Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 10-02-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salam

And yes it is essential.

It was a rhetorical question.

That's unfortunate, since your claim was to be able to write a Koran. One of the claims of divine inspiration in the Koran is directly related to the poetic quality in the Arabic language.

Your rhetorical question has allowed you to put your foot right into the mess.

Quote:

It is not essential to re-write the Bible, or anything else of general application, in Arabic, or in any particular language.

It is, if you want your claim ("I can write a Koran on a wet Tuesday afternoon") to be taken seriously.

Quote:

How can you judge the skillfulness of the Quran if you didn't read it?
I'm not referring to 'poetic abilities', but theology, which translates into any language.

Actually, the theology does *not* always translate - something you would know, if you spent more time in comparative theology, and less time trying to bash Roman Catholics and prove that the Pope was secretly trying to start a new religion (Islam).

Quote:

(And some Arabic-speakers disagree about the poetic quality of the Qur'an.)

Really? Cite 10 such people. Oh, that's right - you just pulled it out of the air.

Not that it matters much, for reasons we'll discuss later.

Salam · 10-02-2007, 12:58 PM

I think it's a good idea to split this thread.

Toto · 10-02-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salam

I think it's a good idea to split this thread.

Please be more explicit - what should be split off? I mean, I could just go around splitting off all of Clouseau's posts, since they always seem to provoke some side issue, but then I'd have to ask for a pay raise * for all the extra work.

* that's a joke, in case it wasn't obvious.

Salam · 10-02-2007, 02:59 PM

Sorry, but I saw the thread going off-topic, didn't know that it's something typical of him. I'm new here.

Thanks for the hard work,

J-D · 10-03-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I have no idea what you think I'm talking about, but I'm sure it's not what I actually was talking about. You obviously didn't understand a thing I was saying. Which may be your fault or may be mine. Or both, of course.

I shall attempt to rephrase my point.

When Muhammad made up his version of the story, he did not 'blindly ignore' (your phrase) the facts about what the existing account said (why you think your phrase 'as related in Genesis' is radically different from my phrase 'according to the Jewish story, as accepted by Christians' I can't think, as to me they seem virtually synonymous). He would have known, whether or not at first-hand, the Genesis story: he did not 'blindly ignore' it, but chose to produce a different version and to claim that it was the true original and that the Genesis account was a distortion.

That's no more a re-phrase than it's banana fritters.

The point I intended to make is the same as it was before. If there was a lack of clarity in the way I attempted to express it, either the first time or the second, I regret it. Nevertheless, you cannot read my mind, you do not know my intentions better than I did, and you are not entitled to say that I have changed my position. If there is an apparent inconsistency in what I have said, you could point it out: still, I believe that any such is a product, at worst, of carelessness in my choice of words, not of difference in intended meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

It is on topic, but it does not alter the fact that Muhammad blindly ignored Genesis.

What makes you think that? Do you have any evidence for that assertion? I haven't seen any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Inventing another version does not change that, and treating that version as equally valid merely reveals bias.

What sort of bias? How is it demonstrated? And where did I say that the versions were equally valid? My position is that they are equally invalid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I could write a Qur'an myself on a wet Tuesday afternoon, and a damn sight more skilfully than Muhammad, but despite that, everyone would recognise it as a pathetic attempt to re-write, unless intended as entertaining fiction. The extraordinary thing about Muhammad's novel is that people in the West actually take it seriously. What they are really doing is taking seriously a malicious little thug and a band of undirected, primitive desert tribes- no doubt because Muhammad had the sense to say that Jesus did not really die! Islam, the Romanism of the East. Farcical.

I don't take the Qur'an seriously (at least, not in the sense you mean). But I don't take the Bible (in any version, Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant) any more seriously (in that sense) and I don't see that you have given any reason why I should. All the material in any religion's scriptures about what God is supposed to have said was made up: God never said any of it, because there is no God.

J-D · 10-03-2007, 07:12 PM

Maybe the Qur'an is the greatest work of literature in Arabic and maybe it isn't. I have no Arabic and am incapable of judging. However, even if it does have great literary qualities, that does not make it literally true, any more than the great literary qualities of Shakespeare's plays make them literally true.

Toto · 10-05-2007, 12:43 PM

some posts have been split off here

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-02-2007, 12:58 PM	#22
Salam Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Saudi Arabia Posts: 440	I think it's a good idea to split this thread.

10-02-2007, 02:59 PM	#24
Salam Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Saudi Arabia Posts: 440	Sorry, but I saw the thread going off-topic, didn't know that it's something typical of him. I'm new here. Thanks for the hard work,

10-03-2007, 07:12 PM	#26
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	Maybe the Qur'an is the greatest work of literature in Arabic and maybe it isn't. I have no Arabic and am incapable of judging. However, even if it does have great literary qualities, that does not make it literally true, any more than the great literary qualities of Shakespeare's plays make them literally true.

10-05-2007, 12:43 PM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	some posts have been split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.