Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 08:17 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 1498068 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 14 15 1617 18 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #450 - July 25, 2015, 04:40 PM

    Gabriel Said Reynolds is suggesting early dates could be valid: https://mobile.twitter.com/GabrielSaidR/status/623848140895068160
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #451 - July 25, 2015, 05:07 PM

    I read in Tom Holland tweet he admitted that it was a mistake (Sanaa manuscript that predates Mo).


    https://mobile.twitter.com/holland_tom/status/623750830450180096


    Any credible source? Wikipedia is useless =(


    Holland is a credible source on this, as is Gabriel S. Reynolds.  You are right that Holland said that the super-early dating of the Sanaa palimpsest appeared to be a mistake, and "almost certainly was."  But in his following tweet, he says that "but a few more 6 C dates, and people may start to wonder," followed by "there are lots of elements in the Quran that are much older than Muhammad ... the question is how did they get there?"

    That's a pretty good summary.  These C 14 dates are startlingly early and variable.  They may ALL be substantially off (I think this the most likely explanation myself).  But I do not think it is a simple question of 'mistaken dates' and 'correct dates.'  Rather C14 data seems to be very important and yet very problematic and variable.   Alba Fedeli's article will (hopefully) be published soon, and she seems to think that there is a difficult conflict between the paleographic/artistic dates of the manuscript and the C14 dates.

    It's important to remember that we are not talking about many centuries off ... we are talking about a situation in which 20-30 years either way would make a HUGE difference.  And are we confident that C14 dating in this specific context provides anything like that precision?  I would actually be rather confident in the reverse proposition, given how many allegedly 'botched' and 'erroneous' date ranges have been reported so far.  I doubt the laboratories are genuinely botching it that much; I think they just don't know how to calibrate/execute very well yet, and also the process of manuscript preparation is not well understood, and may affect the dates via incorporation of exogenous material used to prepare the text (in other words, older carbon-bearing materials may have been used to prepare the parchment).  C14 dating of manuscripts is a complex art that has been refined in certain areas (like dating of European manuscripts) through a long process of testing and re-testing different variables, with many known manuscripts from specific dates allowing a precise calibration.  In early Islamic manuscripts, nothing like this exists.  So to import the same level of confidence seems, as of yet, unwarranted.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #452 - July 26, 2015, 03:20 AM

    So carbon dating is not reliable >.> yet...

    Also, please take a look at this

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyquran.html
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #453 - July 26, 2015, 03:59 AM

    So Muhammad might have just stumbled upon the text of the Quran?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #454 - July 26, 2015, 04:14 AM

    No, it's not that he would have stumbled upon it exactly.  Rather the archaic versions of certain Qur'anic texts (similar to the short 'early Meccan' surahs) would have already achieved prestige in Arab speaking communities; these would have been closely related to Syriac Christianity (they may even have originally been composed in Mesopotamia and diffused westward and southward, which would explain the strange fact that the Qur'an seems to incessantly use East Syriac derived religious terminology, not West Syriac or Palestinian Aramaic).  Whether Muhammad himself seized upon them and elaborated them further, or whether other individuals (my belief) systematically used them to elaborate the idea of an Arab prophet, now associated with Muhammad, not entirely clear.  But that's the idea --- there was an urgent need to assert the legitimacy of an Arab prophet, and so existing peripheral Arabic texts and recitations were adapted, with considerable speed, for that purpose.

    The Qur'an does not, to my mind, look at all like something that an individual 'prophet' came up with, nor does it look like something that was composed from a blank sheet to exalt Muhammad.  It looks like a bunch of ancient texts and recitations were creatively adapted for a very different new purpose, probably in a different location and with some degree of linguistic dislocation as well.  To my mind, this implies at least two things:  (1) the archaic texts were very old, and already 'prestigious'; (2) there was an urgent need to come up with an Arabic 'Book' that could claim scriptural legitimacy.  That would suggest that the Qur'an could have been composed and codified quite quickly, which has been my thought for some time now.  In many ways, I think the 'long composition' theory creates more problems than it solves.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #455 - July 26, 2015, 04:33 AM

    So Muhammad might have just stumbled upon the text of the Quran?


    there was NO Muhammad in the history of Islam.  A careful reading of Quran (with or without additional corroborative  evidence  from hadith nonsense  that is related to verses in Quran ) tells me that this book was put together  from the Christian/Jewish/Arab Pagan stories that were available around Arabian peninsula of that time. And the book was written in the form of sonnets and songs with rhyming words in Arabic.

    Muhammad was hardly mentioned in Quran unlike Jesus and Moses., And whenever  Quran mentions something about "Muhammad"  directly or indirectly such as these verses

     
    Quote
    065.001 : O Prophet! when you divorce women, divorce them for~ their prescribed time, and calculate the number of the days prescribed, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, your Lord. Do not drive them out of their houses, nor should they themselves go forth, unless they commit an open indecency; and these are the limits of Allah, and whoever goes beyond the limits of Allah, he indeed does injustice to his own soul. You do not know that Allah may after that bring about reunion .

    066.001 : O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.'

    066.002  : Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise.

    066.003 : And when the prophet secretly communicated a piece of information to one of his wives-- but when she informed (others) of it, and Allah made him to know it, he made known part of it and avoided part; so when he informed her of it, she said: Who informed you of this? He said: The Knowing, the one Aware, informed me.

    066.004 : If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, and Jibreel and -the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders.

    066.005 : Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.


    it in fact incriminate "THIS MUHAMMAD OF THAT TIME"  you see in those verses as criminal character.. So what you have in Quran is   Multiple Muhammads.. A guy who acts like Moses  and  another  guy who acts like Jesus and third  guy who make rules for sex/marriage/praying and preying on women/ and......and burning infidels ..idolaters and apostates in hell fire.     

    that is what you have in Quran w.r.t Muhammad's personality.., Rest of the verses are either copy/pasted stories from other religious scriptures or simply some silly  polemic statements ...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #456 - July 26, 2015, 05:09 AM

    The Qur'an does not, to my mind, look at all like something that an individual 'prophet' came up with, nor does it look like something that was composed from a blank sheet to exalt Muhammad.  It looks like a bunch of ancient texts and recitations were creatively adapted for a very different new purpose, probably in a different location and with some degree of linguistic dislocation as well.  To my mind, this implies at least two things:  (1) the archaic texts were very old, and already 'prestigious'; (2) there was an urgent need to come up with an Arabic 'Book' that could claim scriptural legitimacy.  That would suggest that the Qur'an could have been composed and codified quite quickly, which has been my thought for some time now.  In many ways, I think the 'long composition' theory creates more problems than it solves.


    Hi do you have an article explaining this further?

    Thank you very much, wow learning a lot here!

    @yeez

    The problem is that you can't just make random claims without evidence, they won't believe it.

    Do you have any article explaining that position? That historical Mo is different from islamic Mo?

    I also find it strange that he had no kids from other wives, like what a coincidence -_-;
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #457 - July 26, 2015, 05:58 AM

    Quote
    @yeez

    The problem is that you can't just make random claims without evidence, they won't believe it.

    hello  Helaine - greetings and my good wishes to you.,  i read very few posts of yours  but  Whom do you have in mind when you say "THEY"

    Quote
    Do you have any article explaining that position? That historical Mo is different from islamic Mo?

     You mean "historical MO means Quran Mo and Islamic Mo mean Hadith Mo?".. well we just have to read Quran and hadith... As far as writing article to make them believe means...  Academicians are in no hurry in inquiring and publishing facts about these religious characters.. there job will be at stake    if they question authenticity of religious stories.. that  goes across the board for all religions..

    Quote
    I also find it strange that he had no kids from other wives, like what a coincidence -_-;


    Even the stories of kids with khadija or kid of khadija  told in hadith are confusing because none of these characters are mentioned  in quran..

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #458 - July 26, 2015, 06:29 AM

    carbon dating old manuscripts

    Quote



    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #459 - July 26, 2015, 08:38 AM

    No, it's not that he would have stumbled upon it exactly.  Rather the archaic versions of certain Qur'anic texts (similar to the short 'early Meccan' surahs) would have already achieved prestige in Arab speaking communities; these would have been closely related to Syriac Christianity (they may even have originally been composed in Mesopotamia and diffused westward and southward, which would explain the strange fact that the Qur'an seems to incessantly use East Syriac derived religious terminology, not West Syriac or Palestinian Aramaic).  Whether Muhammad himself seized upon them and elaborated them further, or whether other individuals (my belief) systematically used them to elaborate the idea of an Arab prophet, now associated with Muhammad, not entirely clear.  But that's the idea --- there was an urgent need to assert the legitimacy of an Arab prophet, and so existing peripheral Arabic texts and recitations were adapted, with considerable speed, for that purpose.

    The Qur'an does not, to my mind, look at all like something that an individual 'prophet' came up with, nor does it look like something that was composed from a blank sheet to exalt Muhammad.  It looks like a bunch of ancient texts and recitations were creatively adapted for a very different new purpose, probably in a different location and with some degree of linguistic dislocation as well.  To my mind, this implies at least two things:  (1) the archaic texts were very old, and already 'prestigious'; (2) there was an urgent need to come up with an Arabic 'Book' that could claim scriptural legitimacy.  That would suggest that the Qur'an could have been composed and codified quite quickly, which has been my thought for some time now.  In many ways, I think the 'long composition' theory creates more problems than it solves.

    Zaotar, if the quran is taken from ancient texts that could predate muhammad, then how could one explain such suras as 18, 19, 30, etc? Sura 18 is a meccan sura, but its composition is post 630. Also, referring to zimriel's post on the shoemaker article, shoemaker proposes that 19 is post muhammad. Sura 30 for example, has the byzantine victory prophecy. I thought that this prophecy is regarded as a vaticinium ex eventu, which places it post 628. These suras are meccan, which as i know, means that they're early, but they have quite late dates. How could this be explained if the theory that the quran is from ancient sources is true?

    "we stand firm calling to allah all the time,
    we let them know - bang! bang! - coz it's dawah time!"
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #460 - July 26, 2015, 11:33 AM

    Zaotar, if the quran is taken from ancient texts that could predate muhammad, then how could one explain such suras as 18, 19, 30, etc? Sura 18 is a meccan sura, but its composition is post 630. Also, referring to zimriel's post on the shoemaker article, shoemaker proposes that 19 is post muhammad. Sura 30 for example, has the byzantine victory prophecy. ..................

    what prophecy are you talking about kephas ?  this one ?

    Quote
    030.001: Alif Lam Mim.
    030.002: The Romans are vanquished,
    030.003 : In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome,


    That  "Alif Lam Mim Romans are vanquished In a near land, "  is a prophecy??...  what is the big deal about that  and did you get that from this fool Adnan Oktar of  Harun Yahya  ??

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #461 - July 26, 2015, 02:56 PM

    No yeez, it's just that i've read that the prophecy is proposed as a vaticinium ex eventu, and if it is, then it would be dated as post 629. And that it parellels other byzantinian "prophecies" at that time after the byzantine triumph.
    https://www.academia.edu/3822530/Apocalyptic_Prophecies_in_the_Qur_%C4%81n_and_in_Seventh_Century_Extra_Biblical_Literature

    "we stand firm calling to allah all the time,
    we let them know - bang! bang! - coz it's dawah time!"
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #462 - July 26, 2015, 03:51 PM

    Is it not possible that some surah are written much later, some much earlier?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #463 - July 26, 2015, 04:13 PM

    I think this article by Tommaso Tesei is new:

    Some Cosmological Notions from Late Antiquity in Q 18:60–65: The Quran in Light of Its Cultural Context

    Also by Tommaso Tesei:

    The Qur’ān(s) in Context(s)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #464 - July 26, 2015, 05:10 PM

    I am convinced by Tesei's position, which is a major reason why I think the dating is off.  But could Q 18-20 have been composed and written down around, say, 635 CE?  They certainly could.

    Generally I agree with Luling's position that there are distinct layers to the Qur'an:  an archaic, pre-Islamic layer (non-Muhammadan), a 'Meccan' layer, a literate later layer, and then a sort of relatively crude (from a stylistic perspective) jihad layer.  So Q 18-20 would reflect a relatively early stage of adaptation of older text, combined with rhetoric 'in the style of' such older text, and interpolations/modifications.

