr all mannkinne nede
he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn
  all swillke summ he wollde
and whær he wollde borenn ben
  he chæs all att hiss wille.   

As soon as the time came
that our Lord wanted
to be born in this middle-earth
for the sake of all mankind,
at once he chose kinsmen for himself,
all just as he wanted,
and he decided that he would be born
exactly where he wished.   

(3494–501)[5]


Verisica... I suspect that I know wayyy more about all of this than you think I do.

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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 20:50:48
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.

That's not what I said. Quote me exactly and show where I said "the Quran in itself is nonsense". You won't do that because you can't do that because I never said that. You are being dishonest. {the quote that I quoted claims 20% is not translatable}

Typical obfuscation (to put it mildly).

I am not talking about silly "Tashkeel" here Verisica, I am talking about a completely different dialect. Not just "difficult to read" as in missing vowel sounds... but entirely different spelling of entirely different words so much so that it borders on a completely different language.

I am even more certain now. You have not seen a facsimile of one of the original and earliest known versions of the Koran. Admit it.

I spent 15 years working directly with devout Muslim coworkers who openly admitted that the earliest versions of the Koran were incomprehensible to modern Arabic Speakers. Their Arabic was not so good in any case as Urdu was their native tongue but the point remains the same.

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

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 21:18:01
You didn't say anything actually. I was talking about this part of your quote: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.

Right! exactly. "the Quran in itself is nonsense" is not part of anything I said or part of anything I quoted. Your accusation was completely false.

Yes, I see that you do not understand that the green quote I gave demonstrates how language changes over the passing centuries.

Even the Quraysh dialect of 700AD is incomprehensible to the closest Arabic dialect in modern times.

NOW? do you get it?

I did not ignore you. You asked me for an example that I cannot provide because this level of Koran study is not readily available on the internet. But I do understand basic Linguistics and 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.

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.

QuoteI 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?

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 21:57:02
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.
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?

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....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Such a claim is laughable.

NO WAY

You HAVE TO HAVE STUDIED ancient Arabic at least a little to make that claim.

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.

:wink:

QuoteWell, 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.

QuoteClassical 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.

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 22:22:05
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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic
Now I won't beg you to believe me that almost all Arabs today understand Classical Arabic.
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.

hahahahaha. Thank you!

Not only is that good logic but it is true! (on the colloquial level).

Easily 30% of Shakespeare is incomprehensible to the average modern English speaker. Maybe even more like 40%....
The average American only "listening" to a Shakespeare play by British actors will not be able to understand well over HALF of what is being 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.

Now as for the exact designation as "untranslatable" versus "incomprehensible" it gets a bit more complicated. In the time of Shakespeare we have a HUGE volume of comparative writing to work with as well as a continuous and uninterrupted stream or flow of prior written material and contemporary material and later material. So we can make very well educated translations.

That continuous volume of prior and following written material is NOT the case with 700AD Quraysh Arabic. Not even close. The comparison is not even close to valid.

And even Chaucer is 700 years more contemporary as the Arabic of 700AD.

700AD -- 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. Barely two words back to back that even remotely resemble modern English.

QuoteNow I won't beg you to believe me that almost all Arabs today understand Classical Arabic.

Good. Since there is no way I am going to buy that BS. NO WAY. Especially the illiterate sector.

And let me add, Verisica, that your English is superior to most English speakers I know including my own son with a college degree. :-P

Now here is a sample of Chaucer with the modernized English;
(Note again that Chaucer is about seven centuries more contemporary than 700AD)

Although Chaucer's language is much closer to modern English than the text of Beowulf, it differs enough that most publications modernise his idiom. Following is a sample from the prologue of "The Summoner's Tale" that compares Chaucer's text to a modern translation:

Original Text   Modern Translation

This frere bosteth that he knoweth helle,   This friar boasts that he knows hell,
And God it woot, that it is litel wonder;   And God knows that it is little wonder;
Freres and feendes been but lyte asonder.   Friars and fiends are seldom far apart.
For, pardee, ye han ofte tyme herd telle   For, by God, you have ofttimes heard tell
How that a frere ravyshed was to helle   How a friar was taken to hell
In spirit ones by a visioun;   In spirit, once by a vision;
And as an angel ladde hym up and doun,   And as an angel led him up and down,
To shewen hym the peynes that the were,   To show him the pains that were there,
In al the place saugh he nat a frere;   In all the place he saw not a friar;
Of oother folk he saugh ynowe in wo.   Of other folk he saw enough in woe.
Unto this angel spak the frere tho:   Unto this angel spoke the friar thus:
Now, sire, quod he, han freres swich a grace   "Now sir", said he, "Have friars such a grace
That noon of hem shal come to this place?   That none of them come to this place?"
Yis, quod this aungel, many a millioun!   "Yes", said the angel, "many a million!"
And unto sathanas he ladde hym doun.   And unto Satan the angel led him down.
--And now hath sathanas,--seith he,--a tayl   "And now Satan has", he said, "a tail,
Brodder than of a carryk is the sayl.   Broader than a galleon's sail.
Hold up thy tayl, thou sathanas!--quod he;   Hold up your tail, Satan!" said he.
--shewe forth thyn ers, and lat the frere se   "Show forth your arse, and let the friar see
Where is the nest of freres in this place!--   Where the nest of friars is in this place!"
And er that half a furlong wey of space,   And before half a furlong of space,
Right so as bees out swarmen from an hyve,   Just as bees swarm out from a hive,
Out of the develes ers ther gonne dryve   Out of the devil's arse there were driven
Twenty thousand freres on a route,   Twenty thousand friars on a rout,
And thurghout helle swarmed al aboute,   And throughout hell swarmed all about,
And comen agayn as faste as they may gon,   And came again as fast as they could go,
And in his ers they crepten everychon.   And every one crept into his arse.
He clapte his tayl agayn and lay ful stille.   He shut his tail again and lay very still.[20]

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:

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteTHAT 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

QuoteYou 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. 

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 23:34:41
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: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.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!

Yes, I can. I just did and it was valid in every way that I applied it.
I have checked and I am told that 8th century Arabic has morphed in similar fashion... just like every other spoken language. Are you trying to tell me that Arabic, unlike every other spoken language does not morph over time?

QuoteI 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.

I get this line from the Koranic apologists every time. It is a de facto admission of failure on the part of those who pretend to have a valid argument for the outrageous claims made by Muslim faithful. I speak honestly and truthfully and those who are offended by my challenges wax dishonest in their arguments and replies.

It happens every time.

QuoteYou're even contradicting yourself by once saying there is no way "to realistically claim that 80%-90% of it is understandable...." then saying

I did NOT contradict myself. Quote me exactly and show how that is so. But you won't. Because you can't. Because I didn't.
Yet another false accusation from Verisica.
(I suggest that you stop doing that... for a variety of good reasons)

And just FYI - do not accuse an elder of being immature. You probably lack the experience to make such an evaluation. (and that is so immature).  :lol:

QuoteIf 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.

You said it. Not me. It was your own words and I quoted you exactly.

QuoteIf 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.

More totally irrelevant commentary. I have said NOTHING about the inimitability of the Koran.

Quote from: Verisica on March 23, 2012, 23:34:41
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.

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).

QuoteFor 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: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.This is a fatal mistake.

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.

QuoteIf 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.

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!
?

QuoteI 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:

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteHow 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.

Quote from: Verisica on March 24, 2012, 09:28:25
You did compare them. For example when you said:You were comparing Old English to Classical Arabic and saying that because the Classical is older, is should be more incomprehensible, which is wrong.

You reply again to something I did not say. I did not deny making a 'comparison'. I said that I did not base any 'facts' on the comparison. Again, the older the language the less comprehensible it becomes in general. I did not state that categorically because some languages morph more slowly than others. English is a rapidly morphing language due to the 1066 conquest. In my communications with other Muslims it is only the Arabic speaking Muslim faithful who are in denial about this. Non Muslim scholars speak openly of it and just as with the Greek Bible scholars, one must know the faith of the scholar and take his translation in that light. The "Jesus Papers" controversy and other Bible seminars made this much readily apparent. [the Hebrew OT word "maiden" was translated by Christian scholars as "virgin" and they justified it with "well, we know that's what he meant" but after recent seminars the new translations are now using the correct words. Even when words and grammar are not well understood, it is possible to make a 'rough translation' in a pinch - it happens a lot].

QuoteWe 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.

You are reading more into it than is really there (you do that a lot). There is no 'logic' in Puir's observation. Just simple math. If one in five passages is not translatable that is a valid observation. It is not just that he doesn't know the meaning of a word while others do. He is saying NO ONE knows what the word means. And I suspect he is saying there is a grammatical usage or conjugation that makes no sense... not just to him but to ANYONE. A professional linguistic scholar does not use the term "untranslatable" lightly.

QuoteThis is so biased. You're only taking my own evaluation and backing it up with the quote?

No. It is not biased at all. I am taking your own observation at face value and noting that it is consistent with Puir's evaluation. You say you understand 80%, so that matches Puir's every fifth sentence claim. I am not using either to back the other up. They are simply standalone observations that I note as being consistent.

QuoteThe 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.

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.

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

QuoteI need examples from the Quran backing up your claim. If you don't provide any then I see no point in continuing.

If I can find it I will bring it to the discussion.

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.

QuoteNo. 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.

QuoteHow 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. 

Quote from: Verisica on March 24, 2012, 11:55:46
All what you have written in your post is merely your view based on a false understanding of the quote.

Of course what I write is my view. But nothing you've said demonstrates a False understanding on my part.

QuoteThe 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.

This is the trump card and last refuge of the faithful when trying to dig their heels in and refuse to simply face reality.
By your own admission you estimate that you can understand 80% and the professional Arabic scholar observes similarly. I rest my case. :wink:

QuoteFalse. 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.

NOT false. Sayin it don't make it so. Of course an Arabic Teacher will say that (if he is Muslim). That is what he gets paid to say. He would likely lose his job if he didn't say that. First you say it is "difficult" then you contradict yourself by saying any Arabic teacher can "easily" translate it... then you say it is "difficult" again.  :|

QuoteIt'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.

That made no sense at all.

QuoteAgain, 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. 

"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.

My valid points stand.
Both your own assesment and that of Puir's agree.

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

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

Again an unsupported claim.

Quote"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.

QuoteMy valid points stand.

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

QuoteBoth 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.

QuoteThis 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]:

Quotesimply doesn't make sense

Quoteis just incomprehensible

Quoteit can't even be understood in Arabic

Quoteit'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'.

lobster

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

Quote from: Verisica on March 24, 2012, 12:40:46
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.

QuoteAgain an unsupported claim.

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

QuoteI 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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteAgain, 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.

QuoteTo 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.

QuoteWell, 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.

QuoteBut 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.

QuoteYes, 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.

QuoteI 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. 

QuoteBoth 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.

QuoteYou 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?

Quote from: Verisica on March 24, 2012, 18:59:38
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).

QuoteBy 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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteIf 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.
:wink:

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.  :)

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?

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.

QuoteWhy 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.

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.

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

false & false

QuoteOn 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.

Quotefalse & 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.

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