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


I disapprove of what you ...
Today at 07:22 AM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
Today at 03:07 AM

France, the World Cup’s l...
Yesterday at 06:22 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 01:01 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
July 14, 2018, 11:51 PM

Harun Yahya _ Adnan Okta...
July 14, 2018, 04:24 AM

تنطيف الروح والجسد ٠٠٠٠كي...
July 13, 2018, 12:43 PM

Funny/Cool/Interesting me...
July 11, 2018, 08:58 PM

World Cup 2018
July 11, 2018, 08:26 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
July 11, 2018, 01:24 PM

"You left Islam because o...
July 11, 2018, 12:57 PM

Scientists and .............
July 10, 2018, 01:19 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 171257 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 81 82 83« 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 - Yesterday at 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
     
  • Previous page 1 ... 81 82 83« Previous thread | Next thread »