Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 141

Thread: Quran might predate Muhammad?

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    766
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Is this why it's easier to justify cutting the heads off of Christians? Because of this "evolution/development"?
    To answer this question might derail this thread----nevertheless, the question as to why and how toxic ideologies develop is an interesting one.
    For example, American Exceptionalism---a toxic ideology---has been used to justify many U.S. wars and the killing of many "non-Americans"...since 1980, the U.S. has bombed/invaded 14 "Muslim" countries....
    from:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e5f_story.html
    Letís tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria.

    and there were other countries it destroyed as well---for example during the Phillipine-American war the Philipino people were called uncivilized negroes or some such---the racism was so toxic and rampant that some African-American soldiers deserted and sided with the Phillipine rebels.

    There is some research ongoing on this subject by scholars such as Robert Pape, Scott Atran, and others.....

  2. #22
    Dept. of Redundancy Dept. Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    33,998
    Amen (Given)
    7735
    Amen (Received)
    17903
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    To answer this question might derail this thread----nevertheless, the question as to why and how toxic ideologies develop is an interesting one.
    For example, American Exceptionalism---a toxic ideology---has been used to justify many U.S. wars and the killing of many "non-Americans"...since 1980, the U.S. has bombed/invaded 14 "Muslim" countries....
    from:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e5f_story.html
    Letís tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria.

    and there were other countries it destroyed as well---for example during the Phillipine-American war the Philipino people were called uncivilized negroes or some such---the racism was so toxic and rampant that some African-American soldiers deserted and sided with the Phillipine rebels.

    There is some research ongoing on this subject by scholars such as Robert Pape, Scott Atran, and others.....
    So, lemme get this straight. Because the US "ticked off" () some Muslims, the Muslims can justify raping and murdering - in the most barbaric manners - even fellow Muslims.

    Yeah, makes total sense!

    (and, for some strange reason, Kuwait really stood out on that list of countries we "bombed/invaded". SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!)

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  3. #23
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    31,978
    Amen (Given)
    739
    Amen (Received)
    12973
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    So, lemme get this straight. Because the US "ticked off" () some Muslims, the Muslims can justify raping and murdering - in the most barbaric manners - even fellow Muslims.

    Yeah, makes total sense!

    (and, for some strange reason, Kuwait really stood out on that list of countries we "bombed/invaded". SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!)
    Yeah, lot of problems with that list. It has us attacking both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and Bosnia rather than the Serbians during the Clinton Administration

    I'm always still in trouble again

  4. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  5. #24
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,825
    Amen (Given)
    5831
    Amen (Received)
    5429
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    @ Shuny
    Early evidence---So far, actual(physical) evidence points to an unvarying Quran which is traced to the Uthmani codex (approx 653-656 CE). The narrative of "variations" comes from Islamic sources---which is somewhat ironic since most Western historians prefer to discount "Islamic sources" as faith-based, biased accounts......
    It seems unlikely that Western historians would discount any ancient record because of bias. Historians will use whatever ancient literary sources that are available to them. They may recognize that they were biasly drafted or commissioned; I don't think anyone would seriously deny that all ancient literature was biased towards some goal, but they're not going to stone cold discount records because of that. If they did that for every account they thought bias, we'd have no history to speak of.

    A literary look at the Quran is still in its infancy for Westerners (though Muslims have been there/done that centuries ago) so for Westerners there is still much to explore in this area.....
    Though, of course, like the Old and New Testament before the 17th century, a critical approach to the Quran didn't take place in those pre-Western centuries.

    I can't comment on the NT, but with regards to the Torah/larger body of Jewish scripture....The present (Western) theory is that the Quran was in "dialogue" with Jewish scripture as a counter-narrative/response. This would explain (for Western non-Muslims) why the narratives of the Quran differ or emphasize a different pov than that of the Jewish scripture. It would also explain why the Quran does not replicate some of the historical errors/inaccuracies of the Jewish scriptures.
    Curious, what are some of the historical errors/inaccuracies in the Jewish scriptures that are not included in the Quran that Western historians have highlighted? Would you happen to have any reputable scholarly sources on this as well?

    The Quran uses narratives from Torah, Talmud (Mishna, Gemara, Rabbinical writings---Both Yerushalmi and Barelvi) which alone would indicate a high scholarly level for the "author" of the Quran...
    What makes you suggest that the inclusion of Talmudic references indicates a high scholarly level for the author of the Quran? One could point out that the New Testament also includes intertestamental Midrash, but I can't think of anyone who would argue that because of its inclusion it would indicate a high scholarly level for its authors. Rather, historians may claim that the inclusion of Midrash was simply a circumstance of the widely accepted exegesis of scripture in the 1st century Jewish world. Perhaps there's a comparison with the Pauline letters that may indicate a more sophisticated exegetical approach based on Paul's training under Gamaliel, and his Hellenistic education.

    but in addition, the Quran also contains narratives from Christian apocrypha and folk tales---and some go even further and claim the Quran has knowledge of other philosophies/religions/laws of the ancient world.....This type of learning would require years of study at least.....
    Or it could again be an occasion of circumstance. It's possible that a Christian community existed near Mecca, and circulated amongst themselves these apocryphal books. There is some suggestion that if this group existed, they held an unorthodox understanding of the trinity which made its way into the Quran. If this group existed nearby, the Quranic author/s wouldn't have to go far to find these apocryphal tales and add them to his own work.

    Or, perhaps the inclusion of Jewish Talmudic references and diverse NT apocryphal narratives indicates that Quran was pieced together from multiple sources that were later edited together.

    In any case, how Western non-Muslims want to explain the content of the Quran is upto them----We Muslims have our own narrative......
    That won't do. It's not about East vs. West, Muslim vs. Non, it's about historical reality. Follow the evidence wherever it leads no matter how uncomfortable. Christians, Jews, and unbelievers ought to do the same.









    Hey, by the way siam, it might be easier for you to indicate who you're writing to if you put their text in quote tags. To do so, you can hit the button below their post that says "Reply with a Quote" or you can highlight their text, and then click on the button that looks like a little comicstrip bubble.


  6. Amen One Bad Pig, Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  7. #25
    Dept. of Redundancy Dept. Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    33,998
    Amen (Given)
    7735
    Amen (Received)
    17903
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Yeah, lot of problems with that list. It has us attacking both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and Bosnia rather than the Serbians during the Clinton Administration
    Plus, it doesn't attempt at all to separate "justified" attacks as opposed to "we just did it cause we're meanies". Nor does it list all of the Muslim aggressions that triggered many of these incidents.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  8. #26
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    766
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    It seems unlikely that Western historians would discount any ancient record because of bias. Historians will use whatever ancient literary sources that are available to them. They may recognize that they were biasly drafted or commissioned; I don't think anyone would seriously deny that all ancient literature was biased towards some goal, but they're not going to stone cold discount records because of that. If they did that for every account they thought bias, we'd have no history to speak of.

    Though, of course, like the Old and New Testament before the 17th century, a critical approach to the Quran didn't take place in those pre-Western centuries.

    Curious, what are some of the historical errors/inaccuracies in the Jewish scriptures that are not included in the Quran that Western historians have highlighted? Would you happen to have any reputable scholarly sources on this as well?

    What makes you suggest that the inclusion of Talmudic references indicates a high scholarly level for the author of the Quran? One could point out that the New Testament also includes intertestamental Midrash, but I can't think of anyone who would argue that because of its inclusion it would indicate a high scholarly level for its authors. Rather, historians may claim that the inclusion of Midrash was simply a circumstance of the widely accepted exegesis of scripture in the 1st century Jewish world. Perhaps there's a comparison with the Pauline letters that may indicate a more sophisticated exegetical approach based on Paul's training under Gamaliel, and his Hellenistic education.

    Or it could again be an occasion of circumstance. It's possible that a Christian community existed near Mecca, and circulated amongst themselves these apocryphal books. There is some suggestion that if this group existed, they held an unorthodox understanding of the trinity which made its way into the Quran. If this group existed nearby, the Quranic author/s wouldn't have to go far to find these apocryphal tales and add them to his own work.

    Or, perhaps the inclusion of Jewish Talmudic references and diverse NT apocryphal narratives indicates that Quran was pieced together from multiple sources that were later edited together.

    That won't do. It's not about East vs. West, Muslim vs. Non, it's about historical reality. Follow the evidence wherever it leads no matter how uncomfortable. Christians, Jews, and unbelievers ought to do the same.

    Hey, by the way siam, it might be easier for you to indicate who you're writing to if you put their text in quote tags. To do so, you can hit the button below their post that says "Reply with a Quote" or you can highlight their text, and then click on the button that looks like a little comicstrip bubble.
    I apologize for any inconvenience in my posting style.....I am a bit lazy....
    You raised some interesting points and questions....

    Western Historians---there are good historians---scholars who follow the evidence, there are also bad historians---people who claim to be scholars but thrive on speculation claiming "lack of evidence". History does require a degree of speculation and conjecture to "fill in the gaps" or interpret the evidence---but speculation based on ignorance and speculation based on evidence are different.

    Variations---As I explained above---physical evidence---that is, actual writing of a Quran page/verse/surah---leads to the confirmation that the "Uthmani Codex" has not had any significant changes....physical evidence of a piece of the Quran earlier than this have not yet been found---as far as I know....
    As far as Muslims are concerned, we have our own narrative as to the revelation and compilation of the Quran.

    History---There is a misunderstanding?....The Quran is not a history book. I don't know if any Western historian has looked at the Quran as a history text---but they seem to do so for the Bible. (Western) Historical speculation on issues related to the Bible and history are arrived at without any regard whatsoever to what the Quran says or not. However, since the Quran does not replicate the Bible stories in all the details, it is easier to assume (for Western scholars) the Quran is a response and not a copy of the Bible version. For example, the Bible claims a large number of people left Egypt (Exodus)---a claim not replicated in the Quran.....(and Western historians also feel that the Exodus may not have happened at the scale it is claimed....)

    Content of the Quran----Western Historians are free to speculate in whichever direction they choose. It is still a relatively new area for Westerners---and they should be free to come to their own conclusions. If Western historians speculate that the content of the Quran is pieced together---they should bring evidence to support their speculation....including a plausible explanation for the discrepancies between Bible and Quran narratives as well as explanations for the consistency and coherence of literary style (and literary devices) throughout the Quran.........

    Jewish and Christian communities---These were present at the time of the Quran. There were many Christian communities that had a very different pov than that of today's "Western Christianity". IMO, if the Quran simply copied Jewish scriptures or Christian gospels/apocrypha---then yes, one could say it is simply a collection----but if the Quran is using Jewish and Christian writing and stories to develop a counter-narrative/response/pov---then that would require a degree of comprehension, reflection and perspective/opinion on the subjects.

  9. #27
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1563
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    ... Western Historians---there are good historians---scholars who follow the evidence, there are also bad historians---people who claim to be scholars but thrive on speculation claiming "lack of evidence". History does require a degree of speculation and conjecture to "fill in the gaps" or interpret the evidence---but speculation based on ignorance and speculation based on evidence are different. ...
    Who are the bad historians that you are referring to here?
    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׃

  10. #28
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,825
    Amen (Given)
    5831
    Amen (Received)
    5429
    Quote Originally Posted by siam View Post
    I apologize for any inconvenience in my posting style.....I am a bit lazy....
    No problem.

    Western Historians---there are good historians---scholars who follow the evidence, there are also bad historians---people who claim to be scholars but thrive on speculation claiming "lack of evidence". History does require a degree of speculation and conjecture to "fill in the gaps" or interpret the evidence---but speculation based on ignorance and speculation based on evidence are different.
    I'm also curious about who you consider to be the bad historians here.

    Variations---As I explained above---physical evidence---that is, actual writing of a Quran page/verse/surah---leads to the confirmation that the "Uthmani Codex" has not had any significant changes....physical evidence of a piece of the Quran earlier than this have not yet been found---as far as I know....
    As far as Muslims are concerned, we have our own narrative as to the revelation and compilation of the Quran.
    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?

    History---There is a misunderstanding?....The Quran is not a history book.
    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 don't know if any Western historian has looked at the Quran as a history text---but they seem to do so for the Bible.
    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.

    (Western) Historical speculation on issues related to the Bible and history are arrived at without any regard whatsoever to what the Quran says or not.
    Of course.

    However, since the Quran does not replicate the Bible stories in all the details, it is easier to assume (for Western scholars) the Quran is a response and not a copy of the Bible version.
    Hmm, I'd assume that scholars would regard it as a little bit of both, but okay.

    For example, the Bible claims a large number of people left Egypt (Exodus)---a claim not replicated in the Quran.....
    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?

    (and Western historians also feel that the Exodus may not have happened at the scale it is claimed....)
    Of course, but historians don't use the Quran to come to that conclusion.

    Content of the Quran----Western Historians are free to speculate in whichever direction they choose. It is still a relatively new area for Westerners---and they should be free to come to their own conclusions. If Western historians speculate that the content of the Quran is pieced together---they should bring evidence to support their speculation....
    Absolutely. Again, that's sort of the point of the historical method.

    including a plausible explanation for the discrepancies between Bible and Quran narratives
    Well, this one seems pretty self-evident. They were written by different people in different times and places.

    as well as explanations for the consistency and coherence of literary style (and literary devices) throughout the Quran.........
    Sure.

    Jewish and Christian communities---These were present at the time of the Quran. There were many Christian communities that had a very different pov than that of today's "Western Christianity".
    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.

    IMO, if the Quran simply copied Jewish scriptures or Christian gospels/apocrypha---then yes, one could say it is simply a collection----but if the Quran is using Jewish and Christian writing and stories to develop a counter-narrative/response/pov---then that would require a degree of comprehension, reflection and perspective/opinion on the subjects.
    Why not both?

  11. #29
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    766
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    Who are the bad historians that you are referring to here?
    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.

  12. #30
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,825
    Amen (Given)
    5831
    Amen (Received)
    5429
    Quote 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.
    Hmm. As far as I can tell Tom Holland isn't a Quranic scholar, nor claims to be. It looks like he has written one populist book on Islam called In the Shadow of the Sword and produced a documentary called Islam: The Untold Story. I guess I was expecting a text critic or someone who specialized specifically on early Islam. Seems to me that Holland is a bit like Michael Grant, a classicist who had a general understanding of Christian history, and would occasionally write on it, but did not specialize in early Christianity or historical criticism of the Bible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •