The Qur'an as Literature

[AwayAloneAlast]

I have yet to read it, but I was wondering if anyone on here has ever read the Qur'an. If so, I was hoping somebody could tell me how they feel it rates as literature, i.e. in comparison to the Bible. I'm not interesting in converting to either religion, and I don't want to start a religious debate, I am just curious as to what people think of the Qur'an :)

[PeterL]

Parts of the Koran are pretty good, but there are major problems with it, because it was originally written in Aramaic, and the Aramaic was later to be Arabic. For that reason, some things just aren't right, because some words in one mean something completely different in the other.

[mercy_mankind]

I have yet to read it, but I was wondering if anyone on here has ever read the Qur'an. If so, I was hoping somebody could tell me how they feel it rates as literature, i.e. in comparison to the Bible. I'm not interesting in converting to either religion, and I don't want to start a religious debate, I am just curious as to what people think of the Qur'an :)

I'm a Muslim , so i have read Quran more than several times ,and i advice you to read it and to know what is The Holy Quran , i'm not telling you to be converted , just read Quran and follow the right path.about your question , What people think of the holy Quran?
I believe in Quran and in every word of it , and I believe in its Miracles .
First of all i've to explain what does the word Quran mean??
The word ‘Quran’ means ‘recitation’, and the very first verse of the Quran revealed by the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) , was a command to recite as in the verse (which means): ‘Read (or recite)! In the name of your Lord…’ [Quran 96:1]

2-The Quran is the most-read book in the world. Revealed by Allah Almighty to Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), in the 7th century CE, and revered by Muslims as being Allah’s Final Scripture and Testament, its words have been lovingly recited, memorized and implemented by Muslims of every nationality ever since. The faithful are inspired, consoled and often moved to tears by its eloquence and poetic imagery, especially when recited aloud. And yet, the Quran is unique in being the only Scripture that is free of scientific inaccuracies, whose historical authenticity can be verified, and whose text has been so carefully preserved that just one authorized version (in Arabic) exists.

3-The Quran is also the only holy book that can be memorized in its entirety by people of all ages and intellectual abilities – including non-Arabic speakers – which Muslims consider to be one of its miracles.

4-One of the most remarkable things about the Quran is that it contains many verses, which accurately describe natural phenomena in various fields such as embryology, meteorology, astronomy, geology and oceanography.For instance:
A-“And of everything We have created pairs that you may take heed.” [Quran 51: 49]
When this verse was revealed, the general concept was that male and female pairs existed only among human beings and animals or in some vegetation. However, with the advancement of science, the Quranic reality is becoming manifest that male and female pairs exist in everything. In some instances they are termed as male and female, and elsewhere as positive and negative, as electron and proton, or neutron and positron. In another verse, the Quran has also clarified that the occurrence in pairs in many other things is still unknown to people.
and it is not the only scientific miracle,there are a great number of them.

5- Quran&History:

The Quran has stated that as (Pharaoh) was drowning in the sea he made a confession of faith orally, just to save his life. In response, Allah Said (what means):

“What! Now? And indeed before this you did rebel and were of the corrupt. So this day We shall rescue you with your body that you may be a sign to those who come after you.” [Quran 10: 91-92]

At the time of revelation of this verse, and even centuries afterwards, nobody knew that the body of Pharaoh had been preserved, but it has been discovered only recently and is preserved in a museum at Cairo.
by the way I'm Egyptian and here is an invitation to see the body of Pharaoh yourself. :)
Finally , Thank you.

[Shield&Sword]

The aramic language derived from arabic not the opposite.
The arabic language existed before Abraham peace be upon him, thats why there are 2 prophets before Abraham are considered arabs.
The now adays formal arabic language appeared first at time of Ismael son of Abraham peace be upon him, thats why Ismael is called father of arabs.
The hebrew and aramic language derived from Arabic, Jesus pbuh who is considered hebrew talked aramic, the aramic language disappeared and the hebrew remained.
So its not right to say that Koran was aramic and then was translated to arabic, the koran was written from the very beggining with arabic, and its the same since time of prophet Mouhammad pbuh.
Nowadays as hebrew language are so weak, the jews use the arabic language in order to understand their own language, and to understand better the hebrew language of the Torah, because the written language of Torah is not the same one that jews use in Israel, its more difficult.

[PeterL]

The aramic language derived from arabic not the opposite.
The arabic language existed before Abraham peace be upon him, thats why there are 2 prophets before Abraham are considered arabs.
The now adays formal arabic language appeared first at time of Ismael son of Abraham peace be upon him, thats why Ismael is called father of arabs.
The hebrew and aramic language derived from Arabic, Jesus pbuh who is considered hebrew talked aramic, the aramic language disappeared and the hebrew remained.
So its not right to say that Koran was aramic and then was translated to arabic, the koran was written from the very beggining with arabic, and its the same since time of prophet Mouhammad pbuh.

Yes, I know all about that, and they all derived from Amharic. There was no written Arabic language until well after the Koran was composed and written. It was written in Aramaic not in Arabic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_Of_The_Koran

[Shield&Sword]

There was a written arabic, your statment has no evidence. The arabic Quran since the time of the 4th kalifah is located in Turkey.
The aramic language vanished little after Jesus pbuh, the aramic language existed only in palastine while the arabic language from which derived aramic and hebrew is spoken in the the Suadia arabia, saying that the Quran was written in aramic is showing that you dont have a background about the semitic language.
The written arabic existed before islam, but most was memorized in the memory. Thats why between the companions there were some of them who were called Katabat Alwahy mean the writers of the scripture, they are the persons who wrote the Holy Quran. In the arabic world there was no aramic language and they didnt even spoke or wrote it.
I suggest that you search on net and you will find alot.

[PeterL]

There was a written arabic, your statment has no evidence. The arabic Quran since the time of the 4th kalifah is located in Turkey.
The aramic language vanished little after Jesus pbuh, the aramic language existed only in palastine while the arabic language from which derived aramic and hebrew is spoken in the the Suadia arabia, saying that the Quran was written in aramic is showing that you dont have a background about the semitic language.
The written arabic existed before islam, but most was memorized in the memory. Thats why between the companions there were some of them who were called Katabat Alwahy mean the writers of the scripture, they are the persons who wrote the Holy Quran. In the arabic world there was no aramic language and they didnt even spoke or wrote it.
I suggest that you search on net and you will find alot.

There were several versions of written Arabic, but the Koran was not written in any of those. I suggest that you do some research; you probably will learn a lot. Aramaic was the most common Semitic language,until the Arabs conquered the Near and Middle East and forced their language on the people.

Although Wikipedia can be unreliable; it is a good source to start with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic
Since a variety od Semitic languages were spoken in the same areas, and there were several overlapping written Semitic languages, it is difficult to be sure which was being used by whom.

[Shield&Sword]

When the arabs conquered middle east?
can you give the year please.

[PeterL]

When the arabs conquered middle east?
can you give the year please.

Between 632 CE and about 700CE

[Shield&Sword]

Mouhammad pbuh was born 571, and his message started nearly in 611, and died in 634. You can exclude the date 632 because at time of Mouhammad pbuh the arabs didnt conquer any land out of the arabic peninsula, for 2 years after the death of Prophet pbuh the muslims didnt conquer any land out of the arabic peninsula because its known that some arabic tribes tried to destroy islam, in this period (the period of Abu Bakr) the Quran was gathered in on book and it was called the Quran (or Mishaf) of Hafsa (Hafsa is the name of the wife of prophet Mouhammad, and it was called Quran of Hafsa because Abu Bakr gave it the quran to preserve it, and all muslims knew, and its written in history). Muslims conquered middle east at the time of the second Kalifa Omar Ibn Alkhattab and the Quran was already written (Quran was written at time of prophet pbuh, and its known that there were companions named atabat Alwahy, mean the revelation writers, at time of Abo Bakr it was gathered).
At the time of the 3rd kalifa named Othman, the Quran of hafsa were copied into 4 copies by companions of prophet pbuh who also memorize holy Quran in their memory.
So saying that Holy Quran was written in aramic is a poor saying, and the book that you used to show this to me canceled all the historical facts and, the book, was based on comparing 2 languages. This fact shows that the writer wrote his book from a christian background, he was trying to show that Holy Quran was copied from christian scriptures and such writer cant be trusted.
Any linguistic researcher who has a minimal knowledge about the arabic language know that this language was a written and "so" preserved language through history since the old times (before islam) until nowadays.
And any researcher in the islamic culture know that messages of prophet Mouhammad pbuh to the kings of that time are still preserved, among them the message to the roman king who controlled the middle east at that time. Here are pictures of manuscripts from the site of minister of islamic affairs of Saudi Arabia:
Message to Negashi king of Egypt:
http://sirah.al-islam.com/map-pic.asp?f=pica1
http://sirah.al-islam.com/image/aathar/athr01.gif
Message to King of Behrain:
http://sirah.al-islam.com/map-pic.asp?f=pica2
http://sirah.al-islam.com/image/aathar/athr02.gif
Message to King of Romans:
http://sirah.al-islam.com/map-pic.asp?f=pica3
http://sirah.al-islam.com/image/aathar/athr03.gif
http://sirah.al-islam.com/map-pic.asp?f=pica4
http://sirah.al-islam.com/image/aathar/athr04.gif
Message to King of Abyssinia:
http://sirah.al-islam.com/map-pic.asp?f=pica4
They are all pure arabic, one letter of aramic does not exist.

All these messages were written at time of prophet Mouhammad pbuh a lot before any contact between arabs and middle east and the conquer.
Arabs were known that they are so proud of their own language, and it can be seen in their poems, they were thinking that they are superior than the Romans and all other nations before islam, so saying that they didnt have any written language is so poor and lack of evidence, beside all that, the arabic lanuguage is much sophisticated than the Aramic and hebrew language and it contain letters that does not exist in any other language.

The last issue is the fact that in order to invent new letters need alot of time, not easy to do such thing, but we find alot of manuscripts written in pure arabic letters a little after the conquest of the middle east by muslims, and in same time we find no ONE manuscript that prove the claims of Cristoph (the writer of the book that claim that arabic language were written first by aramic letters). Reading the pathetic writer above We arrive to conclusion that arabs wrote for the first time in aramic letters, and then in short period and a magical way the aramic letters were canceled and the arabic language existed at once from no where, and the aramic manuscripts were all burned, and the proof is : some words in arabic are simile to aramic words.
doesnt seem pathetic a little bit (or so much) way to approve something that the writer couldnt do by searching in the verses of th Holy Quran?

[PeterL]

Mouhammad pbuh was born 571, and his message started nearly in 611, and died in 634. You can exclude the date 632 because at time of Mouhammad pbuh the arabs didnt conquer any land out of the arabic peninsula, for 2 years after the death of Prophet pbuh the muslims didnt conquer any land out of the arabic peninsula because its known that some arabic tribes tried to destroy islam, in this period (the period of Abu Bakr) the Quran was gathered in on book and it was called the Quran (or Mishaf) of Hafsa (Hafsa is the name of the wife of prophet Mouhammad, and it was called Quran of Hafsa because Abu Bakr gave it the quran to preserve it, and all muslims knew, and its written in history). Muslims conquered middle east at the time of the second Kalifa Omar Ibn Alkhattab and the Quran was already written (Quran was written at time of prophet pbuh, and its known that there were companions named atabat Alwahy, mean the revelation writers, at time of Abo Bakr it was gathered).
At the time of the 3rd kalifa named Othman, the Quran of hafsa were copied into 4 copies by companions of prophet pbuh who also memorize holy Quran in their memory.
So saying that Holy Quran was written in aramic is a poor saying, and the book that you used to show this to me canceled all the historical facts and, the book, was based on comparing 2 languages. This fact shows that the writer wrote his book from a christian background, he was trying to show that Holy Quran was copied from christian scriptures and such writer cant be trusted.

That history of the Koran is essentially true. It was assembled from memories and notes from several companions. It was initially written in Aramaic, because that was the written language that was in use where it was written down.



Any linguistic researcher who has a minimal knowledge about the arabic language know that this language was a written and "so" preserved language through history since the old times (before islam) until nowadays.

The Arabic language is quite ancient, but there was o written Arabic language, per se, until after the time of Mohammed. I don't think that anyone has claimed that Mohammed spoke the words that became the Koran in any language other than Arabic, but it was not written down in that language.


And any researcher in the islamic culture know that messages of prophet Mouhammad pbuh to the kings of that time are still preserved, among them the message to the roman king who controlled the middle east at that time. Here are pictures of manuscripts from the site of minister of islamic affairs of Saudi Arabia:


All these messages were written at time of prophet Mouhammad pbuh a lot before any contact between arabs and middle east and the conquer.
Arabs were known that they are so proud of their own language, and it can be seen in their poems, they were thinking that they are superior than the Romans and all other nations before islam, so saying that they didnt have any written language is so poor and lack of evidence, beside all that, the arabic lanuguage is much sophisticated than the Aramic and hebrew language and it contain letters that does not exist in any other language.

I can't read Arabic, so looking at the letters tells me nothing, but how can you be certain that they were written in Arabic, rather than in Aramic? The two languages are very closely related, and many words are identical in both. There was a great deal of association between Arabs and other people in the Near East. Mohammed was a trader, and he spent time in Mesopotamia and in Palestine. It is very likely that he could speak Aramaic.



The last issue is the fact that in order to invent new letters need alot of time, not easy to do such thing, but we find alot of manuscripts written in pure arabic letters a little after the conquest of the middle east by muslims, and in same time we find no ONE manuscript that prove the claims of Cristoph (the writer of the book that claim that arabic language were written first by aramic letters). Reading the pathetic writer above We arrive to conclusion that arabs wrote for the first time in aramic letters, and then in short period and a magical way the aramic letters were canceled and the arabic language existed at once from no where, and the aramic manuscripts were all burned, and the proof is : some words in arabic are simile to aramic words.
doesnt seem pathetic a little bit (or so much) way to approve something that the writer couldnt do by searching in the verses of th Holy Quran?

Yes there were many things written in Arabic after the conquest of the Near East by the Arabs; although there are only five examples of written Arabic from before Mohammed's time. It didn't take much trouble to provide Arabic with a written language, because closely related languages already had written languages, so minor adjustments were made to those written languages to accomodate differences.

[Shield&Sword]

The written aramic language is not similar to the arabic language, and i dont think you are in the position to claim that. You can search on net and find what i mean. Scuse me for that but i noticed that you claim things without any proof.
You said that no one claimed that the Quran is the words of Mouhammad, and here we find another claim, you simply denied historical facts without any proof and just like that, while all muslims and western researchers dont disagree on the fact that the Holy Quran is the word of Mouhammad, i noticed that you took the same way that Cristoph used in his book which is denying all facts and choose what we like,thats why his book (same you words) has no significant meanings.
When i showed you the images from an authentic resource you said that you dont read arabic, and then you said that its similar to aramic, and then you jumped to say that there in no one who claimed that the holy Quran is the same that prophet Mouhammad pbuh pronounced. You couldnt handle such strong evidence didnt you? only jumping from claim to another without any proof in order to prove something you cant.
These letters can be read by a normal arabic, even if he find difficulty, and can be read easily by arabic researchers who dont know anything about aramic.
And finally i say that west stand without words in front the fact that holy Quran was preserved through years since it was revealed for the first time until nowadays, in front the fact that the same Holy Quran that all muslims got is the same Holy Quran since time of Othman that is located in Istanbul, in front the fact that people who memorize the holy Quran can give the chain of names of persons who delivered the holy Quran to them since the prophet Mouhammad pbuh no word more no word less.

As i see you are discussing not to understand but to spread something you are not ready to change even if its not right, your way in word and claims without proofs show that, so i dont think we will arrive to a result.
My advice is to read more books and try to have more info, and not just to read for one writer.

[PeterL]

The written aramic language is not similar to the arabic language, and i dont think you are in the position to claim that.

That may be true. I don't know anything about "aramic". I have mentioned the Aramaic language. You keep bringing up aramic.


You said that no one claimed that the Quran is the words of Mouhammad,

False, I have not claimed that.



and here we find another claim, you simply denied historical facts without any proof and just like that,

That also is false.


while all muslims and western researchers dont disagree on the fact that the H\oly Quran is the word of Mouhammad, i noticed that you took the same way that Cristoph used in his book which is denying all facts and choose what we like,thats why his book (same you words) has no significant meanings.

I don't know what you mean. I have not denied that the Koran was from the words of Mohammed.


When i showed you the images from an authentic resource you said that you dont read arabic, and then you said that its similar to aramic, and then you jumped to say that there in no one who claimed that the holy Quran is the same that prophet Mouhammad pbuh pronounced. You couldnt handle such strong evidence didnt you? only jumping from claim to another without any proof in order to prove something you cant.

If you read that, then you comprehension of English is very poor. I have never said that "its similar to aramic". Quite honestly, I don't know what "aramic" is.



These letters can be read by a normal arabic, even if he find difficulty, and can be read easily by arabic researchers who dont know anything about aramic.

Aramaic, Syriac, and some other Semitic languages are very similar to Arabic. It is not surprising that someone who was literate in one of those languages could read the others, but the languages are not identical, so a word that means one thing in one language might mean something else in another language.



And finally i say that west stand without words in front the fact that holy Quran was preserved through years since it was revealed for the first time until nowadays, in front the fact that the same Holy Quran that all muslims got is the same Holy Quran since time of Othman that is located in Istanbul, in front the fact that people who memorize the holy Quran can give the chain of names of persons who delivered the holy Quran to them since the prophet Mouhammad pbuh no word more no word less.

The Koran was not put together in its present form during the life of the Prophet. Mohammed spoke to his companions, and it was from their notes and memories that the Koran was written.


As i see you are discussing not to understand but to spread something you are not ready to change even if its not right, your way in word and claims without proofs show that, so i dont think we will arrive to a result.
My advice is to read more books and try to have more info, and not just to read for one writer.

I see it, you are repeating what you have been told, rather than investigating the matter. My advice is that you learn more about the history of languages and the history of Mohammed and the Koran.

This discussion is getting nowhere.
May the peace of the god be with you.

[mercy_mankind]

Yes, I know all about that,


Ah, it is so clear that you know everything!!
And you don't even want to do a good research .


the Semitic language family includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Maltese, Amharic, Tigrinya, Tigre, Gurage, Geez, Syrica, Akkadian, Phonoecian, Punic, Ugaritic, Nabatean, Amorite and Moabite. While a majority of these are now considered "dead" languages, either entirely obsolete or used only in religious practice, Arabic has flourished. The reason for this is inextricably linked with the rise of Islam and, more specifically, Islam’s holy book, the Qur’an.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ


PeterL;
That history of the Koran is essentially true. It was assembled from memories and notes from several companions. It was initially written in Aramaic, because that was the written language that was in use where it was written down.


The structure of the Arabic language is well-suited to harmonious word-patterns, with elaborate rhymes and rhythms. The earliest known literature emerged in northern Arabia around 500 AD and took the form of poetry which was recited aloud, memorised and handed down from one generation to another. It began to be written down towards the end of the seventh century. The most celebrated poems of the pre-Islamic period were known as the mu'allaqat ("the suspended"), reputedly because they were considered sufficiently outstanding to be hung on the walls of the ka'ba in Makkah.


Muslims regard the Quran as untranslatable; the language in which it was revealed - Arabic - is inseparable from its message and Muslims everywhere, no matter what their native tongue, must learn Arabic to read the Sacred Book and to perform their worship. The Quran of course is available in many languages, but these versions are regarded as interpretations rather than translations - partly because the Arabic language, extraordinarily concise and allusive, is impossible to translate in a mechanical, word-for-word way. The inimitability of the Quran has crystallized in the Muslim view of i'jaz or "impossibility," which holds that the style of the Quran, being divine, cannot be imitated: any attempt to do so is doomed to failure.


as you can see ,you will realize that there were a written poems (of the pre-Islamic period ) with ARABIC .So how Quran written in Aramaic, and there were poems pre-Islam already written in Arabic?!
and also the Messages written in Arabic.
By the way it is not our problem because you can not understand what is written in these messages.Since you are talking as if you are so sure of your words as you have a clear evidence to prove your claims, and you do not even know the difference between languages Arabic and Aramaic. Any way i advice you not to use your wikipedia in anything belongs to Islam.


PeterL;
I have not denied that the Koran was from the words of Mohammed.
Correction:Quran is the Word of God as transmitted by the Angel Gabriel, in the Arabic language, through the Prophet Muhammad. Is it clear?


PeterL;
My advice is that you learn more about the history of languages and the history of Mohammed and the Koran.
Excuse me you have to do firstly with your advice.

[PeterL]

Ah, it is so clear that you know everything!!
And you don't even want to do a good research .

I should just ignore this post from you, but someone has to tell you that taking words out of context is a fine way to demonstrate that you are indifferent to logic, scholarship, and learning in general.

[Etienne]

If you read your Wikipedia links correctly (AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_Of_The_Koran), you would have read that it is considered generally to have been written in Arabic, but someone holds the thesis (meaning it's not a fact, it's a thesis, big difference) that: "the Qur'an was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century."

None of the links you provided showed that Arabic would not have been the language of the Qur'an. There is not much doubt that Syrian contributed a lot to the Arabic language as Syrian was the "intellectual" language of the time in the region. But after that, I don't know and unless you provide some solid evidence...

[novlist*star*]

I am Muslim..so,I want to tell you about The Holy Quran..
1-Quran and Bible is not the same,in Quran you find real things..whereas the Bible there is alot of additional things by human..so it is not real.
2-you can read The Holy Quran in English language...and if you read it you will see the clear differences between Quran and others books by yourself..
Thank you for everyone who gave advice..

[Shield&Sword]

Perhaps i didnt make my self clear, i mean Holy Quran is EXACTLY the words of Mouhammad pbuh, not the memory and notices of companions.
And about the denying historical facts i suggest that you re-read your post and Mr cristoph claims.

Hope that the thread return to the main subject.

[mercy_mankind]

Hope that the thread return to the main subject.
Me too!!!

[Etienne]

I am Muslim..so,I want to tell you about The Holy Quran..
1-Quran and Bible is not the same,in Quran you find real things..whereas the Bible there is alot of additional things by human..so it is not real.
2-you can read The Holy Quran in English language...and if you read it you will see the clear differences between Quran and others books by yourself..
Thank you for everyone who gave advice..

I see you are a freethinker :lol:

[Scheherazade]

The OP of the thread:
I have yet to read it, but I was wondering if anyone on here has ever read the Qur'an. If so, I was hoping somebody could tell me how they feel it rates as literature, i.e. in comparison to the Bible. I'm not interesting in converting to either religion, and I don't want to start a religious debate, I am just curious as to what people think of the Qur'an :)

Please do not discuss the subject matter, not each other or others' religious choices.

[lit_stu]

hello,
well i've read the Qura'n many times and i found it so interesting. one, of course can get many Religious provisions from it, and if you are not interested in religion then you'll enjoy the beautiful stories that the Qura'n has. such as the story of the cave people,it is amazing. and many other stories...
the language of the Qura'n is too clear that it is not of man.
Let me tell you something that i feel comfort when reading the Qura'n that is why when ever i'm in trouble i just sit and read it.

yours truely,
lit_stu

[dzebra]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by how it "rates" as literature? I don't know of any literature ranking other than popularity or critical acclaim. Both books (the Bible and the Koran) have high popularity and high critial acclaim. I'm pretty certain that the Bible has sold more copies, though, and that's the only measurable rating difference that I can offer.

Otherwise, both books have been preserved very well since they were written, and they talk about similar subjects, but they don't agree with each other in all areas (like the treatment of non-believers and who Jesus is).

[Shield&Sword]

What Quran said about "non-believers">
Surah 8 verse 60-61: [60] Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things).

Quran teach muslims how to behave with people even if there was hate>
ٍSurah 5 verse 8 [8] O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

ٍSurah 2 verse 256: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

ٍQuran teach muslims how to behave in war>
Surah 9 verse 6: [6] If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Prophet Mouhammad pbuh said > the one who hurt "Thimian" (non muslims in islamic world) i am his opponent.

Through history we can find how muslims respected "non-believers", for example when jews were killed in spain by the queen, in Germany, in Russia we find that the jews escaped to islamic world, to Morroco, Yemen, Persia, Iraq and were welcomed. No non-believers massacre can be registered in islamic history, while we find alot of massacres made against muslims like spain and non-muslims like Indians and Latin America.

Islam is represented by his book "the Holy Quran", not media.

I didnt mention what we have in bible so it wont be turned into debate, my post was a clarification.

[PeterL]

If you read your Wikipedia links correctly (AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_Of_The_Koran), you would have read that it is considered generally to have been written in Arabic, but someone holds the thesis (meaning it's not a fact, it's a thesis, big difference) that: "the Qur'an was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century."

None of the links you provided showed that Arabic would not have been the language of the Qur'an. There is not much doubt that Syrian contributed a lot to the Arabic language as Syrian was the "intellectual" language of the time in the region. But after that, I don't know and unless you provide some solid evidence...

The link to the Wikipedia article was about one of many scholars who think that the Koran was written in Aramaic, or possibly another related language, which was later read as Arabic. The idea that the Koran may have been misread has been around for a long time, and a thorough treatment of the matter would be beyond what I would write on a forum.

As to whether there was a written Arabic language in 632 CE before that time is questionable. I have read sources that said that there were five sample of written Arabic before that period, and I have read other sources that said that written Arabic was first used somewhat later than that time.

If you are interested, then you should do some research. There are legitimate questions about the language, and I am not completely certain, and I don't care enough to do much more research into the matter.

[Whifflingpin]

"No non-believers massacre can be registered in islamic history,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

http://www.aina.org/releases/20040807203428.htm

[Shield&Sword]

First of all since the begin of the 1900 (before there was the colonization) there were no islamic governments, all we have are governments made by France, England, Germany.
When i said non islamic massacres made by muslims i meant the countries with the islamic law (sharyah), you can read the history.
Until now muslims are killed by the same governments that killed also non-muslims, not because the islamic sharyah say so but because they killed any one who say no to them.
Thousands of muslims are jailed in islamic countries doomed by non islamic governments, by govenrments nominated by England who separated all islamic countries and put people who serve their goals. This is not islam, this is the unjustice.

Look at our islamic history, in spain, spain the place that delivered islamic science to europe, when sharyah was the law.

Believe me it would be better if you didnt post your wiki link and the assyrian site, it shows more what happened when sharyah is no more the law and show the goals of .......

Tell me who killed millions in latin america in the name of ..... and indians in the name of .... and africans in the name of ..... and indians of india in the name of .... and jews in the name of .... and nowadays iraq in the name of ..... Afghanistan in the name of ...... Roanda in the name of ..... muslims in spain in the name of ...... muslims in sicilia (italy) in the name of ..... vietnam, china, the origin people of australia.
Read what historical researchers about islamic history, read how the christians in Syria helped muslims against the romans because they treated them so bad, tell me about the millions of christians who still living in islamic countries and they very old church, while in spain and italy we find no one muslim or a mosque.
Black history, black deeds, millions and millions of deaths, by whom?
i dont want politics here, but the white history of islam is because the Quran tought muslims how to behave.

[Etienne]

The link to the Wikipedia article was about one of many scholars who think that the Koran was written in Aramaic, or possibly another related language, which was later read as Arabic. The idea that the Koran may have been misread has been around for a long time, and a thorough treatment of the matter would be beyond what I would write on a forum.

No, it's about some PARTS written in Syrian. You are being very sophistic here.

[tractatus]

Sura Fussilet, verse 44.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
44. Had We sent this as a Qurán (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! a foreign (tongue) and (a Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is a Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): they are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!"

[Nossa]

I refuse to take Qura'an as a literary study, but if you wish to categorise it so, it's fine by me. The Qura'an is a highly eloquent book, if you know Arabic well, you'll know how to handle it. Something about all the translations of it makes its essence somehow missing to the reader (not that I don't encourage reading it in any other translations).

I think the original post specificly asked about the literary value of the Qura'an, and not the history of the language it was written in. Using such a debate to prove that the Qura'an doesn't make sense or that it's 'wrong' is out of point here (not to mention disrespectful). One more thing is that it's a part of Arabic (and English, and probably any other language) that words can have more than one meaning in various contexts, it's simply a part of the language's greatness, and not only in Arabic, but in any other language.

One last thing, Qura'an is NOT memories or comments, they're the direct and exact words that were said by God to Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). This is the basis of the Islamic belief, and since we're NOT discussing beliefs here, I think it'd be better to discuss according to the previously mentioned fact.

[Etienne]

Why do you say, do not go off topic and discuss belief, and then claim the Qur'an is the direct words of God? People sometimes...

[Nossa]

Why do you say, do not go off topic and discuss belief, and then claim the Qur'an is the direct words of God? People sometimes...

I was replying to what was said already. I didn't start the discussion of beliefs here, please re-read the replies again. Someone, in the midst of the discussion, claimed that the Qura'an is mere comments and memories, as a Muslim, I had to reply to that. My reply did not open the discussion on Islamic belief, or in which language it was written.

[Drkshadow03]

I noticed a couple of our fellow Muslim posters keep using the term "PBUH" after certain names. I'm curious. How come?

[natasssha]

Quran makes me feel better , While reading it , You feel as reading a GOOD novel .

[Shield&Sword]

PBUH we put it after the name of the prophet, it means Peace Be Upon Him.
Mouhammad Peace be upon him.
Jesus Peace be upon him.
Moses Peace be upon him.
and so on....

[Drkshadow03]

PBUH we put it after the name of the prophet, it means Peace Be Upon Him.
Mouhammad Peace be upon him.
Jesus Peace be upon him.
Moses Peace be upon him.
and so on....

Thank you for your response, Shield&Sword.

So basically in Arabic you write Asalaamu Aliakum after every prophet's name?

[Shield&Sword]

no, we say it in other form, because assalamo alaikum is said to the one you are talking to (mean peace upon you). After prophet's name we say Alihy assalam (mean peace upon him).

And you welcome

[Drkshadow03]

Ah, thanks for the correction. I only took a semester of Arabic in undergrad.

Safe to say I forgot a lot. Not to mention I really didn't get that far in one semester to begin with. It's something I want to return to someday.

[B-Mental]

My arabic and aramaic are weak. I can only speak some common phrases. I only read in English, German and French. I am a worldly man, the common word for this is cosmopolitan. I do believe that the Quran holds truths, but as in all books it is up to the reader to interpret these. My personal jihad is against my demons, and not the worlds. It is difficult enough to be a child of mercy in the eyes of Allah. I do appreciate this topic, and hope that kind discussion continues. B

[Shield&Sword]

As prophet Muhammad said:" the Jihad is the Jihad against your self".
Against the bad thoughts that come to you, against the bad acts, against killing stealing, insulting others, and so on acts and feelings that destroy your life and other's.

[ashley3554]

I have yet to read it, but I was wondering if anyone on here has ever read the Qur'an. If so, I was hoping somebody could tell me how they feel it rates as literature, i.e. in comparison to the Bible. I'm not interesting in converting to either religion, and I don't want to start a religious debate, I am just curious as to what people think of the Qur'an :)


it is important to note first that both Arabic language and the Holly Quran are parallel to each other due to the fact that the Holy Quran is in Arabic language and it always has been ..and that was the reason to maintain the Arabic language ..

It is forbidden to translate it to any other language (word to word) but people can translate it's meaning .. Muslims read the Holly Quran in Arabic alone even if they are not Arabic ..they must learn to read it in Arabic ..


The main reason for the Holly Quran to be in Arabic language is to preserve and to maintain Arabic language and also because prophet Muhammad is Arabic and he is from the finest pure blooded Arabic tribes .

The Holly Quran is in fact the Diglossia of the Arabic language that keeps the Arabic language from shifting or changing .

The Holly Quran is not literature . It is in fact non Human , it is God's unmortal words.. no poet or author can copycat it words ,they are not like any words .... And it is one of many characteristics to the Holly Quran ..

it is easy to remember ..articulate.. Strangely relaxing. When reading it it seems that both time and place cease to exist .. it is used as a Healing method (speaking from personal experience to my self and others ) the Holly Quran is used as a healing method to several diseases ..And it can actually include your past, present and future (a professional Quran scientist can really tell you your past present and future) (speaking from experience)


And includes the answer to every Question we might have .. for example I know this friend who has been ill for too long and modern medicine failed to cure her ..She was diagnosed as schizophrenic and paranoid she gets panic attacks all the time .. she suffered a lot but when I introduced her to a Quran healer she was fine in less than three days and now she is married and takes no medication at all .. the healer also told her that she has this and that only by looking at certain pages of the Holly Quran .. I truly was amazed .. (But of course only a professional Know how to use the Holly Quran in healing .. )

In comparison to the Bible .. I did not read the Bible but I have this Christian friend who reads the Holly Quran and keeps it on the night stand..

[Oniw17]

I haven't read a lot of the Koran, but the parts that I skipped to seemed rather lame compared to the OT.

[Yaakov001]

Aramaic is far more closely related to Hebrew than it is Arabic. The alphabet itself is more similar to Hebrew than Arabic, as is the language's orthography. Arabic is in fact the original language of the Qur'an. And Arabic did NOT come from Aramaic or Hebrew, and NONE of these languages are derived from Amharic.

[ayatinstitute]

The Bible says, "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33) and I've found that to be true after studying the scriptures over time. When I was a new believer I thought there were contradictions in the Bible until I learned to keep everything in context and to pray before reading for clarity and discernment wi (https://ayatinstitute.com)th the help of the Holy Spirit. Someone else may fi (https://ayatinstitute.com)nd a different personal meaning to the same scripture verse (not to be confused with basic truth) but that's the beauty of it...God speaks to each of us on a personal level through the scri (https://ayatinstitute.com)ptures so, while the basic truth remains, the personal appli (https://ayatinstitute.com)cation may vary. I agree that there is a unity of all denominations of Christianity if the core belief is intact…basically John 3:16 and that Jesus was the Messiah.