5 ms·

> There is precious little evidence the quran as a book even existed before the 19th century... Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The ac

by azth 13y ago

> There is precious little evidence the quran as a book even existed before the 19th century... Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. > The older qurans aren't even in Arabic, they're kufic (which is a dialect of Arameic, and "just happens" to be the dialect a significant part of the bible is written in. Again, citation needed. I speak, read, and write Arabic fluently, and this is the first time I ever hear such claim. Quran 12:2 and 39:28 are enough to disprove that. Not to mention all the manuscripts.

waps 13y ago
> Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. My comment was written today, yet talks about things older than 2 centuries. How exactly does mentioning historical events prove the age (aside from maximum age ?). > Again, citation needed. I speak, read, and write Arabic fluently, and this is the first time I ever hear such claim. Quran 12:2 and 39:28 are enough to disprove that. Not to mention all the manuscripts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic is a good basic introduction. Please note that obviously the quran itself is not a valid source on the origin of the quran, for obvious reasons. Your arguments are about as solid as claiming Star Wars was written in a galaxy far, far away.
- azth 13y ago
  You stated that Kufic is a dialect of Aramaic, which is completely false. Kufic is a script used to write Arabic, which people still write in to this day for your information. The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. It would not be possible to achieve the same effect by translating from one language (Aramaic) to another (Arabic) as you are claiming. If you were to listen to recitation of the Quran that might deliver a clearer picture, even if you do not have a command over the language. I'm talking about how certain Ayat ("verses") sound (phonetically) -- this effect is hard to preserve across languages for a small body of text, let alone an entire book. (Example: http://tanzil.net/#100:1 http://tanzil.net/#100:1)
  - waps 13y ago
    > The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. That's what muslims claim. Actually reading the thing does not at all give that impression. It truly is a massive effort, reading it. I admire anyone who's gotten through it because it's so incredibly obtuse and confusing (yes I know about the chapter and sentence ordering, what moron came up with that ?). Except of course, if you assume any word you don't immediately recognize is greek it becomes a lot easier. Of course then you start saying "wait ... this translation is wrong". Try it. When it comes to recitation, this is actually a tradition of the ancient world, and all texts from those eras were written like that, always. You can recite rhythmically pretty much any ancient text (meaning from the ancient era : 1000 BC to 500 AD or so, and then the renaissance texts of course). You should listen to a few Roman recitations : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ In other words, I see your recitation as further proof that the quran is just a text that fits perfectly within it's timeframe, which is of course a very strong argument against that it is anything special. The bible is more interesting, as it has pieces from different eras that follow different styles, but when God speaks (not often, grant you) there is never any local style applied. Stories are styled, including in verses to enable recitation. As for the language of the Quran, have you ever googled "Christopher Luxenberg" ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the... Here's his central argument : rewrite the quran in arameic(/greek), letter-by-letter and it makes sense, both in a historical context, the grammar is suddenly correct (no longer "intricate"), and it is obviously based on the New Testament. Whereas in arabic it cannot be read by itself, it just does not make sense. As you say "The way the Quran uses language is very intricate". It's not intricate, however, it's wrong. Oh and there is even an Arameic word for "Songbook" (meaning an extract of the New Testament, with most text put into verses to be sung, as you can find today in every church on the planet). Know what that word is ? "Koran" ... This word is at least 300 years older than islam ... Coincidence ? Not really. Keep in mind that Arabic is not in fact that far removed from Greek, because it is based on Hebrew, a late dialect of Hebrew was heavily influenced by Greek. It is like Doric text. Doric text will sort-of make sense to an English reader, he will probably think it's ancient English. But of course it's not. But only an Doric speaker will know that. The same is true for the quran. It is incredibly obtuse language in arabic, but it's perfectly clear and normal language in Arameic. Example: GIN I was God, sitting up there abeen, Weariet nae doot noo an my darg was deen, Deaved wih the harps an hymns oonending ringing, Tired of the flocking angels hairse wih singing, (famous poem) Looks like English, doesn't it ? Looks "intricate", perhaps ? But you see wrong grammar (e.g. the form of "to be" in "weariet nae doot noo" (it translates to 'there was no doubt')), you see recognizable, but misspelled words. But they're not wrong. It's simply a different language.

by azth 13y ago

waps 13y ago

> Citation needed. I take it you have not read the Quran. The accounts of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, as well as others are sufficient to disprove this claim. My comment was written today, yet talks about things older than 2 centuries. How exactly does mentioning historical events prove the age (aside from maximum age ?). > Again, citation needed. I speak, read, and write Arabic fluently, and this is the first time I ever hear such claim. Quran 12:2 and 39:28 are enough to disprove that. Not to mention all the manuscripts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufic is a good basic introduction. Please note that obviously the quran itself is not a valid source on the origin of the quran, for obvious reasons. Your arguments are about as solid as claiming Star Wars was written in a galaxy far, far away.

azth 13y ago
You stated that Kufic is a dialect of Aramaic, which is completely false. Kufic is a script used to write Arabic, which people still write in to this day for your information. The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. It would not be possible to achieve the same effect by translating from one language (Aramaic) to another (Arabic) as you are claiming. If you were to listen to recitation of the Quran that might deliver a clearer picture, even if you do not have a command over the language. I'm talking about how certain Ayat ("verses") sound (phonetically) -- this effect is hard to preserve across languages for a small body of text, let alone an entire book. (Example: http://tanzil.net/#100:1 http://tanzil.net/#100:1)
- waps 13y ago
  > The way the Quran uses language is very intricate. That's what muslims claim. Actually reading the thing does not at all give that impression. It truly is a massive effort, reading it. I admire anyone who's gotten through it because it's so incredibly obtuse and confusing (yes I know about the chapter and sentence ordering, what moron came up with that ?). Except of course, if you assume any word you don't immediately recognize is greek it becomes a lot easier. Of course then you start saying "wait ... this translation is wrong". Try it. When it comes to recitation, this is actually a tradition of the ancient world, and all texts from those eras were written like that, always. You can recite rhythmically pretty much any ancient text (meaning from the ancient era : 1000 BC to 500 AD or so, and then the renaissance texts of course). You should listen to a few Roman recitations : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGH8QKeHnpQ In other words, I see your recitation as further proof that the quran is just a text that fits perfectly within it's timeframe, which is of course a very strong argument against that it is anything special. The bible is more interesting, as it has pieces from different eras that follow different styles, but when God speaks (not often, grant you) there is never any local style applied. Stories are styled, including in verses to enable recitation. As for the language of the Quran, have you ever googled "Christopher Luxenberg" ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the... Here's his central argument : rewrite the quran in arameic(/greek), letter-by-letter and it makes sense, both in a historical context, the grammar is suddenly correct (no longer "intricate"), and it is obviously based on the New Testament. Whereas in arabic it cannot be read by itself, it just does not make sense. As you say "The way the Quran uses language is very intricate". It's not intricate, however, it's wrong. Oh and there is even an Arameic word for "Songbook" (meaning an extract of the New Testament, with most text put into verses to be sung, as you can find today in every church on the planet). Know what that word is ? "Koran" ... This word is at least 300 years older than islam ... Coincidence ? Not really. Keep in mind that Arabic is not in fact that far removed from Greek, because it is based on Hebrew, a late dialect of Hebrew was heavily influenced by Greek. It is like Doric text. Doric text will sort-of make sense to an English reader, he will probably think it's ancient English. But of course it's not. But only an Doric speaker will know that. The same is true for the quran. It is incredibly obtuse language in arabic, but it's perfectly clear and normal language in Arameic. Example: GIN I was God, sitting up there abeen, Weariet nae doot noo an my darg was deen, Deaved wih the harps an hymns oonending ringing, Tired of the flocking angels hairse wih singing, (famous poem) Looks like English, doesn't it ? Looks "intricate", perhaps ? But you see wrong grammar (e.g. the form of "to be" in "weariet nae doot noo" (it translates to 'there was no doubt')), you see recognizable, but misspelled words. But they're not wrong. It's simply a different language.