    Actually this sort of layered composition is absolutely rampant in Biblical scripture -- look at the books of Isaiah, or Daniel, which are radically composite.  Not only is it not unusual, it is practically the norm.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #465 - July 26, 2015, 05:45 PM

    New articles by Carlos Segovia:

    A Messianic Controversy Behind the Making of Muḥammad as the Last Prophet? (with acknowledgement to Zaotar)

    Response to Annette Yoshiko Reed, "Fallen Angels and the Afterlives of Enochic Traditions in Early Islam"

    The link for that Annette Yoshiko Reed article again:

    Fallen Angels and the Afterlives of Enochic Traditions in Early Islam
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #466 - July 27, 2015, 12:16 AM

    Quote
    In collaboration with the State Islamic University (UIN Sunan Kalijaga), in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, the International Qur’anic Studies Association (IQSA) will be hosting an international conference dedicated to a critical discussion of “Recent Trends in Qur’anic Studies.“ This international Qur’an conference, which will be held on August 4-6, 2015 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, aims at exploring major methodological and thematic issues in recent scholarly studies of the Qur’an in different parts of the world.

    https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/meetings/im2015/

    Interesting to see this conference being held in a Muslim country.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #467 - July 27, 2015, 05:51 AM

    Why interesting zeca?

    I live in Indonesia... they'll probably twist and discuss about how bad revisionists are... Won't be surprising -.-
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #468 - July 27, 2015, 10:02 AM

    Wonderful articles there Zecs. Although the first one is too wordy for me, the second Tesei one you posted yesterday is a great easy-to-follow summary of more or less everything Zaoter and others have taught me over the last year. Can't wait for the follow-up he refers to at the end; hopefully I'll catch that through you?

    Only significant omission from Tesei's article is any referral to pre-'Meccan' surahs? Unless I've read him wrong, Tesei seems to be saying that the Quran is multi-layered and multi-authored, which is cool, but that these layers start and date to around the 'Meccan' surahs...which is not cool. Is this an oversight by Tesei? Is it not more or less accepted by revisionists that parts of the Quran predate Mohammed?

    The first Segovia one is similarly fascinating also, and I am lovingly working my work through it this morning.

    Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

    Hi
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #469 - July 27, 2015, 10:16 AM

    Why interesting zeca?

    I live in Indonesia... they'll probably twist and discuss about how bad revisionists are... Won't be surprising -.-

    I don't recognise most of the names on the list but Fred Donner and El-Badawi are there and they're important revisionist scholars. I suspect a lot of it could be about resisting revisionist ideas but maybe the most important thing is to see Muslim academics actually engaging seriously with the arguments. By doing so they'll be conceding ground anyway, or at least that's my optimistic take on it.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #470 - July 27, 2015, 01:23 PM

    ...I am still a beginner in these terms and I'm looking forward to increasing my knowledge, but so just that we're on the same page about this (tell me if I'm mistaken)

    Revisionists scholars are like Patricia Crone, who don't think traditional Islamic narratives as told in Quran/Hadiths have historical basis right? So these people would likely be non-muslims, since muslims believe that the traditional Islamic story actually happened.

    So El-Badawi is an exmuslim of some sort?

    Yogyakarta is a fairly tolerant province (I just went there for Ramadan holiday, oo!) so I think the people who live there would be able to take revisionists approach well. However, by the virtue of being muslims I seriously don't think that they will believe the revisionist approach. I'm not even a muslim and sometimes I think revisionists like Crone or Holland are really way out of touch. Like, would people who devote their whole lives be able to take it that their whole life is a sham?

    Religion is very important in Indonesia.

    At the same time, Indonesians are probably the most relaxed, non-dogmatic muslims in this planet so if there's a place to discuss Islam without a riot, it would be here. Jakarta isn't good, but maybe Jogja is ok.

    Quote
    major methodological and thematic issues in recent scholarly studies of the Qur’an


    Well I hope they won't think revisionists are problems...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #471 - July 27, 2015, 02:10 PM

    As I understand it El-Badawi is a Muslim but doesn't accept the traditional Islamic origin story. I've posted the link before but this interview with him is worth listening to: http://newbooksinislamicstudies.com/2015/07/17/emran-el-badawi-the-quran-and-the-aramaic-gospel-traditions-routledge-2015/ This kind of position is quite normal now for mainstream Christianity, where modern bible scholarship is widely accepted. The question is how possible it is for Muslims to accept something similar for the qur'an and the history of early Islam. If this conference can take place without protests then that might be a small step forward.

    Edit: from an old thread http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27156.0
    Quote from: Zaotar
    Badawi is pretty good stuff ... he's about as good and critical as you can expect for a believing Muslim.

    I disagree with him in exactly the way that review criticizes him ... he still clings to the traditional narrative about the Qur'an's composition.  But overall, he's one of very few believing Muslims writing Qur'anic scholarship that's actually of much interest to non-believers.

    As Badawi points out, it's always surprising how comparatively flexible and critical the Muslims were, before they became frozen into theological orthodoxy ("inimitable Qur'an" with its "perfect divine Arabic" in seven Qira'at handed down straight from Allah).  There was a period when Muslims were permitted to think critically about their religion and the Qur'an, but it didn't last very long.  One can only hope that guys like Badawi will help bring some form of this critical attitude back.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #472 - July 27, 2015, 02:46 PM

    Wonderful articles there Zecs. Although the first one is too wordy for me, the second Tesei one you posted yesterday is a great easy-to-follow summary of more or less everything Zaoter and others have taught me over the last year. Can't wait for the follow-up he refers to at the end; hopefully I'll catch that through you?

    Only significant omission from Tesei's article is any referral to pre-'Meccan' surahs? Unless I've read him wrong, Tesei seems to be saying that the Quran is multi-layered and multi-authored, which is cool, but that these layers start and date to around the 'Meccan' surahs...which is not cool. Is this an oversight by Tesei? Is it not more or less accepted by revisionists that parts of the Quran predate Mohammed?

    Thanks musivore. I'm not an expert but I'm not sure there would be any consensus on parts of the qur'an predating Muhammad, and maybe a reluctance to stray so far from the traditional narrative. I expect Zaotar could answer this better though.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #473 - July 27, 2015, 02:58 PM

    I have listened to the interview. I still don't get it. I'm an ex-christian, so could you please explain this, maybe using biblical scholarship as an example?

    Quote
    As I understand it El-Badawi is a Muslim but doesn't accept the traditional Islamic origin story. This kind of position is quite normal now for mainstream Christianity, where modern bible scholarship is widely accepted.


    So what are modern bible scholarship beliefs that have influenced mainstream Christianity? That many things are not literal and most of them never happened/only metaphors? (Abraham, Moses, Noah, Solomon, David never actually existed).

    Quote
    Not a "borrowing" from the Aramaic gospel tradition, but rather the Qur'an contains a "dogmatic re-articulation" of elements from that tradition for an Arab audience.


    This is like the usual apologist approach? They think Christianity and Judaism are corrupted and Islam was sent to save the day? That Quran came to correct Christianity + Judaism?

    The only difference is that he doesn't agree with historical view that there were many pagans at the time of Mo?

    I guess he won't ever say it out loud but from his approach does he view the Quran as word of God or just as Mo's interpretation of Christianity / Judaism to bring them back to the right path?

    Too bad I live in Jakarta, want to attend this event especially because they would have Indonesian intrepeter Cheesy
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #474 - July 27, 2015, 03:12 PM

    Actually I think your guess is probably as good as mine as to how people like El-Badawi reconcile critical scholarship and their faith, whether Muslim or Christian. I can't help feeling there must be some cognitive dissonance involved. I've no wish to object to it though.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #475 - July 27, 2015, 03:45 PM

    ........................

    This is like the usual apologist approach? They think Christianity and Judaism are corrupted and Islam was sent to save the day? That Quran came to correct Christianity + Judaism?.....................


    Quote


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLEfGxsUETE

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #476 - July 27, 2015, 04:29 PM

    Wonderful articles there Zecs. Although the first one is too wordy for me, the second Tesei one you posted yesterday is a great easy-to-follow summary of more or less everything Zaoter and others have taught me over the last year. Can't wait for the follow-up he refers to at the end; hopefully I'll catch that through you?

    Only significant omission from Tesei's article is any referral to pre-'Meccan' surahs? Unless I've read him wrong, Tesei seems to be saying that the Quran is multi-layered and multi-authored, which is cool, but that these layers start and date to around the 'Meccan' surahs...which is not cool. Is this an oversight by Tesei? Is it not more or less accepted by revisionists that parts of the Quran predate Mohammed?

    The first Segovia one is similarly fascinating also, and I am lovingly working my work through it this morning.

    Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

    Wonderful articles there Zecs. Although the first one is too wordy for me, the second Tesei one you posted yesterday is a great easy-to-follow summary of more or less everything Zaoter and others have taught me over the last year. Can't wait for the follow-up he refers to at the end; hopefully I'll catch that through you?

    Only significant omission from Tesei's article is any referral to pre-'Meccan' surahs? Unless I've read him wrong, Tesei seems to be saying that the Quran is multi-layered and multi-authored, which is cool, but that these layers start and date to around the 'Meccan' surahs...which is not cool. Is this an oversight by Tesei? Is it not more or less accepted by revisionists that parts of the Quran predate Mohammed?

    The first Segovia one is similarly fascinating also, and I am lovingly working my work through it this morning.

    Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android


    That Tesei article is indeed really good!

    To address this quickly, there seem to be two primary schools of thought amongst the revisionists.  One is that the 'ur-Qur'an', or primitive Qur'an, closely reflected Muhammad's original teaching, and was written over by later Islamicizing tradition.  The other view is that the ur-Qur'an did not originally relate to Muhammad at all, and likely pre-existed him.  These texts were then adapted (one could even argue by Muhammad himself, or somebody close to him) to legitimate Muhammad as a prophet. 

    Tesei is in the former camp, and so he tends to explain the hetereogeneity of the Qur'an in terms of a relatively long Islamicizing period, with scribes sort of assembling what they believed Muhammad had said.  If anything, this is probably the more common view amongst revisionists. 

    I'm in the latter camp, which I think is the minority, but growing.  Significant differences:  The latter camp argues that the Qur'an probably formed more quickly, and that the ur-Qur'anic material had already attained some level of prestige at an early date.  Actually this need not have pre-dated Muhammad either.  It could have been a *merger*, with Muhammad being seen as the subject of a certain body of Qur'anic discourse that was composed by somebody else (probably in a different region, no less).  In many ways, this model actually follows the traditional Islamic historical narrative more closely, though of course it has a totally different explanation of Qur'anic composition.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #477 - July 27, 2015, 04:43 PM

    "I'm in the latter camp, which I think is the minority, but growing.  Significant differences:  The latter camp argues that the Qur'an probably formed more quickly, and that the ur-Qur'anic material had already attained some level of prestige at an early date."

    Can you please list some of the scholars who are part of the latter camp?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #478 - July 27, 2015, 07:51 PM

    I do not think any scholars have out-and-out said this is correct ... it is more expressing sympathy for the hypothesis that the Qur'an is a composite which includes substantial amounts of pre-Islamic material, likely related to Syriac Christianity.  In that regard, key figures who appear sympathetic to the ur-Qur'anic theory would be Gabriel Reynolds, Guillaume Dye, Manfred Kropp, Fred Donner, although all four are very cautious, and I do not think any of them would come out dogmatically and say the texts in fact predated Muhammad.

    In general, this line of thought does not take strong stances on the specific history ... it is more of an 'anti-historical' camp, which tends to regard the history of early Islamic origins as largely unintelligible, and instead focuses on textual analysis -- suspending judgment on the historical context and chronology, which (I think) is largely indeterminate at present.  You could call this the text-first approach.  As such, you won't find many scholars who provide insistent statements about how Qur'anic composition tied to real-world historical contexts, because the reality is that this model of composition is quite compatible with many very different historical contexts and timelines.  In fact we cannot exclude the possibility that the history rather closely followed many aspects of traditional Islamic chronology.  This does mean we have to come up with explanations for why early Qur'anic surahs derives so closely from Syriac Christianity, while still somehow connecting with Muhammad.  But that can be done; Tesei mentions a couple of approaches, but he excludes what is to my mind the most obvious explanation.  It's not just a choice between Mecca being seen as Edessa, or else Meccan texts being 'Christianized' in the early conquest era, post-Muhammadan.  The most obvious forms of exchange of religious ideas and texts, in Late Antiquity, would have been *monasticism* and *pilgrimage*, by which sophisticated and literate individuals traveled deep into peripheral regions, and in turn believers from peripheral regions traveled deep into urban cities.  So this interchange, I increasingly suspect, was an important mechanism behind the composition and diffusion of Qur'anic texts, explaining both how Syriac Christian tradition in Arabic became so important and also how that older tradition was changed and adapted to exalt a new Arab messenger.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #479 - July 27, 2015, 09:39 PM

    It seems logical that it is a collection, not of stuff mo said, but of various bits and pieces.  I thought someone had proposed it is a lexicon, a collection for teaching purposes, of a xian sect.

    http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/19589/sec_id/19589

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Previous page 1 ... 14 15 1617 18 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »