Perhaps both can be meant. the name itself, Quran, in arabic is a verbal noun form meaning “Recitation” or reading, but at the time probably more recitation…
It was not even fully written down during the lifetime of Mohammed, it was memorized and recited. It was the action of the Caliph Abu Bakr after Mohammed’s death after a number of reciters were killed that had the first full written version.
So it is very useful to understand it as first an oral work, not one that was experienced first in reading alone, but by recitation, and this feels different I think.
Even now in the Islamic tradition, what is greatly valued is the Recitation - not just reading, but the memorization and the recitation. There are the international competitions around this.
I suppose we can say some parts are poety and some parts of recited verse, maybe not poetry, but it is not certainly the intentionally written narrative. I am not a literature person so I do not like to pretend to characterize what is poetry or what is not, but I think it is clear the narrative verse meant to be recited and memorized for the oral recitation has a quality different from the text that is primary written narrative.
Yes, it is a very, very strong ideological bias, it feels perhaps sinful to create a work to compete with the original - which is what in its own ideological framework a believing translation will be it if it is too attractive.
as a matter of rendering the original poetry if I use the idea of poetry in the wide sense
yes I am aware of the historical change, from the protestant era, although already the Latin language bible is itself a translation, so the idea of resistance seems strange to me…
But the vernacular Bibles had huge effort to render them beautifully when this resistance broke. It can not be said that this is the case of the Quran where the ideological resistance remains.
Thus the decades of effort as I understand it - even centuries maybe - against for the Quran only some recent (decades) of comparatively limited indivudal efforts.