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 02:27 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Today at 10:28 AM

Scientists and .............
Yesterday at 07:06 PM

Nominal from Bedfordshire
June 17, 2019, 08:32 PM

Muslim heritage?
June 17, 2019, 06:01 PM

Mobeen Azhar: Hometown
June 17, 2019, 07:59 AM

From religion to... unrel...
June 15, 2019, 06:35 PM

India vs Pakistan... in E...
June 15, 2019, 06:03 PM

Kismet: Does it inevitabl...
June 15, 2019, 10:57 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
June 14, 2019, 08:06 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
June 13, 2019, 04:39 PM

Reading Quran And Inquiri...
June 13, 2019, 04:17 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 297456 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 231 232 233234 235 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6960 - June 10, 2019, 02:51 PM

    Reflect.

    what is happening here?  ONLY REFLECTION??

    light  has many wavelengths
    and it can come from many direction
    true it gets reflected
    but it can also be absorbed
    and emitted at different angle
    with entirely different wavelengths
    So I think absorption of light from the posts
    and reflecting that at different wavelengths is
    more important than 100% relection

    anyways  how many of you guys read  this guy..?



    well read him  what he says... What people in the US know about Islam and the Arab world is a series of stupid cliches:

    well very old interview worth looking back  on what he said  on Islam and Amerika...  That article was published in the Herald's February 1992 issue. 

    and read his works

    Quote


    well he is a terrific fearless writer....

    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 #6961 - June 10, 2019, 07:26 PM

    I do not like Said (yawn)... And I think I know some parts of the Muslim world.
     A  more or less good book...
    https://www.amazon.com/Muslim-Discovery-Europe-Bernard-Lewis-ebook/dp/B00J60ZHOE/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Bernard+Lewis+the+muslim+discovery&qid=1560194745&s=gateway&sr=8-2
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6962 - June 10, 2019, 08:02 PM

    About the amount of variants in the Quran, have any of you read the 1000 page report of 6 of the oldest manuscripts by Dr. Tayyar Altıkulaç and Dr. Ekmeleddin?
    They seem to disagree with Van Putten and have , according to Jay Smith, found "2270 instances where there is a difference  from the (consonantal skeleton) of the Fahd Mushaf".
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6963 - June 10, 2019, 08:29 PM

    Yeah, the alif... (yawn...). Are you all just finding out?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6964 - June 10, 2019, 08:40 PM

    Mahgraye, have you read the report? Can you tell me more of their conclusions?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6965 - June 10, 2019, 08:44 PM

    Just that - the alif. Really insignificant stuff. Some time since I read about this topic. Will get back to you.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6966 - June 10, 2019, 08:47 PM

    Variants:

    MVP estimated the dotting variants at 2.5 % based on a sample  (Surah 109) with lots of variants. We know Quran contains about 80 k words. So this 2270 words Jay Smith mentions corresponds with this percentage.

    It is at the higher end of what is expected. But a very realistic number seen the above.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6967 - June 10, 2019, 08:55 PM

    Magraye,

    You answer these questions as if no evidence of the contrary has been shown in our discussions. You have Melchert's talk and article, you have MVP tweets. You know that variants are more than an Alif here and there.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6968 - June 10, 2019, 08:57 PM

    Melchert proves my point. I even cited him in an essay of mine. Unfortunately, people seem to miss his conclusion.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6969 - June 10, 2019, 09:13 PM

    Mahgraye,

    Why dont you post your essay here. Maybe you will convince me.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6970 - June 10, 2019, 09:28 PM

    Speaking of Bellamy, here is a thread by MVP:

    https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1138185589445074949?s=19
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6971 - June 11, 2019, 06:05 AM

    In the twitter thread above by Mahgraye, they mention Luxenberg:
    Question:
    "Do you have any thread on the general criticism of Luxemberg work? Thank you."

    Marijn van Putten:

    "I don't, and I think I'd be beating a dead horse revisiting it. It's been reviewed to death. It's really really terrible, and based on such completely nonsensical starting assumptions that it's difficult to even criticize."


    Why is MVP so extremely negative to Luxenberg? I see many scholars talk of him and are skeptic, but some seem open for that there could be something in his hypothesis.

    https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1138191335956127744
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6972 - June 11, 2019, 07:30 AM

    His assessment is hardly surprising or uncommon. Most reviews of his work were negative. Even those sympathetic to him acknowledge the methodological sloppiness of his work. And he has addressed his work on several occasions.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6973 - June 11, 2019, 07:58 AM

    I think a lot of these ultra-revisionists have the merit of highlighting and introducing a new approach. Not necessarily all their innovations are correct. With Luxenberg, for sure, many of his readings are incorrect but some seem very plausible. I read somewhere Dye mentioning that Luxenberg deserves also credit for his work, not only criticism.

    It's a bit of a fashion to be very negative towards Luxenberg, nothing more imo.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6974 - June 11, 2019, 08:10 AM

    Luxenberg

    Here is an article in review from Baasten (colleague of MVP): https://www.academia.edu/33782506/_A_Syriac_Reading_of_the_Qur%C4%81n_The_Case_of_S%C5%ABrat_al-Kawthar

    He agrees with Luxenberg's reading for 108  but main tone is "Luxenberg is right by accident".

    Not bad for a guy like Luxenberg that is a hopeless case to get stuff right by accident. Wish that would happen to me.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6975 - June 11, 2019, 10:44 AM

    I think a lot of these ultra-revisionists have the merit of highlighting and introducing a new approach. Not necessarily all their innovations are correct. With Luxenberg, for sure, many of his readings are incorrect but some seem very plausible. I read somewhere Dye mentioning that Luxenberg deserves also credit for his work, not only criticism.

    It's a bit of a fashion to be very negative towards Luxenberg, nothing more imo.


    It was Dye whom I was referring to in my response.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6976 - June 11, 2019, 02:24 PM

    Quote
    It's a bit of a fashion to be very negative towards Luxenberg, nothing more imo.


    Yes, indeed - blinds many to his insights.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6977 - June 11, 2019, 04:34 PM

    Speaking of Bellamy, here is a thread by MVP:

    https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1138185589445074949?s=19




    In the early tenth century, about three-hundred years after the promulgation of the Uthmanic recension, a well-known scholar named Ibn Mujahid decreed that seven readings were canonical and all the others shadhdh, or “deviant,” hence not to be used in ritual recitation. Not everyone agreed with his classification, and some later scholars appüūūroved of ten, or even fourteen, recitations. […] These variants, however‒ I have counted more than two-hundred that make a difference in the meaning‒ are important in that they tell us that there was no solid oral tradition stemming directly from the prophet to prove which variant was correct. For example, in Surah 6:63, of the seven readers, the two from Kufah recite ʾnjynʾ  (anjānā) “he saves us.” and the other five ʾnjtynʾ  (anjaytanā) “you (sg.) save us.” These two words sound so different that no one, unless he were deaf, could mistake one for the other, and the words on both sides of the word in question are unambiguous. One cannot argue that the prophet used one variant one day and the other the next. Nor can one maintain that there is a firm oral tradition that guarantees the reading of the unambiguous words but breaks down when more than one reading is possible. It seems clear that the earliest readers got their readings from the written text of the Uthmanic recension, and since Arabic was their native language, they read the unambiguous parts correctly, and where the text was ambiguous, they exercised their knowledge of the langage and came up with what pleased each of them the most.

    J. A. Bellamy,  “Textual Criticism of the Koran”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 121, No. 1 (Jan. – Mar., 2001), pp. 1-6, p.1-2.
    (yawn...)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6978 - June 11, 2019, 04:36 PM

    And...?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6979 - June 11, 2019, 04:43 PM

    In the twitter thread above by Mahgraye, they mention Luxenberg:
    Question:
    "Do you have any thread on the general criticism of Luxemberg work? Thank you."

    Marijn van Putten:

    "I don't, and I think I'd be beating a dead horse revisiting it. It's been reviewed to death. It's really really terrible, and based on such completely nonsensical starting assumptions that it's difficult to even criticize."


    Why is MVP so extremely negative to Luxenberg? I see many scholars talk of him and are skeptic, but some seem open for that there could be something in his hypothesis.

    https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1138191335956127744



    MVP does not know Syriac. He speaks that "It's really really terrible, and based on such completely nonsensical starting assumptions". Why not? Which ones ?
    That Syriac (East Aramean) was the lingua franca of the Orient? where Arabs were numerous maybe?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6980 - June 11, 2019, 04:47 PM



    In the early tenth century, about three-hundred years after the promulgation of the Uthmanic recension, a well-known scholar named Ibn Mujahid decreed that seven readings were canonical and all the others shadhdh, or “deviant,” hence not to be used in ritual recitation. Not everyone agreed with his classification, and some later scholars appüūūroved of ten, or even fourteen, recitations. […] These variants, however‒ I have counted more than two-hundred that make a difference in the meaning‒ are important in that they tell us that there was no solid oral tradition stemming directly from the prophet to prove which variant was correct. For example, in Surah 6:63, of the seven readers, the two from Kufah recite ʾnjynʾ  (anjānā) “he saves us.” and the other five ʾnjtynʾ  (anjaytanā) “you (sg.) save us.” These two words sound so different that no one, unless he were deaf, could mistake one for the other, and the words on both sides of the word in question are unambiguous. One cannot argue that the prophet used one variant one day and the other the next. Nor can one maintain that there is a firm oral tradition that guarantees the reading of the unambiguous words but breaks down when more than one reading is possible. It seems clear that the earliest readers got their readings from the written text of the Uthmanic recension, and since Arabic was their native language, they read the unambiguous parts correctly, and where the text was ambiguous, they exercised their knowledge of the langage and came up with what pleased each of them the most.

    J. A. Bellamy,  “Textual Criticism of the Koran”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 121, No. 1 (Jan. – Mar., 2001), pp. 1-6, p.1-2.
    (yawn...)
    And...?




    Equilibrium. I wait MVP refute that. I think one can wait a long time. Bellamy was surely wrong with its emendations. But he is right for this.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6981 - June 11, 2019, 06:03 PM

    Yeah... sure. I just didn't see the imidiate relevance to MVP's critique of Bellamy's particular suggestions. But that Bellamy's meta-thesis is not refuted is true, I guess. Bellamy is not the only one who has written on this topic. The following names have made important contributions, too: Wansbrough, Younes, and a German scholar who's name escapes me at the moment (can check later).

    MVP does know Syriac. His remarks about Luxenberg's methodology is granted by everyone, including a scholar such as Dye. This, however, does not detract from the fact that Luxenberg has many insights. And I do disagree with MVP's overall dismissal of Luxenberg. I personally agree with Luxenberg on many things, including some of his key assumptions which MVP rejects.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6982 - June 11, 2019, 09:43 PM

    Most scholars agree that in the 7th century they tried to standardized the Quran. But to what degree did they have success?
    Altara quoted Bellamy that had found more than 200 variants.
    Do you or most scholars, as MVP, that all Qur'ans except the underlying text in the Sana'a manuscript, stem from one archetype?
    Or could it be several traditions that existed even before the standardization?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6983 - June 11, 2019, 10:40 PM


    MVP does know Syriac.


    He said himself he was not competent in his blog. You can check.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6984 - June 11, 2019, 11:28 PM

    Most scholars agree that in the 7th century they tried to standardized the Quran. But to what degree did they have success?
    Altara quoted Bellamy that had found more than 200 variants.
    Do you or most scholars, as MVP, that all Qur'ans except the underlying text in the Sana'a manuscript, stem from one archetype?
    Or could it be several traditions that existed even before the standardization?


    Few post ago I said my two cents...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6985 - June 12, 2019, 03:10 AM

    They succeeded in standardizing the text some time in the seventh century.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6986 - June 12, 2019, 06:39 AM

    Altara wrote:

    "MVP is wrong, Sanaa Palimpsest go back to the same single written source. Difference were that the exemplar from which Sanaa Palimpsest was copied was probably not a codex but folios, was probably in very poor condition, therefore words was replaced by synonyms with the help of the context, etc. There was no sura order because there is no order specified  in earliest ms, no title, etc.
    As MVP is not an historian but a linguist he thinks only inside this frame. Thus works human brain (yawn...)."
     

     So, Altara, you think that all Qurans come from a written archetype, also the underlying text in the Sanaa Quran?
     

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6987 - June 12, 2019, 08:38 AM

    It seems to me  that it is the more simple explication.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6988 - June 12, 2019, 12:32 PM

    Quote
    It seems to me  that it is the more simple explication.


    Agree too.

    There must have been a central edited rasm from the beginning, controlled by the weight of a well organised state.

    Heavy focus must have lied on the divinity of the text so as to discourage any alternatives to the rasm. And that dogma and pressure it is still working today seemingly. It is obvious that there are deviating Quranic texts floating around but all muslims say it is all the same... Must have been a bit like that also very early on.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #6989 - June 12, 2019, 01:30 PM

    I do not like Said (yawn)...

     Cheesy

    why don't you like him dear  Altara ?  what did he do to you?

    Quote
    And I think I know some parts of the Muslim world.
     A  more or less good book...

    well  then you should like him  and appreciate his good work...

    Quote




    hmm i didn't know that book., interesting heading  and not  sure what it means...  Does it mean a Muslim guy discovered America first  before any one knew there was an American continent?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30067490

    that BRAINLESS Turkey ..must have read that book

    BERNARD LEWIS' ''THE MUSLIM DISCOVERY OF EUROPE'' IN THE EYES OF REVIEWERS
    by  Muhammad Al-Faruque   
     

    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 ... 231 232 233234 235 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »