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


Excellence and uniqueness
by akay
June 24, 2022, 07:39 PM

BLM and Black Ex-Muslims
June 24, 2022, 08:18 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
June 23, 2022, 06:28 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
June 22, 2022, 11:46 PM

Qur'anic studies today
June 22, 2022, 11:05 PM

New Britain
June 22, 2022, 06:49 PM

Burkini nudist showdown i...
June 21, 2022, 03:27 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 21, 2022, 08:38 AM

test
June 18, 2022, 01:33 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
June 16, 2022, 02:13 PM

God: An Anatomy by France...
by zeca
June 16, 2022, 11:38 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
May 22, 2022, 01:42 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?

 (Read 9468 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     OP - May 30, 2016, 10:32 PM

    TRANSLATION: At the time of the Mu’tazilah there were 3 or 4 views about the revelation of the Qur'an. For example the first view - which is the prevalent view - is that Gabriel goes up and down from the heavens and descends to the prophet informing him of the unseen and divine teachings. The Qur'an, in this widespread view, is literally the word of God. Meaning God sent down the Qur'an to the prophet with its letters, words and meanings. It is entirely from God. Gabriel is just the postman. Just the intermediary. He simply delivers the letter from God to the prophet. Like a telephone line. It is God who is speaking both the words and meanings. The Qur'an is literally the words and meanings from God. That's the first view.

    The second view is that, no, this Qur'an is not God's words. God just gave the meanings and concepts to Gabriel. These are the words of Gabriel to Muhammad. So the concepts and meanings are from God but the speech and choice of words are from Gabriel. That's the second view and they support it on the basis that the Qur'an says:
    إِنَّهُ لَقَوْلُ رَسُولٍ كَرِيمٍ

    “Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger.” (81:19)

    The third view says, no. They say the meanings are from God, but the speech - these words - are from Muhammad. Muhammad is the one who formed and phrased it himself. Human wording from Muhammad. For example God sent the concept of God is one, monotheism, to the prophet's heart by way of Gabriel, but it is the prophet himself who composed the words. Like when you give cloth to a tailor and he makes it into whatever garment he wants. It's plain cloth given to the tailor. The actual process of making this raw material into a gown or suit is the work of the tailor.

    https://youtu.be/T1TvEINsqTM
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #1 - May 30, 2016, 10:43 PM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdOub4jx8p4

    I think you have some problem.
    Every thing I post, looks weird to you.


  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #2 - May 31, 2016, 01:27 AM

    Hassan: Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti ruled out #3 as an option for the Qur'an. He pointed out that the hadith qudsi genre exists. Those are already God's message as delivered through the Prophet's mouth. Since a hadith qudsi adequately covers #3, the suras are left to #1 and #2 - they are dictated.

    At least, so I'm extracting from this page:
    https://umersultan.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/the-difference-between-quran-hadith-and-hadith-qudsi-the-quran-series/
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #3 - May 31, 2016, 11:24 AM

    How is the basic process question answered? There are three parties, Allah, Gabriel and mo.

    How do you decide who contributed what? Why?

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #4 - May 31, 2016, 11:40 AM

    How is the basic process question answered? There are three parties, Allah, Gabriel and mo.

    How do you decide who contributed what? Why?


    All of those three primary characters of Islam are  fictional characters  created by the so-called story tellers/  writers of Islamic scriptures...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #5 - May 31, 2016, 01:56 PM

    How is the basic process question answered? There are three parties, Allah, Gabriel and mo.

    How do you decide who contributed what? Why?

     And to further muddy the waters, you have verses which bestow the concept of ‘spoken infallibility’ on Muhammed (Surah Najim, 53: 3-4), even though he made a few well-documented claims which have subsequently been proven wrong or mistaken. He admitted their erroneous nature on the record.

    These proven mistakes inescapably introduce active human agency, Ijtihad, to what should otherwise be Muhammad’s passive reception of the Qur’an.

    Indeed, the very fact that very few surahs were revealed in complete and finished chapters, as we have them now in the Qur’an, must have allowed Muhammad organisational interference with what he was given. That such and such ayah should go with this or that surah is not a secret in tafsir, especially when Muhammad started dictating the Qu’ran during his life time in Medina.

    Muhammad later said that he took instructions from Gabriel on such matters, although certain verses and hadith contradict this and Gabriel having had any leeway in his delivery services. More importantly, it is in surah Qyyama where an argument could be made that Gabriel was supplying clarifications (ثم إنّ علينا بيانه) to Muhammad which would practically denude the Qur'an from its literality claims from the project's point of origin.  

    If this chapterising is loosely editorialising, then one famous scribe and earliest Qur’an writer was Ibn Abi Sarh who renounced Islam and made pretty serious claims that he had deliberately been unfaithful in taking dictation from Muhammad.

    This did not cause a lot of headache to either Muhammad or his companions because Muhammad, the illiterate, told them that Sarh was lying about lying. They, of course, took Muhammad’s word for it and when Sarh re-embraced Islam, he had to endure very angry Muhammad. Because of what Sarh did, he was one of eleven people on whom Muhammad issued death fatwas; kill these 11 people wherever you find them, even if you find them taking refuge inside the Ka'ba. This was breaching the sanctity of alharam (the Arabs' pre-Islamic Green Zone in Mecca where no killing took place; this was the ambassadorial extraterritoriality in modern times where defectors, dissidents and fugitives hole up.) which was a most serious sin, which Muhammad claimed its divine suspension for one day hour.

    Staying a bit longer with the Sarh saga, Sarh was a milk brother to Uthman ibn Affan and had taken refuge in Uthman's house in Mecca where the two met during the early stages of the Conquest of Mecca. Uthman took his brother to Muhammad and pleaded with him to forgive him. Muhammad was silent and then accepted Sarh's pledge of allegiance. When Uthman and Sarh started walking away, Muhammad looked around and asked his companions "what stopped anyone of you from killing Sarh?"

    Clearly Muhammad had not forgiven Sarh his writery transgression and it might well have been his considerations for Uthman and Uthman's intersession that stayed Muhammad's hand.

    The Islamic consensus on Muhammad's spoken infallibility above divides his comments into utterances on religious matters and utterances on not religious matters. (Life can be a funny thing and you should not suppress a chuckle at this obviously secular division and state of affairs.)

    Muhammad himself has made the case for his part-time infallibility when his interrogative question, about why the Madina people were pollinating palm trees, was misunderstood and taken as Muhammad forbidding them from doing so, maybe because, they must have assumed, a new agricultural policy were in the offing. However, the yield that year was remarkably low for these farmers. They wondered why, and when he understood the confusion, Muhammad announced and made his infallibility known regarding this non-religious matter.

    Muhammad's infallibility in religious matters can be challenged by him shortening Zuhur prayer to two rakat (حديث عبدالله بن مالك بن بحينة) which some companions have taken as the latest directive from Brussels. I mean, from Muhammad. These companions have left the mosque after the prayer and it was sometime before Muhammad was told about his mistake. As he had not left his prayer place, Muhammad turned around and made two prostration of forgetfulness (Sujood Alsahoo).

    This obvious case for Muhammad making a mistake in matters of practising his faith is normally brushed aside because of Allah's legislative wisdom; that Muhammad make a mistake for his ummah to learn from it. Everything, including Muhammad's errors, is grist to the mill.  

    Muhammad's infallibility and perfect recall of the Qur'an is further opened to debate in these two particular verses [87:6-7] (سنقرئك فلا تنسى * إلا ما شاء الله). Traditional Islamic scholarship tends to dismiss this i.e. that Muhammad did forget a part or parts from the Qur'an; they tend to dismiss it and explain it away by considering the case for negation in the verse to mean " so you do not forget " and not " so you will not forget". This latter has been excluded by almufisroon because the La', if it were the so-called Forbidding La', then the Alif in (تنسى) would have been dropped from the rasm. Really?

    How could they get themselves out of the authenticated hadith, in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, that Muhammad heard a reciter in the mosque and saying "may Allah have mercy upon him, for he has reminded me of so-and-so verses which I had forgotten or mistakenly dropped"?  

    In addition, there's the case for Qur'anic Quira'at when a word's meaning changes in one recitation and realisation to the other. Such differences are not allophonic (i.e. accents in one language) but are phonemic (i.e. different meanings) and would add more to challenging the prevailing consensus around the singular origin of the Qur'an and the passive role of Muhammad in relaying it to the Ummah verbatim.  

    Finally, more could be examined and critically analysed using the most trusted and widely accepted Islamic primary sources to undermine the case for fallibility by showing that the case for it in the texts is not remotely as certain as the Qur'an, hadith and Islamic scholarship would have us believe.

    Cue in the biggest danger imaginable to the whole project; doubt.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #6 - May 31, 2016, 02:19 PM

    I'm aware of traditional views Zimriel, but I of course challenge traditional views. My aim is to introduce the idea of human agency as Wahhabist says. It is the psychological barrier that concerns me more than classical scholarship.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #7 - May 31, 2016, 02:41 PM

    I'm aware of traditional views Zimriel, but I of course challenge traditional views. My aim is to introduce the idea of human agency as Wahhabist says. It is the psychological barrier that concerns me more than classical scholarship.

    well  here is one way of doing that...



    Hmm., That book is illustrated  by  Mr.sandowbirk  and  its preface and featuring essays in it is done by  these three well educated rational folks from west specially  from that FREE DUMB country US of A..  ..

    Reza Aslan, ., Zareena Grewal   and Iftikar Dadi

    So the point is.,

    American Agency  should have American Quran
    England Agency  should have England Quran
    Pakistan Agency  should have Pakistan  Quran
    Saudi Agency ..their own Quran.. well they have it
    and we can go on doing that to Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Iran,India,Indonesia Bangladesh ,Malaysia etc etc agencies  writing their own Quran

    So on those lines we also need Quran from HUMAN AGENCY

    http://www.sandowbirk.com/paintings/recent-works/



    well that is supposed to be   "American Qur'an - Sura 2 B"  I don't know whether I can buy it, worse is whether I can read it?? but..but looks very artistic and very good..

    what??   Did I see a goat there??  IS THAT A GOAT BEHIND THAT QURAN VERSE Sura 2 B??   damn goats finmad

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #8 - May 31, 2016, 06:10 PM

    ...


    This is the primary trouble with the traditional account. Muhammad is simply doing far too much.

    Muhammad is receiving the message from God, or Gabriel, depending on God’s mood that day. Muhammad is remembering the revelation, or forgetting it, in accordance with God’s will.

    Muhammad is editing and arranging the verses as he receives them piecemeal from God at God’s direction, managing the different literary styles employed, the different audiences addressed, and the different speakers (who all happen to be God at the end of the day).

    Muhammad is abrogating, amending, and purging the content to suit different realities, all with God’s permission, of course. Muhammad is rehearsing the material (with Gabriel’s support) and giving each latest addition his stamp of approval – two stamps before he dies and can no longer offer his backing to newer versions.

    It makes sense that this anchoring would occur in a search for legitimacy for this new and freshly minted Arabic scripture. You need to be able to say "Muhammad said it" - and by extension, "Gabriel," then "God said it."

    In any other text, this would be the evidence of multiple hands and authors. The traditional account would be, at best, a starting point for decoding what may have actually occurred.  The political and religious environment at the time would likely give some clues as to whose hands might have gone into the final version of the text, and why.

    I think that any exercise in exploring the origins of the Qur’an would miss an important element if it does not take this into account. In my opinion, there is no need to separate this from the spiritual appreciation of the Qur’an, either. In fact, I believe that exploring these aspects might shine some light on the more troublesome, clumsy, contradictory, or otherwise less-than-brilliant portions of the book.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #9 - May 31, 2016, 07:42 PM

    This is the primary trouble with the traditional account. Muhammad is simply doing far too much.

    Muhammad is receiving the message from himself........

    Muhammad is receiving the message from Gabriel........

    Muhammad is receiving the message from allahgod.........

    Muhammad is remembering the revelation, ...................

    Muhammad is editing and arranging the verses as he receives ...................

    Muhammad is abrogating, amending, and purging ........

    Muhammad is rehearsing the material (with Gabriel’s support) ..........

    Muhammad said this...

    Muhammad said that...

    "Muhammad said it" -  

     "Gabriel, said it" ......

     "God said it." .........

      and all of that becomes this

    Go Criss!

    Apart from all that  Mr.PBUH of Islamic idiots doing other things also ..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiBEv3FCTNs

    nine women one night is not a big deal for 60 or so year old  with such strength..

    now on his name we can sing songs...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKl0zbrNXYw


    IDIOTS...mock the fools and move on....

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #10 - May 31, 2016, 07:45 PM

    Does no one else find it encouraging that an imam is speaking openly at an Islamic conference about the Qur'an being the words of Muhammad?
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #11 - May 31, 2016, 08:04 PM

    Yes and no.

