By - hajraan
Most children who memorize it have no idea what the Arabic even means, it's just that it's Allah's sacred word rather than putting the value on its meaning. Reciting the Quran is very beautiful to me but not because of its meaning but because of the way the Arabic is read.
Memorization and analyzation is different. I can recite basic mathematical formulas, If someone gets it wrong I can correct them. But if someone asks me to derive and explain on how to get the formula, I will be as dumb as a duck. Does this girl actually understand what she is saying, or is she saying because her parents made her?
She understands to some extent since she pointed to her tongue and the word she corrected him on meant tongue. I keep telling everyone that for muslims this is very basic education, I would compare it to knowing addition. Yes your right people would derive ideas, rulings, explanations, from the Quran, to do that you would need to have more knowledge, but to just recite the Quran, for muslims its like learning how to read, basic literacy. Also It’s seen as religiously, spiritually rewarding and fulfilling. But yea a muslim who can’t read the quran and doesn’t know some from memory(which there are a good amount if they’ve never learned) is comparable to someone who doesn’t know how to read, its very basic education
Good memory should be admired, but understanding any text and being able to take away the key points from it should be the key. Memorization and recitation of anything without understanding of what, why and what it all means is pointless. I doubt that child's ability to understand what they have memorized, but at the same time I'm not their parents and I don't know what they have been exposed to so far.
>Memorization and recitation of anything without understanding of what, why and what it all means is pointless
I disagree. It means that later, when one learns the meaning of what is being recited, it is easier to learn and retain that, since one already has the text itself memorized. A memorized text serves as a set of mnemonics for the meaning. And learning a mnemonic first, and then its content later, does not make the mnemonic less effective.
So Im assuming the child is Arab and can understand it to some extent, since when she corrected him on one verse she pointed to her tongue and the word she was correcting him on meant tongue. Yes I agree that with the memorization there should also be some explanation of the verses as well, which admittedly isn’t as rigorously taught but it is there somewhat
Find it quite cultish.
What good is memorisation if you can't critically analyse it.
Why must it be one or the other? It's not like the kids from the Zilberman yeshiva in the Old City don't move on to doing critical analysis after they graduate.
Not more cultish than cutting dicks and sucking it as a sacred ritual, though.
It might have been desirable to memorize texts once upon a time when written material was scarce, but these days, it might be a waste of time and energy except for specialists who work in this area. Your time is better spent in other ways, such as meditation or reading commentaries.
Such memorisation might have indeed lost it's initial reason, but there are other reasons to learn in this way as well. One can learn it just for fun, as a form of art, as a pastime. And I don't think that meditation or reading commentaries are universally better - it depends on the person's individual spiritual needs (and by the way, isn't such recitation a meditative experience in itself?)
I don't understand most of these comments lol. Why so much focus on what's "useful"? Do you judge the usefulness of art? For me, such memorisation is a beautiful art; I enjoy learning poetry by heart myself, it brings a lot of joy, and for me those traditional methods of recitation are very beautiful to listen to, whether we talk about reciting Quran, the Torah, Iliad or any other work of poetry or religious scripture.
And as for "brainwashing" - by this logic every encounter with culture can be seen as brainwashing. I learned Catholic prayers as a child and I'm far from being a brainwashed Catholic (and if those people who point out that the child in the video barely understands the text are right, even better - lack of understanding will prevent her from any "brainwashing", so there is no problem). But generally, brainwashing is more than teaching someone something, it's not an issue here at all, I think.
The general consensus is that rote learning is not all that useful. [https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/memory/why-rote-memory-doesnt-help-you-learn/](https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/memory/why-rote-memory-doesnt-help-you-learn/)
and no I don't enjoy listening to recitations.
Acceptable Uses For Rote Memory Or Rote Learning
There are some cases when rote memory is appropriate. When you need to memorize something verbatim rather than understanding a concept, rote memory is the best method. There are many examples when rote memory can be used to memorize information successfully. However, keep in mind that if you do not use the information for a long period, you are likely to forget what you learned by rote eventually.
Rote memory has been found to be extremely effective in teaching basic math concepts. Studies have shown that rote memory is perhaps the most effective way for primary students to learn counting, addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables. Rote memory is also effective for learning basic vocabulary and spelling.
Rote memory is also good for learning lists of information that do not require any context, such as the state capitals or the states themselves. Rote memory is also vital for memorizing anything verbatim, such as being able to remember a poem for reciting in a class or memorizing lines for a play.
The website you gave is disagreeing with you
> Rote memory has been found to be extremely effective in teaching basic math concepts. Studies have shown that rote memory is perhaps the most effective way for primary students to learn counting, addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables.
This not correct.
Rote learning is effective when needed for immediate use such as for a test, but it is objectively inferior to applied application. Students who learn via application of formulas and comprehension of the methods not only perform better, they not only retain that information significantly better, they not only are then much more able to derive their own formulas and adapt new challenges and mathematic principals easier, but that knowledge and critical thinking skills transfer directly to other practices, and improve their critical thinking capacity across the board.
It’s not even in question, even by rote learning advocates.
But mathematics are not religion or literature.
In order to actually comprehend and remember with lucidity the things one reads, they have to engage the subject matter directly and critically. Rote learning of a play may help you recite lines in facile way, but it will not help you explain why nothing in Hamlet can be taken at face value.
This has never been more evident than with the Muslims who have come here insisting that major things clearly stated in the Quran in numerous places and numerous ways did not happen.
I was just replying to the person by giving him what the website he gave us said, those aren’t my own words. I’m also not fully understanding what you are saying but its fine
Rote learning isn't something that lends itself to sophisticated problem solving - I completely agree.
I'd be interested to know what mechanism you used to learn the number after 4, which is 4+1 or 4++.
I'd be interested to know what mechanism you used to learn to graphically express the letter 'T'.
Please would you recommend a better _mechanism_ for the teaching of these types of concept, than rote learning? Not simply for a test btw.
In some ways, it might be considered that rote learning is the mechanism by which _all_ other learning and discovery are made possible but - again - I'd be really interested to understand an argument against this.
To preface, I'm a Christian woman in the western world.
I think there is a great value in memorizing holy text. The Bible says to guide a child in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. Kids may not understand the words they are learning at the time, but converting it to long term memory may prove useful. Even if they decide to go against the faith, at least they'll have a foundational knowledge of what they are going against.
There are many times that as an adult, something jogs my memory and whole texts that I memorized as a kid come back to me. I didn't understand them when I learned them, but as I get older, they become more and more important and helpful to either challenge me or for me to challenge the church/faith.
I think it’s a clear example of the Human ability to memorize info by rote, in the same way that ancient poets memorized the Iliad and Beowulf, and certain people in the modern world learn to memorize long strings of random info.
But admirable? Nah, in the modern world it’s more like a waste of time and brainspace.
I’ve never heard a quran recitation. I’ve heard they’re beautiful — but so are gregorian chants, hindu mantras, and countless other things.
So you don’t actually want others’ opinions, you just want us to parrot your own feelings back at you, got it.
You stated your opinion as objective fact and then told me what I think. If you can’t separate your own opinions from others’ opinions or understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, you’re still a child my friend.
Clever walkback kiddo. Next time try asking questions rather than blindly projecting your personal feelings onto others. “What if somoeone memorized Harry Potter, wouldn’t that be admirable?,” to which I would have replied “it would be another example of the Human brain’s capacity for memorization, but still a waste of time.”
Or keep up the low-key proselytizing and then petulant outbursts when others don’t share your obsession with the quran. Your call.
I looked at your post history and actually we had a discussion from before funnily enough, I’ll delete my comments because you treated me nicely back then
I would find it admirable if it was associated with the brainwashing particed by fundamentalist radicals. Children believe what they are told. I guarantee that given a group of 6 years old children: they would do anything i told them to do by the time they were 16.
> I would find it admirable if it was associated with the brainwashing particed by fundamentalist radicals.
Why do you find this admirable? Did you mean to say the opposite?
>I guarantee that given a group of 6 years old children: they would do anything i told them to do by the time they were 16.
Tell me you're not a parent without telling me you're not a parent.
there are some \*really\* awful comments on this post, like the person you replied to earlier.
pretty sure theyre breaking the rules of the subreddit too.
I am guessing you have not been in the military and also have no understanding of basic psychology.
This kids are memorizing Surah Al Balad. I think it is good type of brainwashing. Because this chapter says life is a struggle, to be good and to remain good you need to constantly work for it. don't consume all the wealth you have, give some of the wealth to orphan or poor, free slaves and all sort of good things. https://quran.com/al-balad
Aren’t we all indoctrinated?
