Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[muhammad_isa]

Has nothing to do with what your trying to posit

What am I trying to posit? For some reason, you wished to point out that a large number of Muslims suffer from bad education .. I would agree with you..

However, I think that to be a 'cop out' . Ther are millions of Muslims in the world with a very good education. They are bright and have graduated in many fields. Your assumption that they have no idea about religious historicity is pathetic

 

[outhouse]

Nope since he gave credit to previous scriptures already

According to historian Welch,

The really powerful factor in Muhammad's life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God's will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling.[8]


Credit is all given to divine revelation of he prophet. And the plagiarized ideas were changed to what they call the correct version.

The biblical ideas were taken by islam and put into their own text, as indicated by the two examples I have provided


Carlyle's view has been increasingly influential ever since and contemporary historians tend to say that as far as can be ascertained Muhammad did believe that he was hearing the word of God


Divine source equals plagiarized.

 

[outhouse]

For some reason, you wished to point out that a large number of Muslims suffer from bad education .. I would agree with you..

Has nothing to do with you refusing facts and credible history.

You attacked credible historical methods. You have failed

 

[outhouse]

Plagiarism comes in many different forms. It can be direct copying, paraphrasing, or more subtly stealing an idea without giving credit to the original author.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Has nothing to do with you refusing facts and credible history.

You attacked credible historical methods. You have failed

I have yet to see one fact!

 

[outhouse]

I have yet to see one fact!

Pottery shards in Israelites first settlements after 1200BC are all Canaanite, archeological fact.


Fact after 1200 BC proto Israelites used Canaanite alphabet.

Israelites worshipped Canaanite deities.


Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites after the bronze age collapse. There was no exodus or moses, and this while not a fact is a certainty with no room for debate.

 

[use_your_brain]

Tabari clearly states exactly what it is. Guess I have to teach a Muslim what about their own religion

http://sunnahonline.com/library/stories-of-the-prophets/621-story-of-yusha-ibn-nun-joshua-the
http://www.islamiclandmarks.com/jordan/tomb-of-yusha-as
http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/joshua.html
https://books.google.ca/books?id=pmpSs_n3dNEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=joshua+quran&source=bl&ots=jhJTWGVzXf&sig=j_JbXYOkcGUi5HIJOqohP-uf4wg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv5cTo6bPKAhVH5GMKHa4YBQ84FBDoAQgwMAU#v=onepage&q=joshua quran&f=false



No it shows the Quran is wrong as Moses is clearly mentioned multiple times but is a fiction. It mentions the Exodus multiple times but it is a myth. Joshua is only secondary. Moses is mentioned in the Quran over and over as Muhammad uses him as closest to him as a reflection. Both were exiled, both brought a "reformed" religion to those that abandoned and/or distorted it. Both took their people away from the oppressors. Both conquered polytheists. Moses is Muhammad's template

Tabari is only the foremost expert on the Quran of his time and modern times....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Tabari
http://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Tabari

Just because you think it is a fiction it doesn't mean it is not a true story. Except you able to back your hypothesis with evidence.
I thought you would reveal the mistaken in Quran.
Tabari has nothing to do with the Quran. Whether his idea is true or not. Tabari and I are the same. He may say whatever he wants about the quran.
Try to focus only on the Quran.

It could be the guy with Moses was Joshua, but it could be not him. The Quran doesn't mention the name.

But can you affirm again what is your aim in raising the Joshua? does Quran tell the wrong thing about him or what? I am little bit confused.

 

[Shad]

Just because you think it is a fiction it doesn't mean it is not a true story. Except you able to back your hypothesis with evidence.

Its actually a theory not a hypothesis, more so it is the only theory regarding the exodus.

I thought you would reveal the mistaken in Quran.[/quote[

Moses tried as a historical figure when only a myth is a mistake

Tabari has nothing to do with the Quran. Whether his idea is true or not. Tabari and I are the same. He may say whatever he wants about the quran.

Irrelevant as Tabari is the foremost expert of the Quran. The only other person close to his is Ibn Kathir. Without either Islamic tradition wouldn't exist

Try to focus only on the Quran.

Irrelevant as exegesis from both authors is the basis of almost all Islamic scholarship

It could be the guy with Moses was Joshua, but it could be not him. The Quran doesn't mention the name.

Irrelevant as the only invasion Moses had a part of was that of Canaan. Both authors make this clear as crystal. You doubt Islamic scholarship and tradition which is dangerous as a Muslim

But can you affirm again what is your aim in raising the Joshua? does Quran tell the wrong thing about him or what? I am little bit confused.

My aim was Moses more than Joshua. Go to some Islamic teachers they will confirm what I told you about Joshua in the Quran.

 

[Shad]

According to historian Welch,

The really powerful factor in Muhammad's life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God's will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling.[8]

Credit is all given to divine revelation of he prophet. And the plagiarized ideas were changed to what they call the correct version.

Which supports my claim of belief in authorship not your view.

The biblical ideas were taken by islam and put into their own text, as indicated by the two examples I have provided

Which were references to previous scripture as per belief in authorship


Carlyle's view has been increasingly influential ever since and contemporary historians tend to say that as far as can be ascertained Muhammad did believe that he was hearing the word of God

Outdated views from 2 centuries ago. Besides you make a case for a delusion not plagiarism

Divine source equals plagiarized.

It also suggests a delusion just as much.

 

[use_your_brain]

Its actually a theory not a hypothesis, more so it is the only theory regarding the exodus.

It is because the historians or archaeologists merely rely on the tangible evidence instead of religious texts. When they find nothing of the evidence such as artifacts they would consider the story is the myth.

 

[Shad]

It is because the historians or archaeologists merely rely on the tangible evidence instead of religious texts.

No they use religious texts all the time. Many excavation sites are located by using these texts. The problem is these sites when found do not confirm the stories of the Bible and Quran.

When they find nothing of the evidence such as artifacts they would consider the story is the myth.

You forget there is evidence supporting the current emergence theory itself. So one idea has a massive amount of evidence which no one expected to find. The other idea people expected massive evidence but found none.

 

[Augustus]

You attacked credible historical methods. You have failed

Pot/kettle.

No one here has as much hostility towards credible history as you do. You have failed.

Plagiarism comes in many different forms. It can be direct copying, paraphrasing, or more subtly stealing an idea without giving credit to the original author.

Are you genuinely serious when you draw parallels between the use of ancient religious and cultural traditions in tribal societies with an oral history and contemporary requirements for referencing specific published articles in an academic context?

Even if it wasn't amazingly anachronistic, it is also fallacious.

Plagiarism does not occur in a context where originality and/or acknowledgement of sources is not expected, with 'common knowledge' or ideas that have no ownership due to them being part of society/culture in general, where references to texts are implicitly understood by writer/audience, etc.

If I say "You have a total inability to understand complexity or nuance, and therein lies the rub" then I am not plagiarising Shakespeare despite using an unattributed quotation.

From the Reynolds article you refuse to read:

Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

In such cases the Qur’an seems to count on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, by taking a liberty with the order of the story, the Qur’an seems utterly confident in that knowledge. It expects that the reader has the Qur’an in one hand and the Bible in the other...

In any case, the Qur’an exhibits both a familiarity with and an amicability toward the Bible. It is not the record of confused proclamations in a barbarous context where the Bible was barely known. Instead, the Qur’an emerged in a late-antique religious context where Jews and various Christian sects were arguing over the Bible’s proper interpretation. When delivering its religious message, the Qur’an counted on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible, and it continues to do so today.

Muslims, then, should read the Bible not only when they want to answer the questions of Christians but also when they want to answer their own questions about the Qur’an. So too Jews and Christians should learn to appreciate the intimate relationship between the Bible and the Qur’an, a text that should be recognized as part of the biblical tradition in universities and seminaries alike.

If you still can't understand such a simple point then there really is no hope for you. You'll always just be like the YE creationist in the science thread; blinded by ignorance and prejudice and doomed to make the same errors as you are hostile to knowledge and learning.

 

[Shad]

If you still can't understand such a simple point then there really is no hope for you. You'll always just be like the YE creationist in the science thread; blinded by ignorance and prejudice and doomed to make the same errors as you are hostile to knowledge and learning.

He seems more eager to put forward Muhammad was a liar, fraud, etc. then to even entertain the idea that he believed in what he taught as part of his own traditions.

 

[use_your_brain]

No they use religious texts all the time. Many excavation sites are located by using these texts. The problem is these sites when found do not confirm the stories of the Bible and Quran.



You forget there is evidence supporting the current emergence theory itself. So one idea has a massive amount of evidence which no one expected to find. The other idea people expected massive evidence but found none.

Except, the content of the religious texts was disproven archaeologically or historically, thus in this case the religion could be considered false.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Pottery shards in Israelites first settlements after 1200BC are all Canaanite, archeological fact.

That might well be true..
There you are .. as I suggested, you are relying on possible errors of detail in the Bible. As far as I'm concerned, Moses, peace be with him, could have lived millions of years ago!

Israelites worshipped Canaanite deities.

I'm sure that's true .. the history of the Israelites is not purely monotheistic. Much like the Arabs, they wandered away from what Moses taught them .. even when Moses was alive!

Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites after the bronze age collapse. There was no exodus or moses, and this while not a fact is a certainty with no room for debate.

You are confused by sticking to a certain timeline .. how do you know the ACTUAL timeline?

 

[outhouse]

He seems more eager to put forward Muhammad was a liar, fraud, etc

Not true.

I have stated a along muhammad was the collector, of these plagiarized traditions, that were TAKEN from the text of heretic christians and jews and the bible.

Context is key when dealing with historical details.

 

[outhouse]

you are relying on possible errors of detail in the Bible.

That's not even a methodology. You cannot reply on errors. The bible is not required to understand how cultures formed.

 

[outhouse]

how do you know the ACTUAL timeline?

Because of factual evidence.

Israelites did not exist prior to 1200 BC. At that time they were proto Israelites and still semi nomadic.

At this time only a few small settlements existed. The highlands of Israel did not become populated until after the bronze age collapse after 1200 BC. Then we see a slow migration to the highlands of Israel

 

[outhouse]

In such cases the Qur’an seems to count on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible.

Of course it does. The bible was known in these communities the koran text was written for.

They took the bible that they viewed as valuable and in error because they were heretics, and plagiarized the mythology redacting it to their own needs.


Its obvious if Waraka was a priest teaching a HERETICAL version of the bible in muhammads communities, that of course this heretical biblical knowledge was known.


That in no way addresses the plagiarism that took place.

 

[outhouse]

Muslims, then, should read the Bible not only when they want to answer the questions of Christians but also when they want to answer their own questions about the Qur’an. So too Jews and Christians should learn to appreciate the intimate relationship between the Bible and the Qur’an,

Rhetoric.

the koran TOOK biblical traditions claimed they are the true message from god by means of an angel to muhammad, and they plagiarized these traditions changing biblical text where they viewed it as corrupt.

Where the bible and koran agree, so do muslims. Where the bible and the koran disagree ALL muslims claim the koran is the true version from god. But we all know this was just plagiarized mythology.