Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Quran might predate Muhammad?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by siam View Post
    These are my opinions....

    As human beings we all have our biases/prejudices. A good scholar would recognize these biases exist within his own culture/himself and in others and still be able to make a fair assessment of the evidence. A bad scholar would not recognize, or, deny bias/prejudice altogether and so his work would be flawed and only lead to confirming pre-existing bias rather than leading to new insights or advancing knowledge.

    Among Revisionist scholars, Fred Donner is someone who has looked at Islamic sources/narratives has looked at available evidence and knows Arabic...etc. As a Muslim, I do not agree with all his views, as revisionist historians reject the "traditional" narrative---but his insights are interesting and backed by evidence.
    Tom Holland on the other hand---is one of those ignorant scholars---He does not know Arabic, rejects all Islamic sources/narratives as faith-based and relies on speculations rather than evidence claiming "lack of evidence" as an excuse.
    Thanks. I have no depth in this topic so I appreciate your indulgence. From a bit of quick reading is appears that Holland is more of a novelist and documentary filmmaker than historian. Apparently, he relied upon Patrician Crone, who was more of an Islamic scholar at Princeton. Is her scholarship more credible in your opinion?
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      No problem.

      I'm also curious about who you consider to be the bad historians here.

      I don't think that's the end of the story though. Apparently many historians do not. There's still so much to learn, no? Do you think it is wrong for scholars to apply historical-critical methods to the Quran?

      Regardless, we can glean history from just about any ancient text. For instance, the Quran can give us an idea about some of the beliefs and practices of 6th-7th century Arab Christians, Jews, and various pagan tribes. We can also glean from the text the evolution of religious belief, and acceptance of unbelievers.

      I think probably all Western (and Eastern) historians who study the Quran attempt to glean history from the text. That's sort of the point of being a historian.

      Of course.

      Hmm, I'd assume that scholars would regard it as a little bit of both, but okay.

      I'm confused. What would the number of people in the Exodus have to do with Quranic responses to the Bible? Are you suggesting that historians claim the Quranic silence is indication of disbelief in the Exodus, or a belief that the numbers were exaggerated?

      Of course, but historians don't use the Quran to come to that conclusion.

      Absolutely. Again, that's sort of the point of the historical method.

      Well, this one seems pretty self-evident. They were written by different people in different times and places.


      Sure.

      Obviously, but then again, it's probably not too far out to say they had a very different point of view from those living closer to the major hubs of the old Roman empire. For instance, I don't think it's radical to say that the Christian beliefs we glean from Quran diverge quite a bit from the Christian beliefs we see in the mainstream Eastern church in places like Constantinople, or Antioch.

      Why not both?
      For Western historians there is much to learn. For Muslims, Quran scholarship/analysis has been going on for centuries and its been exhaustively studied---nevertheless there are certain presumptions (biases) that are the starting point for example, there is a presumption of Unity of the Quran. Tawheed(Unity) is a central theme/proposition in the Islamic world-view and an understanding of God, so, for the Quran to not reflect this would be too odd. Western scholars do not need to have such presumptions and are free to prove/disprove the Unity of the Quran as they see fit. If they do prove the Quran has an internal unity, consistency and coherence it may bring interesting insights into Quranic scholarship.

      Scholars such as Carl Ernst, Raymond Farrin (video above)...etc... are looking at ring structures and other literary devices that may lead to understanding the Quran as a wholistic unit. Others such as Angelika Neuwirth etc believe that the Quran originated much earlier in pieces (if I understand their views correctly) and generally such scholars do not view the compiled version (Uthmani Codex) as the "original"/chronological work.

      Confusion (response vs copy)---Sorry, I was trying to simplify.....Today, the idea that the Quran simply copied from previous scriptures is considered "Orientalist" and outdated by Western scholars. (For Muslim scholars, the Quran is not simply responding to previous scripture---it is also correcting and using the stories of the previous scriptures as ethico-moral lessons for the new community and reconstructing/appropriating these stories in new ways to emphasize and harmonize with the Quranic world-view---that is, there is a lot more going on.....) Such a study is apparently called "Intersectionality" (?) ...and Western scholars are looking into it....(Muslim scholars have already done it centuries ago----but still, new insights are always helpful)
      For a complex example of this type of intersectionality---one can look at the story of Potiphers wife in the Quran and the larger Jewish scriptures:---here are 2 views one is Non-Muslim the other is Muslim
      http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/01_1/po.htm
      http://d-nb.info/1071713523/34

      Intersectionality can be bi-directional and it would be interesting to study the influence of the Quran on Jewish thought and philosophy in the era of the "Golden age" of Islam and Judaism.....

      To Copy---As I understand the word---it means to reproduce an original---Reproduction of previous scripture has not been the main intent or purpose of the Quran---the main purpose of the Quran is to offer Guidance to a community that had not received it previously....which is why these stories are more general and succinct in narration in the Quran and specificities of names, locations, historical periods...etc, are avoided unless they are required to make the point....Because the purpose is to teach/guide (show ethico-moral principles)---an average Muslim does not refer to previous scriptures to understand these stories---they stand on their own in the Quran....

      Quran as history----It is true that in order to understand the context of the Quranic text---the historical period in which it emerged has to be understood as the Quran makes reference/allusions to events (such as the battle of Badr...etc)...this stuff has all been recorded by Muslim scholars. Western scholars can ignore it or use it...its upto them....


      The Muslim Narrative---(short version)
      The revelations began in Mecca approx 610 CE---some say the first revelations were verses of Surah 96---Recite in the name of your Lord who created -Created man from a clinging substance. Recite, and your Lord is the most Generous -Who taught by the pen -Taught man that which he knew not.......

      The Meccan revelations continued up until approx 622 (year of the Migration/Hijra). The revelations of the so-called Meccan Surahs were not complete and at this time and portions of what are called Medinian Surahs were also revealed. As the verses came, the Prophet would indicate their placement in the growing body of the (as yet incomplete) Quran.

      The Migration changed the name of the city of Yathrib to Medina (Medina means "the city") and revelations continued until approx 632 when the Prophet dies. For Muslims, the placement of the verses of the Quran are the way the final "book" was intended to look from the beginning, and is not arbitrary---that is, it is the way God intended. At this time, there were many dialects in this region and 7 variations were approved by the Prophet. (The Prophet was from the Quraish tribe and used this dialect).

      After the death of the Prophet, the First Caliph Abu Bakr is persuaded to compile the Quran---he does so by requiring that Quran pieces written in the presence of the Prophet and having 2 witnesses attest to the fact, be collected and compiled. (The Quran in its final form and in its entirety was memorized by most of the community---the written Quran was simply a memory device). A group was put together to work on this project.

      The 2nd compilation (Uthmani codex) used the first compilation and the methodology to come up with what is considered the "standard" Quran. It is the Quran we have today---and for Muslims, it is the same Quran from the time of the Prophet. The Quran is still memorized today in its entirety by many Muslims.


      can also see article below for more info
      http://lostislamichistory.com/how-do...-is-unchanged/

      Script analyses of the manuscript.....
      http://lostislamichistory.com/the-wo...an-manuscript/

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by siam View Post
        For Western historians there is much to learn. For Muslims, Quran scholarship/analysis has been going on for centuries and its been exhaustively studied
        You've repeated this a number of times now, that Muslims have studied the Quran for centuries. Just so you know, you don't have to repeat that anymore. I totally acknowledge that the Quran has been studied by Muslims for many centuries. So I'm totally clear on that. The presumption of unity is a good case point though. What both Eastern, and Western, Muslim, and non-Muslim scholars can begin to get into is textual criticism of the Quran in general. As I understand it, this is a historical approach that's only recently been explored in Quranic studies, but that Christians and non-Christians scholars (including Muslims!) have been undertaking with the Old and New Testament for a couple centuries now.

        Scholars such as Carl Ernst, Raymond Farrin (video above)...etc... are looking at ring structures and other literary devices that may lead to understanding the Quran as a wholistic unit. Others such as Angelika Neuwirth etc believe that the Quran originated much earlier in pieces (if I understand their views correctly) and generally such scholars do not view the compiled version (Uthmani Codex) as the "original"/chronological work.
        Awesome!

        Confusion (response vs copy)---Sorry, I was trying to simplify.....Today, the idea that the Quran simply copied from previous scriptures is considered "Orientalist" and outdated by Western scholars. (For Muslim scholars, the Quran is not simply responding to previous scripture---it is also correcting and using the stories of the previous scriptures as ethico-moral lessons for the new community and reconstructing/appropriating these stories in new ways to emphasize and harmonize with the Quranic world-view---that is, there is a lot more going on.....) Such a study is apparently called "Intersectionality" (?) ...and Western scholars are looking into it....(Muslim scholars have already done it centuries ago----but still, new insights are always helpful)
        For a complex example of this type of intersectionality---one can look at the story of Potiphers wife in the Quran and the larger Jewish scriptures:---here are 2 views one is Non-Muslim the other is Muslim
        http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/01_1/po.htm
        http://d-nb.info/1071713523/34
        Interesting. Thank you. I'll check the links out.

        Side note. I can't help but note that you constantly refer to Western and Eastern scholars. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Don't you think it would be more appropriate for historians to put away their biases (as much as possible), and disregard East/West, believer/unbeliever distinctions when studying history? Good historians attempt as well they can to put their biases to the side while studying historic texts and other evidences.

        Intersectionality can be bi-directional and it would be interesting to study the influence of the Quran on Jewish thought and philosophy in the era of the "Golden age" of Islam and Judaism.....
        Absolutely!

        To Copy---As I understand the word---it means to reproduce an original---Reproduction of previous scripture has not been the main intent or purpose of the Quran
        I don't think that anyone here is making any argument that the Quran copied other religious texts (I certainly am not), simply that the Quran integrated the narratives (however loosely) of other religious texts (whether they be Talmudic, Apocryphal, or orthodox canonical)

        the main purpose of the Quran is to offer Guidance to a community that had not received it previously....which is why these stories are more general and succinct in narration in the Quran and specificities of names, locations, historical periods...etc, are avoided unless they are required to make the point....Because the purpose is to teach/guide (show ethico-moral principles)---an average Muslim does not refer to previous scriptures to understand these stories---they stand on their own in the Quran....
        Makes sense.

        Quran as history----It is true that in order to understand the context of the Quranic text---the historical period in which it emerged has to be understood as the Quran makes reference/allusions to events (such as the battle of Badr...etc)...this stuff has all been recorded by Muslim scholars. Western scholars can ignore it or use it...its upto them....
        I don't see why any Western scholar (or any historian at all) would ignore it. That's a strange thing to say. Also, no matter how much Muslim scholars have studied the Quran, surely you agree there's no limit to good historical analysis, yes? New tools and methods are constantly changing how we real all sorts of historical texts, from Homer to Shakespeare, from the Bible to the Quran.

        The Muslim Narrative---(short version)
        The revelations began in Mecca approx 610 CE---some say the first revelations were verses of Surah 96---Recite in the name of your Lord who created -Created man from a clinging substance. Recite, and your Lord is the most Generous -Who taught by the pen -Taught man that which he knew not.......

        The Meccan revelations continued up until approx 622 (year of the Migration/Hijra). The revelations of the so-called Meccan Surahs were not complete and at this time and portions of what are called Medinian Surahs were also revealed. As the verses came, the Prophet would indicate their placement in the growing body of the (as yet incomplete) Quran.

        The Migration changed the name of the city of Yathrib to Medina (Medina means "the city") and revelations continued until approx 632 when the Prophet dies. For Muslims, the placement of the verses of the Quran are the way the final "book" was intended to look from the beginning, and is not arbitrary---that is, it is the way God intended. At this time, there were many dialects in this region and 7 variations were approved by the Prophet. (The Prophet was from the Quraish tribe and used this dialect).

        After the death of the Prophet, the First Caliph Abu Bakr is persuaded to compile the Quran---he does so by requiring that Quran pieces written in the presence of the Prophet and having 2 witnesses attest to the fact, be collected and compiled. (The Quran in its final form and in its entirety was memorized by most of the community---the written Quran was simply a memory device). A group was put together to work on this project.

        The 2nd compilation (Uthmani codex) used the first compilation and the methodology to come up with what is considered the "standard" Quran. It is the Quran we have today---and for Muslims, it is the same Quran from the time of the Prophet. The Quran is still memorized today in its entirety by many Muslims.
        Yes, I'm familiar with most of this, but thank you for the summary.

        can also see article below for more info
        http://lostislamichistory.com/how-do...-is-unchanged/

        Script analyses of the manuscript.....
        http://lostislamichistory.com/the-wo...an-manuscript/
        I don't really feel you've answered all of my questions in my previous post, but anyhow, I'll check these other links out.

        Comment


        • #34
          Patricia Crone and Orientalism---Orientalism generally assumes the Christian/Western historical experience as the default and this presumption or cultural bias creates flaws in scholarship....nevertheless, it is important that Western Scholars follow their inclinations as long as it is done so intelligently and fairly. If only the "traditional" view is accepted---then it will not generate new ideas or progress in knowledge.

          Patricia Crone backed away from her initial stance---and today I think Western scholarship in general is more respectful and fair in dealing with different pov---whereas previously it was condescending or outright contemptuous... (There still are idiots like Luxemburgh though...)

          @ Adrift
          The Corpus Quranicum project (Germany) is working together with Muslim scholars (others such as Karen Armstrong..etc... have also worked with Muslims scholars.) When working together, it is important to understand the constraints and biases different scholars bring to the table as well as the different perspectives. Differences should be respected---a variety of pov enhances knowledge.

          If I have not answered anything pls ask again...sorry for the trouble.

          Comment


          • #35
            Why would a scholar ignore the "traditional narrative"?
            The traditional narrative puts the emergence of the Quran at the time of the Prophet. If the Quran is to be moved to an earlier or later time period---the Traditional sources/narratives have to be ignored as it cannot be moved otherwise.

            Moving the Quran to another time period creates problems---so there are Western Scholars who accept the bare-bones/framework of the "Traditional" narrative timeline....

            Comment


            • #36
              The Quran as qualities where it is likened to prose and poetry...so it can be looked at as literature....

              From the Quranic(and Islamic) perspective Tawheed (Unity) is the path to peace and this means to look at humanity as the "family of Adam" (Bani Adam).
              The path towards discord and enmity is Shirk (Division) and extreme exclusivity (Us vs Them) is the hallmark of toxic ideas/philosophies....

              Here is a video that brings all these themes together....and looks at Shakespear from a Muslim perspective while doing it.....

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by siam View Post
                Patricia Crone and Orientalism---Orientalism generally assumes the Christian/Western historical experience as the default and this presumption or cultural bias creates flaws in scholarship....nevertheless, it is important that Western Scholars follow their inclinations as long as it is done so intelligently and fairly. If only the "traditional" view is accepted---then it will not generate new ideas or progress in knowledge.

                Patricia Crone backed away from her initial stance---and today I think Western scholarship in general is more respectful and fair in dealing with different pov---whereas previously it was condescending or outright contemptuous... (There still are idiots like Luxemburgh though...)

                @ Adrift
                The Corpus Quranicum project (Germany) is working together with Muslim scholars (others such as Karen Armstrong..etc... have also worked with Muslims scholars.) When working together, it is important to understand the constraints and biases different scholars bring to the table as well as the different perspectives. Differences should be respected---a variety of pov enhances knowledge.

                I'm not sure where you live, but scholars in the West tend to suppress or distance themselves from bias as best as possible as part of their historical methodology. They work to distinguish historical questions from purely theological ones in their academic work. It seems to me that you're saying that this is not how things are done in the East by Muslims. That Muslim scholars are unable or unwilling to divorce their theological beliefs from their historical work, and that Western scholars that work with Eastern scholars must bend to the biases of Muslims when working with them. Am I understanding this correctly?

                If I have not answered anything pls ask again...sorry for the trouble.
                Ok, I'll go through them and re-ask the questions that weren't answered.


                Originally posted by siam View Post
                Why would a scholar ignore the "traditional narrative"?
                The traditional narrative puts the emergence of the Quran at the time of the Prophet. If the Quran is to be moved to an earlier or later time period---the Traditional sources/narratives have to be ignored as it cannot be moved otherwise.
                That's not the case. A historian should have absolutely no issue keeping in mind the traditional narrative, and yet working with the evidence and going where it leads. The picture can be informed by the traditional narrative, but whether the evidence ends up leading to something that actually looks like the traditional narrative depends on a number of factors.

                Moving the Quran to another time period creates problems---so there are Western Scholars who accept the bare-bones/framework of the "Traditional" narrative timeline....
                It may cause issues for Muslims scholars who are unable to refrain from bias, but it shouldn't create problems for your average historian who has been trained to be objective as possible.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by siam View Post
                  The Quran as qualities where it is likened to prose and poetry...so it can be looked at as literature....
                  I mean...isn't that obvious? How else would you look at it?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Do you think it is wrong for scholars to apply historical-critical methods to the Quran?

                    What would the number of people in the Exodus have to do with Quranic responses to the Bible? Are you suggesting that historians claim the Quranic silence is indication of disbelief in the Exodus, or a belief that the numbers were exaggerated?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I'm not sure where you live, but scholars in the West tend to suppress or distance themselves from bias as best as possible as part of their historical methodology. They work to distinguish historical questions from purely theological ones in their academic work. It seems to me that you're saying that this is not how things are done in the East by Muslims. That Muslim scholars are unable or unwilling to divorce their theological beliefs from their historical work, and that Western scholars that work with Eastern scholars must bend to the biases of Muslims when working with them. Am I understanding this correctly?



                      Ok, I'll go through them and re-ask the questions that weren't answered.




                      That's not the case. A historian should have absolutely no issue keeping in mind the traditional narrative, and yet working with the evidence and going where it leads. The picture can be informed by the traditional narrative, but whether the evidence ends up leading to something that actually looks like the traditional narrative depends on a number of factors.



                      It may cause issues for Muslims scholars who are unable to refrain from bias, but it shouldn't create problems for your average historian who has been trained to be objective as possible.
                      Bias---I don't agree that Western scholarship is unbiased---NT and historical Jesus scholarship has been particularly biased---with one side trying to authenticate the bible through the use/abuse of "history" and the other side trying to "debunk" Christianity....But bias also exists in American history in general---for example---For years the genocidal maniac Christopher Columbus was regarded as a hero in America....

                      In the case of Christianity---theology and history getting muddled is understandable---after all, "God" is supposed to have appeared "IN history" as God-man.....

                      There are constraints on Western scholars when they follow the Islamic narrative.....which are understandable....and I think should be respected....
                      1) The Prophet is not the "author" of the Quran---this is fine as far as Muslims are concerned but if a Westerner goes in this direction...then they have to find another possible candidate...
                      ----after the emergence of the Quran---the Islamic narrative is very tight and leaves no room for another candidate....one has to ignore the Islamic narrative in order to create another history....
                      2) The difference in literary style between the Quran and the "sayings" of the Prophet, the Constitution of Medina, and the various letters and peace treaties....
                      ----More research needs to be done by Westerners in this area....so, the question as to why the Quran is so different in style and quality if written by the same person (Prophet) has to be answered....if not written by the same person, then another candidate has to be found.....
                      3) The Quran emerged in approx a 22 year period---but the rapid expansion of "Islam" creates a problem for some Western historians who feel that the development of "religion" should take hundreds of years as it did in Christianity and Judaism.....Not all Western scholars have issues with this---Richard Bulliet has some interesting theories on the subject---without resorting to the "God did it" argument....
                      4) In order to give Islam a longer development period---the Quran has to be disconnected from its timeline---either put before or after....to do this, one needs to ignore the Islamic narrative...the narrative informs us somewhat, which verses came in Mecca, which in Medina, the circumstances surrounding the revelations and the comments, reactions of the audience....etc.....(there are contentions in the narrative...and not every detail or circumstance is recorded...)
                      5) A longer period of development would make it easier to find another candidate and explain the references to the vast body of previous scriptures and writings in the Quran....This means that the Quran has to be cut up into pieces...so that it can be claimed various authors wrote it....such an argument would run up against the Unity of the Quran.....or else one would have to make the Prophet out to be a highly intelligent scholar. The Islamic narrative is that the Prophet was an orphan and later a merchant (trader)---not a scholar. There would need to be a group or individual who would have taught the Prophet.....

                      There is another constraint which has to do with the nature of the academic/scholarly structure of the West/Modernity than with history....In Western/Modern history, creativity is valued more than tradition. In order to gain recognition, a scholar has to come up with a new, creative perspective in looking at history. This means that to translate and build on the works already done by Muslim historians and literary critics does not bring the kind of recognition that independent research would bring....The good side to this is that if it affirms what Muslim scholars have done---it can be claimed that bias was not involved as the research was independent---but it also means that Western scholars are replicating works already done by Muslim scholars of the past...Since both East and West are Modern---the structural problems in scholarly/academia are pretty much the same everywhere....

                      For Muslim scholars---if an interpretation of evidence leads to God---it isn't that much of a problem....but it would be problematic for a Non-Muslim....and understandably so...I don't believe that there should be a single perspective or monocultural view of history....if only one view is forced onto scholarship or academia it will stifle the pursuit of knowledge.....The concept or presumption that God does not exist is in it self a bias---it is not necessary that everyone share this presumption or bias....to be neutral does not mean that the default western position and presumptions must always be the criteria upon which the pursuit of knowledge is based....that is simply arrogance...What is important is that high standards of methodology be followed and evidence should be judged fairly---a through examination of the evidence may lead to a consensus or contention in interpretation---either is fine.....

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        I mean...isn't that obvious? How else would you look at it?
                        Orientalism is a type of cultural prejudice that came about because of colonialism and its reason/justification that the "West" was on a "civilizing mission" to the inferior, barbaric, backward "Non-West".
                        http://www.arabstereotypes.org/why-s...at-orientalism

                        from wikipedia---civilizing mission
                        The intellectual origins of the mission civilisatrice can be traced back the Christian tradition dating from the Middle Ages. European thinkers had naturalized social change by using the development metaphor. In the eighteenth century history became to be seen as an unilinear unending inevitable process of social evolutionism with the European nations running ahead.[2] Racists saw the "backward" nations as intrinsically incapable but the more "progressive" thinkers like the Marquis de Condorcet postulated a holy duty to help those peoples "which, to civilize themselves, wait only to receive the means from us, to find brothers among Europeans and to become their friends and disciples".[3]

                        Evolutionist views survived colonialism. Modernization theorists declared that traditional customs had to be destroyed, traditional societies had to adapt[4] or to disappear.[5]

                        Development criticism sees development therefore as continuation of the colonial civilizing mission. To become civilized has always meant to become 'like us', therefore "Civilizing" now meant that in the long run all societies had to become consumer societies[6] and renounce their native traditions and habits.


                        Orientalist had various ways of looking at the Quran---such as, a confused heresy of Christianity...etc. To accept it as literature would have been giving it a respect which they felt it did not deserve....

                        Orientalism is outdated...though some prejudices still remain....but...all human beings have prejudices and presumptions...it is better to acknowledge our cultural prejudices than to pretend to be unbiased when we are clearly not....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by siam View Post
                          Bias---I don't agree that Western scholarship is unbiased---NT and historical Jesus scholarship has been particularly biased---with one side trying to authenticate the bible through the use/abuse of "history" and the other side trying to "debunk" Christianity....
                          Wait. What? Where in the world are you getting this idea?

                          But bias also exists in American history in general---for example---For years the genocidal maniac Christopher Columbus was regarded as a hero in America....
                          I don't even...What are you talking about? The context of our conversation is reputable contemporary historians, correct? Which reputable contemporary historians do you know consider Christopher Columbus either a genocidal maniac or an American hero in their academic publications?

                          You have a very peculiar view of modern historical scholars. I'm not sure what it's born out of, but it's not representative of how things actually are.

                          In the case of Christianity---theology and history getting muddled is understandable---after all, "God" is supposed to have appeared "IN history" as God-man.....
                          I don't understand what this sentence has to do with the topic that we're talking about. We're talking about mainstream academic historians here, right? We're not talking theologians.

                          There are constraints on Western scholars when they follow the Islamic narrative.....which are understandable....and I think should be respected....
                          The only constraint on Western scholars is leaving theology to theologians.

                          1) The Prophet is not the "author" of the Quran---this is fine as far as Muslims are concerned but if a Westerner goes in this direction...then they have to find another possible candidate...
                          ----after the emergence of the Quran---the Islamic narrative is very tight and leaves no room for another candidate....one has to ignore the Islamic narrative in order to create another history....
                          2) The difference in literary style between the Quran and the "sayings" of the Prophet, the Constitution of Medina, and the various letters and peace treaties....
                          ----More research needs to be done by Westerners in this area....so, the question as to why the Quran is so different in style and quality if written by the same person (Prophet) has to be answered....if not written by the same person, then another candidate has to be found.....
                          3) The Quran emerged in approx a 22 year period---but the rapid expansion of "Islam" creates a problem for some Western historians who feel that the development of "religion" should take hundreds of years as it did in Christianity and Judaism.....Not all Western scholars have issues with this---Richard Bulliet has some interesting theories on the subject---without resorting to the "God did it" argument....
                          4) In order to give Islam a longer development period---the Quran has to be disconnected from its timeline---either put before or after....to do this, one needs to ignore the Islamic narrative...the narrative informs us somewhat, which verses came in Mecca, which in Medina, the circumstances surrounding the revelations and the comments, reactions of the audience....etc.....(there are contentions in the narrative...and not every detail or circumstance is recorded...)
                          5) A longer period of development would make it easier to find another candidate and explain the references to the vast body of previous scriptures and writings in the Quran....This means that the Quran has to be cut up into pieces...so that it can be claimed various authors wrote it....such an argument would run up against the Unity of the Quran.....or else one would have to make the Prophet out to be a highly intelligent scholar. The Islamic narrative is that the Prophet was an orphan and later a merchant (trader)---not a scholar. There would need to be a group or individual who would have taught the Prophet.....
                          None of these are examples of constraints on Western scholars. Western scholars (and hopefully Eastern scholars as well) are free to accept or reject any of these theories. Who told you that Western scholars were restrained by these ideas?

                          There is another constraint which has to do with the nature of the academic/scholarly structure of the West/Modernity than with history....In Western/Modern history, creativity is valued more than tradition. In order to gain recognition, a scholar has to come up with a new, creative perspective in looking at history. This means that to translate and build on the works already done by Muslim historians and literary critics does not bring the kind of recognition that independent research would bring....The good side to this is that if it affirms what Muslim scholars have done---it can be claimed that bias was not involved as the research was independent---but it also means that Western scholars are replicating works already done by Muslim scholars of the past...Since both East and West are Modern---the structural problems in scholarly/academia are pretty much the same everywhere....
                          Again, this is not a constraint. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to me that one would assert that historians must need choose between creativity and tradition. Sure modern historians are always looking for ways to push on the boundaries of accepted ideas, but that's how people learn, and how we grow. You seem to be suggesting that all historians should have stopped studying all history at some predetermined time, and that, in fact, Muslim scholars have done just that. They have nothing more to study, no new insights, because it's all been learned. It's a very strange approach to...anything. Whether it be astrophysics, medicine, baking, or history.

                          For Muslim scholars---if an interpretation of evidence leads to God---it isn't that much of a problem....but it would be problematic for a Non-Muslim....and understandably so...
                          This sentence doesn't make any sense either. Historians are not looking for evidence that leads to God. They're attempting to reconstruct history as best as they can. Most decent historians will leave off the God question altogether in their academic work, neither addressing it positively or negatively, and leaving it to theologians or perhaps philosophers to discuss questions about God. The academic study of history is not the study of God. That's a different branch of study altogether.

                          I don't believe that there should be a single perspective or monocultural view of history....if only one view is forced onto scholarship or academia it will stifle the pursuit of knowledge.....
                          Agreed.

                          The concept or presumption that God does not exist is in it self a bias---
                          I agree, but what does that have to do with historians in their academic publications? They neither presume that God exists or does not exist. That's not their job.

                          it is not necessary that everyone share this presumption or bias....
                          Can you name some Western historians of Islam that believe it is necessary to not believe in God's existence in order to do good history?

                          to be neutral does not mean that the default western position and presumptions must always be the criteria upon which the pursuit of knowledge is based....that is simply arrogance...
                          It doesn't sound to me like you understand the Western position at all. I don't know who told you these things, but I would strongly ignore them if I were you.

                          What is important is that high standards of methodology be followed and evidence should be judged fairly---a through examination of the evidence may lead to a consensus or contention in interpretation---either is fine.....
                          Absolutely. Who could ask for more?
                          Last edited by Adrift; 09-14-2015, 11:39 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Do you think it is wrong for scholars to apply historical-critical methods to the Quran?

                            What would the number of people in the Exodus have to do with Quranic responses to the Bible? Are you suggesting that historians claim the Quranic silence is indication of disbelief in the Exodus, or a belief that the numbers were exaggerated?
                            The Quran is not a history text---but if scholars want to look at any historical allusions of the Quran....they should do so....

                            Exodus---the Quran indicates the group as being small.
                            When such discrepancies appear---some scholars claim that perhaps the Jews of Arabia had older more accurate memories in their oral storytelling which may have made its way into the Quran.....IMO, its not a great explanation...but will have to do for now....

                            Of the historical criticism methods, form criticism seems interesting.....

                            Literary criticism is also an interesting field of research....
                            Last edited by siam; 09-14-2015, 11:35 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by siam View Post
                              The Quran is not a history text---
                              You keep saying this, but what you don't seem to get is that all ancient texts are history texts to a historian. The genre may not be "History" (as in Herodotus' Histories or Josephus' History of the Jews), but the text certainly gives insight to the period in which it was created (at the very least).

                              but if scholars want to look at any historical allusions of the Quran....they should do so....
                              I don't know what you mean by "historical allusions"

                              Exodus---the Quran indicates the group as being small.
                              When such discrepancies appear---some scholars claim that perhaps the Jews of Arabia had older more accurate memories in their oral storytelling which may have made its way into the Quran.....IMO, its not a great explanation...but will have to do for now....
                              Do you have any citations from historians that we could read? That seems like an incredibly bizarre and an incredibly bold claim.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Do you have any citations from historians that we could read? That seems like an incredibly bizarre and an incredibly bold claim.
                                I agree that it is bizzare---I read it in connection to another claim---not the exodus---and am looking for the article again.....


                                I think you are giving too much credit to Western Islamic studies?---IMO, this field is not well organized yet......

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X