Blui

I know that the original arabic Qur'an was in written in a certain language that had many problems, i think just one is that they had no past or future or present tense, and when the Egyptians translated the Qur'an, they had to modify it to make sense of some things.

The Qur'an is also not in chronological order, the last chronological surah (chapter) is 9 out of 114 chapters.

Needless to say, the Qur'an's own words that it is a perfect book that explains everything is a bit ludicrous.

premjan

If it has no tenses that conveys that the composer did think of it as somehow eternal.

Blui

Sorry i got that wrong, i meant that the arabic spelling at least in the earliest Qur'an in Quraiysh dialect does not differentiate letters (in arabic letters can be differentiated by dots), this was later changed to include dots, but we do not know of any process by which this was done, it could very well have been arbitrary, which would make the Qur'an as it exists most likely wrong.

The Qur'an is also full of grammatical errors, that even Pikthal and Yusuf Ali had to correct, so when you read their translations, they actually improved the Qur'an.

edit: Just looking at some translations.

2:177 It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.
- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm

All english translations also are similar.

The literal arabic however is different, note that this is talking about the present, the original arabic has the opening as present tense but then has 4 past tenses after it.

Where 'believeth' is actually 'believed' in arabic, giveth is gived, observeth is observed and payeth is payed.

This is what i meant, the Qur'an screwed up alot of this grammar.

Osbert

Hello Blui,

I understand that a hierarchy has always existed amongst Muslims with Arabic speakers at the top. The reason they are looked up to is that they hold the key to understanding the words of God: the Arabic Language.

Purists believe that the Qur’an is the literal speech of God and cannot be translated. Once it is translated, it is no longer the speech of God, but merely one person’s interpretation of the meaning.

A non-Arabic speaker will always be at a disadvantage in any dispute over the meaning of the Qur’an, with an Arabic speaker. When all else fails, the Arabic speaker can simply claim that the other cannot understand the true meaning of God’s word.

Would you say that is true?

Blui

No, if the arabic speaker has some type of knowledge that demonstrates they are right, they should therefore be able to demonstrate it.

It is very reminiscent of the excuse theists use that, when backed into a corner, you just have to 'pray' to know God.

mung bean

Yes. I'll have to look up the details but from memory there are strings of letters at the start of each sura which simply do not make sense. The excuse is that they are mysterious shit put there by Allah, and therefore proof of the Qur'an's holiness, yada yada....

Also, another thing you will hear is that all Arabic Qur'ans are the same and always have been ( since it is supposedly inerrant) . This is false. Yes, it was standardised some time after Mo's death but fairly recently a stash of old Quranic fragments dating back to the eighth century was found in the loft of a mosque in Yemen.
Guess what?

the Radio Star

From what I've read so far, it's pretty much just "Allah is great. Believes are good. Infidels are fuel for hellfire." It's the most intolerant rant ever. I've read Wall Street Journals with more evidence of divine inspiration.