When do you mean "Used to mean" since in Biblical (OT) terms a prophet also predicted the future.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
No, in OT times prophets were the spokesperson for god, not fortune tellers, or anyone who predicted the future.
Nope. You should read the Bible or look at the gazillion web sites that discuss the OT prophets prophecies of the future. Or just look at the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid. Muslim academics clearly don't think so .. many atheists might, but that proves nothing other than they deny the existence of G-d
outhouse
Atheistically
There is no such thing as credible muslim academics. Academia is a global group of non religious scientific and historical or educational academies.
Not biased apologetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science
In the Muslim world today, most of the focus on the relation between Islam and science involves scientific interpretations of the Quran (and sometimes the Sunna) that claim to show that these sources make prescient statements about the nature of the universe, biological development and other phenomena later confirmed by scientific research, thus demonstrating proof of the divine origin of the Qur'an (and sometimes the Sunna). This effort has been criticized by some scientists and philosophers as containing logical fallacies,[1] being unscientific, likely to be disproven by evolving scientific theories.[2][3]
Wrong again on your assertion that there is "no such thing as credible Muslim academics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates
Shad
Veteran Member
You speak as if you were there
Either Muhammad, peace be with him, was a prophet who received revelations, or He is a liar...
Presumably you believe the latter. You must be very clever indeed to detect this fraud when billions of Muslims can't. They fear God and perform their daily worship .. all for nothing, apparently. Nevermind .. it keeps them out of mischief
Nonsense. Mo could of actually believed what he said was from God but it wasn't. People even today hear voices in their mind which they assume is God but is just a mental illness. You only present a black and white view. True or a liar. You never entertain the idea he thought the voice he heard was Gabriel was really a mental illness. There are more option than just the two you present thus you only present a false dilemma which is a fallacious defense.
Shad
Veteran Member
You confuse Muslim academics with Muslim theologians while the topic is history. History does not accept supernatural explanations so these academics that believe the Quran is from God are not part of the discussion at all as they do not hold to the historical standards used by other academics mentioned in this post. This is why their view has no merit in this discussion as they hold a presupposition which is rejected already within historical methods.
Shad
Veteran Member
I agree with his view. There is also a paper I read in which people views the movement as a force for Satan since it was causing the collapse of a pro-Chalcedonian state. Sorry I do not remember the paper but will link if I remember the source.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the parts of the Quran that 'only God knows the meaning of' such as the mystery letters or Surahs like 111 where the exegetes seem to be making stuff up to explain verses that otherwise make no sense:
In Chapter 111, for example, the Qur’an refers to “The Father of Flame,” who will not benefit from his money but “roast in a burning fire,” and his wife, “who carries firewood and has a fiber rope around her neck.” Karen Armstrong (a former nun and popular writer on Islam) explains, “Abu Lahab’s wife, who fancied herself as a poet, liked to shout insulting verses at the Prophet when he passed by. On one occasion she hurled an armful of prickly firewood in his path.”
Armstrong relies on Muslim traditions that make Abu Lahab’s wife historical, but without these traditions the chapter would seem to be an artful metaphor of a foolish rich man and his wife who carries the wood that will fuel her own punishment in hell. Instead, we are given historical claims of a Meccan woman who attacked Muhammad by hurling firewood (Armstrong invents the prickly part) at him. Reading the Quran through the Bible - GS Reynolds http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/11/reading-the-quran-through-the-bible
Some think these relate to archaic writings, others that much of Muhammed's early teachings were lost and later redactors compiled whatever fragments they could find. It's an interesting topic for discussion. Or perhaps God simply understood the rhetorical role of suspense and keeping people guessing so deliberately left them as indecipherable esoteric passages
I believe there is an element lost in history by the nature of writing styles and priorities of various authors. The separation of context and exegesis between Tafsir and Ahadith (people and environment combination) from the Quran shows a priority shift in methods and context development as Islamic tradition progressed. I would call it an environmental blind spot in which secondary details can be lost just due to memory, focusing on a specific or in other words basic perception of the individual.
Augustus
…
You just said there are no certainties, now you are expressing certainty again.
Arguable historicity, not definite. The only source is Islamic tradition, and this doesn't agree on many details, such as was he a Christian, Jew or Hanif? Did he die before or after Muhammed's revelations started? etc.
You also have to remember that the tradition can't remember important things such as who the Sabeans were, yet 'remembers' trivialities such as Waraqa finding Muhammed aged 5. As such, people need to remain open-minded and avoid jumping to conclusions beyond that which can be supported by evidence
The problem is that you seem to be getting information from anti-Islam websites rather than academic sources, and are taking their polemical arguments as being fact. You also seem to have a need for certainty and have repeatedly rejected 'we don't really know' as a legitimate answer, even when given by leading experts.
If you are genuinely interested in the subject beyond the superficial level necessary to argue on a forum, you really need to go beyond websites and wikis. There is a good range of articles in the Reynolds book I've linked you too several times, this will at least make you familiar with some of the more recent academic trends. Much more credible than your current sources of information, and much more interesting than simply 'Waraqa did (most of) it!'.
outhouse
Atheistically
There are no certainties tied to Muhammad and the evolution of the text that would LATER become the koran.
Waraka does have historicity as a heretic priest writing perverted Christian text in Arabic who had a life long relationship with his cousin muhammad.
It is not certain he taught muhammad, but the obvious is pretty obvious despite it not being certain.
It is also not a certainty how much of a relationship he actually had with waraka.
Again, it has to be noted these traditions were recorded a long time after his death, and the fact we have traditions tying them together speaks loudly knowing they are not going to record history even if factual, that would go against the tradition of Gabriel.
Augustus
…
As I've pointed out, he has also been described as a Jew and a hanif. Also a monk. The 'perverted' is also a bit misleading, if he did write anything it might have been reflective of existing traditions.
Now you are getting a bit better, although the 'pretty obvious' part is still a big reach.
Still, a few days ago you were stating it as absolutely certain that Waraqa taught Muhammed most of what he knew so progress is progress.
You should have a read of some of the articles in these collections, would find many of them interesting and it would give you a more rounded understanding of the issues beyond Waraqa. Check them out, lots of different topics covered.
The Quran in its historical context 1 & 2
https://serdargunes.files.wordpress...-historical-context-gabriel-said-reynolds.pdf
https://serdargunes.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/reynolds-the-quran-in-its-historical-context-2.pdf
outhouse
Atheistically
That is still my personal belief. If the traditions recorded are even close to what they are stated to be, then Waraka would have surely passed on or influenced him as a child.
Academically it is not a certainty.
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
That's is another word for heretic, it is what the heretical do.
Augustus
…
A heretic is one who is not 'orthodox'. Orthodoxy is really a popularity contest rather than what is 'true'.
I know you don't think mainstream Christianity reflects the actual teachings of Jesus.
outhouse
Atheistically
a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.
in other words perverting
outhouse
Atheistically
That is true. And they plagiarized the OT and Hellenistic mythology as well.
Augustus
…
They are 2 completely separate things.
A hypothetical 'Christian' who followed Jesus' teachings to the letter would not have perverted them - agreed?
This hypothetical 'Christian' would be considered a heretic - agreed?
Someone who holds older but not orthodox beliefs can in no way be said to have 'perverted' them.