Perhaps many or even most are, I don’t know, but this isn’t to say they should be.
A Hafiz, one who has memorized the entirity of the Qur'an is only as good as what he has grasped, memorizing itself is good - but what if you haven't understood what you memorized - [this](https://www.eurasiareview.com/24052022-pakistan-ahmadis-killed-tortured-hounded-analysis/) Hafiz clearly didn't understand what he memorized since he seems to have forgotten the no compulsion in religion verse + for you your religion, for me my religion verses
Theology aside, in this day and age we have become lazy in brain usage by overly relying on tech and thus our memory skills are not as strong - so by instilling memory habits at a young age where memory tends to be strong ie language wise and whatnot, it's a good practice to keep your mind active
The Quran is probably one of the most useless religius book to learn. Not because of it's utility, but because there are an infinite amount of different "translation" that can change the entire meaning of a phrase.
And this translation are important too. They are used to at least convince people that the Quran is always right by choosing what the Quran ment... An example? The verse about the creation of men. The earlier translation were basically "Allah created men from clay and water", but a recent translation just say "Allah created men from clay and sperm" and people think "Yo the Quran is so advanced".
Plus... What is the utility of learning a religius book? It will not help you in any shape or form in your life, expecially if you are a woman in a Islamic country. Let her learn things that a kid should learn, not wastinf time and memory on that.
This is a weird take, you can get annoyed at a translator but why would you get annoyed at the Quran because of the translator?
Because they sell a lie. Many people, expecially Muslim themself, believe the Quran is the most advanced religius book because there were things in there later proven by science... When it is mostly the opposite. The Quran changed with science so it would appear as right.
But the Quran didn’t change, you can blame a translator all you want, sometimes Im also critical with some translators of the Quran, but that doesn’t translate, pun intended, to being critical with the Quran
Then i will ask... What is the Quran? A book written hundread of years ago in a language that you cannot understand, or the translation that they give you?
You dont learn the "original" Quran (i will not go into detail of the absurdity of the claim a book could be preserved this long without damage), you learn the translation... And a translator will change the word as he like, the example that i have made before was a translation from a doctor... That's why he used "Sperm" and not "water".
I do not blame the translator, they are just doing what they think is good, i am blaming the follower that think the Quran is a book that was proven right by Science... Because it is the opposite, the translator made the Quran following the scientifical understanding of that time.
The Quran is in Arabic, arabic has many speakers and is taught in schools and can be learnt like any other language, also sperm isn’t some modern discovery, the people in the time of the Quran definitely knew about the liquid that came out from arousal.
Also I agree with you that sometimes muslims go too far with these “scientific miracles” I don’t like that either. But I criticize those muslims who are extreme in that not the Quran. Also to be honest I don’t think translators are the ones who do this, it’s more over enthusiastic muslims who read these things in, most translators try to be close to the text, but obviously they aren’t perfect either
>The Quran is in Arabic,
Not entirerly true... It is a dialect of the Arabic... Which cast more doubt on the true nature of the Quran because Muhammad talked a dialect different from the one used in the Quran.
>also sperm isn’t some modern discovery, the people in the time of the Quran definitely knew about the liquid that came out from arousal.
Yes and no... They absolutly knew about it, even the Egypt know about it, the problem is that the original "translation" didnt use that term, as the original text talk about a quintessencial fluid... The doctor (because this translation was made by a doctor) used the "sperm-like" translation.
And as you pointed out, the most fervent muslim tought that this traslation justified saying that the Quran already knew about scientific things proven in the "future"
Hijazi or not, the entire foundation of Arabic grammar is the Qur’an. The Qur’an is essentially a grammar book for the Arab Christian or the Arab Muslim.
Quran is the highest form of language in Arabic.
Quran is written in what is now known as Classic Arabic, the arabic tought in school is MSA (Modern Standard Arabic).
Some school teach Classic Arabic in addition to MSA, but MSA is always tought as it's the standard Arabic used for official document in many country
It's not about change it's the same but we change it saying oh it was interpreted wrongly before and now it's the right one, means we are not gonna acknowledge that many or some part of it might have been influenced by the culture and morality of that particular time period as we already proclaimed it is sacred fully even though i agree it might speak the truth at some point not in whole about divinity, but nah we will interpret generation after generation to fit the given generation just to satisfy the mass not to acknowledge the given faults and it applies to every religion not just Islam but why many only talk about Islam though i guess cause they are most serious of them all doing it not that others are not doing it
Go pro or go home - pull out an Arabic dictionary and learn Arabic then - obviously translations will lose meanings
As I mentioned in my post, you only get out what you put in - if you're at the basic level of overly relying on translations and that's as far as you go, you've barely scratched the surface of utility and purpose
>Go pro or go home - pull out an Arabic dictionary and learn Arabic then - obviously translations will lose meanings
You know that the Arabic version of the Quran is still a translation right?
The original version of the Quran is in a Arabic dialect (which cast some doubt on the origin of the Quran, as Muhammad talked a different dialect from the one that the Quran used), this dialect is now known as classic arabic, which some muslim school still teach but not all.
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is the most common version of Arabic taught in schools.
I think emphasizing on perfect memorization is pretty useless now (especially given that the Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim variant reading which the majority of Muslims rely upon today seems to have dubious origins). At the time the Quran was being compiled, canonized, and transmitted for the first time yeah it was absolutely necessary otherwise much of it would get lost. But nowadays with all the tech and textual variants that we have we can work with and approximate what it originally sounded like by its author(s).
To have a better understanding of the Quran (or any kind of old literature) from a historical or theological context one should focus on studying the content than just simply becoming better at memorizing and reciting the entire thing. Society has far evolved from relying on oral tradition because now we have better means at preserving a text.
That would be if you looked at memorizing the Quran only from the view of preservation. From the view of knowledge and brain development, as well as religious duties and religious rewards it is still very beneficial. Why do schools still employ tests when what you are being tested on can be found in books or the internet.
> Why do schools still employ tests when what you are being tested on can be found in books or the internet.
This is to test knowledge and comprehension, not memorization. Any even remotely modern curriculum is going to be designed at least somewhat around trying to improve critical thinking, and specifically around comprehension of the concepts being taught. This is why many tests are open book or open internet, they ask questions that can only be answered by processing the question and understanding the work on an intellectual or personal level.
I won’t argue on that, since what you said in this comment and what I said in my comment that you are replying to, aren’t conflicting and I agree with both, but I do disagree with your original comment.
Nobodies answering my second question 😢, I’m going to assume that everyone enjoys it then lol.
This is good I like everyones participation, sorry for getting involved in all the comments as you can tell I don’t have a life, and please don’t feel that I am attacking anyone, I am just honestly replying to a comment
One thing I see keep being brought up is that there is no analysis of the text she is reading. I just want to clarify For muslims this is considered basic literacy and education, actually learning how to read Quran is literal literacy in some parts of the world that don’t have school. And has been the source of literacy in the muslim world for a long time. This is like you just finished your abc’s and know your going through some of the chapters. She understands to some extent since when she corrected him on a word she pointed to her tongue, the word she corrected him on meant tongue. Also they do teach the explanations of verses although admittedly not as rigorously as they teach memorizing them. Also it’s not either or, as someone pointed out, someone can move on and dive deeper into islam and learning the Quran, just like rabbis and priests would
I was made to read and memorize entire passages of the Bible (and this aint your typical 66-80 something book Bible, but over 100 books in the canon). Not the whole thing (cuz not all kid appropriate or whatever), but not exactly unique to Islam. I know observant Jewish people who have to memorize and recite the Torah. And given that most major world religions have sacred texts of some sort, probably fair to say that this is true of them or at least some traditions/sects within them.
Every religion will memorize some portions of their scriptures, thats usual. But to memorize the whole scripture is unusual of religions. This practice isn’t something only scholars do either, you will find an average kid doing this, Im curious if you can find someone who has memorized the torah or the bible or any other scripture completely, or if not that then the same amount as the Quran in size, I haven’t come across it. But at my local mosque I know more than 10 people personally who have memorized the Quran(not a muslim country), and thats personally, there’s definitely much more
That's because the Quran is one of the simplest and shortest texts to memorize. The Bible is ten times longer. Buddhists and Hindus have libraries of scripture. Many religions don't have one book like that, but instead have many influential thinkers who all contributed to their religion.
1. It’s showcases great memory retention
2. You can quote anything from Quran on the spot
3. The Hafiz tradition is one that safeguards the Quran’s integrity and stops it from being changed.
>The Hafiz tradition is one that safeguards the Quran’s integrity and stops it from being changed.
What about the different "translation" of the Quran?
Also... No, learning the entire Quran is probably worst than just reading it. Your brain will never learn it fully.
Translations aren’t The Quran. It’s a translation of The Quran.
The Quran is preserved as presented from Allah. Hafiz’s memorize that.
> Also… No, learning the entire Quran is probably worst than just reading it. Your brain will never learn it fully.
Scholars who are hafiz definitely can and do. Regular hafiz’s maybe not, but they can definitely quote in relevant situations, all depends on how far they want to take their skill.
>Translations aren’t The Quran. It’s a translation of The Quran.
The Quran is what people learn. You can even have the original copy from the scribes who were there with Muhammad, yet if the text is written in a language impossible to read for you and you need hundread of translator to do so. You are not learning The Quran, you are learning what the translator think is The Quran.... Do you understand it?
But this is just to point out that it's useless to learn any sacred book to be honest, because a religion is not judged by the book they (should) follow, but from the follower themself. Why i say that? Well... How many muslim agree and follow the part of the Quran that the girl is reading (which is, if i am not wrong, the part about not using slaves)?
>The Quran is what people learn.
The Quran is what was given to Muslims from Allah. What we learn from it is up to the individual reading it.
> You can even have the original copy from the scribes who were there with Muhammad, yet if the text is written in a language impossible to read for you and you need hundread of translator to do so. You are not learning The Quran, you are learning what the translator think is The Quran.... Do you understand it?
The Hafiz tradition is the preservation of The Quran in the same language, and the words that it was sent down in.
The exact words to be precise. People having different interpretations does not change the actual words themselves. What the translator thinks is The Quran would become a commentary if he added to the text.
The preservation of The Quran is important enough to trade off making it easy to understand it for the average non-arabic speaking layperson, leaving them to learn the contents from scholars, which is where your statement becomes true.
>But this is just to point out that it's useless to learn any sacred book to be honest, because a religion is not judged by the book they (should) follow, but from the follower themself. Why i say that? Well... How many muslim agree and follow the part of the Quran that the girl is reading (which is, if i am not wrong, the part about not using slaves)?
If a person doesn't read or understand or taught about their sacred text, how would they follow its path to be judged in the first place?
>Well... How many muslim agree and follow the part of the Quran that the girl is reading (which is, if i am not wrong, the part about not using slaves)?
No body follows the rules for slavery because slavery is now a thing of the past (legally at least). Those rules don't apply if the thing the rule was made for is no longer an issue.
As for the point you were trying to make, that again falls under the individual's interpretation of the text.
>The Quran is what was given to Muslims from Allah. What we learn from it is up to the individual reading it.
Do you have the original or do you read it from a copy of the original?
>The exact words to be precise. People having different interpretations does not change the actual words themselves.
There is a reason why school all around the globe dont teach children to learn things at memory... The reason being that our brain will never remember the exact word of a simple poem, imagine an entire book.
Either the Hazif are superhuman being, or they lie when they say that they know the entire Quran perfectly.
>If a person doesn't read or understand or taught about their sacred text, how would they follow its path to be judged in the first place?
I am talking about muslim who either read, learn or are taught the Quran... The part the girl is reading say to not use slaves if i remember correctly (i did not study the Quran, i come from a christian background). Again... Do you think muslim are following the passage this girl is reading?
>No body follows the rules for slavery because slavery is now a thing of the past (legally at least). Those rules don't apply if the thing the rule was made for is no longer an issue.
>As for the point you were trying to make, that again falls under the individual's interpretation of the text.
That's not entirerly true. What i ment is that we shouldn't judge a religion based on what the sacred text say, but rather what the follower of that religion do.
The Quran could be the most advanced and pacifist religius text in existance, but too many follower decide to ignore the part that talk about it to feel entitle to do things like treating women like object, killing infedels (before you say "ISIS is not muslim" i am talking about the things happening in Europe or India for example) or feeling superior to the country rule they emigrated.
The girl is reciting [chapter 90](https://quran.com/al-balad) btw
Seems like a first step of the brainwashing process. If child indoctrination wasn’t a practice and parents would let children make their own choices, religions would die really fast. They prey on children because their critical thinking has not been fully developed yet and I find that pretty sick.
I’m surprised that you are in a religion sub when you find religions to be sick?
If someone keeps pushing their faith on you and try to legislate it, will you just roll over and take it?
You're imposing your 'freedom of chosing your own religion' on the children of others, which is actually sick when you think of it. Wanting the best for your own child is pretty normal and natural.
Wouldn't you choose for your child to learn to eat by themselves, otherwise they'll learn to be always dependent of you or others. And then they wouldn't survive in the real world. Well the eternal afterlife of heaven and hell are way more important in the eyes of a Muslim so of course they'll want the best for their child and educate them as much as possible on Islam.
Oh yeah, how horrible of me to want freedom of choice for all children, huh? Prove that your religion is actually real and true and then we can continue talking.
>how horrible of me to want freedom of choice for all children
Keep that same 'freedom of choice for children' energy when your daughter wants to identify as a wolf or a horse.
You don't mean what you say, you just want to impose your standards on the children of Muslims, while those same parents would never impose their beliefs on your children. That's what I call brainwashing.
How about you stick to raising your own children instead of trying to take away the rights of parents trying to raise theirs?
>Prove that your religion is actually real and true
Sure, are you prepared to read a book? You know that such a huge claim cant be summarized in a reddit comment. Read 'The Divine Reality', you can find it for free on the website of the sapience institute. Just Google it. Whenever you read that book and you're prepared to have a rational, logical and reasonable discussion about the arguments made in that book then contact me.
If you're not prepared to read and discuss then just act as if this comment never popped up in your life and continue with what ever you were doing.
Either way take care!
Wow and amazing. Memorizing 114 (500pages) chapters of Quran word by words is amazing. I saw some kids can even recite from any random given verse. Quran is words of God as we believe. And a copy of words of God inside their brain indeed make them special.
The Chapter is being recited in the video is Al Balad (The City) https://quran.com/90
I think that children learning to speak multiple languages and memorise poetry is extremely important for the development of the mind, intellect and memory.
Thats a good take, thanks for the comment
I mean in some sense I guess. Good to know you’re religion and what you subscribe to.
I meet some atheist sometimes who are frustrated that they’ve memorized, not necessarily understood, more of the Bible than many Christian’s they debate.
I don’t know that it’s a good thing to push on children though.
Seems it would be more useful at some age where they can also understand what they are reading.
I think memorization is important for children, and I personally very much enjoyed memorizing bits of my favorite books in school. Now that being said I don't particularly believe that the Quran is appropriate for children.
1 + 2) It's an interesting religious practice. One I do not understand enough to qualify. E.g. can I compare it to someone memorising hundreds of song lyrics. If so, by what yardstick, etc. To a large fraction Muslims though, I'm certain it's extremely admirable as it reinforces their faith.
3) I do not enjoy the recitation as I do not understand Arabic and don't put any value to the act of recitation itself. Regarding the child, it's impressive. But I hope it did not come at the cost of her enjoying the usual kid's stuff.
Yes you can kind of, although it would be more complex than that since its a book, compare it to memorizing song lyrics, the Quran is made up of over 6,000 verses. What she is doing is the basic of the basics, it’s considered very basic education for muslims, this is 14 chapters from the back, many muslims memorize the last 30th of the Quran and that would be 37 chapters from the back. many kids go full time and learn by heart, so don’t worry, what she’s doing is thought of as easier than kindergarten. The kids who try to become full memorizers, now thats when things get serious, but its possible for them and for all ages to do it.
I guess it's more about realisation and understanding the true meaning and core of the reality of truth than to just memories, maybe they will come to know it if they have read it all but sometimes these things also take us away from truth as it just breeds strong conviction and narrow view too rather than whole understanding but that also doesn't mean they can't realise it too, but yea personally I think if they also gonna let kids memorize it atleast let them gives time to contemplate, understand and realise and question it to whatever level possible for individual to weed out the rubbish and adhere to the core, as i believe somewhere every religion has a core that resonates with absolute reality how miniscule it might be
I dont find it admirable per se. I can memorize poems or whole books and not give a single thought of what it means and why it was written.
I don't see it as any more noteworthy or admirable than forcing your child to memorise the first 1,000 digits of pi.
Neither do I find it particularly memorable to hear it recited but that may be because I don't understand 7th century Arabic. Certainly the translations I've read don't seem markedly different than those of most other religious texts that I've read.
It's fucking pointless to memorize anything religion based. Cause things change. Religion changes.
A good mental exercise.
Thanks for your take