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 09:36 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 02:53 PM

Kashmir endgame
Today at 01:51 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
Today at 01:22 PM

Islamic Humanism
Today at 12:01 PM

The Battle for British Is...
by zeca
Today at 09:23 AM

Beard outbreak in Uzbekis...
Today at 09:22 AM

Jihad in Islam -Perceptio...
Yesterday at 05:29 PM

Scientists and .............
Yesterday at 04:12 PM

Painted pious ladies
Yesterday at 09:59 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
September 12, 2019, 08:08 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
September 11, 2019, 08:46 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 340943 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 67 68 6970 71 ... 253 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2040 - May 23, 2018, 10:46 PM

    Muhammad the leader of the Arabs. Muhammad who lead the conquests, or at least initiated them. The same Muhammad who eventually was considered to be God's prophet by 691 CE. And yes, the same Muhammad that is mentioned in the Koran. We do not say that everything mentioned about Muhammad is historical. No historian says that. Sources?  This is from an essay of mine: Numerous Jewish, Christian, Samaritan sources—all contemporary of the Arabian prophet and to the conquests—already make mention of Muḥammad. They make mention of him not as a passive participle, but as an active military leader of Arabs. To name one example:

    The earliest source to explicitly mention Muḥammad is the Miaphysite Account of 637. As the name indicates, the source was written in 637 CE, and was written by an eyewitness to the actual events. In this one-page note there is reference not only to ṭayyāyē, i.e., nomads living in Arabia, but also to Muḥammad, who is depicted as the leader of these nomads. The battle described in the Account of 637 refers to the Battle of Yarmūk, which occurred in August 636 south of Gabitha.

    Remember that Muhammad is said to have died in 632 CE. This means that only four years after his death he is mentioned by a near contemporary, independent source. And this is the earliest source to mention him, not the earliest source to refer to him and the conquests.

    Additionally, we have a total of least eleven sources from the seventh and eighth centuries that attest the historicity of Muhammad. I only mentioned one.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2041 - May 23, 2018, 11:07 PM

    Muhammad the leader of the Arabs.  ..............

    dear Mahgraye let us discuss this historicity of Muhammad in other folder at  https://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.msg877274#msg877274  as  this one get swamped by the posts from the works of gillion folks that  are exploring Islam from different angles so let us move to this specific subject on Muhammad to different folder

    but here discuss simple questions.,  to  start with that..."leader of the Arabs"..

    were there any leaders for Arab folks before Muhammad?  
    what is the original name of Muhammad?
     and what is the origin of the word Muhammad??
    How many Arabs pagans had name Muhammad  during alleged Prophet's time??

    and when you write something like this
    Quote
    No historian says that. Sources?  This is from an essay of mine: Numerous Jewish, Christian, Samaritan sources—all contemporary of the Arabian prophet and to the conquests—already make mention of Muḥammad.


    please give the link to those publications preferably  original sources  

    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 #2042 - May 24, 2018, 08:59 AM



    Not worth if Ahmad does not explain why the Quran is written in a defective script whereas the Safaitic (a south arabian script) script is not. I just ask because : "“We will find texts from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad,” he said. “I am one-hundred-per-cent certain of that. It’s just a matter of time.”
    In Safaitic?

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2043 - May 24, 2018, 09:17 AM

    Additionally, we have a total of least eleven sources from the seventh and eighth centuries that attest the historicity of Muhammad. I only mentioned one.


    We have sources of people who speak of "Muhammad". There is no mention that they saw/know him. Rather strange... whereas they're supposed to know him very well.
    The Conquistadors when they came to Mexico, speaking of him, attested as well of the existence of Jesus. In the Gospels... They never saw him (yawn...)

    The earliest source to explicitly mention Muḥammad is the Miaphysite Account of 637.


    Nobody know him or heard of his story before the conquest whereas all the place is heavily Christianized and Judaized.Rather strange... (yawn...)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2044 - May 24, 2018, 10:10 AM

    I am sorry, but what you two write is just ridiculous. Base on your methodology, one cannot prove the historicity of anyone.

    Some brief remarks.

    The Conquistadors were not contemporaries of Jesus. That is the difference. This comparison is laughable is would not be taken seriously by any historian, not even revisionists who do not beleive that Muhammad existed.

    It is said that the Gospel accounts are built upon eyewitness testimony. So, technically, those from whom they report did see Jesus. Paul, for instance, met Peter and James, both of whom met Jesus.

    We have contemporary, and in some instances, eyewitness accounts, mentioning Muhammad. Just a few years after his death, he is mentioned by independent, early sources. Not only that, but these sources are unfriendly. So, there is no bias. And as I noted, some of them are built upon actual eyewitness accounts. The Byzantines, Muhammad's actual neighbors, had received news about him within two years after his death.  Furthermore, and this another form evidence, David Powers manged to date a certain tradition back to none other than Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās, a companion of Muhammad. Looking at our very early evidence as a whole, there is doubt that there existed a historical Muhammad. And here is the best part: not only do our early testimonies attest that Muhammad existed, they even give the impression that was very much alive and was leading the conquests. Assuming that is the case, Muhammad is attested in a contemporary. Imagine if we had a fraction on this evidence for the historical Jesus. It is simply incomparable. You two have a lot to do in order to dismiss this amount of evidence.

    Is this not enough? What do you want? A photograph?

    Why should Muhammad have been known before the conquests? He was known because we have eleven sources, ten of which are from seventh century, that mention Muhammad. Do you also want a birth certificate? And how is it relevant if the milieu was a Christian one?

    This is for Yeezevee. You mentioned that Muhammad is not a proper name that is somehow relevant for the question of historicity. It is not. Here is what I wrote in an essay of mine on that topic: ... I want to emphasis a very important point, namely that taking the notion that Muḥammad is not proper name as the proof that he did not exist –, is a non-sequitur, especially considering that even Christoph Luxenberg does not argue as such.

    Lastly, I apologize if I sounded disrespectful in this response. Not my intention. I do not want this to become polemical.


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2045 - May 24, 2018, 12:40 PM

    Quote
    The Conquistadors were not contemporaries of Jesus.


    Dear Mahgraye,
    You do not know how the human mind works. How do you know that some natives did not think that theses guys did see Jesus, the first time they heard about him ? You do not know that.

    Quote
    It is said that the Gospel...

    Not the topic.

    Quote
    We have contemporary, and in some instances, eyewitness accounts, mentioning Muhammad.


    Inexact. We have post 632 therefore not contemporary accounts. We have not eyewitness accounts of someone recounts his encounter with Muhammad . Nothing. We have mentioning "Muhammad" . That's all. Easily explicable : his name is in the quranic texts as the name of the addressee of "God" (more, it is a deduction ; never God call him "Muhammad"). End of story.

    Quote
    Why should Muhammad have been known before the conquests?

    Finally a good question!  Because all the Orient is heavily Christianized Judaized, and Manicheized               (poke Daniel!)  During 20 years in the Late Antique Orient a man is talking to God live, and nobody know him or heard of this story before the conquest ? On the Moon or Mars, surely. In the Late Antique Orient it seems not plausible.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2046 - May 24, 2018, 12:47 PM

    Quote
    The Conquistadors were not contemporaries of Jesus.


    Dear Mahgraye,
    You do not know how the human mind works. How do you know that some natives did not think that theses guys did see Jesus, the first time they heard about him ? You do not know that.

    Quote
    It is said that the Gospel...

    Not the topic.

    Quote
    We have contemporary, and in some instances, eyewitness accounts, mentioning Muhammad.


    Inexact. We have post 632 therefore not contemporary accounts. We have not eyewitness accounts of someone recounts his encounter with Muhammad . Nothing. We have mentioning "Muhammad" . That's all. Easily explicable : his name is in the quranic texts as the name of the addressee of "God" (more, it is a deduction ; never God call him "Muhammad"). End of story.

    Quote
    Why should Muhammad have been known before the conquests?

    Because all the Orient is heavily Christianized Judaized, and Manicheized  (poke Daniel!).  During 20 years in the Late Antique Orient a man is talking to God live, and nobody know him or heard of this story before the conquest ? On the Moon or Mars, surely. In the Late Antique Orient it seems not plausible.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2047 - May 24, 2018, 01:48 PM

    There are many problems with your response.

    Your point about the Conquistadors is just ridiculous. No revisionist scholar, not even those denying Muhammad's existence, would ever adduce that argument, or analogy. It is not even remotely close. The Conquistadors where Christains, and thus believed that Jesus existed. They are not historical sources for the life of Jesus. Contrast that with several, early, independent, hostile sources attesting that Muhammad existed, and only that, but that even was alive to lead the conquests. Now this is a very important point and cannot be emphasized enough. If Muhammad did in fact live to lead the conquests, then that would make the Didascaly of Jacob a contemporary document to Muhammad and the conquests. You cannot brush that away. And these sources do not make mention of the Koran either, so to claim that they repeat what is already in the Koran is just wrong. But let us focus more on the Didascaly of Jacob. Stephen Shoemaker showed, in my eyes quite convincingly, that the Didascaly is based upon original eyewitness testimony or, at least, very early sources going back to Muhammad. Shoemaker thus argues:

    Quote
    Jacob, the author, heard this report of the Arab invasion of Palestine from Abraham’s letter, which Abraham’s brother Justus read aloud in his presence. Abraham, who was living in Palestine, identifies the source of his information in interviews that he had personally conducted with “those who had met him [that is, Muhammad].” Despite these intervening steps, we may take some measure of confidence in Jacob’s report: according to this genealogy, it derives from the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses and was then quickly committed to writing before reaching Jacob. Moreover, the report’s close proximity to the actual events themselves stands further in its favor: mere months seem to have transpired since the invasion. On the whole, these circumstances present a much more credible line of transmission than the pedigrees that accompany the earliest Islamic traditions about Muhammad and the conquest... [T]he transmission of Jacob’s report is both immediate and relatively uncomplicated.

    Admittedly, there are elements of polemic in this passage, including especially the diatribe against Muhammad as a false prophet. But by and large the details are descriptive and often can be confirmed by other sources, as seen in the case of Sergius the candidatus and the report that Muhammad claimed to hold the keys to paradise: although the latter is potentially polemical, as noted above, later Byzantine and Islamic sources corroborate this characterization. Even the allegation that Muhammad was preaching the advent of the messiah seems to be more or less accurate, reflecting a Jewish understanding of his eschatological message that is evident in other early sources. In similar fashion, the Doctrina Iacobi’s indication that Muhammad was still alive and coming with the Arabs during the Palestinian campaigns of 634 seems to be a descriptive, non-polemical observation that is confirmed by a number of other sources. It is, moreover, information that could have been known to Abraham’s informants, “who had met him,” as he reports, and potentially to others as well who had experienced the Arab invasion of Roman Palestine.

    More importantly, there is no obvious apologetic or polemical reason for the Doctrina Iacobi’s author (or his sources) to have invented Muhammad’s leadership during the campaign in order to serve a broader ideological purpose.

    [T]he Doctrina Iacobi generally fares well in regard to Hoyland’s criteria and should accordingly be taken seriously in its report of a tradition that as late as 634 Muhammad came to Palestine “with the Saracens.”


    I believe this is even enough to respond to your last objection as well. Who said Muhammad was not known in his local community? You relying on that would simply an argument from silence, which is not convincing light of what I presented above.


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2048 - May 24, 2018, 04:37 PM

    Dear Mahgraye,

    Quote
    Your point about the Conquistadors is just ridiculous. No revisionist scholar...


    For you, dear Mahgraye, for you. But it is perfectly pertinent in our case.  You do not know how the human mind works like the "Revisionist scholars". Like you, it is not their field. Then I repeat : how do you know that some natives did not think that theses guys [ the Conquistadors ] did see Jesus, the first time they [ the natives] heard about him [Jesus] ? You do not know that. I guarantee you it is perfectly possible. (Of course I do not say that it has happened...) but it is humanly possible.
    It is what happened dear Mahgraye, the people who speak of Muhammad  in the non Muslim sources never saw him, never. And yet they talk about him ! They talk about him because he is present in the quranic texts they are been taught (with not much details I think...) as the addressee to whom "God" is speaking. The Prophet/instructor, etc. That's all...

    Quote
    Contrast that with several, early, independent, hostile sources attesting that Muhammad existed, and only that, but that even was alive to lead the conquests.


    Again, it's inexact. They attest that muhajirun talk of "Muhamad" no more, no less. They do not say (at all) he is alive (or dead) or leading the conquests. Never. Reread these texts dear Mahgraye, reread them carefully. None of what you say are in those texts. Especially the Didascaly of Jacob where I cannot see any report of a muhajirun speaking. I read none of that in the Didascaly of Jacob. Show me the muhajirun speaking he is/was a good friend of Muhammad ! There is none. As the muhajirun are talking about Muhammad (saying not many things about him whereas they supposed to have lived with him --in Mecca the great city of commerce bla bla bla which have never existed... --- and knowing him perfectly well) it is perfectly normal/possible that a non Muslim in good faith believes that there was a "prophet" alive and kicking somewhere. Perfectly possible. It is not an attestation from the muhajirun themselves about Muhammad alive and kicking (or dead) : there's none, dear Mahgraye. Nowhere. Moreover the Didascaly of Jacob brings no new informations, I repeat, no new information about the "prophet" that we know from the other sources. There's nothing new about him (Mecca/Medina/Kaba/Zem Zem, Ali, Abu Bakr/Quraysh... and all the stuff which will coming ages later.) Nothing . Shoemaker can say what he wants. Shoemaker is not an historian, that's why he did not see that there was nothing new in the Didascaly that we did not  know already from the other sources...

    Quote
    And these sources do not make mention of the Koran either, so to claim that they repeat what is already in the Koran is just wrong


    As I already said many times in this thread, (I will therefore repeat it) I consider (with Reynolds... but without him it'd be the same...) that the quranic texts (not the Quran as a codex) are more ancient than 632 and I add that they have nothing to see with the traditional account.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2049 - May 24, 2018, 07:16 PM

    I am sorry, but what you two write is just ridiculous . Base on your methodology, one cannot prove the historicity of anyone.  

    Mahgraye  ...just a comment on that response of yours  to Altara ..  that is not true.,  we can prove historicity of many folks that appeared in the history of human race much before alleged Prophet of Islam and much before the Prophet of Christianity ..

    Quote
    ...............
    Additionally, we have a total of least eleven sources from the seventh and eighth centuries that attest the historicity of Muhammad. I only mentioned one.

      and  Altara responds to that
    We have sources of people who speak of "Muhammad". There is no mention that they saw/know him. Rather strange... whereas they're supposed to know him very well.


    Dear Altara  "even if those people who speak of "Muhammad". There is no mention that they saw/know him. "  still it is worth exploring those "eleven sources from the seventh and eighth centuries that attest the historicity of Muhammad"  that Mahgraye  mentions ..

    So dear  Mahgraye  I would greatly appreciate links on those 11 sources along with your PUBLICATION on the subject of historicity of Muhammad..

    so let us explore bit more detail on that..  I am just curious either of you guys read this book of  Michael Philip Penn??


    When Christians First Met Muslims:
    A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam
    .
    .  2015
    Michael Philip Penn
    Published by: University of California Press
     
    with best wishes to both of you
    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 #2050 - May 24, 2018, 07:33 PM

    I am sorry, but what you two write is just ridiculous. Base on your methodology, one cannot prove the historicity of anyone.

    oops I didn't read that .. Well I am not sure about Altara but you are right about me ..lol...   that comes because I do ask tough and critical questions to those who are trying to  publish their papers  in journals., quite often I ask them to repeat the experiments and correct the data .. Cheesy   and I am doing that for a long time dear Mahgraye

    Quote
    ........................Is this not enough? What do you want? A photograph?

    .. yes..yes...yesss.. A picture will certainly help .. you know   see these guys..

    https://www.google.com/search?q=oldest+busts+%5Dof+famous+people&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS796US796&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYiNyKip_bAhWywFkKHYl4C-oQsAQIJg&biw=1366&bih=637

    one click away.. Off course baboons of Islam will hate it   AND KILL YOU & ME as pictures of Prophet is NOT allowed in Islam

    Quote
    This is for Yeezevee. You mentioned that Muhammad is not a proper name that is somehow relevant for the question of historicity. It is not. Here is what I wrote in an essay of mine on that topic: ... I want to emphasis a very important point, namely that taking the notion that Muḥammad is not proper name as the proof that he did not exist –, is a non-sequitur, especially considering that even Christoph Luxenberg does not argue as such.


    No..No... it is NOT non-sequitur.. you are wrong.,   when I showed you that there were many people with the name of "Muhammad"  between year 632 and say rear 800., then you have problem to choose right Muhammad dear Mahgraye..
     

    and what do you mean by Christoph Luxenberg does not argue as such.??  

     you mean to say he and his work is unquestionable?? no nothing is unquestionable in these areas of  exploration dear  Mahgraye

    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 #2051 - May 24, 2018, 08:43 PM

    This is what I meant. Christoph Luxenberg thinks that Muhammad is not a proper name. He argues that Muhammad is an epithet for Jesus, i.e., Muhammad did not exist. But even Luxenberg, who is probably the chief proponent of this hypothesis, told me that he does not argue that Muhammad did not exist because his name is only a symbolic title, because that would be a non-sequitur. And he is absolutely right. People can have honorary titles and still exist. This was the point I was trying to make. Now you wrote something very interesting, Yeezevee. You wrote that several people, between the years 632 and 800 CE, bore the name Muhammad. If this is true, then it would mean that Muhammad was a proper name, because Ohlig, for instance, argues that Muhammad did become a proper name until 800 CE (or something). Note, that Ohlig is also a leading proponent of this theory. But please, give me the reference(s) for those individuals who had the name Muhammad. Very important for something I am working on. 
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2052 - May 24, 2018, 09:26 PM

    This is pseudo-skepticism. You clearly did not read what I presented. What would it take to convince you?

    Quote
    [H]ow do you know that some natives did not think that theses guys [ the Conquistadors ] did see Jesus, the first time they [ the natives] heard about him [Jesus]?


    I do not know. The Conquistadors are contemporary, independent, documents for the life of Jesus. The Didascaly on the other hand, is all of those things. Even if you are right, and the Didascaly does not tell us anything, then it still would be analogous.

    Quote
    They do not say (at all) he is alive (or dead) or leading the conquests

    .

    The sources, especially the Didascaly, does portray Muhammad as being alive during the conquests. That is very clear from the actual text. I recommend that you read them. If you look at my comment you can see that as well.

    Quote
    There's nothing new about him (Mecca/Medina/Kaba/Zem Zem, Ali, Abu Bakr/Quraysh... and all the stuff which will coming ages later.)


    You are obsessed with the traditional account that no one here defends. My case has nothing to do with what is reported in the later sources. So, you bringing up Mecca, etc., is very much irrelevant. Besides, Medina, Ali, Quraysh, Kaʿba, all existed. But that neither here nor there.

    Quote
    Shoemaker can say what he wants. Shoemaker is not an historian, that's why he did not see that there was nothing new in the Didascaly that we did not  know already from the other sources...


    Yes, Shoemaker provided actual arguments for his position. And he is not a historian? Who is? You? Are you a historian, Altara?

    Quote
    [T]he quranic texts (not the Quran as a codex) are more ancient than 632 and I add that they have nothing to see with the traditional account.


    Fine. No one here is arguing that the Koran is not older than Muhammad. The question of an Ur-Text is irrelevant. By the way, even Reynolds believes that Muhammad existed.

    Quote
    They talk about him because he is present in the quranic texts they are been taught.


    Please provide evidence that the Didascaly is dependent on the Koran.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2053 - May 24, 2018, 10:17 PM

    This is what I meant. Christoph Luxenberg thinks that Muhammad is not a proper name. He argues that Muhammad is an epithet for Jesus, i.e., Muhammad did not exist. But even Luxenberg, who is probably the chief proponent of this hypothesis, told me that he does not argue that Muhammad did not exist because his name is only a symbolic title, because that would be a non-sequitur. And he is absolutely right. People can have honorary titles and still exist. This was the point I was trying to make.

    oh  then we are on same page..  So you met Christoph Luxenberg ??  i  hope you know that it is a pseudonym he used to write that book...

     
    Quote
    Now you wrote something very interesting, Yeezevee. You wrote that several people, between the years 632 and 800 CE, bore the name Muhammad. If this is true, then it would mean that Muhammad was a proper name

    , ........  
    no..no..  it does not mean that and i did not mean that it is a proper name dear Mahgraye...

    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 #2054 - May 24, 2018, 10:26 PM

    Yes, I know it is pseudonym. But that does not mean that Luxenberg does not exist, haha.

    I am not sure you got the point. Ohlig argues that Muhammad was not used as a proper name until the 800s, if I am not mistaken. But if the name was indeed used then that might imply that it was common and possibly proper. I know that you do not think so, but you did not provide the reference? I really need the reference!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2055 - May 24, 2018, 11:09 PM

    There is, however, an argument that you two did not respond to, which I think is very significant. I am referring to the prophetic dictum that  one can only bequest one-third of an estate. This tradition is reported on the authority of the Companion  Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās. Many scholars thought this tradition was a later invention and could not have originated from Muhammad. But this turned out to not be the case. In 1989, the skeptic scholar David Powers published a study in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies which challenged conventional wisdom of his day. Using the isnad-cum-matn analysis, a method developed by German scholars, Powers manged to successfully date this tradition back to the seventh century. But that is not the end of the story. Not only did he show that the tradition is from the seventh century, he even showed that the tradition originated from none other Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās himself! Now, this is very significant. That means we have prophetic tradition from the seventh century that was put into circulation by a Companion of Muhammad. In my humble opinion, this shows that there was a historical Muhammad.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2056 - May 24, 2018, 11:11 PM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OegtC8ZFmU

    "Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
    - Robert Louis Stevenson
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2057 - May 24, 2018, 11:15 PM

    Yes, I know it is pseudonym. But that does not mean that Luxenberg does not exist, haha.

    that is a good one but you & me are much smarter than Luxenberg.. yes that does  mean that  Luxenberg does not exist  IT ONLY EXISTS AS NAME .. as pseudonym., which is as good as not existing

     So why  do you think Christoph Luxenberg need to use a pseudonym to publish something on Islam dear Mahgraye ?? well may be Quran author/s had similar problems when they were writing that book..   let me watch these tubes


    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x36vo4x

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk40dR8UpaU

    Quote
    I am not sure you got the point. Ohlig argues that Muhammad was not used as a proper name until the 800s, if I am not mistaken. But if the name was indeed used then that might imply that it was common and possibly proper. I know that you do not think so, but you did not provide the reference? I really need the reference!

    I will.. I will give you reference in time dear Mahgraye

    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 #2058 - May 24, 2018, 11:18 PM


     Dawkins??  you   Fool.....

    It is time for that fellow to go on medication ...  and go finish nursing .. 

    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 #2059 - May 24, 2018, 11:22 PM

    According to Luxenberg himself, he uses a pseudonym for fear of Muslim retaliation. That is his reasoning.

    What about the clip, Yeezevee? (the one about the Koran). Is it something you want to highlight?

    Yes, please provide the reference as soon as possible. I am currently writing something on that particular topic, so I am in need of that reference. I hope it is scholarly.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2060 - May 25, 2018, 08:19 AM

    Ahmad Al-Jallad - Jonesing for Arabic

    http://aljallad.nl/jonesing-for-arabic/
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2061 - May 25, 2018, 09:02 AM

    Quote from: yeezevee
    Mahgraye ;...just a comment on that response of yours;to Altara .. ;that is not true., ;we can prove historicity of many folks that appeared in the history of human race much before alleged Prophet of Islam and much before the Prophet of Christianity
    so let us explore bit more detail on that.. ;I am just curious either of you guys read this book of ;Michael Philip Penn??

    1/Yes
    2/Yes.

    Quote from: Mahgraye
    The sources, especially the Didascaly, does portray Muhammad as being alive during the conquests.
    You are obsessed with the traditional account that no one here defends.
    Yes, Shoemaker provided actual arguments for his position.
    Please provide evidence that the Didascaly is dependent on the Koran.
    David Powers published...

    1/I think you did not read what I've been writing previously. I try again, but it is the last time.
    Is there in the Didascaly an attestation/report of muhajirun?
    Not one.
    What the Didascaly brings as new information about the "prophet" that we did not know already by other non Muslims sources?
    Nothing.
    What the Didascaly brings as new information about the "prophet" which precede and could validate those (Muslims sources) of the 8 and 9 c.?
    Nothing.
    The Didascaly do not EVEN  know the NAME of the prophet.
    Therefore it is perfectly normal/possible that a non Muslim (the Didascaly) in good faith believes that there was a "prophet" alive and kicking because of the events somewhere. Perfectly possible. Therefore the  Didascaly is not an attestation from the muhajirun themselves about Muhammad alive and kicking.
    End of story.
    2/ You defend the traditional account : you speak about a "prophet", and you brings hadith .... So, either you have a problem with your own mind, which do not comprehend what he does and how it works, either...
    3/ I provide mine : the Didascaly does not bring anything new+ it is not a muhajirun attestation/report. It brings even LESS : no NAME of the "prophet". The Didascaly is a  theological, (key of Paradise, bla bla bla...)deduction from a non Muslim related to the events of the war . Do you get what I'm writing?
    4) I was talking about the muhajirun, not the Didascaly. You have a big comprehension problem dear Mahgraye... very big. (with all due respect of course...)
    5) Marijn van Putten;@PhDniX  : " Motzki's work of Hadith analysis with his "isnad-cum-matn" approach is a very important in dating when certain Hadiths started to spread. However it doesn't say and cannot say anything about the attribution of the Hadith to the prophet Muhammad himself. The earliest moment that reliable Hadith bundles go back is several generations after the formative time of Islam. Usually not even as far back as the students of the students of the companions of the prophet. Earlier than that accurate transmission cannot be guaranteed. The idea is if we find a "network" if Hadiths, that is one person spreads a narrative to say 3 people, those 3 to another 3, and those say to another 4, then it is very unlikely that that narrative wasn't spread by the first person, as you get individual confirmation every time. However it doesn't say and cannot say anything about the attribution of the Hadith to the prophet Muhammad himself.  "
    End of story.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2062 - May 26, 2018, 08:41 AM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1000291004501647360
    Quote from: Ahmad Al-Jallad
    A beautiful prayer for deliverance from death in the #Safaitic inscription KRS 68: "O Leader of the Nation (a name of a god), he has sacrificed a camel (to you), for you are indeed the one he seeks and follows and through your guidance comes deliverance from death"

    ....Our knowledge of ancient Arabian religion has traditionally derived from the garbled accounts of much later sources. The inscriptions give us a first-hand view of the beliefs of ancient speakers of Arabic....

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2063 - May 26, 2018, 06:45 PM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1000445841637892102
    Quote from: Ahmad Al-Jallad
    If the earliest Arabic isn't from central Arabia, then what do we find there? Well, check out this inscription from south of Tayma (north-central Arabia). It is in a script called #Thamudic D and it reads: wznzʾgwzfrywẖmyztmlḥḫm. The language is undeciphered.

    ....What we must explain is: when did the exotic languages I presented above disappear and when did Arabic move south? I will present a hypothesis in near future....

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2064 - May 27, 2018, 02:34 AM

    Thread: https://twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1000557051033112577

    Quote
    An early, dated Arabo-Islamic inscription from Ḥismā that mentions the the prophet Muhammad by name. This one is dated to the end of 80 AH [=January 700 CE]. A mere 7 decades after his death. A quick English translation below:

    1)  O Lord, bless Muḥammad [the Prophet] and accept his intercession on behalf of his community
    2) And show us mercy through him in the Hereafter just as You have shown us mercy through him in this world
    3)  Written by Bakr ibn Abī Bakrah al-Aslamī at the completion of year 80

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2065 - May 27, 2018, 09:21 AM

    Christian Robin
    2 April 2018 Yarmouk Culcural Centre State of Kuwait
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ0WIXS2IdE
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2066 - May 27, 2018, 09:54 AM


    Nihil nove sub sole :
    Coin in Bishapur (Iran) 685/6 AD "Muhammad rasul Allah."
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2067 - May 27, 2018, 10:39 AM

     François Déroche 20th April 2015 Al-Maidan Centre, Kuwait
    Qur'anic Manuscripts in Umayyad Times

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7j_27dkq1s
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2068 - May 27, 2018, 11:59 AM

     Cheesy   dear Altara   i love that response of yours
      
    Nihil nove sub sole :
    Coin in Bishapur (Iran) 685/6 AD "Muhammad rasul Allah."

     to this shahanSean's tweet  ..

     https://twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1000557054002593798

    Quote
    1)  O Lord, bless Muḥammad [the Prophet] and accept his intercession on behalf of his community
    2) And show us mercy through him in the Hereafter just as You have shown us mercy through him in this world
    3)  Written by Bakr ibn Abī Bakrah al-Asmlamī at the completion [the Prophet] of year 80


    and i like that word   Bakrah  in that name of   "Bakr ibn Abī  Bakrah al-Asmlamī "  .. millions of   Bakrahs  moved in to Islam and 1000s of well educated folks  became   Bakrahs  after selective reading of Islamic scriptures..

    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 #2069 - May 27, 2018, 01:55 PM

    I want to begin by saying that I hope there is no animosity between us, since these kinds of discussions can get heated.

    Quote
    Is there in the Didascaly an attestation/report of muhajirun?; Therefore, it is perfectly normal/possible that a non Muslim (the Didascaly) in good faith believes that there was a "prophet" alive and kicking because of the events somewhere. Perfectly possible. Therefore the  Didascaly is not an attestation from the muhajirun themselves about Muhammad alive and kicking;  I was talking about the muhajirun, not the Didascaly.


    Your assessment of the Didascaly is, in my humble opinion, mistaken, and not based on a detailed reading of the actual text, nor the scholarly commentary on it.

    Abraham’s source of information was based on interviews he had conducted, and this is very important, with “those who had met him [that is, Muhammad].” He had met and spoken with the Saracens.

    The text reports that Muḥammad was preaching the return of Jesus. Furthermore, its indication that Muḥammad was alive is descriptive and consistent with the testimony of other sources. This information could have been known to Abraham’s informants, “who had met him”. And this quite explicit, since it says that Muḥammad came “with the Saracens”.

    Now unto your other questions.

    Quote
    What the Didascaly brings as new information about the "prophet" which precede and could validate those (Muslims sources) of the 8 and 9 c.?


    Good question. I can think of three things: Muḥammad existing, that he preached the return of Jesus, and that he possessed the Keys to Paradise. All consistent with the later Arabic sources.

    Quote
    The Didascaly do not EVEN know the NAME of the prophet.


    No worries. He is first mentioned by name in 637 CE. That is around the same time. We can also be sure that the Didascaly also refers to the same person.

    Quote
    What the Didascaly brings as new information about the "prophet" that we did not know already by other non Muslims sources?


    Not sure of the significance of this point you are raising. The Didascaly being the earliest we possess, I do not know it should bring new information not found in slightly later sources. Anyways, your other questions made more sense.

    Quote
    You defend the traditional account: you speak about a "prophet", and you brings hadith .... So, either you have a problem with your own mind, which do not comprehend what he does and how it works, either...


    My belief that there existed a prophet based on the actual evidence is not me supporting the traditional account. Same thing applies to the hadith. I relied on methods employed in modern Hadith Studies in order to date a certain tradition back to a Companion of Muhammad. I did not assume the reliability of all hadith. Speaking of hadith, I must say this in the name of intellectual honesty. I made a mistake. The actual common link of “A Bequest May Not Exceed One-Third” tradition is not Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās, but rather, the Meccan ʿAbd Allāh b. Khuthaym (d. 136/753 or 144/761–2).

    Be that as it may, in light of Lawrence Conrad's great work, we can be reasonably sure that there existed genuine common links in the generation of the Companions. That is a possibility we must contend with.

    The above paragraph can also be a response to your lengthy quotation from Marijin van Putten. There is more to be said. A group of scholars have manged to date a corpus of traditions back to the early Successor ʿUrwa ibn al-Zubayr. This is significant. ʿUrwa was the nephew of ʿĀʾishah, and the brother of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr, whom we know existed. ʿUrwa’s proximity to the actual events he reports stand in the favour of minimal historicity. His transmission is also very immediate and uncomplicated, the only one standing between him and Muḥammad being his aunt, ʿĀʾishah. His source(s) is thus an eyewitness. And you know what? Motzki, the man who developed the isnād-cum-matn analysis and the one Marijin responded to, agrees with dating these traditions back to ʿUrwa.

    Marijin’s comments is certainly true, in that it applies to many tradition, but not all. And that is the key distinction. I do not know if he has engaged with ʿUrwa’s corpus.

    I might have missed something, but I think I responded to all your objections, or at least tried to.
  • Previous page 1 ... 67 68 6970 71 ... 253 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »