Doug Ewell wrote:
> I'm not Muslim either, but I actually think I understand the situation
> here.
> The Qur'an is by definition untranslatable. That doesn't mean its words
> and sentences cannot be translated. They certainly can be translated,
> just like any other words and sentences, into any other language
> imaginable, written, spoken, signed, or sent via Morse code. But such a
> translation, no matter how accurate, cannot be called "the Qur'an." The
> term "Qur'an" implies that the work is the original recital in Arabic.
> A translated work must be *called* something else.
> This does mean that to reach a certain level of scholarship in the
> Muslim faith, one is expected to read the true (that is, classical
> Arabic) Qur'an. Islam places a certain holy status on the classical
> Arabic language. And no, the same requirement is not made of most
> Christians to read Aramaic or Greek (though as fragmented as
> Christianity is, there are probably some sects that do prefer this).

And millions of alloglot Muslim boys have memorized the entire text in
Arabic and can recite it without any knowledge of its meaning.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...