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 03:44 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
Today at 12:29 PM

Black Atheists
Yesterday at 10:57 PM

Tommy Robinson is a refor...
September 17, 2018, 03:21 PM

I disapprove of what you ...
September 17, 2018, 05:24 AM

Tariq Ramadan Accused of ...
September 16, 2018, 07:53 PM

The Myth of Mecca-the Myt...
September 16, 2018, 02:50 PM

face veils & Islam back...
September 16, 2018, 10:35 AM

ما هي الحكمة من الماشية ا...
September 16, 2018, 02:08 AM

23 percent of American Mu...
September 16, 2018, 01:59 AM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
September 13, 2018, 03:11 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 205480 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 81 82 8384 85 ... 139 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2460 - July 08, 2018, 01:28 PM


    Altara - One of my earlier comments addresses some of your objections. BNF Arabe 328 clearly speaks against a mid-Umayyad codification under ʿAbd al-Malik. Not only does the Codex predate the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj’s activities, it is also Uthmanic!


    1/ We do not have an exemplar which shows the modification of Hajjaj. We cannot compare:  one exemplar before Hajjaj and the exemplar modified  by Hajjaj. So what you say is build only by the affirmations of the narrative that must be believed as historical (that there was a book before of a certain Utman...) affirmations which are not corroborated. Utman has never existed as recounted by the narrative : we have no source to validate this "historical" affirmation. No epigraphic, archaeological, scriptural source. Not an allusion. Same situation as "Mecca"/Zem Zem/Abu Bakr/Kaba, etc. I do not buy things without sources.


    2/I'm convinced of the early dating of the Quranic corpus but I have no scientific validation of that. But  I think we have only ʿAbd al-Malik/Hajjaj and Sanaa palimpsest as witness. That there was an exemplar before ʿAbd al-Malik/Hajjaj, of course. But I doubt that we have it now and I do not think that it is related to what recount the narrative since we have no sources about the characters whose it recounts the story. Each "historical" affirmations of the narrative must be validated to be accepted as historical :  The only Arab chiefs we know who have existed  between 630 and 700 are Muawiya, Zubayr, and  Abd al-Malik. The others have no sources. For me, Caliph Utman, Umar,Abu Bakr et al. have never existed as they've been portrayed by the Muslim narrative (as Companions of a "prophet" in Mecca/Medina/Zem Zem/ Kaba)

    Quote
    We now know, thanks to the Sanaa palimpsest, that there actually were Companion codices..


    Nope. We scientifically do not know where comes from the Sanaa palimpsest. We scientifically do not know what is a  "Companion" :  The only Arab chiefs we know who have existed  between 630 and 700 are Muawiya, Zubayr, and  Abd al-Malik. None Ummayad  or external sources in Ummayad place (Damascus)  attests the existence of a "Companion". All of this has no scientific validation ; as such they have to be set aside.

    Quote
    ʿAbd al-Malik's only contribution to the Quran was that he transformed the scriptio defectiva into a scriptio plena


    See my first point.







  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2461 - July 10, 2018, 09:05 PM

    ....................... The only Arab chiefs we know who have existed  between 630 and 700 are Muawiya, Zubayr, and  Abd al-Malik. The others have no sources. For me, Caliph Utman, Umar,Abu Bakr et al. have never existed as they've been portrayed by the Muslim narrative (as Companions of a "prophet" in Mecca/Medina/Zem Zem/ Kaba).......


    So on those three Chiefs of Islam ...  Altara  I wonder whether you could give some information on those three guys form the Non-Islamic sources  ,, not the ones  like these

    Quote


    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 #2462 - July 11, 2018, 07:20 AM

    Yeezevee - the Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions the early caliphs in his relatively early Chronicle (650 CE). More specifically, Chinese annals mention the murder of ‘Uthmān. There is more.

    Since I am currently not home I cannot respond to you, dear Altara. When I have access to my computer, we can continue our discussion. As always, best regards.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2463 - July 11, 2018, 12:48 PM

    Yeezevee - the Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions the early caliphs in his relatively early Chronicle (650 CE). More specifically, Chinese annals mention the murder of ‘Uthmān. There is more.

    ............................


    I am one of those irrational illogical Idiots ....I QUESTION EVERYTHING... So I would appreciate any links on those

    1).  Bishop Sebeos  ...

    2). Chinese annals mention that mentions  murder of ‘Uthmān......and on that word  

    3). on that word "More"  dear Mahgraye.. The older the links and the original  the works  of those guys the better..

    Ha!  Damn  I wrote this   some four years ago

    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 #2464 - July 13, 2018, 08:21 PM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1017846395267665920
    Quote
    Prof. Moshe Sharon (Hebrew Univ., emeritus) has recently published an Arabic inscription  called “Jerusalem 32”. If he’s correct that it dates to 32AH (= 652 CE), it’s the most extraordinary early Islamic inscription ever found (IMHO). What does it say? Let’s take a look …

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2465 - July 14, 2018, 03:04 AM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1017846395267665920

    Quote
    Sean W. [email protected]

    Prof. Moshe Sharon (Hebrew Univ., emeritus) has recently published an Arabic inscription  called “Jerusalem 32”. If he’s correct that it dates to 32AH (= 652 CE), it’s the most extraordinary early Islamic inscription ever found (IMHO). What does it say? Let’s take a look …


    well  let us put   that "Arabic inscription  called “Jerusalem 32”. picture here




     
    Quote
    Sean W. Anthony  @shahanSean
    ·
    7h
    1) بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    2) ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
    3) ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟ ذ
    4) مة الله وضمان رسوله
    5) ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
    6) وشهده عبد الرحمن بن عوف
    7) الزهري وأبو عبيدة بن الجراح
    Cool وكاتبه معاوية ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
    9) سنة اثنتين وثلثين

    Sean W. Anthony
    Quote
    Sean W. Anthony  @shahanSean
    ·
    7h
    1)In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
    2)
    3)  the protection of God and the guarantee of His messenger
    5)
    6)And witnessed it ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf
    7)al-Zuhrī and Abū ʿUbaydah ibn al-Jarrāḥ
    8)and its writer (kātibuhu) Muʿāwiyah
    9)the year 32(?)


    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 #2466 - July 14, 2018, 05:24 PM

    Dear Yeezevee - I will be delighted to answer your questions when I get home.

    Regarding the inscription, I just received Sharon's study.

    Assuming the dating is accurate then this inscription is very significant, attesting the existence of Muhammad and two additional Companions of his besides Muawiya. But as I said, assuming this is accurate, and there are reasons to rejects such an early dating. Marijn van Putten writes:

    Palaeographically there is no way in hell that this is first century. Shape of the rā' is not lunate, but descending as modern forms of Arabic script. Final mīms take descends downwards with a flourish something that takes centuries to show up (in inscriptions and Quran at least)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2467 - July 14, 2018, 07:32 PM

    Sean Anthony suggests an 8th or 9th cemtury date: https://mobile.twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1017959120715083776
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2468 - July 15, 2018, 01:01 AM

    Dear Yeezevee - I will be delighted to answer your questions when I get home.

    please do so Mahgraye  ,,,,whenever you find time

    Regarding the inscription, I just received Sharon's study.

    Quote
    Assuming the dating is accurate then this inscription is very significant, attesting the existence of Muhammad and two additional Companions of his besides Muawiya. But as I said, assuming this is accurate, and there are reasons to rejects such an early dating. Marijn van Putten writes:

    Palaeographically there is no way in hell that this is first century. Shape of the rā' is not lunate, but descending as modern forms of Arabic script. Final mīms take descends downwards with a flourish something that takes centuries to show up (in inscriptions and Quran at least)

    dear   Mahgraye  ., by now sure you must have come to conclusion that I have serious problems with  the word "Muhammad" itself ..  As I often wrote for the past 10 years or so.. "Muhammad" is NOT A PROPER NAME ...  ....anyone and everyone could be Muhammad..... It is more so true in early Islam... It just depicts  as "praise worthy leader"

    .................Now on that inscription and all other such inscriptions of  "Quranic words/verses/partial statements"  .. that we see on rocks and stones..........

    Suppose we assume that Inscription is VERY VERY ACCURATELY DATED ..  let us read that again..

    Quote
    Sean W. Anthony  @shahanSean
    ·
    7h
    1)......In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

    2).................

    3) ................ the protection of God and the guarantee of His messenger

    5)..........................

    6)................And witnessed it ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf

    7)..............al-Zuhrī and Abū ʿUbaydah ibn al-Jarrāḥ

    Cool..........and its writer (kātibuhu) Muʿāwiyah

    9)...................the year 32(?)


    Let us think carefully  about those words.,  How do the above translated words of that inscription proves the presence of PROPHET OF ISLAM during  the years of say.... year 525 to 635....??

    What do those words  mean w.r.t  Prophet of Islam??  ..

    Such inscription could be written on ANY OLD SO_CALLED ABRAHAMIC SCRIPTURAL WORDS IN THAT OLD ARABIC MUCH BEFORE THE BIRTH OF ISLAM IN SOME 2nd or 3rd century AD, .. it could as  well  be from a guy  who was a  member of Christian  sect of Arabian peninsula and who   used consider  "Jesus of Arabia" as Prophet of Islam..

    I mean putting such inscriptions as exciting and hard core proof of existence  of Prophet of Islam is simply  whole scale exaggeration of academics..

    anyway please continue to write and read  and  well let me read this news  ..http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5938609/Leader-Pakistani-Islamist-group-vows-wipe-Holland-face-earth.html

    Idiots ............  

    when you make Baboons as leaders of a Monkey group   the nations will end up as begging bowls with full corrupt leaders that use faiths for their loot and booty

    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 #2469 - July 16, 2018, 09:14 PM

    My bad.  I quickly looked at Sharon's article and probably misread something. If anything, the inscription shows that Abd Rahman b. Awf and Ubayda b. al-Jarrah existed, assuming the dating is accurate. The inscription does, however, mention rasuluhu. Anyways. Mistake from my side.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2470 - July 18, 2018, 04:02 PM

    Yeezevee - the Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions the early caliphs in his relatively early Chronicle (650 CE). More specifically, Chinese annals mention the murder of ‘Uthmān. There is more.

    Since I am currently not home I cannot respond to you, dear Altara. When I have access to my computer, we can continue our discussion. As always, best regards.


    The Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions nothing at all. No caliphs, Zem Zem, Kaba,, Companoins of the "prophet". He never mentions Uthmān as "caliph" as a collector of a recension of the "Quran". The Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions people on which will be attributed all this background whereas they are all dead. Better : nothing (epigraphic, etc) will validate such attribution. Thus, this attributions have to be set aside ; such attributions are part of the 'Salvation History' and is not historical, since no corroborated by any source.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2471 - July 18, 2018, 08:48 PM

    The Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions nothing at all. .....................


    Hello Altara I wonder whether you read  that "Sebeos' History Translated    by Robert Bedrosian" .. if NOT ... please read from this  chapter-30  http://www.attalus.org/armenian/seb9.htm#30  to the end of the book..

    with best
    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 #2472 - July 18, 2018, 10:49 PM

    Why you wonder?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2473 - July 19, 2018, 02:44 AM

    Why you wonder?

    well you being in Academics of Islamic history,  i expected more than what you said about that  Armenian Bishop Sebeos  and his history....  In my opinion he is not a historian and Something like this one  from  Bishop Sebeo's  history  should not be considered as history ...
    Quote
    .......................................I shall discuss the [line of the] son of Abraham: not the o...ne [born] of a free [woman], but the one born of a serving maid, about whom the quotation from Scripture was fully and truthfully fulfilled, "His hands will be at everyone, and everyone will have their hands at him [Genesis 16. 11,12]."

    Twelve peoples [representing] all the tribes of the Jews assembled at the city of Edessa. When they saw that the Iranian troops had departed and left the city in peace, they [122] 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 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 Muhammad, a merchant, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God's command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had [g104] 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. Muhammad legislated that they were not to [123] 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 [The text is corrupt here. The citation is from Genesis 25.18], 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 travelled 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, Theodosius. 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. 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. Now [the Byzantines] reached the Jordan and crossed into Arabia. Leaving their campsite on the riverbank, [the Byzantines] went on foot to attack [the Arabs'] camp. [The Arabs], however, had placed part of their army in ambuscades here and there, lodging the multitude in dwellings around the camp. Then they drove in herds of camels which they penned around the camp and the tents, tying them at the foot with rope. Such was the fortification of their camp. The beasts were fatigued from the journey, and so [the Byz

    antines] were able to cut through the camp fortification, and started to kill [the Arabs]. But suddenly the men in the ambuscades sprung from their places and fell upon them. Awe of the Lord came over the Byzantine troops, and they turned in flight before them. But they were unable to flee because of the quicksand which buried them to the legs. There was great anxiety caused by the heat of the sun and the enemy's sword was upon them. All the generals fell and perished. More than 2,000 men were slain. A few survivors fled to the place of refuge.

    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 #2474 - July 19, 2018, 10:45 AM

    Quote
    In my opinion he is not a historian and Something like this one  from  Bishop Sebeo's  history  should not be considered as history ...

     

    The Armenian Bishop Sebeos is not an "historian" in the modern meaning, of course. It is a source. Like all sources, it has to be criticized and compared with other sources.
    But as a source, The Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions nothing at all. No caliphs, Zem Zem, Kaba, Companions of the "prophet". He never mentions Uthmān as "caliph" as a collector of a recension of the "Quran". The Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions people (Uthmān , Muawiya) on which will be attributed all this background whereas they are all dead. Better : nothing (epigraphic, etc) will validate such attribution. Thus, this attributions have to be set aside ; such attributions are part of the 'Salvation History' and is not historical, since not corroborated by any source.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2475 - July 20, 2018, 08:28 AM

    IQSA 2018 conference schedule: https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/conference-schedule-3/
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2476 - July 20, 2018, 01:22 PM

    Thanks Zeca ; indeed an interesting conference.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2477 - July 20, 2018, 07:33 PM

    Thread on Hasaitic: https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1020314679758000128
    Quote
    What happened to Hasaitic? We can’t be sure when the writing tradition died out. But this ancient vernacular of East Arabia may have survived into the Islamic period. Syriac (8th-9th c.) commentaries on the Hebrew Bible mention an East Arabian language called Qaṭrayith.

    All that survives are glosses (translations of individual words). It seems lexically distinct from Arabic, but there isn’t much more to go on. Could Qaṭrayith be the latest form of the language found in the Hasaitic inscriptions, before it was swallowed up by Arabic?


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2478 - July 21, 2018, 08:33 AM



    The Armenian Bishop Sebeos mentions people (Uthmān , Muawiya) on which will be attributed all this background whereas they are all dead. B source.


    Dear Altara, so for you, apart from Muawiya whose existence is acknowledged, what you mean is that the other guided caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman) did really exist, maybe their reign happened in the same years and duration as the islam tradition is telling us but another story was imposed onto real historical events ? Is this correct ? Do you think Ali also existed ?

    Then I wonder what to make up of the fact that Sebeos is talking about Mahmet as a person who taught the arabs about the God of Abraham ? It sounds a little bit like islam and, one could argue that Sebeos more or less  tie up with islamic tradition ?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2479 - July 21, 2018, 10:14 AM

    Quote
    what you mean is that the other guided caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman) did really exist, maybe their reign happened in the same years and duration as the islam tradition is telling us but another story was imposed onto real historical events ? Is this correct ? Do you think Ali also existed ?


    1/ There are non Muslim attestations of people named Uthmān and Muawiya. These attestations (scriptural and epigraphic for Muawiya, only scriptural -Sebeos in our example- for Uthmān ) attest of their existence. And that's all.
    We have not (to my knowledge...) non Muslim scriptural and epigraphic attestations of Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali  which would attest the existence of these peoples.

    2/ In the case of Uthmān and Muawiya, nothing attests in the attestations (scriptural and epigraphic for Muawiya, only scriptural -Sebeos in our example- for Uthmān ) that these two people are what say the Muslim historiographers of the 9th c : "caliphs", Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran" etc. All of this is not attested by non Muslim scriptural and epigraphic sources of the 7th c.. They are "kings" "chiefs", "leaders", not "caliphs","Companions" of a "prophet",collectors of a "Quran" coming from Mecca/Medina/Kaba etc.

    Quote
    Then I wonder what to make up of the fact that Sebeos is talking about Mahmet as a person who taught the arabs about the God of Abraham ? It sounds a little bit like islam and, one could argue that Sebeos more or less  tie up with islamic tradition ?


    Sebeos reports what Arabs of the time tell him (or to others...) about their beliefs. What it is told to him by these Arabs are informations grabbed (by them or others) from the Quranic texts and communicate to them by people who have texts in hand, and nothing else. Sebeos does not recounts that Arabs he sees around told him that they have known very well the "prophet", that they are born in Mecca/Medina/Zem Zem/Kaba. These Arabs does not talk to him about "caliphs","Companions" the great epopee they lived at Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, and all the rest. They just talk of what is available as information in the Quranic texts (prophet/God/Abraham), and not the historical context where they come from, whereas they will be placed in this historical context,  which is the context described by the Muslim historiographers of the 9th c as the same of the origin of the Quranic texts.
    Therefore, what can be drawn from Sebeos (and others of the time) is that there is no attestation of the historical affirmations regarding the origin of the Quranic text in the islamic tradition about it : Mecca/Medina/Zem Zem/Kaba, etc.  Sebeos does not  tie up with islamic tradition written by the Muslim historiographers of the 9th c. about its historical affirmations. Because there is no attestation of it. Nowhere. Mecca/Medina/Zem Zem/Kaba, etc.,  is never corroborated by the (many) non Muslim attestations at our disposal.
    Therefore, as there is no attestation, I,  as a scholar of Early Islam and graduated (but not an Academic) I do not buy the historical affirmations regarding the origin of the Quranic text in the islamic tradition as the historical context of the origin of the Quranic text. Nothing in the 7th c. is coming to corroborate it.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2480 - July 21, 2018, 08:42 PM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/1020645745068838913
    Quote
    In recent years I've found myself thinking about pre-Islamic Arabia in terms of a peasant majority and an aristocratic minority. This way of conceiving Arabian societies is not very popular at the moment, for a few reasons: Marxist theory, which is most inclined to acknowledge class in historical societies, has been fairly marginal among academic historians in recent decades, and has never really had much of a presence in Early Islamic Studies...

    Quote
    I think we can reasonably start thinking in terms of a mobile, militant aristocracy coercing wealth out of a scattered class of oasis peasants. The coercion takes different forms: rent to a landlord, wages to a service provider, tribute to a warlord. But the basic fact of class society remains: a majority creates the wealth and a powerful minority funnels it away.

    And a response to this question: “Ian, how does this fit into the premise that there was no trade or agriculture in & around Mecca as Mohammad, Mecca & the Quryash tribe never existed as per the Islamic narrative? Nor, I understand, are there any historical records for their existence outside this narrative?”

    Quote
    It's complicated. That Muhammad was a merchant seems pretty likely: it's attested by the Armenian chronicler Sebeos around 660, which is very early by our sources' standards. Mecca probably wasn't as important as the later Muslim sources make it out to be -- the town first appears in the historical record when the Muslim conquests leave Arabia -- but that doesn't mean it didn't *exist*. The same goes for Quraysh: we have to rely on tribal folklore because nobody outside Arabia talks about them until they've suddenly conquered half the known world!

    Everything I say in the thread above does rely on the Arabic historical tradition, which is late and highly fictionalised; but these specific accounts are less obviously warped than others, so I'm happy to use them provisionally.


    Also:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/lameensouag/status/1020750428844314624

    https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/1020690775745671168

    https://mobile.twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1020657800723169280
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2481 - July 21, 2018, 09:01 PM

    Dear Altara,

    Thank you for your reply. A few comments, and don't get me wrong as I don't believe in the traditional salvation history as told by islamic tradition but this must be based on facts :

    - I understand that if you think Sebeos got his information from arab people, then the words caliphs, kabaa, zem zem, mecca, islam, should show up in Sebeos narratives. The thinfg is I think he had his sources from people who met those arabs, it is logical that some words do not show up as they wouldn't focus on that, and not to mention that we know that the islamisation is a phenomenon that was grossly inflated in muslim sources,

    - It is true that Mecca doesn't show up in any scriptural non muslim sources for 2 centuries and, when it does, it isn't in the right place, not to mention the fact that the kaaba isn't neither where it should be when non muslim sources talk about it and it seems the 2 (kaaba, mecca) were not linked before the muslim narrative was drawn,

    - what puzzle me in what you say is that the Sebeos narrative still seem to show a salvation history, and scholars date Sebeos writing from the early 650/660's. So it would mean that this salvation history has either some kind of truth or was written quite early, and I don't believe that as the first sira originates from the 8th century and we don't have the original text,

    - there are different non muslims epigraphical and scriptural sources that do mention Omar (the Zuhayr writing though there is islamic specific mention as described by the tradition), Uthman (the Tayma writing though not islamic in its content neitheir), lists of caliphs and length of their reign starting with Muhammad in different non muslim scriptural sources including some early as 640,


    Thanks for your input on this
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2482 - July 21, 2018, 11:20 PM

    Quote
    I understand that if you think Sebeos got his information from arab people, then the words caliphs, kabaa, zem zem, mecca, islam, should show up in Sebeos narratives.


    Like in the all non Muslims sources, all informations we have, have its first origin in statements of Arabs who take the political power in Syria/Armenia/Palestine, etc. It seems difficult to deny that. From where, Armenians, Syrians, etc could have received these information about a prophetic figure apart Arabs? From little green men? One have to be serious.

    It is not only Sebeos that did not speak of "caliphs", Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran",  Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc. It is all the non Muslims sources of the 7th c. and until sometimes the first quarter of the 8th c.
    So it is not Sebeos only. It is all. How do you explain that?  It is inexplicable.
    On the other hand, it is remarkable that the informations Arabs give are circumscribed to informations easily deducible from the Quranic texts (Abraham/prophet/God) and never go beyond this Quranic frame. Never. What that mean? That there is Quranic texts. But those are not at all originating from the story ("caliphs", Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran",  Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc.) recounted by the historiographers of the 9th c. That is the logical explication.

    Quote
    what puzzle me in what you say is that the Sebeos narrative still seem to show a salvation history, and scholars date Sebeos writing from the early 650/660's. So it would mean that this salvation history has either some kind of truth or was written quite early, and I don't believe that as the first sira originates from the 8th century and we don't have the original text,


    What I call 'Salvation History' is the account of the historiographers of the 9th c. concerning the origin of the Quranic text and the figures associated with it. It happens to be that these figures does not match the figures  Uthmān and Muawiya as we know it from non Muslims sources : there is no mentions about them  or from them (Muawiya) of  "caliphs"  Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran",  Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc. So all the historical affirmations about the figures associated with the Quranic texts, from  the historiographers of the 9th c. are not corroborated by any scriptural sources of the 7th c. : Arabs and non Arabs. It's a fact. Uthmān and Muawiya have been clothed with all this stuff by the historiographers of the 9th c.  But themselves never attest it. There is not a piece of allusion from them.
    Quote
    - there are different non muslims epigraphical and scriptural sources that do mention Omar


    I look forward to see your sources.

    Quote
    Uthman (the Tayma writing though not islamic in its content neitheir),

     

    I do not understand what you say.

    Quote
    lists of caliphs and length of their reign starting with Muhammad in different non muslim scriptural sources including some early as 640,


    In 640? What sources exactly?
    List of Arabs "Kings", not "caliphs"  "Companions" or collectors of a "Quran". It is very different of what recounts the historiographers of the 9th c.
    "Muhammad" is in the Quranic texts, it is then normal that it is mentioned. As I already said, Arabs of the 7th c. give  informations that are circumscribed to informations easily deducible from the Quranic texts (Abraham/prophet/God) and never go beyond this Quranic frame to talk about very important facts : Mecca/Medina, etc.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2483 - July 22, 2018, 06:36 AM

    Marijn van Putten writes:

    "BnF Arabe 330f consistently marks the sīn with three dots below the denticles of the sīn, and three dots above the denticles of the šīn. Never seen anything like it. There is so much variation in early dotting."

    I assume that he is referring to the writing in the oldest Qurans. Dan Brubaker found in his research that there were many corrections and tapings in old manuscripts. The underlying text in the Sanaa Quran is also poorly written.
    Van Putten claim that there has to be a single source text to the oldest manuscripts, because there are so little variation.
    Around 650 AD caliph Uthman, if he ever existed, was  the leader of an empire and was very rich. But why did not he or later caliphs  educate people to write the Quran properly and in the same style? Why are there so much variation in early dotting?
    And at last: Why do we not have an Uthman Quran or a copy? Around 650 AD,Uthman must have been one of the richest persons on the planet. He would sure be able to produce and secure enough standard copies without faults of such an important book as the Quran , the last revelation to mankind from God!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2484 - July 22, 2018, 07:34 AM

    Quote
    But why did not he or later caliphs  educate people to write the Quran properly and in the same style? Why are there so much variation in early dotting?


    Because they have nothing to see with the Quranic texts... That is the reason...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2485 - July 22, 2018, 07:55 AM

    Sorry, Altara, but I do not understand what you mean with this sentence:

    "Because they have nothing to see with the Quranic texts... That is the reason..."
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2486 - July 22, 2018, 10:34 AM

    Ok, Altara, I think I know. You mean that there were no dotting by the time of Uthman.
    If there ever was a standard Uthmanic text, it was without dotting. So at that time, Arabic was partly an oral language. So when they later on added dotting, it differed from place to place.
    Is that correct?
    Is correct that in the second half of the 7th. century, they probably tried to stabilize the text, but the underlying text in the Sana'a Quran could be pre Uthman.The rasm is pretty alike in most Qurans, but not in the Sana'a manuscript. Ok?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2487 - July 22, 2018, 11:37 AM

    1/ Yes.
    2/ The expression " Uthmanic text" is from the 9th c. Nobody knows an  'Uthmanic text' in the 7th c (according to the non Muslim source, from 636 to 700)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2488 - July 22, 2018, 12:13 PM


    It is not only Sebeos that did not speak of "caliphs", Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran",  Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc. It is all the non Muslims sources of the 7th c. and until sometimes the first quarter of the 8th c.
    So it is not Sebeos only. It is all. How do you explain that?  It is inexplicable.
    On the other hand, it is remarkable that the informations Arabs give are circumscribed to informations easily deducible from the Quranic texts (Abraham/prophet/God) and never go beyond this Quranic frame. Never. What that mean? That there is Quranic texts. But those are not at all originating from the story ("caliphs", Kaba, Zem Zem, Mecca, Medina, "Companions" of a "prophet", collectors of a "Quran",  Badr/Uhud against the Meccans, etc.) recounted by the historiographers of the 9th c. That is the logical explication.



    I am not sure that some of your arguments are valid. Saying for example that caliphs are not mentionned but kings is so the islamic narrative is wrong seems too drastic a conclusion. Those 2 words mean the same thing and you cannot expect people who were not scholars to provide all the details we would expect from a nowaday scholar. An example of this is Muawiya whom we know existed but non muslim sources don't really give details about who he was, his life and his ascend to power.


    I do not understand what you say.



    The tayma writing is an epigraph that was discovered next to Tayma in Saudi Arabia. It states "May God curse the one who murdered Uthman ibn affan and those who incited this merciless killing". As you can see, and the Zuhayr writing is the same,  it is not islamic in its content (no mention of the title of Uthman, no raḍiya Llāhʿan-hu  formula after his name)


    In 640? What sources exactly?




    My bad on this one. I was refering to a scriptural document attributed to Thomas the presbiter who mention the invasion of Gaza by arab forces in 634 but the date of the document is 724.


    By the way, I sometimes wonder if a confusion was not made in Sebeos writings but also with others between Umar the 2nd guided caliph and Amr ibn al As, meaning that Umar didn't exist and in fact only Amr did but, because of the islamic narrative, people who translate old chronicles read Umar where it refers to Amr because of the events described. I might be wrong here but it is in my head.

    I sent you a message in your inbox. It would be nice if you could reply.


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2489 - July 22, 2018, 02:33 PM

    Threads from Ian David Morris: https://mobile.twitter.com/iandavidmorris/status/1021021923751464960
  • Previous page 1 ... 81 82 8384 85 ... 139 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »