Have you heard Quran recitation?

[Verisica]

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.

[Rudolph]

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)

: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).

I 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.

[Verisica]

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

[Rudolph]

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. 

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."
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.

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

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.

[Verisica]

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.

[Rudolph]

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....

[Verisica]

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'

[Rudolph]

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.

[Verisica]

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.

[Rudolph]

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.

[Verisica]

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.

[Rudolph]

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.

[Verisica]

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?

[Rudolph]

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....



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.

[Verisica]

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.

[Rudolph]

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.

Now 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.

[Rudolph]

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

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]

[Verisica]

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. 

[Rudolph]

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?

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.

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.

You'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). 

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.

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

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.

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

[Rudolph]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!
?

[Verisica]

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.

[Rudolph]

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].

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.

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.

This 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.

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.

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... !!  ahhh, people of Faith... gotta love 'em....

I 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.

[Verisica]

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. 

[Rudolph]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

That made no sense at all.

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. 

"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.

[Verisica]

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'.