Jews in the Qur'an.

[Link]

This question has taken on a life of its own that's way out of proportion to its importance. It only really matters what is says, not when it was said. I really don't care enough to do a deep dive. Btw, 2:281 in only one of many verses that say that.

Fair enough. I believe 5:3 was revealed when Ali's (a) successorship was manifested in clear words to everyone. The completion of the religion is in Mohammad's (s) role as leader and guide continuing.

 

[Augustus]

You know as well as I do that many scholars say the phrase in 5:3 is the last revelation. Even if it's not the last, it still says that Islam was "completed". Your gotchas need work.

Most secular scholars don’t accept occasions of revelation and Hadith uncritically.

Most Islamic theologians believe Muhammad split the moon and flew on a donkey too.

Your reasoning that theologians should be taken at face value without critical reflection is a very strange one.

You cannot make an appeal to experts when you consider those experts broadly wrong in their beliefs and methodology.

So why do you think that, in real life, Muslims would insert such an important verse in the middle of nondescript food advice?

Your argument about a completed doctrinally distinct religion makes no sense unless you accept it as a final revelation, and this makes no sense given the verse’s context in the middle of unrelated food stuff.

It is far more likely to be a later invention like splitting the moon or flying on a donkey.

 

[stevecanuck]

Most Islamic theologians believe Muhammad split the moon and flew on a donkey too.

They also believe he recieved revelations from a magic sky fairy. What's your point?

Your reasoning that theologians should be taken at face value without critical reflection is a very strange one.

Again, it's all moot. What Muslims believe, and who they're anxious to kill as a result is all I care about.

You cannot make an appeal to experts when you consider those experts broadly wrong in their beliefs and methodology.

So why do you think that, in real life, Muslims would insert such an important verse in the middle of nondescript food advice?

Your argument about a completed doctrinally distinct religion makes no sense unless you accept it as a final revelation, and this makes no sense given the verse’s context in the middle of unrelated food stuff.

It is far more likely to be a later invention like splitting the moon or flying on a donkey.

So you keep saying.

 

[Augustus]

They also believe he recieved revelations from a magic sky fairy. What's your point?

The point is you shouldn’t trust them to make claims about factual history as you consistently do.

Again, it's all moot. What Muslims believe, and who they're anxious to kill as a result is all I care about.

You make no attempt at a good faith understanding of what Muslims believe though.

You just make posts based on how you personally think they should understand their scriptures based on your own prejudices.

As such, by your logic, your posts have no value, as they don’t reflect what Muslims believe.

So you keep saying.

And you keep failing to answer as you know your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[stevecanuck]

The point is you shouldn’t trust them to make claims about factual history as you consistently do.


You make no attempt at a good faith understanding of what Muslims believe though.

You just make posts based on how you personally think they should understand their scriptures based on your own prejudices.

As such, by your logic, your posts have no value, as they don’t reflect what Muslims believe.



And you keep failing to answer as you know your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Just another "IS NOT". Bye. Keep posting if you want to, but I've answered you several times and you just keep denying what I say. Fine.

 

[Augustus]

Just another "IS NOT". Bye. Keep posting if you want to, but I've answered you several times and you just keep denying what I say. Fine.

No big loss, you never answer a single question.

You claim something is actual history and when pointed out that Islamic theology is not factual history you say it doesn’t matter as the only important thing is what Muslims believe.

When it’s pointed out you don’t make any attempt to accurately present what Muslims believe either, and you just present how you personally think people should interpret the Quran based on some your own prejudices, you run off.

An unfortunate effect of this grammatical to and fro is that verses written in the present tense remain so for all time, thereby making all 'current' Jews appear responsible for the alleged sins of their forefathers. Eventually, in what looks like an attempt to clear up any resulting confusion, and perhaps in response to Jews who did not appreciate being blamed for events of the past, Mohamed revealed verses 2:134 and 2:141 - "This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

Here you mix pseudo history with your own personal feelings about how you think people should understand have the Quran.

As it doesn’t relate to any attempt to present either factual history or Islamic theology in a reasonable manner, it’s just you shouting at clouds.

 

[stevecanuck]

Denegration of the 'People of the Book' continues apace:

- 3:64-68 accuse Jews and Christians of falsely claiming that Abraham was a Jew, when he was in fact a Muslim by virtue of being a monotheist. It is not explained why being a Jew would preclude Abraham, or anyone else, from being a monotheist.
- 3:69 - "A party of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish to lead you astray."
- 3:70 - "People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (Yourselves) witnesses?"
- 3:71 - "O People of the Scripture: 'Why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?'"
- 3:72 - "A section of the People of the Book say: 'Believe in the morning what is revealed [the Qur'an] to the believers [Muslims], but reject it at the end of the day.'"
- 3:78 - "There is among them a party who alter the Scripture ... they say, 'This is from Allah ,' but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know."



And there are people who wonder where all the 'current' anti-Semitism comes from. Hint: It's always been there. It's just coming into the open again.

 

[Link]

Denegration of the 'People of the Book' continues apace:

- 3:64-68 accuse Jews and Christians of falsely claiming that Abraham was a Jew, when he was in fact a Muslim by virtue of being a monotheist. It is not explained why being a Jew would preclude Abraham, or anyone else, from being a monotheist.
- 3:69 - "A party of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish to lead you astray."
- 3:70 - "People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (Yourselves) witnesses?"
- 3:71 - "O People of the Scripture: 'Why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?'"
- 3:72 - "A section of the People of the Book say: 'Believe in the morning what is revealed [the Qur'an] to the believers [Muslims], but reject it at the end of the day.'"
- 3:78 - "There is among them a party who alter the Scripture ... they say, 'This is from Allah ,' but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know."



And there are people who wonder where all the 'current' anti-Semitism comes from. Hint: It's always been there. It's just coming into the open again.

Peace,

I think Christianity centralizes about Jesus while Judaism centralizes about the Jewish people. Noah and Abraham existed before all that, so that can't be the consistent religion with God. The Quran argues the religion with God remains the same in all times, from Adam (a) till now, and so the creed of Ibrahim (a) was not about Jesus (a) nor about Jewish people being entrusted especially over all other people to carry God's teachings by virtue of being descendants of Jacob (a). The religion is more universal and true of all times.

 

[stevecanuck]

The Quran argues the religion with God remains the same in all times

Not at all. The Qur'an contained many specifics that were new at the time. And that makes sense because 'Allah' conveniently revealed exactly what Mohamed needed him to say on any given day.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that Islam's hatred of Jews is there for all to see.

 

[Link]

Not at all. The Qur'an contained many specifics that were new at the time. And that makes sense because 'Allah' conveniently revealed exactly what Mohamed needed him to say on any given day.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that Islam's hatred of Jews is there for all to see.

Yeah the specifics (details) change but the general archetype of the religion does not.

 

[stevecanuck]

Essentially the Jews committed exactly the same 'crime' as the Meccans - they refused to accept Mohamed and his new religion. Period. That's ALL they did, and Mohamed took them both out for it. Your religion is based on 'accept or be gone'.

 

[Augustus]

Essentially the Jews committed exactly the same 'crime' as the Meccans - they refused to accept Mohamed and his new religion. Period. That's ALL they did, and Mohamed took them both out for it. Your religion is based on 'accept or be gone'.

Again, you aren’t making any attempt to accurately present what Muslims actually believe, or making any attempt to present a factual reality based on a historical understanding.

It’s just shouting at clouds.

“If we assume Islamic theology is correct whenever it suits my agenda, but also assume Muhammad was an evil charlatan…” is a silly approach

 

[stevecanuck]

Again, you aren’t making any attempt to accurately present what Muslims actually believe, or making any attempt to present a factual reality based on a historical understanding.

It’s just shouting at clouds.

“If we assume Islamic theology is correct whenever it suits my agenda, but also assume Muhammad was an evil charlatan…” is a silly approach

Oh, look. Another ad hom. What a surprise.

 

[Augustus]

Oh, look. Another ad hom. What a surprise.

Someone who, instead of making a rational argument, simply cries fallacy based on their own ignorance of what constitutes said fallacy, what a surprise.

 

[stevecanuck]

Someone who, instead of making a rational argument, simply cries fallacy based on their own ignorance of what constitutes said fallacy, what a surprise.

LOL. Look up 'ad hom fallacy' and get back to us. Or don't.

Unless you specifically rebut (as opposed to simply deny) what Is say, I'll just let you flap your gums in solitude.

 

[Augustus]

LOL. Look up 'ad hom fallacy' and get back to us. Or don't.

Unless you specifically rebut (as opposed to simply deny) what Is say, I'll just let you flap your gums in solitude.

Again, explaining why you are wrong is not an ad hom. Perhaps you need to do some googling again

Saying it is silly to base your arguments on the premise “If Islamic theology was accurate, but Mo was a devious charlatan..” is not remotely an ad hom.

Essentially the Jews committed exactly the same 'crime' as the Meccans - they refused to accept Mohamed and his new religion. Period. That's ALL they did, and Mohamed took them both out for it. Your religion is based on 'accept or be gone'.

Muslims obviously don’t believe what you said, given they believe he was spoken to by God, was virtuous and his enemies violently plotted against him for their own selfish motives. Making arguments that rely on him being a devious charlatan make no sense in this light.

The other approach is an attempt to present factual history, but as I’ve previously provided you with plenty of information that shows secular scholars don’t uncritically accept the Islamic narrative as factual history but you have ignored it all.

When I do this you simply revert to pretending what you said is simply what Muslims believe and say it doesn’t matter.

Thus your argument misrepresents the beliefs of Muslims and makes no attempt to address secular history either. It’s just cherry picked polemic.

I don’t even think you understand your errors and just say things like LOL and OMG in lieu of actual thought, so I’ll leave you to shout at your clouds.

 

[stevecanuck]

Thus your argument misrepresents the beliefs of Muslims and makes no attempt to address secular history either.

Please tell me which events in this timeline did not happen.

Then tell me which events do Muslims believe did not happen.

List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Augustus]

Please tell me which events in this timeline did not happen.

Then tell me which events do Muslims believe did not happen.

List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Other than hadith and sirah, what evidence is there for any of those events?

Do you agree that while the Hadith and the sirah-maghazi literature might contain some elements of truth, they also contain many obvious fictions, were written down centuries after the fact and are significantly a work hagiography and theology rather than an attempt at recording secular history?

You always avoid offering a straight answer to such a simple question. Funny that.

What Muslims believe is only relevant if you accept their beliefs about Muhammad being the perfect human too. Creating an evil Muhammad based on your own personal fan fiction distortions of imaginary events makes no sense.

 

[stevecanuck]

Other than hadith and sirah, what evidence is there for any of those events?

Do you agree that while the Hadith and the sirah-maghazi literature might contain some elements of truth, they also contain many obvious fictions, were written down centuries after the fact and are significantly a work hagiography and theology rather than an attempt at recording secular history?

You always avoid offering a straight answer to such a simple question. Funny that.

What Muslims believe is only relevant if you accept their beliefs about Muhammad being the perfect human too. Creating an evil Muhammad based on your own personal fan fiction distortions of imaginary events makes no sense.

And you complain about me not answering questions.

Again:

Please tell me which events in this timeline did not happen.

Then tell me which events do Muslims believe did not happen.

 

[Augustus]

Then tell me which events do Muslims believe did not happen.

Let's see if we can help you understand this simple issue, eh.

Muslims generally believe most things in the more canonical theological histories. But they also believe Muhammad was virtuous, and his enemies are the transgressors.

When you start trying to explain Islamic theology using secular assumptions, you are dealing with history i.e. the "historical Muhammad". As such you can't simply cherry pick whatever you like from the imaginary narratives, and reject whatever you don't like. This is intellectually dishonest.

To say Muslims believe non-historical theological event X happened, but here is my personal spin on what would be true if we assumed imaginary event X happened but also assumed that Muhammad was an evil charlatan, is silly.

For example, most of your arguments are akin to the following as they are based on you remixing fictional narratives based on your own prejudices:

Muslims: Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on Buraq

Steve: "OMG Muhammad was evil he abused an animal by making him fly vast distances without a rest. What a bad, animal abusing man!!!"

If the night journey didn't actually happen, it says nothing about the historical Muhammad, and if you are criticising the theological Muhammad with secular polemics then it is irrelevant to what Muslims actually believe.

So, you need to criticise what Muslims actually believe, or try to criticise based on something that actually happened. You can't pretend that because Muslims believe the night journey happened, you can make up your own fiction about what Muhammad did during an imaginary event and doing so constitutes critiquing what Muslims actually believe.

Please tell me which events in this timeline did not happen.

Few, if any, happened in the manner recorded.

I've told you dozens of times, the Sirah-Maghazi and hadith literature may contain kernels of truth, but are largely theological fictions. Very little of it is historically accurate at the narrative level, and many events, especially those that relate to "occasions of revelation" are probably entirely fictitious, and were created for theological and hagiographic reasons.

Do you find it highly suspicious that theologians both managed to accurately record the most trivial details of Muhammad's life, but also that the same theologians forgot dozens of very elementary things to do with the Quran and how to understand it?

Why do you trust the narrative so much?

If you don;t understand this simple explanation try the following: The Bible contains real events and people, but is not reliable history. Asking someone "If you can't tell me every event in the Bible that didn't happen, we should assume it is a highly accurate record of history." it would be a particularly vapid line of debate.

And you complain about me not answering questions.

Now you have very clear answers, what will your next excuse be for not answering the simple question you have avoided answering 50 times. As someone who has studied this topic for "decades", you must know the answer:

Do you agree that while the Hadith and the sirah-maghazi literature might contain some elements of truth, they also contain many obvious fictions, were written down centuries after the fact and are significantly a work hagiography and theology rather than an attempt at recording secular history?

If so, why do you continually trust it so completely and fully when making your historical arguments about Muhammad?