Expert: Jeffrey Eldred - 2/25/2010

Question
hello


The Quran itself claims to be absolutely inimitable (and unsurpassable) in arabic language.

muslim shcolars have listed all things which make Quran inimitalbe by any human:

*the inimitable beauty of its verses (with rhymes, rythmes) which charm the ear of the listeners.

*Powerfull emotionnal effects  some arab even wondered if
the Quranic verses were 'magic'.

* perfect choice of word according to the context, in a superhuman manner.

* remarkable eloquence


Concerning emotionnal effects, it's not a subjective sensation to arab, because throughout history, arab speaking people felt that. even arabs at the time of the prophet Muhammad.


 History reports many attempts by arabic poets to imitate the Koran, which they failed.



Does this rationally prove that the Quran is surely supernatural? If this not, so are (or were) there authors in the worlds who also wrote books that, so far, nobody manages to imitate ?

sincerely

Answer
The answer to your question is:
-I don't think extraordinary works imply supernatural influence
-I don't think the the Quran was inimitable or even extraordinary,
-If the Quran was supernatural that wouldn't add to its value.


Does the extraordinary imply the supernatural?
Having had related conversations before, I realized that I entirely reject the proposition that there is a human behavior so extraordinary that it would appropriate to infer divine influence. This suggestion that divine influence is necessary to explain a human feat isn't exclusive to the Quran when you think about it – the past and the present is chock full of humans claiming they are too grateful for the good that comes from their own actions to claim them. Politicians, athletes, and musicians alike dedicate words to their deities in their performances. Renaissance writers continued a classical tradition when they “invoked the muse” before a literary journey. Shakespeare was inimitable with his craft of the English language – is this sufficient grounds to conclude that Christianity is a true belief or that London is a holy land? Quality work is not commonplace, but people attempting to use quality work to further a cause is quite commonplace and if you understand why you are not easily persuaded by the art of secular or other religions than you should understand my reluctance to endorse any principle out of respect for the artistic qualities of the Quran.

Even if the Quran were unfathomably great I would not necessarily conclude it is divine. As someone who is not very talented in arts or literature, it wouldn't take much for the Quran to be unfathomably great to me. But to make a stronger example, I tend to think of my self as quite intelligent in the field of physics and mathematics. Not everyone has enough of a proclivity for mathematics to pursue the subject and I am performing better than many of my peers in physics. I know of many individuals who are great deal more intelligent than I when it comes to the subject. They can see so many more comprehensive patterns in physics than I, that I cannot, by definition, understand the depths to which they out-think me. But I am not acquainted with the world's greatest physics and these individuals who so highly surpass me in my uncommon skill are in turn surpassed in a similar manner by even more brilliant geniuses yet. I cannot begin to understand the magnitude in which they are greater than me in an attribute that I value in myself. The genius of these great man is not trivial, their contributions to science improve the quality of life of a countless number through technology. But in all this extraordinary human feats, no one is tempted to claim them to have a special connection with God and in actually these individuals are quite often not religious at all. I mention this to demonstrate how people get irrational and inconsistent when the subject of human accomplish in religion or long ago comes up. It is abundantly clear to me what qualifies as divine is especially low standards when it comes to Holy Books and clergymen, and that sensible answer is that great acts don't speak to divinity of the few but of the ignorance and diversity of the many.

I have also previously answered a question that is related to this notion of extraordinary human acts and the supernatural[1].


Is the Quran extraordinary?
I don't speak modern Arabic, let alone the ancient syro-aramiac version of the language in which the Quran was written, so you may rightfully claim that I will never be able to directly evaluate the stylistic subtly of diction and meter in the Quran. Since you reference the authority of Muslim-scholars rather than make claims about your own experience on the subject, I take it that you also feel that you are unqualified to make judgments on the so-called inimitable beauty of the natural verse. Since neither of us have knowledge of the subject it seems patently ridiculous for us to settle any question on what we both don't know – let alone questions as big as the origins and operations of the whole universe.

But of course you seem prepared to conclude the poetics of the Quran is so extraordinary as to be divine just by going off of the words of Muslim scholars. Because the inimitableness and the supernatural character of Quran is part of Islam, to accept the word of a Muslim official on the subject seems as simplistic as believing a Christian priest who says “Jesus Christ is a such a nice guy that he must be the son of God and therefore you should become a Christian”. I mean, if I asked a professional hockey player whether he thought there was something about the sport of hockey that was so invigorating as to warrant spending an entire lifetime in pursuit of the game, than I would fully expect to hear him answer “yes.”

If we are willing to consider less benign motives for a Muslim scholar to endorse the Quran, he is literally financially employed by the perception that the Quran is a document warranting in-depth study. In much of the Arab world, nationalist sentiment has co-opted religious language to add legitimacy to government while clerical hierarchy has turned to the power of the government to enforce religious values. Needless to say, there are people with the qualifications to dismiss the Quran as a mundane document but are not at liberty to do so and there are praises of the Quran are only so widely disseminated because costs are paid by an Islamic theocracy[2]. This isn't even taking into account the numerous overt bribes and threats the Quran makes directly against those who stray from or deny Islam – for example, Sura 2:23-24[3]. It should also be noted, in case you were not aware, that mainstream academia does not grant the Quran any special distinction in literary value or emotional influence.

But I'd like to briefly address the Quran in relation to the Hadith Qudsi and other collections of hadiths. From what I understand, nearly all Muslims hold to the Quran to be a great amount more sacred than the Hadith Qudsi which are in turn held a great amount more sacred than other collections of hadiths which in turn are held a great amount more sacred than the words of imams which in turn are held a great amount more sacred than the words of ordinary Muslims. To me this represents a continuous and seamlessly progression from the clearly mundane to the so-called divine. Wherever you draw the line, between divinity and humanity, the differences of opinion on the subject should make it clear that humans have trouble distinguishing well-crafted human works from the divinely inspired.

Although I understand the language in which the Quran is written is considered a more sacred representation of the book, the actual content of the book has to be the more important part than the style of it. After all if someone wants to take the book seriously and practice Islam, it is the actual content of the book that will guide their actions and be turned to for guidance. If the Quran cannot be accurately translated than that implies the original language in which it is written is not very well understood and thus attempting to learn the language doesn't work any better. Furthermore if the author of the Quran is able to see into the future or manipulate world events (as God would be able to), than we would expect that it could be translated accurately. After all, poetic style and perfect diction are methods by which words are better communicated - if the Quran can be judged on that it than it can also be judged on it's ability to be translated or the circumstances in which it is translated. So while we want to be as true to the original as possible, I think we can fairly judge (and better) judge the Quran on the actual substance of the book.

As an atheist, it is unsurprising that I find the Quran to be a largely uninformative text on the subject of science and history, It is, in fact, incorrect on many things that we know to be true about science and history, in addition to detailing fanciful and implausible stories of miracles that I am skeptical of. These three pages I link go into the origins and fallibility of the Quran in greater detail[2][4][5]. But for just one example I find to be interesting, this is video describing the ignorant and superficial manner that the Quran treats the stars, compared to the reality which is a great amount more beautiful and impressive [6].

If the translation of the words of the Quran are supposed to be poetic, it is abundantly clear that they are lacking in poetic turns of phrase. I already mentioned my respect for Shakespeare, but just drawing upon the few middle eastern poets I know I think it is clear that Khalil Gibran[7][8] and Saadi[9] handily outmatch it. If the stories of the Quran are supposed to be engaging and instructive of character, “One Thousand and One Nights”[10] or “Sinbad the Sailor”[11] has to be judged to be superior.


What does it matter if the Quran is supernatural?
I would like to leave my analysis with one more point - whether the Quran is supernatural and accurate in history and science or whether the Quran is written by fallible authors may not matter at all. Putting aside holy books for the moment, it is clear that are greatest works of literature are fiction. The works which tell us most about human nature were written about untrue events so that the author can decide what will happen and demonstrate by example. If Muhammad is a great moral leader, it does not matter whether he is channeling the words of God or he figured out the will of God on his own. Socrates is a character who philosophy I admire greatly, and his words stand true even though most of what we know about him comes from a stories by Plato and other authors[12]. The words should stand on their own, if we have to assume them to be valuable before reading them than they are not valuable at all. In more scholarly texts, such as in philosophy, mathematics, science, or history, the texts include how it is they know what they claim to know, so you might be able to verify it. To me, the Quran is neither good reading nor good education, and to connect that to God just insults God and doesn't improve the Quran.


Links:
[1] http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/2009/12/Response-Testimony.htm (This is a question about the prevalence of Christianity and the claim that extraordinary acts by Christian imply divine influence. I counter that claim in part by explaining that my answers are not particular to Christianity and that each religion must answer why this sort of argumentation works for their own religion but not that of anyone else.)
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/4024/ (This page describes what it is known about the natural origins of the Quran and why it is difficult for scholars of the Quran to come up with any answer other than the ones desired by mullahs and imams. Whatever you think about the scholarship, it is clear that the Quran is not divinely dictated in the time of Muhammad, unchanged since then, or accurately translated today.)
[3] http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.html
[4] http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html (This is a page which examines various claims about the Quran in closer scrutiny. The author argues against the Quran because he attempts to make the case that Christianity is the true religion, a proposition we would both agree is false, but that doesn't change the arguments and evidence he brings against the Quran. If there is a particular point of contention, much of his work is cited so you can examine the references yourself. There is a lot of detail in this website if you care to go through it all.)
[5] http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/prob_koran.htm
[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTXhoIFRm8 (It also divides its time talking about the Hebrew Bible, if you want to skip to the discussion about the Quran it starts about time 7:20)
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalil_Gibran
[8] http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=The+Prophet+Kahlil+Gibran
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saadi_%28poet%29
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_nights
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinbad_the_Sailor
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates