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


Iran uprising - is the en...
by zeca
Today at 03:11 PM

New PM incoming
by zeca
Yesterday at 09:22 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:59 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 06:47 PM

Kashmir endgame
Yesterday at 02:55 PM

Anti-imperialism and the ...
by zeca
Yesterday at 02:40 PM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
by zeca
November 16, 2019, 11:39 PM

Painted pious ladies
November 16, 2019, 09:03 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 16, 2019, 06:22 PM

Lebanon protests
by zeca
November 16, 2019, 01:21 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
November 16, 2019, 01:15 PM

Life extension
November 16, 2019, 09:53 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 384248 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 181 182 183184 185 ... 279 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5460 - February 20, 2019, 06:36 PM

    Interesting thread from Al-Jallad

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1098276895098048513
    Quote
    Phenomenal discovery!!! A pre-Islamic variant of the monotheistic basmala from Yemen in the Zabur script. The first line says: bsmlh rHmn rHmn rb smwt بسم له رحمن رحمن رب سموت

    The second line is very difficult to decipher but contains the words رزقن and إيمن. The text confirms the equation of the North Arabian monotheistic god Allāh and the South Arabian RaHmān already in the pre-Islamic period.

    Who wrote this text? Such a general monotheistic statement could have been composed by an Arabian Christian or Jew, or perhaps the text was written by a Proto-Islamic Arabian monotheist, maybe a Hanif. All speculation at this point but discoveries like this bring us closer to evidence-based answers on the religious landscape of Arabia in the 6th c. CE and the background of Islam.


    Any thoughts?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5461 - February 20, 2019, 07:33 PM

    Zeca,

    Do you have any thoughts on the subject?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5462 - February 20, 2019, 07:37 PM

    Interesting thread from Al-Jallad

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Safaitic/status/1098276895098048513
    Any thoughts?


    The text confirms nothing (yawn)...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5463 - February 20, 2019, 07:40 PM

    Do you have any thoughts on the subject?


    Nothing very useful really.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5464 - February 20, 2019, 08:30 PM

    Zabur inscription:

    I seem to share the lack of thoughts about it  Huh?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5465 - February 20, 2019, 09:03 PM

    1/ Hoyland is right when pointing a revolt of local Arabs in Palestine which is what Sophrone talk in his Sermons.


    It is interesting that Jacob of Edessa states the beginning of Muhammad kingdom in 620/21 and link it with raids in Palestine.

    Quote
    But it is not these Arabs who enter in Jerusalem in 637 and build the masjid.Hoyland  holds (of course) that it is those of Mecca/Zem Zem.



    I agree (though we disagree on who entered Jerusalem in 637)



  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5466 - February 20, 2019, 09:04 PM

    Quote
    I agree (though we disagree on who entered Jerusalem in 637).


    Who were the Arabs who entered Jerusalem in 637?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5467 - February 20, 2019, 09:11 PM

    Marc,

    Do you have a reference at hand for this?

    Quote
    1/ Hoyland is right when pointing a revolt of local Arabs in Palestine which is what Sophrone talk in his Sermons.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5468 - February 20, 2019, 09:48 PM

    Quote
    Quote
    Phenomenal discovery!!! A pre-Islamic variant of the monotheistic basmala from Yemen in the Zabur script. The first line says: bsmlh rHmn rHmn rb smwt بسم له رحمن رحمن رب سموت

    The second line is very difficult to decipher but contains the words رزقن and إيمن. The text confirms the equation of the North Arabian monotheistic god Allāh and the South Arabian RaHmān already in the pre-Islamic period.

    Who wrote this text? Such a general monotheistic statement could have been composed by an Arabian Christian or Jew, or perhaps the text was written by a Proto-Islamic Arabian monotheist, maybe a Hanif. All speculation at this point but discoveries like this bring us closer to evidence-based answers on the religious landscape of Arabia in the 6th c. CE and the background of Islam.


    I do seem to have some thoughts on this... dance

    Could this find be spectacular because apparently it is a big worry amongst some muslims that Al-Rahman might be associated with a pagan moon god?  https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/allah/rhmnn

    Would it also be spectacular because Yemen's role in Islamic origin is thus confirmed?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5469 - February 20, 2019, 09:55 PM

    Is al-Rahman a moon god?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5470 - February 20, 2019, 10:14 PM

    Quote
    Is al-Rahman a moon god?


    Read the discussion. I dont think so...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5471 - February 20, 2019, 10:24 PM

    Al-Jallad says that the monotheistic Allah and al-Rahman are the same deity
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5472 - February 20, 2019, 10:25 PM

    Do you have a reference at hand for this?


    R.G Hoyland, In God’s path, The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire, Oxford University Press, 2015


  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5473 - February 20, 2019, 10:27 PM

    Anyone here who has a good rebuttal to the hypothesis that the Quranic mušrikûn (“associators”) are Trinitarian Christians?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5474 - February 20, 2019, 10:41 PM

     The good rebuttal is the traditional one: because the 9th narratives says that the mushrikun were polytheists. Muslims have been satisfied with this answer for 1400 years, as  for the rest of the 9th narratives, why would that change?
    Maybe because it is starting to collapse...
    It may seems harsh but...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5475 - February 20, 2019, 10:45 PM

    Not sure I understood your answer. My question was whether there is a good rebuttal to the scholarly hypothesis that the traditional Muslim understanding of the term mušrikûn (“associators”) is incorrect and the term in actuality refer to Trinitarian Christians. That was my question. Do you find the traditional Muslim understanding of the term to be correct, Altara?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5476 - February 20, 2019, 11:02 PM

    But the 9th narratives are a scholarly rebuttal my friend to the "term in actuality refer to Trinitarian Christians" . The 9th narratives are scholarly accepted as "historical" in all of its dimensions by 99% of the academics of the field.Therefore when they hear that the term "in actuality refer to Trinitarian Christians " they  look at you as if you were coming from Mars and laugh with each other and when you dare states that one have no validation of other sources that Mecca/Medina/Kaba/ Muhamad existed before Islam they laugh even louder.

    Of course they could be Christians. Trinitarian Christians I do not know what that is in the 6 and 7th c. One have no attestations of believers in Jesus prophet at that time. One have before. But even with Arius Jesus is more than a prophet. And the only rebuttal I know to this is the 9th c narratives. Then if they could be Christians, why there are two "Christianities"in the Quran? : the "associators"  Christians and the Nasara which are also "associators" because they say in  9,30 that Jesus is the son of God therefore they are "associators" as well  That is the big question (haha!)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5477 - February 21, 2019, 12:04 AM

    Quote
    But the 9th narratives are a scholarly rebuttal, my friend. The 9th narratives are scholarly accepted as "historical" in all of its dimensions by 99% of the academics of the field. Therefore when they hear that the term "in actuality refer to Trinitarian Christians " they look at you as if you were coming from Mars and laugh with each other and when you dare states that one have no validation of other sources that Mecca/Medina/Kaba/ Muhamad existed before Islam they laugh even louder.


    Haha. Knew you were hinting at this and that you were only being sarcastic.

    Quote
    Of course, they could be Christians. Trinitarian Christians I do not know what that is in the 6 and 7th c. One have no attestations of believers in Jesus prophet at that time. One have before. But even with Arius Jesus is more than a prophet.


    Basically, Christians who believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus. So, yeah, the term Christians does suffice, but I do like to add the qualification Trinitarian just to make the matters more clear. Ordinary Christians, in other words.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5478 - February 21, 2019, 12:11 AM

    Then if they could be Christians, why there are two "Christianities"in the Quran? : the "associators"  Christians and the Nasara which are also "associators" because they say in  9,30 that Jesus is the son of God therefore they are "associators" as well  That is the big question (haha!)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5479 - February 21, 2019, 12:22 AM

    Right, I forgot that you did highlight this apparent discrepancy in the theory. There is, of course, a rebuttal by the proponents of the theory and I personally do not think it can be so easily refuted by citing one verse that can't have escaped the eyes of the relevant scholars. Furthermore, the theory is much more nuanced and complicated for it to be refuted in such a manner. And to be honest, a similar approach can be used to undermine many theories on the Quran by alluding to verse that at first glance seem contradictory.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5480 - February 21, 2019, 10:16 AM

    Quote
    Right, I forgot that you did highlight this apparent discrepancy in the theory.


    Some say that the mushrikun cannot be Christians because the Christians are designed in the text by "Nasara". Therefore the Mecca/Medina/Kaba frame is right, they were not : go back to the hamster cage then. But 10 years later some say : guys, guys, they are Christians the mushrikun! All is starting again (hahaha!)

    Of course there is an explication which explains these issues.
    When one cannot explain something it is mainly because the FRAME/paradigm is inexact.
    It has to be put aside to find the logical truth explaining what is not logic/rational and understandable like these problems Nasara/Mushrikun in the text.
    Copernicus has put aside the Ptolemy Epicycles dogma/frame/paradigm.
    Einstein has put aside the Ether dogma/frame/paradigm.

    It is exactly the same methodology that must be taken with the Quran. It works.
    But it puts aside the religious dogma being the explication of the origin of the text : if it is not the "prophet" (in the Mecca/... frame) who is responsible of the Quran?  Who is? Why? When? (hahaha!) this question is impossible to ask for a Muslim. Impossible. That is why you cannot be Muslim and a scholar about it. Because you will never question what it is about  the base of your faith (Mecca/Medina/Kaba), even if it has nothing to do with supernatural things.(Mecca/Medina/Kaba is the fundamental creed of Islam : it cannot be questioned.




  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5481 - February 21, 2019, 01:21 PM

    Quote
    Altara says :

    .............. if it is not the "prophet" (in the Mecca/... frame) who is responsible of the Quran?  Who is? Why? When? (hahaha!) this question is impossible to ask for a Muslim. Impossible. .............

    such intelligent thoughtful folks in Islam  who question that., "If there was no prophet Muhammad who is responsible for Quran ".  are considered  as headless Muslims  (literally). another word such people is  "Apostates" ... whose head should not be on their shoulder dear Altara ., In fact those Muslims   EVEN IF THEY ARE MONOTHEISTIC TO CORE  and every bone of them .. still they are apostates to Muslims. baboons of Islam and they run in to 100s of millions .....and these  baboons  would love to murder  enlightened Muslim folks who questions origins of Quran.

    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 #5482 - February 21, 2019, 06:09 PM

    Who were the Arabs who entered Jerusalem in 637?


    One non muslim source talk about egyptian, which could mean arabs coming from the Sinai region, which could explain the house of prayer building.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5483 - February 21, 2019, 06:10 PM

    Marc,

    Quote
    One non muslim source talk about egyptian, which could mean arabs coming from the Sinai region, which could explain the house of prayer building.


    Why does it explain the house of prayer building?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5484 - February 21, 2019, 06:12 PM

    The nasara in the Quran

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2703174

    Abstract : This paper focuses on an objection to Gallez’s conclusion to eliminate the Nasara from the original Koranic body of texts and expects the reader to be familiar with his material. With the help of the Jerusalem Talmud, this answer proposes that the Nasara constitutes a continuance of Judeo-Christian Babylonians. The timing of the addition of the Nasara reveals important clues to the expansion of an alliance.

    This update includes the revelation from the Jerusalem Talmud of the arrival of a messiah in the seventh century, Ahmet, the Son of God. The Nasara may have regarded this messiah as the Son of God (also).
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5485 - February 21, 2019, 06:13 PM

    Marc,

    Why does it explain the house of prayer building?


    Because one non muslim source talks about arabs living in the Sinai desert and having synagogs.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5486 - February 21, 2019, 06:15 PM

    Marc,

    Which source is that?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5487 - February 21, 2019, 06:20 PM

    Marc,

    We have the Ayla mosque pointing to Mount Sinai...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5488 - February 21, 2019, 07:41 PM

    Quote
    Marc,

    We have the Ayla mosque pointing to Mount Sinai...



    You mean it is pointing to the region where Abraham lived, and where arabs are known to have worshipped places related to him.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5489 - February 21, 2019, 07:42 PM

    Marc,

    Which source is that?


    Anastasius of Sinai ; I gave the link during my discussion with Altara.
  • Previous page 1 ... 181 182 183184 185 ... 279 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »