Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Today at 10:07 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 06:58 PM

Kashmir endgame
Yesterday at 02:15 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
Yesterday at 12:57 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
September 18, 2019, 03:50 PM

The Battle for British Is...
September 17, 2019, 06:28 PM

Muslim heritage?
September 17, 2019, 06:04 PM

Scientists and .............
by akay
September 17, 2019, 06:22 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
September 16, 2019, 04:53 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
September 16, 2019, 10:07 AM

Islamic Humanism
September 15, 2019, 12:01 PM

Beard outbreak in Uzbekis...
September 15, 2019, 09:22 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 343762 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 173 174 175176 177 ... 254 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5220 - February 09, 2019, 02:07 PM

    Yeez,

    I guess I'll need to re(read) the first 5. You are right, i need to do that.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5221 - February 09, 2019, 02:11 PM

    If it is true, it means that Arabs are not Jewish and that they follow other indication than the jewish one to build something. That they are not jewish is corroborated by the rest of the story : keeping cross on Arab coins, inscriptions with crosses : is that a Jewish custom, crosses and Jesus as prophet in the Dome of the Rock later? I do not think so.


    You assume that all of them did follow the same "religion". This what the muslim tradition claim but the sources tell us a different story.

    Quote
    Of course. But it is not a jewish army which enters Jerusalem in 637. ....................It is simply because they really wanted to build something and that it did not coming from the Jews.


    Anastasius of Sinai talk about the arabs as the new jews and talk about the synagogs of the jews and of the arabs. The monotheism of arab tribes in the Sinai region comes from the jewish religion.


    Quote
    Islamic tradition are full of  stories to explain events that it ties with the frame Mecca/Medina/Kaba/Muhammad/Zem zem.

    Rather, there is a demand of the Arabs where was the Mount and the Jews shown them.

    Islamic tradition for example is telling us that it is a Jew allegedly converted to Islam who guided Umar to the area of the Temple Mount


    I didn't mean that Umar existed ; I am just saying that the islamic tradition is mentionning an event that is backed up by external sources eventhough the muslim tradition would have added an ahistorical context to it.

    Quote
    I (really) think that the Jews thought that they were rebuilding the Temple for THEM (Jews). And that they could frame the Arabs. One knows the end of the story.


    This what all the sources say. I never disagreed with that.


    Quote
    An alliance where Arabs expelled the Jews from the Mount?


    Alliances come and go. Read Sebeos.

    Quote
    I do not call that an "alliance". In 614 the situation is (totally) different; the Persians are in charge. Nor the Jews,  nor the Arabs-Persians or anyone else. They all obey to their Persian masters. It happens that they give the city to the Jews to humiliate the Romans (Monophysite, Chalcedonian, Nestorian). But it is not a jewish conquest, it is a Persian one. They REMOVE the city according to the sources from the Jews hand two years later. And what did the Jews? Nothing. They have obeyed.


    Replace persians by arabs and you can notice the similarity in those events 24 years afar from each other.


    Anyway, my main points are :

    - there is no proof that the arabs entering Jerusalem did read the Quran,
    - you don't need the Quran to build something on the Temple Mount
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5222 - February 09, 2019, 02:29 PM

    Hi  Marc US  ... happy old year.,  well  you  are right,   one should NOT neglect what has been written in history.,  but I am afraid very few have read   that Armenian History
    attributed to Sebeos
      in  its  original form.,  Often most folks write hand waving statements in the name of Sebeos
    with best
    yeezevee


    It is all about cross checking sources but Sebeos, or whoever wrote under this name, has been proven to be quite accurate though his writings need a thorough analysis as he can sometimes conflate different events into one and also because, especially in the description of the arab conquests, he introduces some theological aspects based on the Bible.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5223 - February 09, 2019, 02:35 PM

    To all,

    I think we need to enlarge the list of qualities our author(s) had. I will add another one:

    - Influenced by Geez speakers
      
    I repeat the other ones:

    - good knowledge of Bible
    - good knowledge of christianity
    - good knowledge of Talmud/ Mishnah
    - Arabic speaker

    I hope you all will add some more.


    I think it would be fair to talk about different authors for the Quran, whose texts were compiled into it (the  dialog between Allah and ibliss when ibliss refuses to bow down in front of Adam and told in different suras is a good example of this).
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5224 - February 09, 2019, 03:07 PM

    Marc,

    Sure, let us consider different authors. And from their collective qualities try to pin down aenvironment where they lived and worked.

    Was just reading about the dead sea, how "thousands of monks lived in hundreds of monasteries scattered throughout the desert". Apparently the 614 Persian conquest decimated the lot and the monastic movement never recovered.

    Could the Persian conquest have brought them new ideas? Did this conquest jeopardise their livelihood and did that open opportunities for new ideas? Did these conquests loosen their ties with the church hierarchy allowing drastic heresies to occur?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5225 - February 09, 2019, 03:23 PM

    Yeez,

    I guess I'll need to re(read) the first 5. You are right, i need to do that.

     well  mundi you can easily read those five chapters  as more than 20 English translations of Quran....  including your own  mother tongue..... translations are available online   


    But..but my problem  with your post on the subject of your present interest   is different .. The subject you are trying to explore is extremely specific  on "QURAN COMPILERS "(NOT authors of Quran)  and their backgrounds  is very fascinating and very important

    but..but this folder that wonderful friend  zeca started (now he is  MIA)  is a ADHD folder .. i mean Attention deficit hyperactive disordered folder ..lol.. 

    and I am afraid your work  will get flooded and pulled in different directions...  Ideally such  subject should have its own folder with focused investigation on the  compilers of Quran  ..

    with best wishes
    yeezvee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5226 - February 09, 2019, 03:50 PM

    Nicolai Sinai quotes Fred Donner (2010;56);

    "The markedly different style and content of diverse parts of the Quran may be evidence that the text as we now have it is a composite of originally texts hailing from different communities of Believers in Arabia".

    He doesn't mention any monasteries or specify to Hijaz or Syria-Palestine, but Arabia, but he call them "communities of Believers", whatever that might be.

    How many researchers would agree to a view like Donner's?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5227 - February 09, 2019, 04:18 PM

    Most, I guess.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5228 - February 09, 2019, 05:50 PM

    You assume that all of them did follow the same "religion". This what the muslim tradition claim but the sources tell us a different story.


    Not at all. For plundering the soldatesque follows their leaders, that's all. Only few guys around the military leaders (in the West) were aware and got some Quranic texts. It is them who advised the chiefs that the house of prayer should be built on the Temple Mount in 637/38. Military leaders who do not fight for Islam/Quran or whatever, they fight because they are in war since 602 (see von Sivers) for EXCELLENT reasons. But these chiefs are are surrounded by people who have Quranic texts, they are their "religious" advisers of the leaders, not yet of the soldatesque or just a little.  Anyway the soldatesque obey and built what the chiefs wants. That the soldatesque would be from Christians extraction, it is perfectly possible and probable. But they are foreigners in Palestine. And they follow their leaders.

    Quote
    Anastasius of Sinai talk about the arabs as the new jews and talk about the synagogs of the jews and of the arabs. The monotheism of arab tribes in the Sinai region comes from the jewish religion. 


    Thanks to give the exact sources. Arculfe speak of a mosque... and not a synagogue...
    Otherwise it seems to me logical for a guy like Anastasius  or whoever as a literati at that time to say that. But he's mistaken. From his point of view  I do not see any problems as characterizing Jewishness here.

    Quote
    I didn't mean that Umar existed ; I am just saying that the islamic tradition is mentionning an event that is backed up by external sources eventhough the muslim tradition would have added an ahistorical context to it.

    Ok.

    Quote
    Alliances come and go. Read Sebeos.


    No connection with an alliance here. Sebeos says that it is the Jews that build a house :

    Quote
    I will say again the designs of the insurgent Jews who, having met for some time with the assistance of the Hagarachs,[350] conceived the design to rebuild the temple of Solomon; having discovered the place called Saint of the Saints, they built there with the foundations and the building a place of prayer for themselves. The Ishmaelites, jealous of them, pushed them away from this place and called this place their[house] of prayer. The Jews] built in another place, near the temple, another place of prayer for themselves;


    Who tell the Arabs to replace the Jews? The Jews?


    Quote
    Replace persians by arabs and you can notice the similarity in those events 24 years afar from each other.


    Of course, the Arabs do the same thing as the Persians did 30 years earlier . It is normal, they copy their ex masters.

    Quote
    Anyway, my main points are :

    - there is no proof that the arabs entering Jerusalem did read the Quran,


    There is no proof of the contrary as well.
    There is rather indication that they have something with them that they told them that they can pray on the Mount. It cannot be the Jews if one follows Sebeos, the Jews are not masochists. to say : "hey guys, replace us!!!"  Moreover "The Jews] built in another place, near the temple, another place of prayer for themselves;

    Quote
    - you don't need the Quran to build something on the Temple Mount


    Who tell the Arabs to pray on it? One just saw that it cannot be the Jews according to Sebeos. Who then?
    You have no response.
    I have a logical one : Quranic texts, not necessarily all.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5229 - February 09, 2019, 06:48 PM

    Donner/believers/scholars,

    I think quite some scholars are going for "single author" and that would be in conflict with "different community origin of texts".
     I think this single author thing is viewed as a middle position and the voice of moderation. Why offend people when there is no hard evidence? Why not accept Mecca as long as there is still a tiny tiny chance of it being  proto-islams' focus?
    Lots of scholars seem to be really very nice people.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5230 - February 09, 2019, 07:09 PM

    Yeez,

    You are right that a lot of topics are getting mixed up. Maybe we could start an early mosque section? Individual mosques and their orientation can be discussed?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5231 - February 09, 2019, 08:54 PM

    Not at all. For plundering the soldatesque follows their leaders, that's all. Only few guys around the military leaders (in the West) were aware and got some Quranic texts. It is them who advised the chiefs that the house of prayer should be built on the Temple Mount in 637/38.



    Do you have sources that say exactly this or is this your opinion ?

    Quote
    But these chiefs are are surrounded by people who have Quranic texts, they are their "religious" advisers of the leaders,


    Do you have sources that say exactly this or is this your opinion ?

    Quote
    Thanks to give the exact sources. Arculfe speak of a mosque... and not a synagogue...


    I was not refering to the Temple Mount when I said this but I was just highlighting that arabs were compared to Jews so there must have been something "jewish" in their religion(s).

    See paragraph 38
    http://www.theologica.fr/!_Pg_Patristique_Theologiens&OrdresMonastiques_1/ALBOCICADE%20%20Les%20cigales%20Eloquentes/Anastase-le-moine-pdf.pdf

    Quote
    No connection with an alliance here. Sebeos says that it is the Jews that build a house :


    Sebeos explain the arab conquest as a consequence of an alliance between Jews and Arabs

    Quote
    Who tell the Arabs to replace the Jews? The Jews?


    You have different sort of Jews anyway but you read Gallez so you know he mentions an alliance that is being overthrown afterwards based on Sebeos writings (eventhough the main assumption of Gallez, the judeo-nazarene sect is wrong).


    Quote
    Who tell the Arabs to pray on it?

    The people who told them that they are also the sons of Abraham.

    Quote
    One just saw that it cannot be the Jews according to Sebeos.


    Sebeos say exactly the contrary but I think here his narrative should be viewed more like a reminder rather than indoctrination. Arabs didn't wait Sebeos time to know about their lineage from Abraham through Ismael and to have sacred and worshipping places reminding them of him.

    Quote
    Who then?
    You have no response.


    I just did.  Wink

    Quote
    I have a logical one : Quranic texts, not necessarily all.

    I understand how you get there but, just as sources don't mention Mecca/Zem Zem/Djibril/etc,etc, they don't mention a Quran or religious texts coming with the arab invaders. However one source does mention arab invaders as following the Torah.



    The blessed one answered, “Just as the Torah is one and the same and is accepted by us Christians, by you Hagarenes, by the Jews, and by the Samaritans, but each people differs in faith, so also concerning the gospel’s faith: each sect understands and interprets it differently, and not like us.” (Disputation between John and the Emir / Michael Penn When Christians first met Muslims)


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5232 - February 09, 2019, 11:38 PM

    Quote
    Do you have sources that say exactly this or is this your opinion ?


    It is deduction from the sources at our dispositions. Example is what we dispute. You have no response. The Jews,  cannot build something (according to Sebeos) on the Temple Mount and call the Arabs : " Hey guys, replace us! " It simply not possible when one knows the Jews.  So it is not them from where the Arabs have the idea to pray .The logical thought is that it is from Quranic texts some of them have.  What passage? Q 2,127. I suppose that few Arabs in the elite have some (not all) Quranic texts (not in the codex form ) Moreover even if there is issues about it, C14  radiocarbon validate more or less the existence of Quranic folios in  637.  I can envisage this because I have not built a theory which prevent me to envisage that Quranic texts exists at that time. I have no theories, I have the sources. And the deduction I make, have to be corroborated by later sources. In our case, Arabs do not stop to build on the Mount later. It is not the Jews. It is them.

    Quote
    The people who told them that they are also the sons of Abraham.

     

    In cold blood you say that ( if one follows the account of Sebeos) the Jews rebuild the Temple and call the Arabs, take our place guys, come on because you guys are the son of Ishmael!  After 567 years of waiting to rebuild it for themselves, the Jews did that? Lol I'm sorry Marc...

    The Arabs (and all the Orient)  did not wait the 7th c. Jerusalem  to know that Jews  and Christians said that Arabs/Saracens whatever one call them were the sons of Abraham via Ishmael. They look like to the Ishmaelites whose the Bible attests; check the sources : https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3459.htm
    They're be called like that since almost the 5th c. by the Biblical world in the Orient.
    So no, it not the Jews in the 7th c. Jerusalem that teach the Arabs that they are the son of Ishmael. No. They know this very well, they do not need the Jews to teach them this information in that time. And that is why the Quran use this feature at length regularly in the texts because it is a known fact  to its reader that Arabs are seen as descendants of Ishmael contrary to what said GALLEZ in his thesis (hahaha!) Either he has not working this topic, either he deliberately lied. I refuse to choose here. But he's wrong. The Arabs knew very well how they were seen by Jews and Christians therefore all the Orient since at least the 5th c: cf. Ishmael on the Border Rabbinic Portrayals of the First Arab Carol Bakhos State University of New York Press, 2006

    Quote
    Sebeos say exactly the contrary


    You're wrong. Sebeos in this very episode do not say that the Jews teach the Arabs that they are the sons of Ishmael and that would explain that the Arabs replace them in the Mount. Sebeos never say that.

     
    Quote
    I understand how you get there but, just as sources don't mention Mecca/Zem Zem/Djibril/etc,etc, they don't mention a Quran or religious texts coming with the arab invaders.


    Hahaha! The Arabs soldatesque were not aware of a Quran or religious text as well yet they build place of prayers, the Jews told them to do so?  Who told them? You have, again, no response,

    "We should not be surprised, therefore, to find reports from the first century that Basrans did not know about the religious duty of fast alms, or that they had no idea about how to perform prayer and had to be shown, or that the people of Syria did not know that the number of obligatory prayers was five, or that the only person the tribe of ‘Abd al-Ashhal could find to lead their prayers was a slave. Or, that people were reciting Arabic poetry from the pulpits of mosques, mistakenly thinking they were reciting verses from the Qur’ān. Or, that in the time of al-Hajjāj and ‘Umar II (d. 101 AH/AD 720), people were said not to know when prayer times were. Salima al-Jarmī led the prayers for his tribe at the age of six because they could find nobody who knew more Qur’ān than he did. " 
    SYRIA BETWEEN BYZANTIUM AND ISLAM: MAKING INCOMMENSURABLES SPEAK volume 1 Jack Boulos Victor Tannous A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

    Only the leaders know that there is folios, nor the Arabs soldatesque, nor anyone, therefore nor the Christian writers around. But these guys would build in every city they conquest, mosques. It is the Jews who told them to build mosques? I do not think so ; it is their leaders who were in charge and the others obeyed without posing questions like all in Antiquity. They built because there was orders to built. For me it is not the Jews, it is Quranic texts that the leaders considered as important.

    Quote
    However one source does mention arab invaders as following the Torah.
    "The blessed one answered, “Just as the Torah is one and the same and is accepted by us Christians, by you Hagarenes, by the Jews, and by the Samaritans, but each people differs in faith, so also concerning the gospel’s faith: each sect understands and interprets it differently, and not like us.” (Disputation between John and the Emir / Michael Penn When Christians first met Muslims)"


    This source mentions that ALL follows the Torah . Furthermore the Quran says that the Torah is guidance, etc. So yes they follow the Torah like Christians but the Christians have also the Gospel.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5233 - February 10, 2019, 03:32 AM


    It is deduction from the sources at our dispositions.


    So you have no source to backup your claim ; an opinion is not a fact ; I admit that as I also have my opinions but opinions have limitations.

    Quote
    The Arabs (and all the Orient)  did not wait the 7th c. Jerusalem  to know that Jews  and Christians said that Arabs/Saracens whatever one call them were the sons of Abraham via Ishmael.


    That is what I said but your reply implies that you didn't read me.

    Quote
    In cold blood you say that ( if one follows the account of Sebeos) the Jews rebuild the Temple and call the Arabs, take our place guys, come on because you guys are the son of Ishmael!  After 567 years of waiting to rebuild it for themselves, the Jews did that? Lol I'm sorry Marc...


    You keep on ignoring the other Sebeos writings that I summarized and only quote the narrative about the building of a place of prayer on the Temple Mount. So let me refresh your memory ; according to Sebeos, Jews did ally with Arabs and convinced them to wage war against Byzantium to recapture Israel. Once Jerusalem was seized, the Jews started building their own place of prayer but the Arabs "jealous" of them expelled them and built their own.

    Quote
    Twelve peoples representing all the tribes of the Jews assembled at the city of Edessa. When they saw that the Persian troops had departed leaving the city in peace, they closed the gates and fortified themselves. They refused entry to troops of the Roman lordship. Thus Heraclius, emperor of the Byzantines, gave the order to besiege it. When the Jews realized that they could not militarily resist him, they promised to make peace. Opening the city gates, they went before him, and Heraclius ordered that they should go and stay in their own place. So they departed, taking the road through the desert to Tachkastan Arabia to the sons of Ishmael. The Jews called the Arabs to their aid and familiarized them with the relationship they had through the books of the Old Testament. Although the Arabs were convinced of their close relationship, they were unable to get a consensus from their multitude, for they were divided from each other by religion. In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Mahmed, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God’s command, was revealed to them, and Mahmed taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from on High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father–Abraham. Mahmed legislated that they were not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: “God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when God loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."

    Then all of them assembled together, from Havilah to Shur, which is opposite Egypt and they set out from the P’arhan desert { [being] twelve tribes [moving] in the order [of precedence] of the Houses of the patriarchs of their tribe. They were divided into 12,000 men, of which the sons of Israel were in their own tribes, 1,000 to a tribe, to lead them to the country of Israel. They traveled army by army in the order [of precedence] of each patriarchy: Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah [Genesis 25. 13-16]. These are the peoples of Ishmael. They reached Moabite Rabbath, at the borders of [124] Ruben’s [land]. The Byzantine army was encamped in Arabia. [The Arabs] fell upon them suddenly, struck them with the sword and put to flight emperor Heraclius’ brother, T’eodos. Then they turned and encamped in Arabia.

    “All the remnants of the sons of Israel then assembled [g105] and united, becoming a large force. After this they dispatched a message to the Byzantine emperor, saying: “God gave that country as the inherited property [i kaluats zharhangut’ean] of Abraham and of his sons after him. We are the sons of Abraham. It is too much that you hold our country. Leave in peace, and we shall demand from you what you have seized, plus interest ”. The emperor rejected this. He did not provide a fitting response to the message but rather said: “The country is mine. Your inheritance is the desert [k’oy vichak zharhangut’ean anapatn]. So go in peace to your country”. And [Heraclius] started organizing brigades, as many as 70,000 [troops] giving them as a general, a certain one of his faithful eunuchs. He ordered that they were to go to Arabia, stipulating that they were not to engage them [125] in war, but rather to keep on the alert until he could assemble his other troops and send them to help.


    There is much to say about Sebeos narrative but it is enough to explain the events on the Temple Mount and this without the use of the Quranic text.

    Quote
    "We should not be surprised, therefore, to find reports from the first century that......Only the leaders know that there is folios,


    The Sunna was not written in the first century AH so this is your explanation (the Quran anyway doesn't mention 5 prayers nor how to perform them but the Sunna does). I suggest you read Patricia Crone God's Caliph ; it does tackle this topic indirectly.


    Quote
    Only the leaders know that there is folios, nor the Arabs soldatesque, nor anyone, therefore nor the Christian writers around
    Furthermore the Quran says that the Torah is guidance, etc.


    I am reading one contradiction here ; so how come people who never read the Quran know that these arabs follow the Torah because of the Quran ?
    The Gospel is also a source of guidance according to the Quran but it is not stated here that those Arabs followed the Gospel ; this is a second contradiction.

    Therefore, the obvious is what the text says meaning  those Arabs followed the Torah and the Torah only (in fact it is not that simple but let's not make it too complicated)



  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5234 - February 10, 2019, 08:16 AM

    Altara,

    Why dont you make a resumé of your theory? That will make it more easy to follow the discussion.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5235 - February 10, 2019, 08:31 AM

    Quote
    So no, it not the Jews in the 7th c. Jerusalem that teach the Arabs that they are the son of Ishmael. No. They know this very well, they do not need the Jews to teach them this information at that time. And that is why the Quran use this feature at length regularly in the texts because it is a known fact to its reader that Arabs are seen as descendants of Ishmael contrary to what said GALLEZ in his thesis (hahaha!) Either he has not worked this topic, either he deliberately lied. I refuse to choose here. But he's wrong. The Arabs knew very well how they were seen by Jews and Christians, therefore, all the Orient since at least the 5th c: cf. Ishmael on the Border Rabbinic Portrayals of the First Arab Carol Bakhos State University of New York Press, 2006.


    Gallez said that the Arabs did not know that they were the descendants of Ishmael and that only through the Jews in the seventh century did they learn that they were so-called Ishamaelites?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5236 - February 10, 2019, 10:13 AM

    Quote
    Gallez said that the Arabs did not know that they were the descendants of Ishmael and that only through the Jews in the seventh century did they learn that they were so-called Ishamaelites?


    Yes.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5237 - February 10, 2019, 03:22 PM

    Altara,

    Why dont you make a resumé of your theory? That will make it more easy to follow the discussion.


    My theory is that I have no theory.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5238 - February 10, 2019, 03:41 PM

    Altara - Your critique of Dye's article seems to be based on a misunderstanding and not a careful reading of the article. Dye has already explained this and will do so in further detail in his updated version of the paper.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5239 - February 10, 2019, 04:08 PM

    So what is cooking here? 

    Confucianism OR CONFUSION??

    Who is saying what? and why?

    In any case  discussing and debating subjects like these without solid proof is a time consuming exercise.,   many of us including me(SOME TIMES)   holding Straw-man Fallacies dearly and that is   for having few seconds of   happy grin "I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG"   happy moment ..   lol...

    anyways it is all good to read...So.,

     Is Quran one author book?
    'Does it have multiple authors ?
    Did these multiple authors read what others wrote?
    Or did they add new words and verses to already   existing one ?
    Finally who edited the present book we see now?

    And what happened to all those earliest Quran manuscripts??

    The Sana Quran manuscript,
    The Birmingham Quran manuscript
    That  Samarkand Kufic Quran
    and that  “Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān”  in that Topkapi Museum, Istanbul,

    No discussion on that?? 

    we only discuss on.........

    What  Gallez said?  or what Patricia Crone  said or what  Jack Boulos Victor Tannous  wrote  or what Mark S worte.. or yeezevee wrote or what Altara said or what mundi or Mahgraye  writes in to the forum??

    The Birmingham Qur'an................... Prof. Qasim al Samarrai

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYEGG83woLU

     Bart Ehrman on  Birmingham Qur'an manuscrip

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dCHilfx3m0

    Oh  Well  Stories..  songs... sonnets and poems
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhaLDYo0Kl8

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5240 - February 10, 2019, 04:24 PM

    Altara - Your critique of Dye's article seems to be based on a misunderstanding and not a careful reading of the article. Dye has already explained this and will do so in further detail in his updated version of the paper.


    1/ I said many things on Dye. What critique of mine then?
    2/What Dye's article?
    3/I'm referring to the last video of him where he is very clear about "the layer thesis"  Video that I posted here at the first day of the new forum.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5241 - February 10, 2019, 04:32 PM

    The manuscripts are not that relevant to the question of authorship. Could be necessary, but not essential. We discussed the manuscripts to some length before. Prof. Samarrai is correct in his basic judgment that the manuscript in question is not as old as some media outlets claimed, but his own dating is certainly incorrect and hardly tenable by any standards. And as to his claim that the manuscript is a palimpsest, then that is also incorrect, unfortunately.

    James White's video on the manuscripts is more or less correct: they are not that old. Bart Ehrman is a Biblical textual critic and hence I am not sure how much he knows about Quran manuscripts. That being said, Ehrman is certainly correct to an extent in that CST is very well preserved since the seventh century.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5242 - February 10, 2019, 04:35 PM

    Yeez,

    I guess I'll need to re(read) the first 5. You are right, i need to do that.


    yes.. yes.. mundi   you must read and re-read Quran.,  It is a difficult book to read  ..  see  this post of curious-lurker  

    yeezevee - I made an account years ago when I was lurking, yes. Lately I've become more interested in early Islam due to posts by zaotar et al in this thread  Smiley

    As for the problem with that verse, it seems there's some missing text.

     

    I have read Quran more than 10 times .. and  all 114 chapters..  each and  every verse in  them ..

    and here & there.,  I almost read it every alternate day  for educating myself and educating others .. Yet I  miss some verses..

    So that curious-lurker  is talking about that Surah 41  .. akka... Surah Fussilat  or Surah    Hamim Sajdah ....  or..or..

    And verse 41.. do you know what it says??  here let me give you some translations of that verse
       
    Quote

    41     إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ ۖ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ

    Transliteration 41:    Inna allatheena kafaroo bialththikri lamma jaahum wainnahu lakitabun AAazeezun

    Yusuf Ali 41:    Those who reject the Message when it comes to them (are not hidden from Us). And indeed it is a Book of exalted power.

    Shakir 41:    Surely those who disbelieve in the reminder when it comes to them, and most surely it is a Mighty Book:

    Pickthal 41:    Lo! those who disbelieve in the Reminder when it cometh unto them (are guilty), for lo! it is an unassailable Scripture.

    Mohsin Khan: 41:    Verily, those who disbelieved in the Reminder (i.e. the Qur'an) when it came to them (shall receive the punishment). And verily, it is an honourable well-fortified respected Book (because it is Allah's Speech, and He has protected it from corruption. (See V.15:9)

    Saheeh: 41:    Indeed, those who disbelieve in the message after it has come to them... And indeed, it is a mighty Book.


    So question to you on that dear mundi ..

    Is there anything missing in that verse ??  lol

    with best wishes'
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5243 - February 10, 2019, 04:43 PM

    The manuscripts are not that relevant to the question of authorship. Could be necessary, but not essential. We discussed the manuscripts to some length before. Prof. Samarrai is correct in his basic judgment that the manuscript in question is not as old as some media outlets claimed, but his own dating is certainly incorrect and hardly tenable by any standards. And as to his claim that the manuscript is a palimpsest, then that is also incorrect, unfortunately.

      yes.. yes but for me it is necessary and essential

    well  you are in west and in  the academic field of exploring Quran and its history  dear Mahgraye .,  So you must sit on wall tightly and lurk around ...who say what and why and butter some folks  for the purpose academic carrier

    That does  NOT apply to me .. I criticize every one and every thing  Cheesy Cheesy

    with best regards
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5244 - February 10, 2019, 04:46 PM

    Quote
    well  you are in west and in  the academic field of exploring Quran and its history  dear Mahgraye .,  So you must sit on wall tightly and lurk around ...who say what and why and butter some folks  for the purpose academic carrier

     

    Did not understand this. Butter who?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5245 - February 10, 2019, 04:49 PM

    Quote
    yes.. yes but for me it is necessary and essential


    What I meant was that manuscripts are not essential to establish multiple authorship.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5246 - February 10, 2019, 04:54 PM

    Quote
    Butter who?


     Cheesy Cheesy   Hmm..  tell me which University you are working., I will tell you whom you are buttering   ..lol..

    just kidding .. having fun.. take it easy dear Mahgraye.,  

    let us go back  to that   Saint Louis University    work on early Islam

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5247 - February 10, 2019, 04:59 PM

    Quote
    Hmm..  tell me which University you are working., I will tell you whom you are buttering   ..lol..


    I am not in any university. Even if I was, that would not change anything. Furthermore, I really fail to see the relevance of political correctness to my remark on the manuscripts.

    Quote
    just kidding .. having fun.. take it easy dear Mahgraye.,

     

    Of course. No offense was taken. Apologies if I sounded serious. Besides, your comment was indeed funny, haha. "butter people", haha.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5248 - February 10, 2019, 06:08 PM

    So you have no source to backup your claim ; an opinion is not a fact ; I admit that as I also have my opinions but opinions have limitations.


    In any case my opinion is the result of logical reasoning from the sources and the informations we have.

    Quote
    You keep on ignoring the other Sebeos writings that I summarized and only quote the narrative about the building of a place of prayer on the Temple Mount. So let me refresh your memory ; according to Sebeos, Jews did ally with Arabs and convinced them to wage war against Byzantium to recapture Israel. Once Jerusalem was seized, the Jews started building their own place of prayer but the Arabs "jealous" of them expelled them and built their own.


    Indeed that is the issue.
    1/ In the episode about the building of a place of prayer on the Temple Mount there is nothing that allude to a supposed "alliance" that you say it exists between Jews and Arabs. The Jews build something, Arabs or not.
    2/ Sebeos : (Let's imagine that Sebeos is a contemporary writer, this point is disputed...)

    It is the Jews side :
    Quote

    "At that time, Jews from the twelve tribes came and gathered in the city of the Edesenes[319] When they saw that the army had withdrawn and left the city in peace, they closed the gates, fortified themselves there and did not let the troops of the Roman kingdom in. The Greek emperor Heraclius then gave the order to besiege it. [The Jews] recognizing that they could not resist in the struggle, made proposals for peace to[the emperor], opened the gates of the city and came to appear before him. He commanded them to withdraw and to stay at home, and they set out on their journey. They took the path of the desert and arrived in Arabia, among the children of Ishmael ; they called them to their aid and let them know that they were relatives, according to the Bible. Although they willingly believed in this close relationship,[the Jews] could not convince the entire mass of the people because their cults were different."


    The Jews called the Arabs to their aid.
    The issue is that Sebeos is mistaken/lied : as already said the Arabs know that they are son of Ishmael since the 5th c. Sebeos knows it as well.

    It is only with this assertion (they called them to their aid and let them know that they were relatives, according to the Bible. ) that Sebeos build his theory (Jews taught after Edessa siege to Arabs that they are son of Ishmael and therefore Mohammed continues… and especially that Jews got an alliance with them ). The only problem is that it is historically inexact. From this moment all his theory fails. There is no alliance directed by the Jews because they have taught to the Arabs something new , namely that they are sons of Ishmael and relatives : simply because they knew it before. As such then, there is no reason for the Arabs to accept. But this is the only reason advanced by Sebeos that the Arabs, because of its discovering , would accept it.

    Moreover about the "alliance" the Jews  half fail : "[the Jews] could not convince the entire mass of the people because their cults were different." Sebeos knows very well that there is no "alliance" directed officially by a Jewish army, such as what one understand as an "alliance". He is obliged to note it. But as he is persuaded that the Jews are implied in the emergence of the Arab, he tries to make sense of what he knows (or think knowing...) and what he thinks about the implication of the Jews which is always his premise. He is yet forced to note that they fail : [the Jews] could not convince the entire mass of the people because their cults were different.
    It is clear, they half fail.

    Keep on with Sebeos, following the previous text :
    It is now from the Arab side

    Quote
    At that time there was one of the children of Ishmael, named Mohammed, a merchant ;[320] he presented himself to them as God's command, as a preacher, as the way of truth, and taught them to know the God of Abraham ; for he was very learned and very knowledgeable in the history of Moses.[321]. As the order came from above, they all rallied, on the authority of one, to the unity of the law and, abandoning the cults of vanity, returned to the living god who had revealed himself to their father Abraham.


    Late account of Muslim facture not known in the 7th c.

    Quote
    Mohammed instructed them not to eat the flesh of any dead animal[naturally], not to drink wine, not to lie and not to fornicate. He added : "God swore an oath to this land to Abraham and his descendants after him forever ; he acted according to his promise when he loved Israel. But you are Abraham's sons and God fulfils in you the promise made to Abraham and his descendants. Love only the god of Abraham, go and seize your territory, which God gave to your father Abraham, and no one can resist you in the battle, for God is with you.

    It is the Gallez thesis. (replacing the Jews by the Judeo-Nazareans...)

    Same here : it is later Muslims account (drawn from the Quran “heirs of the land”, etc.) more or less arranged. No other 7 c.  testimonies attests of this. That is why (among other things) Sebeos is called Pseudo-Sebeos and is considered as a later text and not of the 7 c. …

    Keep on with Sebeos, following the previous text :
    Then :

    Quote
    Then they all gathered together, from Ewiwlay to Sur and opposite Egypt ;[322] they came out of the Phapan desert divided into twelve tribes, according to the race of their patriarchs. And they divided among their tribes the twelve thousand children of Israel,[323] thousand per tribe, to guide them into the territory of Israel:[324] And they journeyed, camp by camp, according to the order of their patriarchs:[325] Nabeuth, Kedar, Abdiwl, Mosamb,[326] (Mast,) Masmay, Idovmay, Mas ;, Kholdat, Theman, Yetur, Naph ; s and Kedmay. These are the tribes of Ishmael. They went to Eraboth Moab[327] in the territory of Reuben. Because the Greek army was camping in Arabia.[...]


    Sebeos presents Arabs that he has presented in the first part of his account as the helpers of the Jews as now the leaders, and the Jews as the helpers. Why ? Because there is no Jewish army anywhere, the chiefs and the armies are Arabs. Sebeos is obliged to inverse what he has just said ; the real chiefs are Arabs, not Jews. And as he is persuaded that the Jews are implied, and it is that he wants to show he says that they were the guides of the Arabs, etc.

    Keep on with Sebeos, following the previous text :

    Quote
    All that remained of the peoples of the children of Israel came to unite with them and they formed a great army. Then they sent an embassy to the emperor of the Greeks, saying, "God gave this land to our father Abraham and his descendants after him as an inheritance ; we are Abraham's children ;

    Sebeos keep on to involve the Jews as actors of the war.
    Interestingly the second phrase is attested in the 8/9 c. in the Muslims sources.


    [...]

    Quote
    There is much to say about Sebeos narrative but it is enough to explain the events on the Temple Mount and this without the use of the Quranic text.


    Not really so much.

    Then all the passage about the alliance

    Quote
    I will say again the designs of the insurgent Jews who, having met for some time with the assistance of the Hagarachs,[350] conceived the design to rebuild the temple of Solomon ; having discovered the place called Saint of the Saints, they built there with the foundations and the building a place of prayer for themselves. The Ishmaelites, jealous of them, pushed them away from this place and called this place their [house] of prayer. [The Jews] built in another place, near the temple, another place of prayer for themselves


    Why the Arabs are jealous ? Because they are the sons of Ishmael. That they know since age and not by the Jews at that moment.
    You said:
    Quote
    Sebeos narrative but it is enough to explain the events on the Temple Mount and this without the use of the Quranic text.


    “Enough”; is not an explication.
    You do not give any explication to :
    Quote
    The Ishmaelites, jealous of them, pushed them away from this place and called this place their [house] of prayer.

    Suddenly, it is the business of the Arabs ? Ah yes the Jews ! Not at all, they are ; Ishmaelites ; sinces ages.
    They considers that there is their place like Sebeos said ; called this place their [house] of prayer ;

    You have enough ; as explication. It&#8217 ; s weak.
    I give one explication : Q 2,127.

    The rest of the story is very interesting :

    Quote
    [The Jews] built in another place, near the temple, another place of prayer for themselves ; and proposing an evil purpose, they wanted to fill Jerusalem from one end of it to the other with blood and destroy all Christians there. Now, one of the great ones of Ishmael was going to bow down instead of prayers reserved for them. Three of the chief Jews came before him ; they had killed two pigs and carried them and placed them in the place of prayer, and had shed blood on the walls and on the floor of the house.[351] When this man saw them, he stopped and spoke with them. They answered him, passed over and went away. As for him, immediately entering the interior to pray, he saw the misdeed [committed] and came back immediately to arrest these men. When he did not find them, he kept quiet and went back home. Then several entered, saw the mischief and spread the bad news throughout the city. The Jews informed the prince that the Christians had defiled the place of prayer ; the prince gave the order to gather all the Christians, and as they were going to pass them all with the sword, the man came, presented himself and said : "Why do you shed so much innocent blood ? Give the order to gather all the Jews and I will show you those who deserve to die. When they had all been gathered together, he entered among them, recognizing the three men he had met. They were seized and subjected to a harsh judgment until they revealed the plot. Since their prince was one of these Jews, he ordered six men, the conspiracy leaders, to be killed and allowed the others to return home.


    One can see clearly that the Arabs are not driven by whatever the Jews of the time told them as Marc tends to make believe to explain what recounts Sebeos. They are driven 1/ by their knowledge that they are the sons of Ishmael, (since ages) and 2/ that they want to take the place of the Jews. Is there simply because they consider themselves as the sons of Ishmael ? It is possible. I introduce however Quranic passage here : Q 2, 127 :

    127. And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, (Abraham prayed) : Our Lord ! Accept from us (this duty). Lo ! Thou, only Thou, art the Nearer, the Knower


    Why ? Simply because one have other account that staged, in 637, the Arabs only as builders of their house of prayer on the Temple Mount :

    Quote
    Narratives 18 and 19 of this appendix concern Sophronius in his
    position of patriarch of Jerusalem and are recounted on the authority
    of a contemporary of his, the archdeacon Theodore. Number 19 tells how :

    The godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha).

    R.G. Hoyland Seeing Islam as Others Saw It p.63.

    At last, that Quranic texts were known by military leaders is that the specific Quranic word muhājirun is used in the PERF 558 dated of 643. 6 years after 637.Far from Palestine and Jerusalem.
    Is it still the Jews here as well ? I do not think so. I think it comes from Quranic texts. It seems logical.

    Thus when you state:

    Quote
    - there is no proof that the arabs entering Jerusalem did read the Quran,


    With the PERF 558 you’re wrong.  A  (very) specific Quranic word are written down in Egypt by Arabs who has necessarily pass via Palestine.

    Quote
    The Sunna was not written in the first century AH so this is your explanation (the Quran anyway doesn't mention 5 prayers nor how to perform them but the Sunna does). I suggest you read Patricia Crone God's Caliph ; it does tackle this topic indirectly.


    You’re right about the prayer.

    But for the rest you have no responses:

    Quote
    Or, that people were reciting Arabic poetry from the pulpits of mosques, mistakenly thinking they were reciting verses from the Quran.


    Is it still the Jews responsible for building those mosques ?
    I do not think so. I hold that only chiefs and not all have some Quranic texts. Which corresponds to what one can observe about the C14 date of earliest manuscripts.

    The text of Sebeos is not as clear as stated Marc :

    Quote
    according to Sebeos, Jews did ally with Arabs and convinced them to wage war against Byzantium to recapture Israel. Once Jerusalem was seized, the Jews started building their own place of prayer but the Arabs "jealous" of them expelled them and built their own.


    There is no alliance directed by the Jews because they have taught to the Arabs that they are sons of Ishmael : simply because Arabs knew it before. It is the argument on which Sebeos build all  his theory of an alliance suffice to read what he said.
    One knows that the Arabs wage war in 602/3 against their Persians masters for EXCELLENT reasons (Sivers video) : they did not need the incentive of the Jews to start the war. The Arab war is not a Jewish war. Is it a Jewish war ;  because why then, wage war against Constantinople? I’m sure one can find why. And it is not tied with the Jews... 



  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5249 - February 10, 2019, 06:58 PM

    Regarding the number of authors of the Quranic text

    https://www.academia.edu/31194818/Analysis_of_the_Koran_Using_Mathematical_Code_Theory
  • Previous page 1 ... 173 174 175176 177 ... 254 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »