[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 257 KB, 1500x1004, cb5b4216-a55b-42bd-9f55-e0062d40c169.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5582985 No.5582985 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think about the Quran as literature?

It is supposed to be the finest Arabic text in existence, however, the English translation I am reading isn't really impressive at all and the whole text feels pretty incoherent. Maybe it just doesn't translate very well?

>> No.5583087

>>5582985
well that is what Muslims say of course but the reality is that there is no language that is uniquely untranslateable. of course there are good and bad translations but the real truth is that no holy book works well as a piece of literature throughout.

sure the bible has some amazing stuff in it (even dawkins appreciates it as a work of art) but there is a whole section that is just a load of x begat y and y begat z that would never get past an editor today. some of the quran is poetic but a lot of it is just endless self-justification (the quran is true because the quran says it is true) and the claim that it is the most perfect thing EVAR is just nonsense. also it has a lot of nasty stuff in it about killing people (just like the bible does)

tl;dr version: holy books are mostly full of shit

>> No.5583112
File: 1.51 MB, 230x172, 8Y3cw6J.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5583112

>>5583087

>> No.5583148

>>5582985
>What do you think about the Quran
it's pages are fine for wiping your ass
>as literature?
shit

>> No.5583175

>however, the English translation I am reading isn't really impressive at all and the whole text feels pretty incoherent. Maybe it just doesn't translate very well?

The literary strengths of the original are its prosody, its rhyming, and its imagery (particularly in later chapters.) Of these three, only the imagery sometimes survives translation into English. Most translators have been primarily concerned with preserving whatever meaning or viewpoint they attribute to the original text. The result is, at best, an approximation of the original's meaning with little or none of the stylistic flair that makes it appealing on a literary level.

Since I don't know Hebrew or Greek, I can't compare and contrast this with Bible translations. The Qur'an is a more uniform text than the Bible, but its history in the English language much shorter and less storied for obvious reasons.

>> No.5583195

>>5582985
No the whole Arabic text is incoherent and often uses incorrect, rare, and invented Arabic for the sake of rhyming. Around 1 in 5 lines are complete meaningless nonsense. Muslims bend over backwards claiming that is a part of the "mystery" of the Koran and shun translations but you don't have to pretend to agree with them.

>> No.5583203

>>5582985
Just read the Quran 2.0 aka The Book of Mormon instead

>> No.5583228

>>5583203
Low-quality, fake old English. Full of anachronisms.

It's just as shitty if not worse.

>> No.5583235

>>5583195
>No the whole Arabic text is incoherent and often uses incorrect, rare, and invented Arabic for the sake of rhyming

>incorrect Arabic

>Implying there was such a thing before the major works on grammar, lexicology, and so on began to be produced a century after the Qur'an

>Implying the Qur'an wasn't largely normative in determining what "correct Arabic" was

>> No.5583246

>>5582985
>Maybe it just doesn't translate very well

.... or maybe it really is just a transcription of incoherent raving by a schizophrenic in the desert.

>> No.5583252
File: 56 KB, 300x300, fezora1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5583252

>>5583087
>>5583148
>>5583195
>>5583246

*tips fezora*

>> No.5583260

>>5583195
>incorrect, rare, and invented Arabic

>incorrect

Because of the laws and rules of Arabic were well established at the time right?

>rare

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

>invented

Isn't this one of the ways languages evolve and develop in the first place?

>> No.5583316

The translations read a bit overly pompous and archaic to me, though I'm no expert on the Qur'an, let alone the Arabic original. For example, the phrase "Anti malik." (You are an angel) is sometimes translated as "Verily, thou art an angel."

>> No.5583384

>>5583316

This is an unfortunate tendency among translators of Islamic religious literature in general. The archaisms are completely pointless. Shit like "verily!" crops up a lot.

>> No.5583393

>>5583235
These pleb morons with their language purism bullshit (as if any one of them has a strong command of contemporary Arabic, nevermind Qur'anic). It's like they're never read E.E. Cummings before.

