has anyone here ever actually read the whole of the koran?

I'm reading this right now, the oxford translation. Just a little every night with whatever else I'm reading, I'm hoping I'll eventually get through it because its remarkably beautiful.

Me, the entire thing in Arabic, which I can read but don't understand at all.

I've read parts of it in Arabic class but not the whole of it.

On a related note, has anyone here actually read the whole of the Torah?

the qu'ran is ok i guess

was reading this by a(n unorthodox) catholic theologian, mostly pushing back against severe protestant (and otherwise homophobically proof-texty) readings of romans 1:

http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html

and near the end he ventures to say

And this leads into my last point this evening, which is really why I think it worthwhile to attempt this exercise of an attempt at a Catholic reading in your midst at this time. We have for too long been beguiled by what I would like to call a Koranic reading of scripture. It is at least coherent for a Muslim to claim that the Koran was dictated by God to Mohammed, and therefore that the Koran itself must be read as so dictated by an authority from above. The text becomes a sort of intermediary body between God and reader, such that the faithful are imprisoned under the fixed words of the text, which are imagined to be “just there”, inspired by God, and which thus absolve the reader from taking responsibility for the reading which he or she supplies. But it is not coherent for a Catholic to read Scripture in this way. The Catholic Church, heir to an extraordinarily rich tradition of creative Jewish textual reading, reads scripture Eucharistically, because for us the prime source of authority is not the text itself, but the crucified and living victim, alive in our midst, who is the living interpretative presence teaching us how to undo our violent and evil ways of relating to each other, and how together to enter into the way of penitence and peace. For us “The Word of God” refers in the first place to a living person, and only by analogy to the texts which bear witness to him. The living hermeneutical presence is more important than that which it is hermeneuting. This is what is meant by Jesus telling the Pharisees in Matthew's Gospel (Mt 9:13; 12:7):

Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”

And:

... If you had known what this means, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Now there is an instruction regarding the Catholic reading of Scripture from an authority even more important than the Pontifical Biblical Commission. And I'm glad to say that the Commission's passage which I read to you at the beginning of my talk is in complete accord with it.

how widespread is that for christians (catholics) to invalidate hermeneutical approaches as essentially 'koranic'? i hadn't noticed it before out in the world and i should think i would've.

also, anyone know if it is ordinary within islam to make the same move in reverse?

I have not heard anyone call that kind of reading “koranic” before.

I was taught this distinction wrt catholic/ Protestant readings, through Augustine.

lol because that's the reading that gets used against the splitters?? : D

not really anti protestant, more like it’s how to reconcile platonist and Jewish scriptural traditions, while at the same accounting for the incompatibility of naive empiricism with scriptural reading (world wasn’t really created in seven days etc)

“to an unknown god”