Why the quran sucks in parts, and why it sounds just like an Arab guy talking
Whilst agreeing that the Qur'an expresses the highest forms of rhetoric they differ
as to whether it is uniformly eloguent. Thus, would there exist verbal structures
more suitable and symmetrical for the transmission of some given meaning?
The Judge disagrees, and maintains that each of its words represents the apex
of meaning, even though some may be more perceptive of this than others. Abu
Nasr 'l-Qushairi prefers the view that it does indeed vary. He thus says: "We
make no clairms that everything in the Qur'an is of the purest eloquence. Others
have also said the Qur'an comprises of material that is both eloquent as well as
most eloquent. The scholar "\tl 'l-Din b. 'Abd 'l-Salarm has inclined to his view,
and posed this question: "Why is the Qur'an not most eloquent in its entirety?
The master, Mauhub 'l-Jazari furnished a reply which in essence states that the
Qur'an, structured in this way, would have contradicted the conventional speech
patterns of the Arabs which combines both eloquent and most eloquent
discourse. The challenge as such would have remained incomplete. Thus, it
followed their speech patterns so that their inability to rmeet its challenge could be
manifest. And this then precluded them from countering: "You produce that over
which we essentially lack ability! This is tantamount to a seeing person saying to
the blind: I have overcome you by way of my sight. The blind one will simply
respond: "Your victory would be complete only if I too was able to see, and your
sight was stronger than mine! But seeing that I am totally deprived of sight, how
is it possible to take up the challenge! [/quote}