>> No.5583435

>It is supposed to be the finest Arabic text in existence

My Muslim friends claim one step further: they are convinced it's the most beautiful writing, objectively, in existence. Supposedly because it was penned by God. I've never read any of it, but... if that's true, than [insert your favorite author here] must be God.

>> No.5583719
File: 114 KB, 429x410, 1400695940080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5583719

>>5582985
>It is supposed to be the finest Arabic text in existence, however, the English translation I am reading isn't really impressive at all and the whole text feels pretty incoherent.

>Maybe it just doesn't translate very well?

it is translated cryptically. All translations are - this is to avoid that anything gets corrupted in translation.

As an Iranian I can't even really read the Persian translation. Every sentence is broken, the translations try to minutely save everything from getting lost in translation.

Only way to read it is to read it in Arabic. It is, in fact, the 'finest Arabic text in existence', but presumably only if you are a muslim.

>> No.5583742

>>5582985
bretty good poetry

>> No.5583796

>>5582985
I once posted:
"It's bretty good
t.Mugammad :D:D:D"

Got called a finn and a ban for one month.

>> No.5583819

>>5582985
It's hard to translate poetry let alone holy books written in the form of poetry.
I would say it's near impossible to find a translation of the Quran that treats it as a piece of literature instead of a holy book, so English speakers might not be able to see why it is considered such a great piece of literature.

t. Arab

>> No.5583831
File: 27 KB, 402x348, imam spurdo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5583831

>>5583796
>>5583819
ebin

>> No.5583915

>>5583112
>>5583252

crushing weight of tedious inevitability.jpg

>> No.5583932

Almost as good as Mein Kampf.

>> No.5583962

>>5582985
Maybe if you try listening to it with subtitles ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novvDVJcHso
I find it bretty gud.

>> No.5583999

>>5583087
>but there is a whole section that is just a load of x begat y and y begat z that would never get past an editor today.

?

someone doesn't understand the bible

>> No.5584006
File: 454 KB, 1400x1007, bruges_1425_lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584006

>>5582985
OP's pic is purty, it reminds me of the decoration of books of hours

>> No.5584009

It's only considered as such by pseudo intellectuals and those who crave the muslim cock
It's really not that great but it stacks up well against other religious texts because they are all borderline trash trying as hard as they can to sound divine and mystical.
As far as actual literature is concerned it's garbage though, as is a vast majority of arabic lit
>inb4 someone claims I said all

>> No.5584015

>>5584006
you mean like literally any illuminated manuscript?

>> No.5584017

>>5584009
Jesus Christ you're stupid.

>> No.5584022

>>5584009
it's funny when pseuds call other people pseuds

>> No.5584033

>>5584015
well books of hours and psalters are much more richly illuminated than other manuscripts and have a fairly distinct style

>> No.5584047

>>5584033
and gospels

>> No.5584163

>>5583819
What about Iliad?

>> No.5584167

>>5584163
What about it?

>> No.5584185

>>5582985
>a load of x begat y and y begat z that would never get past an editor today

you imagine a ya fiction editor i suppose

>> No.5584199

>>5584167
Its a poem and the translations are enjoyable. It was written before the Quran.
Its not a religious book, still...

>> No.5584223

>>5584199

What's your point?

>> No.5584248

>>5584223
Maybe Quran is just shit.
Iliad is universally acclaimed.

>> No.5584309

>>5584248
You probably don't know this but, outside of pleb circles, the Qur'an is also universally acclaimed, brah.

>> No.5584317

>>5584248

The Iliad is much more central to English lit. It has a longer history of being translated into English and, since it isn't a religious text, translating it isn't as much of a contentious endeavor. Given that it's a work of literature/poetry, most English renderings of it also tend to preserve its poetic qualities. This hasn't been the case with English translations of the Qur'an.

A good translation isn't impossible, but one hasn't been produced yet.

I'm sure you realize that the Qur'an is also "universally acclaimed."

>> No.5584320

>>5584199
This >>5584223
is not me btw.

That's a false comparison.
The Illiad is a narrative, and it's original purpose is to entertain. The Quran was written (Or revealed) to teach and explain. It's not supposed to be "Enjoyable".

>> No.5584342

>>5583260
>>5583235
EYa3h d00ds tootallyz the langlang of thy writing hither not matters does weather thou used 31337 speeku but it we are being making correct grammars in the now and heer for us to suffer!

Rules or not, there is always common and uncommon in languages and the uncommon is usually considered incorrect until it becomes common. The quran usage of language was (and still is) uncommon/unique during its time and so it's wrong. Fuck, the quran pretty much invent "leet" speak with numbers for random letters.

>> No.5584355

>reading the Quran
>not listening to it
ya done goofed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpq2STA4fqk

>> No.5584376

>>5584342

>The quran usage of language was (and still is) uncommon/unique during its time and so it's wrong.

Based on what? The earliest surviving inscriptions in Arabic are from less than 100 years before the Qur'an. It is the most extensive piece of Arabic writing we have from that period by leaps and bounds. Everything else is fragmentary; there are only a few contemporary examples of actual Arabic writing.

Do you even know Arabic dude? You sound like an idiot.

>> No.5584377

>>5584342
>Random letters

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Arabic poetry written around the same period that the Quran was written is just like Quranic Arabic (if you ignore the fact that Quranic Arabic is written in several dialects, but even Arabs can't tell the difference between them)
Quranic Arabic standardized Arabic grammar which was extremely fluid and flexible. It had great influence on the Arabic language, and the language is what it is today because of the Quran.
When learning Arabic grammar, it's very common to use Quranic verses as examples of grammar rules when teaching Arabic grammar.

>> No.5584385

>>5583087
He said as literature, not its validity. Damn, just couldn't critique it without breaking out the fedora, could you

>> No.5584426

>>5584377
>What the fuck are you even talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqatta'at

>> No.5584457

>>5584426
Those are not used often, and are brief and never explained. The rest of the Quran is perfectly understandable.
The Quran is not just that.

>> No.5584459

>>5584355

>tfw favorite reciter is Wahhabi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZzYLMwy4Zg

>> No.5584472

>>5584342
>The quran usage of language was (and still is) uncommon/unique during its time
>and so it's wrong.
But that's wrong, kid. Cracker, do you know how many words Shakespeare invented? He even invented a name (Jessica).

>> No.5584475

>>5584426

>"Alif Lam Mim"

>oh god what are these letters none of this makes sense anymore what an incomprehensible jumble what do I do oh god

>> No.5584487

>>5584472
And that's why Shakespeare is full of shit and not speaking for god.

>> No.5584498

>>5583087
>just a load of x begat y and y begat z

Which is paramount to tracing back your lineage to different figure heads.

I'm pretty sure in order to be a priest in older forms of Judaism you had to be descended from the line of David, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

>> No.5584499

>>5584487
>WATCH! as he ~~MAGICALLY ~~ MOVES ~~ the goalposts!!

>> No.5584500

>>5582985
>as literature?

It's derivative. It's an arabic fan-fiction of the Old Testament and Christian religion...

The men who wrote it had no discernible talent.

>> No.5584506

I think I would be able to appreciate it better if I spoke Arab. Poetry, or capital works, are very hard to faithfully translate.

Some meanings, and words, loose all the magic as you do, some others, however, acquire new shades, that benefit the whole.

>> No.5584514

>>5584506

Thinking of which... I wonder how much of Plato, Aristotle, or any of the others is left in what we get to read from the Greeks, and how much is directly ripped off, taking advantage of this fact.

>> No.5584523
File: 21 KB, 476x359, if this nugga don't shut up.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584523

>>5583384
>Verily Mohammed, you have completed your quest. You have now earned the right to be called the Quran.

really Islam?

>> No.5584527

Daily reminder Muhammad flew on a winged-horse to heaven, the horse had a female face.

If you don't believe this you are a kafir.

>> No.5584530

>>5584506
you speak arab, you just don't remember it.

>> No.5584543

>>5584498
>Which is paramount to tracing back your lineage to different figure heads.

Most of which is a midrash

>> No.5584549

>>5584543
but still very important to the religion

>> No.5584555

>>5584523
kekingmuftis.jpg

>> No.5584557

>>5584500

This. Just read the original apocrypha and pseudepigrapha

>> No.5584571

>>5584500
>It's an arabic fan-fiction of the Old Testament and Christian religion...

lel

>> No.5584594

>>5584527
"In Sufi cosmology, the story of Muhammad who rode a winged horse named Buraq in his ascension to heaven to talk to God, is a metaphorical allusion to the higher external Adamic nature we utilize in returning to God."

Only kafir to some Muslims. I look forward to reading your moronic reminder again tomorrow though.

>> No.5584614

>>5584500
>It's derivative. It's an arabic fan-fiction of the Old Testament and Christian religion...

Its subject matter is deliberately derivative. Stylistically, though, it's quite different. Since we're talking about the book as literature, the second point is really more important here.

>> No.5584629
File: 38 KB, 350x249, al-buraq-8[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584629

>>5584527
>Daily reminder Muhammad flew on a winged-horse to heaven, the horse had a female face.

"While the Buraq is almost always portrayed with a human face in far-eastern and Persian art, no Hadiths or early Islamic references allude to it having a humanoid face."

The Indian paintings are just egregious.

>> No.5584696

>>5584355

Okay, here is something I've had some trouble with and since it is used in that video I'll bring it up.

The word corn is often used in text that predates the Colombian Exchange, so they would not have corn, which is maize.

Is it just a general term for cereal grains that ended up being appropriated for the one crop in particular?

>> No.5584769

>>5584594
>Only kafir to some Muslims.

you mean to the vast, vast majority of muslims and the best of their scholars and imams.

>sufi

an anomaly.

>> No.5584775

>>5584594
>>5584629


>Can you prove Muhammed didn't ride a winged horse, Richard Dawkins?
>No I can't...
>Then I win.

>mfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD4vC3kNA-4

>> No.5584803

>>5584769
No I mean you shouldn't be wasting everyone's time expressing your inane thoughts on islam

>> No.5584820

>>5584696
>Is it just a general term for cereal grains

Not that poster, but yes, that's exactly what the Arabic word in question is (habb.) Corn is an interesting choice on the part of the translator.

>> No.5584827

>>5584803

He might be inane but he is correct.

>> No.5584828

>>5584527

It was a spiritual journey whilst he was meditating in front of the Ka'ba, ya dunce.

>> No.5584843

>>5584828

are spiritual winged-horses different than material winged-horses?

How do you know it was one not the other, or not both?

>> No.5584856

>>5584843

I'm not 100% on this, but I think that Hadith records that Muhammad's family actually saw him physically at Mecca and not Jerusalem. The Qaran doesn't even mention a winged horse during the chapter on the Night Journey.

>> No.5584870

>>5584856

it was a metaphor for rocketship, they just didn't know what they were looking at.

Muhammed HAD access to technology, that's how he split the Moon in Two.

>> No.5584878

>>5584769
>you mean to the vast, vast majority of muslims and the best of their scholars and imams.

Well that's just not true.

>an anomaly.
>Sufism

Sufism has permeated popular/folk Islam and elite/'intellectual' Islam since forever (and still does to a huge degree.) The puritanical ideologies that have become prominent recently are a departure from the historical norm.

>> No.5584924

>>5584878

>sufi

They are like less than 1% of islam. And they don't believe Islam is all metaphors, some believe in literal winged horses, splitting of the moon, angels speaking to an Arab, flying Muhammed around, etc.

>> No.5584937

Depends on your suspension of disbelief. You've got to literally hang in the air by your balls.

>> No.5584956

>>5584924
>They are like less than 1% of islam.

Sufism isn't a sect, dude. It's a body of mystical doctrines and practices that is, for the most part, very mainstream. Name any prominent Sunni figure from about 1000-1800 and there's a 99% chance he was affiliated with one Sufi order or another. Go to any Muslim country today and there will very likely be numerous orders active in any given locality, including in ostensibly anti-Sufi countries like Saudi Arabia.

>> No.5585109

>>5584956

dhikr ceremonies like this (minus the microphones and stuff) are common across the Sunni world, for instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxmT6IpaPk0

>> No.5585434
File: 95 KB, 498x800, 1410143369331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5585434

>>5582985

The Qur'an's surahs are ordered from longest to shortest in length and are not in chronological order. Also they lack any sort of context which is provided in other sources such as the Hadith and early interpretations (tafsirs), it is just pure speech from the Prophet.

Google up the a chronological order of the surahs and then either write them inside the cover of your Qur'an or tape it.

The first 5 Surahs according to my chronology are 96, 68, 73, 74, 1

The last 5 Surahs according to my chronology are 48, 5, 8, 9, 110.

If you were hoping to get understand Islam through reading the Qur'an well....ain't gonna happen. The Qur'an doesn't give you Islam.

>> No.5585473

>>5584472
>Cracker, do you know how many words Shakespeare invented?
I do. Zero. Shakespeare is the first written primary source for many words, but that doesn't mean he 'invented' them. It only means that he was the first person to write something important enough using those words to survive to modernity.

>> No.5585480

>>5584696
'Corn' is still just a generic word for grain in Britain.

>> No.5586044

>>5583932
and they are both big sellers in muslim countries

>> No.5586048

>>5583999
?

someone doesn't understand my post

>> No.5586054

>>5584185
no, i imagine any professional editor. clearly you have never worked with any.

>> No.5586064

>>5585480
???
no it isn't. "corn" is the word we use for "corn".

>> No.5586073

>>5584355
There is like 3/4 english words for each arabic word...
No wonder the translations are shit.

>> No.5586107

>>5584775
The more I listen to Richard Dawkins, the more I am absolutely certain he has an IQ of less than 90

>> No.5586160

>>5586064
What the Americans call 'corn' the British call 'maize'. (The Americans don't have the word 'maize' and have no clue what it refers to.)

>> No.5586281

>>5586107
yes, Oxford University are well known for employing only really stupid people to be professors.

>> No.5586402

>>5586064
God damn it.

>> No.5586415

>>5584342
>The quran usage of language was (and still is) uncommon/unique during its time
It's the verbatim word of God, so that's kind of presumptuous of you.
>and so it's wrong
Again, presumptuous.

>> No.5586999

>>5582985
As literature, Imam Ali's Nahj Al-Balagha is much better.
Both are bullshit through.

>> No.5587001

>>5583087
>say of course but the reality is that there is no language that is uniquely untranslateable
????????

>> No.5587080

>>5586160
>(The Americans don't have the word 'maize' and have no clue what it refers to.)

That's not true

t.Ameriggan

>> No.5587084

>>5586999
>As literature, Imam Ali's Nahj Al-Balagha is much better.

It really isn't...

>> No.5587097

>>5586160
>The Americans don't have the word 'maize' and have no clue what it refers to.

Did you pull this "fact" right out of your ass?

>> No.5587108
File: 209 KB, 440x410, 1404769432193.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587108

>>5584342

I bet this guy knows Arabic. Yeah Right!

>> No.5587279

>>5583252
>>5583112
I'm happy you guys found a name and a stereotype for atheists, now you won't feel as sad anymore.

>> No.5587404

>>5587080
>>5587097
Of course (some) Americans are exposed to British culture and pick up British words and memes, that's not the point. The point is that 'maize' is not a word that exists in American English. (Insomuch as 'British English' can be said to be a separate thing from 'American English'.)