I was on mobile and could not link.
Hello Spaghettib.. please take your time to respond.. we do not need to write quick responses...
The argument presented by altara based on tafsirs is quite clear in Reynolds book.
If you reed Reynolds book "allah, god in the quran" in the opening pages the authors openly says that there no specific reason to use islamic tradition to read the quran.
well I LEAVE ALTARA ALONE ., I am reading him for a long time., and I fully agree with Reynolds book., Yes there is indeed NO SPECIFIC reason to consider Allah/god of Islam is any different from any other god of any faith...
I think Reynolds knows very well that islam is non historical.
Papers like 40576544 and 42956572 by silverstein, or 17665836 by celik imply the same conclusion as of Reynolds.
Really?.. Do these Islamic historians of west think that that islam is non historical.?
I am not sure about that dear Spaghettib., what does it means?? what is non-historical w.r.t Islam?? Islam is historical and it is as much historical as any religion/faith .. The only difference is when its history started ..
Judaism started some say 5 or 6000 years ago so it has 6000 years of history...
Christianity started some say 2000 years ago so it has 2000 years of history...
Islam started some say 1500, 1400, or 1300 years ago so it has that many years of history..
Sikhism was founded/started some time in the mid 15th century so it has some 500 year history...
The Baháʼí Faith started by Baháʼu'lláh spme time in 1850 ,.. so it has some 150 years of history ..
Mormonism started in AMRIKA some time in 1830s.. so it has some 170 years of history
well I can go on list all faiths/religion.. anyways .. SO ISLAM DOES HAVE ITS OWN HISTORY., the question may be when it started and who started it?
I understand the 700 pages of altara.
In order to stick together a sufficient corpus of examples to show that tafsirs are structurally ignorant of the text is not easy considering how difficult is to push the field of islamic studies out of the tradition.
And if altara is proposing a new historical context we need texts and examples where that language was living and kicking and could be understood. There is need of examples to provide a literary context where people structurally understood what ar-raquim is, what kalalat is, etc...
well I leave Altara alone.. he is making everything upside down in Islam...
If you look at zeca post were somebody with Dr. In the title uses subjectivity to shift the attention of the audience from technical questions to personal feelings, double job is required.
True.. I absolutely agree with you there.,
when Personal feelings enters in to historian mind THEN OBJCETIVITY GOES OUT OF THE WINDOW .. he can not be true historian