    Yes in the sense that it gives me hope that imams might be capable of stating the obvious.

    And no because, unfortunately, he appears to be shi’i, which would allow any sunnis reading or watching to dismiss what he is saying simply by the style of his turban. Further, he is speaking historically. Most sunni/salafi types I knew would admit that there were indeed groups that claimed the Qur’an was not Allah’s literal speech, but those groups were all dismissed as heretical. (I myself once gave a class on this topic, warning that those groups would be subjected to the saqr referenced in Surah Mudathir.)

    In all honesty, it is this tendency to look backwards for legitimacy that I think causes a good deal of the problems Muslims find themselves facing.

    I think we need to get to a point where we can say, “Sure, the Qur’an has some really great stuff. Let’s analyze it honestly using all of the methods available to us in order to understand how it might have come to be.”

    This would probably lead us back to the figure of the Arab prophet in some cases, who must have mesmerized his listeners with the mystic verses he recited in his states of trance. It will also probably lead to the caliphs, jurists, and politicians that jockeyed for power and influence after and alongside him, as well as to the Christian, Jewish, and local lore, legend and discussion that would have been floating around at the time.  

    To simply state that the Qur’an is the Word of Muhammad does not go far enough when Muhammad himself is considered a divine agent. It becomes an abstract theological discussion of little real-life implication, in my opinion. To look at the book honestly and determine what parts might have come from where would be much more fruitful in my opinion.

    I understand that this could perhaps be an important first step, and I don’t want to take anything away from that. I’m also leery of  shying away from the true scope of possibilities (in this case, that the Qur’an is not only the product of Muhammad) because of some notion that Muslims can’t handle the bigger reality and need to be given things in bite-sized, baby pieces.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #12 - May 31, 2016, 08:07 PM

    Fair enough. Thanks ibn Bilal.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #13 - May 31, 2016, 08:59 PM

    Does no one else find it encouraging that an imam is speaking openly at an Islamic conference about the Qur'an being the words of Muhammad?

    Hassan, I love you loads which is why I must wag my metaphorical finger at you on the how side of the things above.

    What you say this imam supports is not made explicit in the clip you provided and translated.

    The clip leaves the issue at hand open as it gives other views on the origin of the wording of the Qur’an.

    This exploration of the less than widely shared views on the origins, in itself, is not anything out of the ordinary for anyone who have taken his or her time to investigate it thoroughly. However, this exploration does not make the encouraging case you seem to suppose it has been lost on the rest of us up to this reply.

    Therefore, for you to make such a claim on his behalf, literally putting words in his mouths in this clip, I had to look Ahmad Al-Qabbanji up and find out on Wikipedia about him supporting your, or rather generally, the view that the wording of the Qur’an comes from Muhammad, if not its inspiration.

    When you go about the matter in this fashion, you tend to give the game away by appearing you are more interested in forcing a conclusion (a psychological one in this case) with whatever evidence you find out which happens to be supportive of your pre-determined conclusion.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #14 - May 31, 2016, 09:35 PM

    True my friend. Though Ahmad Al-Qabbanji is definitely a reformist. Check out his videos on YouTube. But yes I want to introduce the idea that I am not alone in arguing the Qur'an is the word of Muhammad. I want rank and file Muslims to make that leap. It helps if I can find others who have expressed this, my friend. I'm fighting a battle of hearts and minds. Changing the paradigm requires firing on all fronts.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #15 - June 01, 2016, 06:10 PM

    But if mo is the final perfect messenger, how does saying mo wrote the Koran move the discussion?

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #16 - June 01, 2016, 07:24 PM

    True my friend. Though Ahmad Al-Qabbanji is definitely a reformist. Check out his videos on YouTube. But yes I want to introduce the idea that I am not alone in arguing the Qur'an is the word of Muhammad. I want rank and file Muslims to make that leap. It helps if I can find others who have expressed this, my friend. I'm fighting a battle of hearts and minds. Changing the paradigm requires firing on all fronts.


    You know, one of the most interesting parts of the Qur'an's revelation theology is the remarkable contrast between Q 81 and Q 69.  Q 81 says that the Qur'an is surely the word of a Karim Rasul, referring to a cosmic descending being.

    But Q 69:40 uses the exact same phrase to identify the *quranic messenger*, saying that the Qur'an is "surely the word" of the Karim Rasul, in this context meaning the human messenger (who is interpreted by Islamic exegesis as Muhammad).

    So when people claim the Qur'an is not the word of Muhammad, one has to ask them why the Qur'an says exactly the opposite, specifically 'innahū la-qawlu rasūlin karīmin.  How can one possibly object to what Allah himself has said in the Qur'an?

    Now, one can go even further and ask how this conflict emerged, and why the same phrase identifies a *cosmic* messenger in Q 81, and then a *human* messenger in Q 69.  It looks almost as though the older language of Q 81 was adapted to serve a new function, shifted from the cosmic messenger and applied to the human messenger.  But that opens up many interesting questions about who, or what, the messenger exactly is!  Probably a step too far for the believers.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #17 - June 01, 2016, 07:57 PM

    This is the primary trouble with the traditional account. Muhammad is simply doing far too much.

    Muhammad is receiving the message from God, or Gabriel, depending on God’s mood that day. Muhammad is remembering the revelation, or forgetting it, in accordance with God’s will.

    Muhammad is editing and arranging the verses as he receives them piecemeal from God at God’s direction, managing the different literary styles employed, the different audiences addressed, and the different speakers (who all happen to be God at the end of the day).

    Muhammad is abrogating, amending, and purging the content to suit different realities, all with God’s permission, of course. Muhammad is rehearsing the material (with Gabriel’s support) and giving each latest addition his stamp of approval – two stamps before he dies and can no longer offer his backing to newer versions.

    It makes sense that this anchoring would occur in a search for legitimacy for this new and freshly minted Arabic scripture. You need to be able to say "Muhammad said it" - and by extension, "Gabriel," then "God said it."

    In any other text, this would be the evidence of multiple hands and authors. The traditional account would be, at best, a starting point for decoding what may have actually occurred.  The political and religious environment at the time would likely give some clues as to whose hands might have gone into the final version of the text, and why.

    I think that any exercise in exploring the origins of the Qur’an would miss an important element if it does not take this into account. In my opinion, there is no need to separate this from the spiritual appreciation of the Qur’an, either. In fact, I believe that exploring these aspects might shine some light on the more troublesome, clumsy, contradictory, or otherwise less-than-brilliant portions of the book.


     

    Ibn Bilal. Have you read this essay by Klingschor on where the Quran was written ?   Its a pretty good start for people who want to go down into the rabbit hole of quranic studies.

    Identifying the Quranic Mileu.   

    http://research-islam.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-quranic-milieu-where-was-koran.html 

    Gabriel S Reynolds books are pretty fascinating. 

    In his first book there is this awesome essay on the origins of the quranic narrative of Jesus.  Turns out it was copied from a extra canonical christian account which in turn was copied from an older pagan myth.

    Basically pagan converts to christianity took the story of their old god and just replaced him with Jesus. This is why the early christians did not consider this version of the story canonical but then muhammad came along and put it into the quran.

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #18 - June 01, 2016, 08:02 PM

    I’ve read quite a bit about the subject. I find it interesting. Every researcher tends to present their conclusions as far more conclusive than they actually are in my opinion, but it is still interesting to read their perspectives.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #19 - June 01, 2016, 08:09 PM

    ^

    True. The recent discovery of that old Quran put to rest the fringe theories about how it was written before Muhammad existed and d Muhammad built onto it or something like that.


    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #20 - June 01, 2016, 08:24 PM

    Actually I'd say the exact opposite.  What have probably been put to rest by the dating, largely, are the common scholarly theories that the Qur'an was written long after Muhammad's life by decades/centuries of believers and scribes (a "late composition" approach).  The theory that the Qur'an (or parts of it) is very old and predates the historical Muhammad, on the other hand (an "early composition" approach), has long been somewhat marginal relative to the 'late composition' school, but it has been given a huge boost by the early date ranges.  Reynolds, probably the most prominent contemporary scholar who is receptive to 'early composition' theories (tho not remotely dogmatic about it), just posted his essay on that point .... for some reason I can't post a direct link, but the title is "Variant Readings."  His conclusion:

    "The upshot of all of these early dates is that the Qur’an may very well date earlier than Uthman, possibly much earlier. It may be time to rethink the story of the Qur’an’s origins, including the traditional dates of Muhammad’s career. In other words, what observers have celebrated as something like evidence of the traditional story of Islam’s origins (the New York Times article argued that the manuscript “offered a moment of unity, and insight, for the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims”) may actually be, when considered carefully, evidence that the story of Islam’s origins is quite unlike what we have imagined.
              Nevertheless, the extremely early dating of these manuscripts is helpful for the way it helps clarify something which has troubled scholars of early Islam.  Many elements of the Qur’an are difficult to understand. For example, twenty-nine of its suras begin with a series of disconnected letters, yet the origin and meaning of those letters remains a mystery (for which reason they have been dubbed the“mysterious letters”). To give another example: in two passages (2:62 and 5:69) the Qur’an speaks of a group called the Sabi’un who seem to be promised entry into heaven (along with “the believers”, Jews and Christians). Yet no one is sure exactly who these Sabi’un are. Indeed, we find that Muslim scholars, even the earliest Muslim scholars, do not understand the “mysterious letters” and cannot identify the Sabi’un. In other words,somehow the meaning of these things had been lost by the time the text reached them. The early dating of these Qur’an manuscripts helps us make sense of this (even if it won’t tell us the meaning of the “mysterious letters” or the identity of the Sabi’un). It seems that by the time the Qur’an reached these scholars (whose work begins to be written in the second half of the eighth century) it was already a very old text which was no longer understood well. This is a hypothesis raised by Michael Cook at the end of his work The Koran: A very short introduction (2000).  Now that the Qur’an appears to be older than imagined, the hypothesis seems more likely than ever."
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #21 - June 01, 2016, 09:03 PM

    Actually I'd say the exact opposite.  What have probably been put to rest by the dating, largely, are the common scholarly theories that the Qur'an was written long after Muhammad's life by decades/centuries of believers and scribes (a "late composition" approach). 

     well Zatoar that fits well to the book we see now., But what people are saying is " some of those sayings of Quran that are NOT there in OT & NT are older than classical Islam that starts with the story of alleged revelation in that cave "

    Quote
    The theory that the Qur'an (or parts of it) is very old and predates the historical Muhammad, on the other hand (an "early composition" approach), has long been somewhat marginal relative to the 'late composition' school, but it has been given a huge boost by the early date ranges.  ........

    I  agree with that and I still question the existence single Quranic Muhammad..

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #22 - June 01, 2016, 09:21 PM

    You know, one of the most interesting parts of the Qur'an's revelation theology is the remarkable contrast between Q 81 and Q 69.  Q 81 says that the Qur'an is surely the word of a Karim Rasul, referring to a cosmic descending being.

    But Q 69:40 uses the exact same phrase to identify the *quranic messenger*, saying that the Qur'an is "surely the word" of the Karim Rasul, in this context meaning the human messenger (who is interpreted by Islamic exegesis as Muhammad).

    So when people claim the Qur'an is not the word of Muhammad, one has to ask them why the Qur'an says exactly the opposite, specifically 'innahū la-qawlu rasūlin karīmin.  How can one possibly object to what Allah himself has said in the Qur'an?

    Now, one can go even further and ask how this conflict emerged, and why the same phrase identifies a *cosmic* messenger in Q 81, and then a *human* messenger in Q 69.  It looks almost as though the older language of Q 81 was adapted to serve a new function, shifted from the cosmic messenger and applied to the human messenger.  But that opens up many interesting questions about who, or what, the messenger exactly is!  Probably a step too far for the believers.


    The classical Tafseers usually say rasool in verse 19 of sura Takweer means the angel Gabriel but many of them also mention the opinion that it means Muhammad . So that view did exist.

  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #23 - June 01, 2016, 09:25 PM

    That Gabriel Said Reynolds article: https://www.academia.edu/25775465/Variant_readings_The_Birmingham_Qur_an_in_the_Context_of_Debate_on_Islamic_Origins_Times_Literary_Supplement_7_Aug_2015_14-15
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #24 - June 01, 2016, 09:38 PM

    For example in the Tafseer of al-Qurtubi on this verse he first mentions the view that the rasool is Gabriel, then goes on to say:

    ...وقيل: هو محمد عليه الصلاة والسلام

    ومن قال: إن المراد محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فالمعنى «ذِي قوةٍ» على تبليغ الرسالة «مُطاعٍ» أي يطيعه من أطاع الله جلّ وعزّ

    "And it is said it's (meaning) is Muhammad pbh...

    ...and he who says it means Muhammad pbh takes the meaning of (has power/ability) as being (power/ability) to convey the message and (obeyed) meaning he who obeys God, glorified and mighty, obeys him"
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #25 - June 01, 2016, 10:38 PM

    That's interesting to know Hassan!

    If I can expand a bit more, IMO what you see in the Qur'an is a clear shift over time from an archaic model which privileged the cosmic rasul (Q 81) to a newer model in which a human is called the rasul; he steadily absorbs the cosmic rasul's traits and, ultimately, displaces him entirely, leaving a human who directly sees his Lord (Q 53), no angel left.  Note, btw, Q 44:17, where Moses is called the "rasul karim."

    Q 69 is a sort of medial point in this transition, where the human messenger is ambiguously but implicitly identified as the rasul karim.  Because it is an intentionally ambiguous juxtaposition, you can read it either way, and originally you were supposed to (in my mind at least) be able to read it either way.  Genetically, I see the entire concept of "rasul" as having originally been angelic, not referring to a charismatic founding prophet.  You might think of the quranic messenger as being built over the bones of the angelic messenger.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #26 - June 01, 2016, 10:45 PM

    Zoatar, I remember having a discussion a while back that led me to check into this a bit more. I recall finding that virtually all of the references to a human (Muhammad) rasul were in the madani surahs.

    Can you think of any exceptions to this, or am I completely off base here?
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #27 - June 01, 2016, 10:51 PM

    That's interesting to know Hassan!

    If I can expand a bit more, IMO what you see in the Qur'an is a clear shift over time from an archaic model which privileged the cosmic rasul (Q 81) to a newer model in which a human is called the rasul; he steadily absorbs the cosmic rasul's traits and, ultimately, displaces him entirely, leaving a human who directly sees his Lord (Q 53), no angel left.  Note, btw, Q 44:17, where Moses is called the "rasul karim."

    Q 69 is a sort of medial point in this transition, where the human messenger is ambiguously but implicitly identified as the rasul karim.  Because it is an intentionally ambiguous juxtaposition, you can read it either way, and originally you were supposed to (in my mind at least) be able to read it either way.  Genetically, I see the entire concept of "rasul" as having originally been angelic, not referring to a charismatic founding prophet.  You might think of the quranic messenger as being built over the bones of the angelic messenger.


    That's interesting Zaotar thanks
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #28 - June 01, 2016, 11:37 PM

    Q 69 is a sort of medial point in this transition, where the human messenger is ambiguously but implicitly identified as the rasul karim.  Because it is an intentionally ambiguous juxtaposition, you can read it either way, and originally you were supposed to (in my mind at least) be able to read it either way.

    The full parallel runs from Q. 69:38-40 / 81:15-19, where the narrator "swears by etc etc etc that this is the word of a noble rasul". Taken together, sura 81 has to be the source: it is more humble for a human messenger to say "it was Gabriel" rather than "it was ME!".

    Since sura 69 has just mentioned a rasul in the context of Moses (vv. 9-10) and goes on to contrast this present rasul against poets and soothsayers (vv. 41-2)... I think sura 69 wasn't being ambiguous at all, but was deliberately redeploying 81:19 to its own author.

    Good work Zaotar; I wish I'd thought of this.

    Quote
    Genetically, I see the entire concept of "rasul" as having originally been angelic, not referring to a charismatic founding prophet.  You might think of the quranic messenger as being built over the bones of the angelic messenger.

    I see suras 69 and 81 as having been composed by two entirely different people.
  • Qur'an: God's or Muhammad's Words?
     Reply #29 - June 02, 2016, 01:32 AM

    I agree on both points Zim.  You are right that Q 69 isn't really ambiguous -- I guess I would say it is a resemanticization, which invokes and then argumentatively recontextualizes Q 81's formulation.  This kind of invocation and contextual resemanticization is a classic quranic maneuver.

    I'm very critical nowadays of the entire notion of charismatic prophecy as the Sitz im Leben of the early revelation theology.  The early corpus strikes me as being almost completely devoid of any genuine charismatic prophetic function.  What is so curious about the Qur'an is that the corpus embodies a transition from a typical late-antique "thus sayeth the Lord's angel, the Lord says x, y, z" (what I see as the basal revelatory legitimating structure) into a set of larger recitations which are attributed to an identifiable contemporary historical prophetic figure.  How that transition occurred is one of the most difficult and interesting aspects of the text.  I have an absurdly overlong new draft article on the subject; if you are interested, I will shoot you (and anybody else who is interested) a beta draft when it's ready.
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »