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


NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 03:12 PM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
Today at 02:30 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 12:14 PM

New PM incoming
Today at 11:54 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
Yesterday at 02:47 PM

No Outsiders? Except at t...
October 15, 2019, 08:35 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
October 15, 2019, 03:45 PM

Catalan protests
October 14, 2019, 06:06 PM

Excellence and uniqueness
October 14, 2019, 12:15 PM

Neo prounouns & facism
October 13, 2019, 10:35 PM

New tunisian prez
October 13, 2019, 09:24 PM

Kyrgyzstan and islamisati...
October 13, 2019, 01:36 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 358091 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 184 185 186187 188 ... 267 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5550 - February 24, 2019, 07:46 PM

    ..................... French  .......  Wink

    ..........Rascals  ......LOST EVERYTHING     Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  ...........

    Quote
    .................At its apex, it was one of the largest empires in history. Including metropolitan France, the total amount of land under French sovereignty reached 11,500,000 km2 (4,400,000 sq mi) in 1920, with a population of 110 million people in 1939.    In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. Historian Tony Chafer argues: "In an effort to restore its world-power status after the humiliation of defeat and occupation, France was eager to maintain its overseas empire at the end of the Second World War."[9] However, after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge European authority. The French constitution of 27 October 1946 (Fourth Republic), established the French Union which endured until 1958. Newer remnants of the colonial empire were integrated into France as overseas departments and territories within the French Republic. These now total altogether 119,394 km² (46,098 sq. miles), which amounts to only 1% of the pre-1939 French colonial empire's area, with 2.7 million people living in them in 2013. By the 1970s, says Robert Aldrich, the last "vestiges of empire held little interest for the French." He argues, "Except for the traumatic decolonization of Algeria, however, what is remarkable is how few long-lasting effects on France the giving up of empire entailed."[10]...............


    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 #5551 - February 24, 2019, 07:52 PM

    Quote
    Thanks Magraye,

    How can the Kirdir inscription be of such importance here since it is 3-4 C? From that era we have more nsr references (Eusebius, Epiphanius, Tertullianus).

    I still don't get that the Jewish Notzrim has so little weight in this debate.


    You're welcome. The inscriptions are important because they mention Nazoreans and Christians as two distinct religious denominations a hundred years before Epiphanius, who is the first datable author to a mention Nazoreans as a distinct Christians sect. And as I said in my previous response, the inscriptions either attest that nāṣrāyā was a distinct community, or that it was used to designate mainstream Christians in general.

    I addressed the Jewish nōṣrīm above. Here is what I wrote:

    The Talmud on a few occasions refers to Christians as nōṣrīm. However, a closer reading of the passages—especially the one in the treatise of fasting (the others are of no importance)—reveals that the so-called ‘Christians’ in question are anything but mainstream.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5552 - February 24, 2019, 08:13 PM

    This is what I draw.

    Therefore, to say the Quran is anti-jewish is just a reflexion  of the Mecca/Zam Zam/Medina framework.


    I've already responded to that. It is not, suffice to read to text.
    I still do not understand what you draw from this.
    Quote
    You should read "The Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela,"


    Nope, tell us what he says in substance which grounds what you say here.
    Quote
    No this is not a source.

    None Jews built in the Temple Mount. Only (in the 7th. c sources) Sebeos says 1/ they did that, 2/ and why; Sebeos says that  in the middle/end of the 8 th c . surely not in the 7th. I think it is sufficient to put aside what he says in what it differs from the others testimonies.

    Quote
    A source state something , e.g. Anastasius of Sinai talk about Arabs as the new Jews.


    Nope. It is you who says that, not Anastasius . He says that the building is a synagogue; he is obliged to says that because he does not know any other type of prayer building and that he knows that the building is not a church. It is then, for him, necessary, a synagogue.

    Quote
    The understanding of what he means is an interpretation because he doesn't give a clear context, and this is what you did with your conclusion of the Arab building on the Temple Mount.


    Nope, it is not what I did. All the 7th c. sources gives this information. Except Sebeos one who introduce the Jews, the only one. There is no reason the other  7th c. sources would have missed this ; they are as anti Jewish as Sebeos. Therefore it is Sebeos who lies. Why? simply because he has a well crafted fable to recount about the origin of the emergence of the Arabs.

     
    Quote
    You have zero source but you give an explanation. You might be right or you might be wrong, who knows.

     All the 7th c. sources gives this information. Arabs built, not Jews. It seems to me rather logical to think to Q 2,127 ; it is a Gallez idea. And I think it is a very interesting one, as the Zem Zem frame is totally inexistent to those 637 Arabs , they logically thought (at that time) that the passage was dealing with Jerusalem since the only known Bayt is in Jerusalem and nowhere else. That is why they built.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5553 - February 24, 2019, 08:20 PM

    Would you agree that the origins of the Arab wars are :

    - in the West as described in Nevo/Koren book Crossroads to Islam ?


    Yes before 637. They are Palestinians Arabs

    Quote
    - in the East as described in P. Pourshariati The fall of the Sassanian Empire ?

     

    Yes.

     
    Quote
    I know you put a lot of emphasis on the battle of Dhi- Qar ; I personally think that its highlight in arab sources is a retro-projection to the past to bring coherence to an Arab identity that didn't exist at the time but who knows.


    Dhi- Qar is the continuation of the Arab-Persian war which started in 602. It has to be integrated in the "Islamic" narratives because it was impossible to wiping out its  memory of  the mind of Iraqis.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5554 - February 24, 2019, 08:21 PM

    It seems we are all French speakers here apart from Yeezevee  Wink


    And Mahgraye.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5555 - February 24, 2019, 08:28 PM

    You're welcome. The inscriptions are important because they mention Nazoreans and Christians as two distinct religious denominations a hundred years before Epiphanius, who is the first datable author to a mention Nazoreans as a distinct Christians sect.



     Epiphanius, has none idea of what happens in Irak about Christianity and how the Persians call them.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5556 - February 24, 2019, 08:31 PM

    And that is why the inscriptions are important. Your interpretation is a possible one.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5557 - February 24, 2019, 08:38 PM

    Nazoreans:

    Epiphanus indeed had no idea what was happening in Irak, my point was if we are going to go back to 4th C, we can also look at the Western references. Why is the 300 year mention gap a problem for the Western references and not for the Eastern ones?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5558 - February 24, 2019, 09:12 PM

    Yes before 637. They are Palestinians Arabs


    So would you agree that the Arabs who won at Yarmouk are not the same who  won at Qadisiyyah ?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5559 - February 24, 2019, 09:34 PM

    And that is why the inscriptions are important. Your interpretation is a possible one.

    Second.  For Nazoreans Epiphanius, :" before Epiphanius, who is the first datable author to a mention Nazoreans as a distinct Christians sect." I side with Petri Luomanen : this sect has never existed. Cf. Petri Luomanen, "NAZARENES", A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”  BRILL,  2005.
    For me this is (brilliantly) settled. Therefore (still for me...) the Nazoreans Epiphanius cannot be used as an argument about the Kirdir inscription. This adding to what I have already said that anyhow Epihanius had no clues of how Christians were called in Irak by Persians.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5560 - February 24, 2019, 09:35 PM

    So would you agree that the Arabs who win at Yarmouk are not the same who  win at Qadisiyyah ?


    They are exactly the same.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5561 - February 24, 2019, 09:40 PM

    Luoumanen's article is interesting. Dye agrees. My argument does not hinge on Epiphanius. All am I saying is that the inscriptions can be interpreted differently. And your remark about Epiphanius not knowing how Persians designated Christians in Iraq assumes that Persians did designate mainstream Christians by nāṣrāyā, the very assumption that is currently under dispute, especially in light of what I alluded to earlier.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5562 - February 24, 2019, 09:45 PM

    I still do not understand what you draw from this.


    Incoherence in the Arabs attitude towards Jews if one follows the muslim narrative vs actual history.  

    Quote
    Nope, tell us what he says in substance which grounds what you say here.


    He describes a very "Jewish"  caliphate though distinct from Judaism.

    Quote
    All the 7th c. sources gives this information. Arabs built, not Jews. It seems to me rather logical to think to Q 2,127 ; it is a Gallez idea. And I think it is a very interesting one, as the Zem Zem frame is totally inexistent to those 637 Arabs , they logically thought (at that time) that the passage was dealing with Jerusalem since the only known Bayt is in Jerusalem and nowhere else. That is why they built.


    Yes but linking it with the Quran is an interpretation, not a source  Wink
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5563 - February 24, 2019, 09:48 PM

    They are exactly the same.


    I knew you would say that but then you think they were already able to win 2 big battles at almost the same time in 2 different geographical locations ? How do you explain that ? Especially we know after that they fought West against East. It sounds weird if they were already united.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5564 - February 24, 2019, 09:54 PM

    Quote
    I knew you would say that but then you think they were already able to win 2 big battles at almost the same time in 2 different geographical locations ?


    I do not understand what you say.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5565 - February 24, 2019, 10:02 PM

    Ever heard of this ? It might be an earlier anti-Trinity rebuttal from Arabs

    https://www.academia.edu/32663748/The_Jewish_Christians_of_the_Early_Centuries_of_Christianity_According_to_a_New_Source



    abstract : In the 1960’s, a medievalist scholar, Professor Schlomo Pines,found in a collection of Arabic manuscripts, dating from the tenth century and held in a library in Istanbul, a number of lengthy and
    detailed verbatim quotes from an earlier, fifth- or sixth-century,text, which the Arab writer ascribes to ‘al-nasara’ — the Nazareans.
    The earlier text is believed to have been written originally in Syriac and to have been found at a Christian monastery in Khuzistan,south-west Iran, near the Iraqi border. It appears to reflect a tradition dating, without a break, back to the original Nazarean hierarchy which fled Jerusalem immediately prior to the revolt of
    A.D. 66. Again. Jesus is stated to be a man, not a god, and any suggestion of his divinity is rejected. The importance of Judaic law is again stressed. Paul is castigated and his followers are said to ‘have abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards the religious doctrines of the Romans’. The Gospels are dismissed as
    unreliable, second-hand accounts which contain only ‘something —but little — of the sayings, the precepts of Christ and information concerning him’. But this is not all. The tenth-century Arab document goes on to assert that the sect from whom the Nazarean text issued is still in existence, and is regarded as an élite amongst
    Christians.


    He also wrote about the Kirdir inscription but indirectly.

    https://www.academia.edu/32663747/The_Iranian_Name_for_Christians_and_the_God_Fearers

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5566 - February 24, 2019, 10:05 PM

    Classic essay by Pines. Very controversial.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5567 - February 24, 2019, 10:06 PM

    I do not understand what you say.



    Well you agree that :

    - the wars in the West and in the East were started for different reasons by different people,
    - but then you say the people who won at Yarmouk are the same who won at Qadisiyyah

    However, we know that :

    - those were 2 big battles that happened almost at the same time,
    - and we know that, from muslim sources as well as non muslim sources, that after those 2 battles , there were some fighting among the Arabs


    Therefore my question is that how do you explain that those Arabs could lead those 2 battles at the same time and then started fighting against each other ? We would have expected them to be united but they were not.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5568 - February 24, 2019, 10:07 PM

    Incoherence in the Arabs attitude towards Jews if one follows the muslim narrative vs actual history. 


    From the moment where in the muslim narrative Jews reject Muhammad, I see none incoherence.
    Quote
    He describes a very "Jewish"  caliphate though distinct from Judaism.


    It's seems to me logical.


    Quote
    Yes but linking it with the Quran is an interpretation, not a source  Wink


    It's a plausible deduction. Fare more than the Sebeos Jews Wink
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5569 - February 24, 2019, 10:12 PM

    Well you agree that :

    - the wars in the West and in the East were started for different reasons by different people,
    - but then you say the people who won at Yarmouk are the same who won at Qadisiyyah


    It is very odd that you (still) do not understand. But you will!


    Quote
    However, we know that :

    - those were 2 big battles that happened almost at the same time,


    Lol!

     
    Quote
    there were some fighting among the Arabs


    What fight you speak?


    Quote
    Therefore my question is that how do you explain that those Arabs could lead those 2 battles at the same time and then started fighting against each other ? We would have expected them to be united but they were not

    .

    Give the dates of the events you speak of...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5570 - February 24, 2019, 10:36 PM

    Quote
    Lol!


    So you don't think those battles did happen ?

    Quote
    What fight you speak?

    Forget this point as they did happen later ; however, my main question remain on how they could have led 2 big battles at almost the same time.
    Quote
    Give the dates of the events you speak of...


    Yarmuk 636
    Qadisiyyah 636
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5571 - February 24, 2019, 10:38 PM

    From the moment where in the muslim narrative Jews reject Muhammad, I see none incoherence.

    Quote
    It's seems to me logical.


    Benjamin of Tuleda writings date from the 1130+
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5572 - February 24, 2019, 11:02 PM

    So you don't think those battles did happen ?
    Forget this point as they did happen later ; however, my main question remain on how they could have led 2 big battles at almost the same time.
    Yarmuk 636
    Qadisiyyah 636


    Nobody can fight 2 battles in the same time? You sure of that?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5573 - February 25, 2019, 12:25 AM

    You can but it would have meant that all those different people united themselves. That is the muslim narrative but I struggle with it when I think about how those conquests started i.e. almost by chance. So to think that in such a short period they turned booty raids into a full conquest by uniting different Arabs from different locations separated by hundreds of kms. You will probably say that the eastern Arabs didn't unite with the Western Arabs , at least not with all of them but had enough troops to spare and invade the Wes while battling on the eastern front. .

    I suppose what you wanted me to find by myself is related to the victory at Yarmouk of the eastern Arabs as a game changer and this they who entered in Jerusalem in 637. Maybe you are right but that would mean that Amr Ibn Al-As was from the East, something I don't think.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5574 - February 25, 2019, 09:15 AM

    Suffice to remember what was the situation before 602. And who is crushed in 636 by Arabs who used to be in war with West since ages (sourced)  and then take control of Damascus.
    For excellent reason (sourced) between 630-36 the Palestinians Arabs take more or less control of the routes in Palestine (Sophrone). After 636 they see the Yarmuk winners slowly coming  and arriving in Jerusalem.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5575 - February 25, 2019, 01:59 PM

    Humm, why not . Thanks anyway for your input.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5576 - February 25, 2019, 02:17 PM

    Quote
    Humm, why not .


    It will be difficult to contradict what I say. It is rational, logical, because of the sources.  Each point is sourced and validated by other sources. Especially the very fact that the Arabs have already done the same movement from east to west when they were the allies of the Persians during the wars since 224. For them, it is business as usual.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5577 - February 25, 2019, 04:18 PM

    Times of war with long sieges and time to philosophise with people from different cultures and beliefs might explain the emergence of a new cocktail religion like Islam?

    Could the seeds of Islam have been planted during the Sassanian conquest of Palestine and Egypt, where Jews and Arab Christians came to fight together (and brew a new religion?) ?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5578 - February 25, 2019, 05:11 PM

    Quote
    Times of war with long sieges and time to philosophise with people from different cultures and beliefs might explain the emergence of a new cocktail religion like Islam?


    Nope.

    Quote
    Could the seeds of Islam have been planted during the Sassanian conquest of Palestine and Egypt, where Jews and Arab Christians came to fight together (and brew a new religion?) ?


     Jews and Arab Christians? Sources?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5579 - February 25, 2019, 08:37 PM

    Could the seeds of Islam have been planted during the Sassanian conquest of Palestine and Egypt, where Jews and Arab Christians came to fight together (and brew a new religion?) ?


    In those times, Jews and Christians fought against each other.
  • Previous page 1 ... 184 185 186187 188 ... 267 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »