Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[outhouse]

Why do you think that it is reasonable to express that you are pretty certain without having read any critical scholarship on the issue?

read plenty

This whole thread you have avoided even giving your own personal opinion. You have quoted a few scholars that tend to provide the same non conclusive results. explain

 

[use_your_brain]

I can still stand behind that. Someone had to teach that community. And Waraka pops out above the rest

There is a difference between a certainty and pretty certain.

And its pretty obvious, he did not pick this up in a cave.



I'm not worried about who he sold it to.

Its a given the Abrahamic traditions were not kept in a closet, when the prophets own family member was a priest

What did Waraqah teach the prophet about? to be precise.

 

[Augustus]

That's only your opinion.

Nothing came from a cave.

There are more than 2 possibilities.

his whole thread you have avoided even giving your own personal opinion. You have quoted a few scholars that tend to provide the same non conclusive results. explain

I summarised the major scholarly trends. You dismissed basically the entire field as worthless without offering an alternative.

I've given plenty of opinions on numerous things although you don't realise it as you are don't appreciate the issues. I just have not stated that I claim to be able to say exactly what happened and recreate a perfect grand narrative. As I said, the more you know, the more you realise is still unknown or contentious.

Your certainty is only possible due to your lack of knowledge, not because of an abundance of knowledge. This is why you have a laser focus on Waraqa, rather than the bigger picture. You betrayed a serious lack of understanding by stating that the audience was pretty much irrelevant.

read plenty

Such as?

You just don't give the impression that you have ever read anything, are unfamiliar with any of the well known scholars or arguments, had never heard of 'Islamic studies', have misunderstood or ignored all academic material posted and have a very strange aversion to naming a single scholar or article that you found interesting. You also only quote wikipedia and dubious internet sites.

When someone say 'plenty' but can't actually name anything and shows absolutely no signs of ever having read anything, you have to consider it BS unless they can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Shad]

Why cannot God be verified?

No one has found such an entity in order to evaluate or learn anything about it. All "knowledge" of God are either baseless claims made by humans or flawed logical arguments.

 

[outhouse]

I summarised the major scholarly trends.

No you quote mined scholars.

You still refuse to provide your own words on the topic in a simple paragraph.

Muhammad was part of a community that produced and Arabic bible as if someone copied the bible into a different Arabic format. Fact.

I think you know your personal opinion cannot be defended, or you would you not hide it.

 

[Shad]

Muhammad was part of a community that produced and Arabic bible as if someone copied the bible into a different Arabic format. Fact.

No considering there are stories not within the Quran not found in the Bible, NT/OT but from other sources such as the references Augustus linked. Perhaps you should actually read what he links as you are guilty of the same thing. You quote a wiki as if it was not made by anyone quoting other material rather than complete sources. Heck you quote someone elses quotes of another piece of work. At least Augustus quotes the source.

 

[outhouse]

No considering there are stories not within the Quran not found in the Bible

You may not understand fully what I stated.

I never stated it was the only source he copied/plagiarized. We know he did other sources as well.

Do you understand what a fact is?

And if so, what part of the sentence above is not an actual fact?

 

[Augustus]

No you quote mined scholars.

I don't think you understand the concept of quote mining. The OP is a summary of various major trends in contemporary scholarship.

Quote mining is taking small sections of text out of context. They are practically opposites.

Other times was quoting. Using the words of others in context with correct citation to allow others to check if they so desire. As someone who acknowledges they have never read so much as a single academic source, how would you know the context anyway?

You still refuse to provide your own words on the topic in a simple paragraph.

It's not easy to summarise in a single paragraph, various competing views have pros and cons. That was sort of the point of the OP.

Muhammad was part of a community that produced and Arabic bible as if someone copied the bible into a different Arabic format. Fact.

Again this is you acknowledging you are unaware of any contemporary scholarship.

I think you know your personal opinion cannot be defended, or you would you not hide it.

I haven't seen you defend your view with any evidence, actually you have ignored the evidence.

I've already provided plenty of evidence in various posts though and also posted 30ish articles in another thread. So far you have quoted Wikipedia and when you tried to frantically google some other sources you managed to advocate a theory that has even been disowned by anti-Islam activists because it is clearly false. When you move beyond your wikipedia comfort zone you frequently make obvious errors, and you don't understand how to interpret the information in wiki simply considering it as the purest source of information on the planet.

My view would be that the audience is familiar with the Biblical and para-Biblical tradition and the Quran often appears to be a commentary on this probably serving some liturgical purpose; there appears to be a strong eschatological message; much of the Sirah and exegesis seems to have been filled in as there are gaps in historical knowledge and understanding; that the 'Arab nationalist' movement grew over time helped by their interaction with the Roman and Persian Empires and their key role in protecting the border areas of the Empires; etc.

I also believe that much of the historical evidence is ambiguous which is a problem of expressing high degrees of confidence in many things. The paucity of evidence means that many theories can be made to fit and I lack the ability to make many judgements as I am totally reliant on the interpretations of others. As such my views often change when I read new sources as they point out errors in other sources that I couldn't identify myself (such as issues to do with Syriac grammar, etc.)

 

[outhouse]

It's not easy to summarise in a single paragraph, various competing views have pros and cons.

Another excuse.

I've already provided plenty of evidence in various posts though and also posted 30ish articles in another thread.

LOL every single one you quote mined says we don't know or cannot know.

 

[outhouse]

My view would be that the audience is familiar with the Biblical and para-Biblical tradition and the Quran often appears to be a commentary on this probably serving some liturgical purpose; there appears to be a strong eschatological message; much of the Sirah and exegesis seems to have been filled in as there are gaps in historical knowledge and understanding; that the 'Arab nationalist' movement grew over time helped by their interaction with the Roman and Persian Empires and their key role in protecting the border areas of the Empires; etc.

All this says is they plagiarized the bible and other traditions.

And that the Sirah was created to explain the textual history

I also believe that much of the historical evidence is ambiguous which is a problem of expressing high degrees of confidence in many things. The paucity of evidence means that many theories can be made to fit and I lack the ability to make many judgements as I am totally reliant on the interpretations of others. As such my views often change when I read new sources as they point out errors in other sources that I couldn't identify myself (such as issues to do with Syriac grammar, etc.)

Which is typical of all history during this period.

Its the same exact way for jesus but REAL scholars still will provide their opinion and build their historical jesus anyway.

The only difference is Muhammad has 10 X the quality and abundance of evidence.



All your stating is the obvious, leaving out many certainties.

 

[outhouse]

probably serving some liturgical purpose;

You don't think this purpose is religion?

You don't think this purpose is to provide an Arabic version of the bible?


Both of the above statements are facts

 

[Shad]

You may not understand fully what I stated.

No you didn't create a sentence that covered your views properly. Nothing more.

I never stated it was the only source he copied/plagiarized. We know he did other sources as well.

Backpedaling. Although I do accept your correction to your view but not the claim of me not understand what you clearly said.

Do you understand what a fact is?

Talk to me about facts when you do not make statements in error like

"Muhammad was part of a community that produced and Arabic bible as if someone copied the bible into a different Arabic format. Fact."

You speculation is not a fact no matter what you want to call it. Consider that major parts of the Bible are not in the Quran at all you can not claim the Quran is copied from something. Talk about specifics not a generalization. If you did you would release that parts from other sources, have no known source and possible be stories made up by individuals, be it Muhammad or not, that there is no evidence for. Beside you are also ignoring parts of the Quran that contradict the Bible, for example age of maturity in Islam is not in the Torah at all.

And if so, what part of the sentence above is not an actual fact?

Already told you in a previous comment. Also that you speculation is fact is not an actual fact.

 

[Augustus]

Another excuse.

"OMG! He's acknowledging the complexity of a complex phenomenon that has limited available evidence with which to resolve the complexity! What a loser!"

LOL every single one you quote mined says we don't know or cannot know.

Once again this is you proving you are completely incapable of understanding any academic material. Either that or you didn't read them. One or the other must be true.

All this says is they plagiarized the bible and other traditions.

No it isn't. You just don't understand why though.

Which is typical of all history during this period.

Its the same exact way for jesus but REAL scholars still will provide their opinion and build their historical jesus anyway.

The only difference is Muhammad has 10 X the quality and abundance of evidence.

You appear to be completely oblivious to the process of real scholarship and appear to be hostile to the works of real scholars. If you had read any of them, you might understand what other people are discussing and why you are wrong.

You don't think this purpose is religion?

Do you understand the word liturgy?

You don't think this purpose is to provide an Arabic version of the bible?

No.

Both of the above statements are facts

Wy do you feel qualified to assert what are facts when you yourself acknowledge you have never read anything on the subject?

 

[outhouse]

Your weak attack on me was obvious. Its also obvious you did not attack the message in any detail

Muhammad was part of a community

Fact. Not up for debate

produced and Arabic bible

Also a fact.

Many verse were obviously copied, the abrahamic god was copied, moses was copied, Abraham was copied ect ect ect all rewritten in Arabic language.

They took the bible, plagiarized it for the cherry picked content they wanted, added it to other traditions and called it the true version of god, from god.

if someone copied the bible into a different Arabic format.

WE have an Arabic version of the bible. Fact

 

[outhouse]

No.

Then why did they take the foundation of the bible and rewrite it in Arabic language?

Why did they plagiarize the bible?

 

[Shad]

Your weak attack on me was obvious. Its also obvious you did not attack the message in any detail

I attack the message in a previous comment then pointed out you made a error as the conclusion.

Fact. Not up for debate

So what. Your argument is a non-sequitor. You ignore that being part of the community could also means he believes in what he writes.

Also a fact.

No considering the Quran is not a translation of either the NT or OT. When someone copies something they include all of the source, not part of it or verses not found in either. You changed you argument from the Quran is a copy of the Bible to "there Bibles in Arabic" You changed the subject without cause as a red herring in order to avoid substantiating your claim.

Many verse were obviously copied, the abrahamic god was copied, moses was copied, Abraham was copied ect ect ect all rewritten in Arabic language.

Go look at those verse you speak of, which you probably didn't. You will notice a lot of stories are different than from the Bible. Including the same figure but having a different story is not copying no more than Russel Crow's Robin movie copied previous stories because he played a shared character found in both.

They took the bible, plagiarized it for the cherry picked content they wanted, added it to other traditions and called it the true version of god, from god.

Back to your unsubstantiated plagiarism claims which you have zero evidence for. Lets see the evidence that Muhammad willfully deceived people. I doubt you can produce any as your claim is just an idea you hold but can not show outside of your mind.

We have an Arabic version of the bible. Fact

Which is not the Quran, fact. Do you understand what translation are? Translations copy a source from one language to another without altering the stories. The Quran has stories about Solomon talking to ants which is not found in any Bible. Thus it isn't a translation at all.

 

[outhouse]

Back to your unsubstantiated plagiarism claims which you have zero evidence for.

The FACT we have an Arabic version of the biblical god, the biblical moses, the biblical flood, the biblical Abraham, the biblical jesus.

Is all the factual evidence we need.

 

[outhouse]

Do you understand what translation are?

LOL I did not use that word.

I stated very very clearly, Arabic version.

ver·sion
[ˈvərZHən]
http://www.religiousforums.com/javascript:void(0)
NOUN

1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing:

 

[Shad]

The FACT we have an Arabic version of the biblical god, the biblical moses, the biblical flood, the biblical Abraham, the biblical jesus.

You changed your argument again.

Is all the factual evidence we need.

No it isn't as you ignore that people could actually believe in these figures within Arabia thus it is part of their traditions as well. Christians believe in Moses, David, Solomon because it is part of their tradition.

 

[outhouse]

The Quran has stories about Solomon talking to ants which is not found in any Bible.

Plagiarized text often contains different material then the original version. Ideas are taken, not whole stories when someone plagiarized content.

Maybe you don't understand there is a difference from copy and plagiarize