Jews in the Qur'an.

[stevecanuck]

The entire sirah-maghazi tradition including, but not limited to hadiths, Quranic exegesis, etc.

Currently reading https://content.ucpress.edu/title/9780520340411/9780520340411_intro.pdf

I'll get back to you after I discharge all of my real-life duties.

 

[stevecanuck]

@Augustus

Page 2 of https://content.ucpress.edu/title/9780520340411/9780520340411_intro.pdf contains this statement: "Of these four cardinal sources, the first three are for the most part quite early, inasmuch as they were written, composed, or (in some cases) disposed of within the first hundred years following Muhammad’s death in 632 c.e."

1. The first of those sources is the Qur'an, so to say that it was "written, composed ... within the first hundred years of Muhammad's death" is to say it was fabricated after his death. Before I waste time by reading further, is that where this is going? We all know it was compiled after his death, but that narrative has it being a verbatim representation of the revelations.

2. The fact the Muhammad died in 632 is acknowledged, and falls in line with the majority view.

 

[stevecanuck]

@Augustus

It goes on to say, "Even today, modern scholars have scarcely begun to imagine what it would be like to read the Qurʾan without the aid of the exegetical and chronological framework of the sīrah-maghāzī tradition."

That is exactly how I read the Qur'an the first time. I had no clue of the supposed timeline or historic events of Muhammed's time. I just read the words of hate and calls to commit violence with no problem understanding them. I don't see how understanding historical context can change "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers". Do you?

 

[The Hammer]

 

[Augustus]

Page 2 of https://content.ucpress.edu/title/9780520340411/9780520340411_intro.pdf

Muhammad and the empires of faith is a good book, I quoted from it in a previous discussion iirc.

The first of those sources is the Qur'an, so to say that it was "written, composed ... within the first hundred years of Muhammad's death" is to say it was fabricated after his death. Before I waste time by reading further, is that where this is going? We all know it was compiled after his death, but that narrative has it being a verbatim representation of the revelations.

Because he’s discussing all 3 sources: Quran, epigraphy etc. and near contemporary non Muslim sources, what he says covers all 3.

He is certainly not saying the Quran was written up to 100 years later.

2. The fact the Muhammad died in 632 is acknowledged, and falls in line with the majority view

No it isn’t a fact and it is contested as, arguably, a non-Muslim source from 634 has him alive and leading the invasion of Palestine alongside other evidence that makes his date of death debatable

My source earlier showed the ridiculous number of dates given for his birth before orthodoxy was established. Just because something is held true by orthodox theology, doesn’t mean it is uncontested fact.

The earlier death is certainly theologically more convenient too.

It is true that 632 is the majority view, but like just about everything from this era, the evidence is ambiguous and very limited and the later date is increasingly popular among scholars. (See S Shoemaker - Death of a prophet for a book length discussion of this issue)

@Augustus

It goes on to say, "Even today, modern scholars have scarcely begun to imagine what it would be like to read the Qurʾan without the aid of the exegetical and chronological framework of the sīrah-maghāzī tradition."

That is exactly how I read the Qur'an the first time. I had no clue of the supposed timeline or historic events of Muhammed's time. I just read the words of hate and calls to commit violence with no problem understanding them. I don't see how understanding historical context can change "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers". Do you?

I think the historical context is very important, as did early Muslims as they significantly confected one.

That quote is emphasising how important it is to our understanding of the text, and how much we would have to reinterpret the text if we didn't use any of this

the sīrah-maghāzī tradition is problematic because it is such a noisy source—its version of history tends to drown out the other sources or else demand that they be read within the framework it provides. This applies especially to how one reads the Qurʾan, itself a source relatively devoid of historical narrative (which is not to say that it is uninterested in history, or that it lacks its own historical vision).4 For over a century, modern scholarship has seen early Muslim efforts to interpret and historicize the Qurʾan as the very fount of the sīrah-maghāzī traditions. In other words, although the traditions may appear to be historical narrative, this current in modern scholarship holds that such traditions are, in fact, fundamentally exegetical rather than historical in character.5 Whatever the drawbacks of the sīrah-maghāzī literature, the versions of history that its representative books offer is a rather cogent one and a useful heuristic, so its narratives and frameworks are inevitably the first narratives that one learns as a neophyte. Hence, the arc of this tradition’s narrative is often difficult (and, for some, impossible) to unlearn. Even today, modern scholars have scarcely begun to imagine what it would be like to read the Qurʾan without the aid of the exegetical and chronological framework of the sīrah-maghāzī tradition.

 

[stevecanuck]

Muhammad and the empires of faith is a good book, I quoted from it in a previous discussion iirc.



Because he’s discussing all 3 sources: Quran, epigraphy etc. and near contemporary non Muslim sources, what he says covers all 3.

He is certainly not saying the Quran was written up to 100 years later.



No it isn’t a fact and it is contested as, arguably, a non-Muslim source from 634 has him alive and leading the invasion of Palestine alongside other evidence that makes his date of death debatable

My source earlier showed the ridiculous number of dates given for his birth before orthodoxy was established. Just because something is held true by orthodox theology, doesn’t mean it is uncontested fact.

The earlier death is certainly theologically more convenient too.

It is true that 632 is the majority view, but like just about everything from this era, the evidence is ambiguous and very limited and the later date is increasingly popular among scholars. (See S Shoemaker - Death of a prophet for a book length discussion of this issue)



I think the historical context is very important, as did early Muslims as they significantly confected one.

That quote is emphasising how important it is to our understanding of the text, and how much we would have to reinterpret the text if we didn't use any of this

the sīrah-maghāzī tradition is problematic because it is such a noisy source—its version of history tends to drown out the other sources or else demand that they be read within the framework it provides. This applies especially to how one reads the Qurʾan, itself a source relatively devoid of historical narrative (which is not to say that it is uninterested in history, or that it lacks its own historical vision).4 For over a century, modern scholarship has seen early Muslim efforts to interpret and historicize the Qurʾan as the very fount of the sīrah-maghāzī traditions. In other words, although the traditions may appear to be historical narrative, this current in modern scholarship holds that such traditions are, in fact, fundamentally exegetical rather than historical in character.5 Whatever the drawbacks of the sīrah-maghāzī literature, the versions of history that its representative books offer is a rather cogent one and a useful heuristic, so its narratives and frameworks are inevitably the first narratives that one learns as a neophyte. Hence, the arc of this tradition’s narrative is often difficult (and, for some, impossible) to unlearn. Even today, modern scholars have scarcely begun to imagine what it would be like to read the Qurʾan without the aid of the exegetical and chronological framework of the sīrah-maghāzī tradition.

I'm trying to have a discussion. You're not.

I asked you a direct question which you ignored:

I don't see how understanding historical context can change "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers". Do you?

You gonna answer or not?

 

[Augustus]

I'm trying to have a discussion. You're not.

I asked you a direct question which you ignored:

I don't see how understanding historical context can change "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers". Do you?

You gonna answer or not?

I think historical context can change the meaning of that, although taking single sentences of complex texts in isolation is not a great approach to understanding anything imo.

Talking of discussions, you promised to answer my questions but haven’t really addressed anything yet. You have just asked me questions instead, which I have answered too.

So, if you are genuinely interested in discussion, can you answer this directly as it’s pretty straightforward regarding your view of the material you refer to constantly.

It shouldn’t need any research or need to question me on my views.

What, if anything, do you think this article from the journal Der Islam, which recounts completely uncontroversial and very elementary details about the field, is wrong about (note many other sources I've provided support these claims)?

It is well known that the extant Muslim narrative sources relating to the life of Muhammad date from at least 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death in the year 11/632 and that these sources are highly problematic when used as sources for the life of Muhammad: since no archaeological surveys have been conducted in Mecca or Medina, there is no external evidence that could be adduced to support the accounts presented in the Muslim sources. The non-Muslim sources – several of which predate the Muslim sources – often are at variance with the Muslim accounts, if they mention Muhammad at all. Several of the Muslim accounts about the life of Muhammad appear to be interpretations of the Qur#anic text and do not constitute independent sources, but rather seem to have grown from exegetic speculations. Other accounts clearly reflect later theological, legal or political debates, while yet others constitute what can be termed salvation history. Moreover, the accounts often contradict each other regarding chronology, the persons involved or the course of events.

 

[stevecanuck]

I think historical context can change the meaning of that, although taking single sentences of complex texts in isolation is not a great approach to understanding anything imo.

Much of the Qur'an can be described as general proclamations. Again, how is "the worst of creatures in the sight of Allah are those who disbelieve" in any way ambiguous or changeable by context?

 

[stevecanuck]

What, if anything, do you think this article from the journal Der Islam, which recounts completely uncontroversial and very elementary details about the field, is wrong about (note many other sources I've provided support these claims)?

It is well known that the extant Muslim narrative sources relating to the life of Muhammad date from at least 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death in the year 11/632 and that these sources are highly problematic when used as sources for the life of Muhammad: since no archaeological surveys have been conducted in Mecca or Medina, there is no external evidence that could be adduced to support the accounts presented in the Muslim sources. The non-Muslim sources – several of which predate the Muslim sources – often are at variance with the Muslim accounts, if they mention Muhammad at all. Several of the Muslim accounts about the life of Muhammad appear to be interpretations of the Qur#anic text and do not constitute independent sources, but rather seem to have grown from exegetic speculations. Other accounts clearly reflect later theological, legal or political debates, while yet others constitute what can be termed salvation history. Moreover, the accounts often contradict each other regarding chronology, the persons involved or the course of events.

You have provided absolutely nothing to dispute, for example, that the Battle of Uhud took place. All of above is generalized in nature.

What, if anything, about the Qur'an and the accepted timeline do you wish to dispute?

 

[Augustus]

Much of the Qur'an can be described as general proclamations. Again, how is "the worst of creatures in the sight of Allah are those who disbelieve" in any way ambiguous or changeable by context?

You appear to have forgotten to answer my question again.

You promised to give a straight answer to a simple question after I answered your simple question.

Since then you’ve just asked me more unrelated questions while pointedly avoiding doing what you promised.

I will answer your question after you show good faith by fulfilling your side of the bargain.

@Augustus, tell you what - I'll engage with you on every point you're making IF you admit that the VAST VAST VAST majority of Muslims accept the events I've referred to as historic fact

I've already acknowledged this multiple times. Yes most Muslims believe the majority of the traditional sirah actually happened in historical fact, including the miraculous events.

What, if anything, do you think this article from the journal Der Islam, which recounts completely uncontroversial and very elementary details about the field, is wrong about (note many other sources I've provided support these claims)?

It is well known that the extant Muslim narrative sources relating to the life of Muhammad date from at least 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death in the year 11/632 and that these sources are highly problematic when used as sources for the life of Muhammad: since no archaeological surveys have been conducted in Mecca or Medina, there is no external evidence that could be adduced to support the accounts presented in the Muslim sources. The non-Muslim sources – several of which predate the Muslim sources – often are at variance with the Muslim accounts, if they mention Muhammad at all. Several of the Muslim accounts about the life of Muhammad appear to be interpretations of the Qur#anic text and do not constitute independent sources, but rather seem to have grown from exegetic speculations. Other accounts clearly reflect later theological, legal or political debates, while yet others constitute what can be termed salvation history. Moreover, the accounts often contradict each other regarding chronology, the persons involved or the course of events

 

[stevecanuck]

It is well known that the extant Muslim narrative sources relating to the life of Muhammad date from at least 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death in the year 11/632

It is well known that hadiths were COMPILED well after Mohamed's death, not that they originated after his death.

and that these sources are highly problematic when used as sources for the life of Muhammad: since no archaeological surveys have been conducted in Mecca or Medina, there is no external evidence that could be adduced to support the accounts presented in the Muslim sources.

That's why some hadiths are considered more reliable than others. So far, there's no reason to not believe the accepted narrative.

The non-Muslim sources – several of which predate the Muslim sources – often are at variance with the Muslim accounts, if they mention Muhammad at all.

If you've given examples, please point me to the post.

Several of the Muslim accounts about the life of Muhammad appear to be interpretations of the Qur#anic text and do not constitute independent sources, but rather seem to have grown from exegetic speculations.

If you've given examples, please point me to the post.

Other accounts clearly reflect later theological, legal or political debates, while yet others constitute what can be termed salvation history. Moreover, the accounts often contradict each other regarding chronology, the persons involved or the course of events

If you've given examples, please point me to the post.


The only source that you've given so far that I have looked at is that ridiculous 18-minute waste of time of two guys listening to themselves trying to sound scholarly while saying absolutely nothing. If the rest of your sources are that vague, then this is not going to continue.

 

[stevecanuck]

@Augustus

Pick a lane.

On one hand you quote this - "It is well known that the extant Muslim narrative sources relating to the life of Muhammad date from at least 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death in the year 11/632"

But on the other you say this, "No it isn’t a fact and it is contested as, arguably, a non-Muslim source from 634 has him alive and leading the invasion of Palestine alongside other evidence that makes his date of death debatable."

You're on very thin ice here.

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus

Pick a lane.

On one hand you quote this - "It is well known that the extant Muslim narrative sources relating to the life of Muhammad date from at least 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death in the year 11/632"

But on the other you say this, "No it isn’t a fact and it is contested as, arguably, a non-Muslim source from 634 has him alive and leading the invasion of Palestine alongside other evidence that makes his date of death debatable."

You're on very thin ice here.

We’ve already established some scholars think 632 and others 634. Every issue is contested precisely because the evidence is so limited and ambiguous.

What is a fact though is that Muslim sources are very late, and that early non-Muslim sources don’t seem to support the Islamic narrative that emerged centuries later.

That is one of the key arguments against your position that the traditions are remarkably accurate in their details.

Why do you think this problem exists if Islamic traditions are so reliable?

That's why some hadiths are considered more reliable than others. So far, there's no reason to not believe the accepted narrative.

The most reliable hadith are those deemed mutawatir.

These include a flying donkey and Muhammad splitting the moon.

Given you obviously agree these are fabrications, on what grounds do you assume the rest of the corpus is highly accurate?

For me, a system that grades obviously mythical events as indisputable fact is not one I would put a great deal of faith in.

Are you really of the opinion that “other than the flying donkey and moon splitting and obvious flaws in their grading system, we should take them pretty much at their word?”

That is the assumption you rely on in your arguments

The paper I was quoting from discusses the problems with hadith at length if you need a primer on this.

 

[stevecanuck]

The most reliable hadith are those deemed mutawatir.

These include a flying donkey and Muhammad splitting the moon.

Please provide a link to these.

 

[Augustus]

If you've given examples, please point me to the post

Muhammad being alive after his purported death for example.

If you've given examples, please point me to the post

I notice you avoided actually answering the questions.

I was asking if you agreed with what is pretty much the secular scholarly consensus, we could go through these point by point although it is very time consuming to demonstrate all these things.

If you state your personal opinion first it can save time by only focusing on what we disagree on.

You seem strangely reluctant to state explicitly what you think regarding western scholarship on the historicity of this era though.

It just seems to be “trust the Muslim theologians were objective historians”.

The moon splitting event actually covers all kinds of these issues though ( it’s obviously an exegetical speculation that does not really make any sense contextually). The night journey also is another example as it’s from a verse about Moses and fits Moses far better than Muhammad.

Please provide a link to these.

Imams Tahawi and Ibn Kathir have stated that the reports narrating the phenomenon of 'moon-splitting' are mutawatir (i.e. it has been reported successively and uninterruptedly by such a large number of authorities that their concurrence on falsehood is inconceivable.) Therefore, this Prophetic miracle has been proved by incontrovertible evidence

Tafsir Surah Al-Qamar - 1 - Quran.com

Read Ma'arif al-Qur'an for Ayah 1 of Surah Al-Qamar

quran.com

Does this shake your faith in the factual accuracy of the hadith traditions?

 

[stevecanuck]

Muhammad being alive after his purported death for example.

Yes, that's the claim. I asked you to point me to a post that provides details. You didn't.

I was asking if you agreed with what is pretty much the secular scholarly consensus, we could go through these point by point although it is very time consuming to demonstrate all these things.

If you state your personal opinion first it can save time by only focusing on what we disagree on.

You seem strangely reluctant to state explicitly what you think regarding western scholarship on the historicity of this era though.

It just seems to be “trust the Muslim theologians were objective historians”.

The moon splitting event actually covers all kinds of these issues though ( it’s obviously an exegetical speculation that does not really make any sense contextually). The night journey also is another example as it’s from a verse about Moses and fits Moses far better than Muhammad.



Imams Tahawi and Ibn Kathir have stated that the reports narrating the phenomenon of 'moon-splitting' are mutawatir (i.e. it has been reported successively and uninterruptedly by such a large number of authorities that their concurrence on falsehood is inconceivable.) Therefore, this Prophetic miracle has been proved by incontrovertible evidence

Tafsir Surah Al-Qamar - 1 - Quran.com

Read Ma'arif al-Qur'an for Ayah 1 of Surah Al-Qamar

quran.com

Does this shake your faith in the factual accuracy of the hadith traditions?

I accept this list as being accepted by the vast majority:

List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You've given me no reason to doubt it. Some of the finer details may be wrong, probably are, but so what. The Qur'an is read, understood, and followed in the context of that list.

As for the moon-spliting and donkey-ride hadiths, I'll read them if you give me a link.

 

[stevecanuck]

Remember this below? I responded directly to a claim you made and you ignored it. So, tell me. What's the point of trying to talk to you if you just skip over responses????

It is well known that the extant Muslim narrative sources relating to the life of Muhammad date from at least 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death in the year 11/632

It is well known that hadiths were COMPILED well after Mohamed's death, not that they originated after his death.

 

[stevecanuck]

As promised, Surah 9 is left to the end. As the last major surah to be revealed, it demonstrates the increasingly militaristic direction in which Islam was taken during its 22-year evolution. At that point the Arabian Peninsula was largely under Islamic rule and Mohamed's army was extending its campaigns of conquest ever farther from home (Muslim armies were to continue this pattern of invasion and create a vast empire within the next 100 years).

A look back at verse 2:109 with its accusation that "Many Jews and Christians (People of the Book) wish they could cause you (Muslims) to backslide from Islam" is worthwhile at this point given its ominous qualifier to "be patient with them until Allah gives His command". Verse 9:29 is that command - "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya [protection tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." This describes a state of second-class citizenship called 'dhimmitude' in which non-Muslims pay a special tax and must defer to Muslims in every way.

.... continued (one more).

 

[stevecanuck]

The moon splitting event actually covers all kinds of these issues though ( it’s obviously an exegetical speculation that does not really make any sense contextually). The night journey also is another example as it’s from a verse about Moses and fits Moses far better than Muhammad.



Imams Tahawi and Ibn Kathir have stated that the reports narrating the phenomenon of 'moon-splitting' are mutawatir (i.e. it has been reported successively and uninterruptedly by such a large number of authorities that their concurrence on falsehood is inconceivable.) Therefore, this Prophetic miracle has been proved by incontrovertible evidence

Tafsir Surah Al-Qamar - 1 - Quran.com

Read Ma'arif al-Qur'an for Ayah 1 of Surah Al-Qamar

quran.com

Does this shake your faith in the factual accuracy of the hadith traditions?

Accounts of moon-splitting are clearly fabricated. They are outright lies. We agree on that.

Whether they are lies created by Mohamed's companions for the purpose of sucking up to the boss and thereby bolstering his credibility with the as yet unconverted, or if they were written after the fact by unknown others is irrelevant. You seem to hold to the absurd notion that that's enough to dismiss all hadiths out-of-hand. Just think of the untold thousands who have studied the hadiths who could have saved themselves all of that wasted time if only they had thought to ask you about their authenticity first.

 

[stevecanuck]

@Augustus

Let's just cut to the chase. I've provided you with a list of Mohamed's 'expeditions'. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you have any claims of fact that dispute the events listed? All you've given me so far are vague suggestions that maybe those things didn't happen. If you don't get specific I don't see any future in continuing with this