Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Qur'anic studies today

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

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 01:32 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 09:01 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:53 AM
New Britain
November 29, 2024, 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
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 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 1500917 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 90 91 9293 94 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2730 - July 31, 2018, 10:50 PM
    Come to think of it, this forum would be a good resource for scholars.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2731 - July 31, 2018, 11:18 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on July 31, 2018, 10:50 PM
    Come to think of it, this forum would be a good resource for scholars.

      well it is resourceful   for those who can read it ,, but we have at least 6 billion faith heads who never read and inquire on the origins of faith....

    well  from that paper page 59 onward  ..this is interesting....
    Quote
    ....The rewriting of history and the forging of a new collective memory started right at the start of the caliphate of the Umayyads (perhaps even earlier), histor-ical enemies of the Banū Hāshim in general and the Alids in particular, at least since the battle of BaDr. An apparently systematic policy aimed at replacing the figure  of  the  Prophet  by  that  of  the  caliph.  In  the  process,  ʿUmar  b.  al-Khaṭṭāb,  the  conqueror  of  Jerusalem,  to  whom  the  messianic  title  of  Fārūq  (see  above)  was  awarded,  became  the  supreme  symbol.96  In  his  letter  to  caliph  ʿAbd  al-Ma-lik  (reign  65‒86/685‒705),  
    Quote
    the  renowned  Umayyad  governor  of  Iraq,  al-Ḥajjāj  b.  Yūsuf  (d.  95/714)  declares  that  the  caliph  is  superior  to  the  prophet-messenger  (rasūl)  because  in  the  eyes  of  God  he  fulfils  a  more  important  role  in  realizing  God’s will



    Quote
    Likewise the initiative of the constitution of an official corpus of Ḥadith of the same nature is undertaken mostly in the entourage of ʿAbd al-Malik and of the court scholar Ibn  Shihāb  al-Zuhrī  (d.124/742).99  Being  the  clever  politician  he  was,  Muʿāwiya,  based in Syria – a largely Christian country – had adopted a strongly pro-Chris-tian  attitude  and  policy  
    Quote
    (nevertheless  without  any  reference  to  the  Qurʾān,  nor ʿAlī the Messiah 61to Muḥammad or Jesus, nor to any other prophet), recovering by the same token the “Judeo-Christian tendency” of the message of Muḥammad and of his first fol-lowers while attempting to conceal the messianic dimension of the latter, largely maintained in Alid circles.


    100 That is most probably the reason why he is without question the heavily incensed hero of most Syriac chronicles of the period that, in order to probably go in the direction of Umayyad propaganda, remove ʿAlī from the  list  of  Arab  “kings”  after  Muḥammad.

    101  With  ʿAbd  al-Malik,  yet  again,  the  process of “de-Messianization” becomes decisive. The figure of Muḥammad as the holiest and last of the prophets is rehabilitated and at the same time his message, originally   “universalistic”,   gathering   the   other   monotheists   called   Faithful   (muʾminūn)  is  now  strongly  Arabized,  its  differences  and  soon  its  superiority  in  relation to Judaism and Christianity valorized, and his followers called Muslims (muslimūn). Supreme symbols of the instauration of the new Arab religion are, on the one hand, the construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the compi-lation of an officially sanctioned Qurʾān by ʿUthmān, now declared independent of  Jewish  and  Christian  scriptures  and  as  the  book  of  the  Muslims  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sacralization  of  the  Arab  cities  of  Mecca  and  Medina.

    102  Jesus  becomes a prophet who is almost identical to the other ones in the Qurʾān which, in  the  words  of  Alfred-Louis  de  Prémare:  “had  been  from  beginning  to  end controlled by the Umayyad family, from ʿUthmān to ʿAbd al-Malik via Muʿāwiya and Marwān”.


    well He being Shiat Muslim Scholar writes Shia Islamic side story...
    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 #2732 - August 01, 2018, 08:36 AM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1024418877764190208
    Quote
    (T-S 16.353) A 9th- or 10th-century copy of a letter ascribed the prophet Muḥammad and reputedly copied down by ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib addressed to the Jews of Khaybar and Maqna.

    Quote
    The Geniza fragment does not claim to be the original letter; indeed, there are many manifest forgeries claiming to be the original letter of Muḥammad sent to this or that ruler/patriarch/magnate/etc.  Such legends are legion in the literary sources--

    Most s r assumed to be dubious by modern scholars. However, perhaps we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps there exists another "constitution of Medina/ummah document" out in these texts (accepted by revisionists and on revisionists alike)?

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2733 - August 01, 2018, 10:35 AM
    Quote
    Most s r assumed to be dubious by modern scholars. However, perhaps we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps there exists another "constitution of Medina/ummah document" out in these texts (accepted by revisionists and on revisionists alike)?


    Hahaha! Poor revisionists ...They're trapped...

    Accepting : "Muhammad" in "Mecca"/"Medina"/"Zem-Zem"/"Kaba" is to be badly crushed like that...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2734 - August 01, 2018, 10:44 AM
    Altara - Do you know who Jacqueline Genot-Bismuth is? She had an interesting take on Q 2:135 and 3:67.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2735 - August 01, 2018, 10:45 AM
    Altara - what’s your view of the ‘constitution of Medina’?
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2736 - August 01, 2018, 12:29 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 01, 2018, 10:44 AM
    Altara - Do you know who Jacqueline Genot-Bismuth is? She had an interesting take on Q 2:135 and 3:67.


    Yes I know her, she's heavily cited by Gallez. But I do not know what she said about what you say.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2737 - August 01, 2018, 12:33 PM
    Here is how Gallez presents her view on Q 2:135 and 3:67:

    Quote
    The two verses say that Abraham was not a Jew since he was himself the father of the Jews, and that those, relying on their election, did not remain faithful to the religion of their forefather who submitted to God (muslim). The same idea is present in the gospels (for example in Mt 3:9 and Lk 3:8), but here the affirmation is quite ironic as Abraham is presented as model of the hanîf. To grasp the scope of the anti-Jewish polemic pervasive in the Koran but antedating its written form, we need to know that in the Talmud-s, the term hanef means herectic, an equivalent of mîn. By presenting Abraham as a kind of “heretic who submitted to God”, Jacqueline Genot (+ 2004) explained, those two verses turn back against Judaism the Judaic condemnation of those they themselves deem heretic – in particular those whom patristic tradition calls the Nazarenes: if we are heretics, they say, then Abraham was heretic before us: you are the unfaithful heretics!


    Her interpretation actually makes a lot of sense. It also fits very nicely with Gallez's meta-thesis or, at the very least, his suggestion (following Antoine Moussali) that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are interpolations.
     
    Édouard-Marie Gallez, “Gens du Livre” et Nazaréens dans le Coran: qui sont les premiers et a quell titre les second en font-ils partie? Oriens Christianus 2008; 92: 174–186.

    The quote from Gallez comes from the English translation of his article in French (referenced above), which you can access here: http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Ahl-al-Kitab_people-of-the-book.htm

    My fascination with Gallez's thesis has no limit. Following his master Moussali, Gallez argues in a very convincing fashion that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are indeed later addition to the Quran by the Umayyad Caliphs. Among the many potential interpolation suggested by scholars, this makes the most sense.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2738 - August 01, 2018, 12:39 PM
    Quote from: zeca on August 01, 2018, 10:45 AM
    Altara - what’s your view of the ‘constitution of Medina’?


    1/Invented from the Quranic text because it was needed as it deals with many topics of 8th and 9th c. Muslim power.
    2/Of same importance it is needed as well to "recount" the adventures of the "prophet" who is at the origin of the corpus.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2739 - August 01, 2018, 12:40 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 01, 2018, 12:33 PM
    Here is how Gallez presents her view on Q 2:135 and 3:67:

    Her interpretation actually makes a lot of sense. It also fits very nicely with Gallez's meta-thesis or, at the very least, his suggestion (following Antoine Moussali) that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are interpolations.
     


    You have the reference in Gallez?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2740 - August 01, 2018, 12:46 PM
    I have updated my previous comment, dear Altara. You can the reference(s) there.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2741 - August 01, 2018, 01:15 PM
    Quote from: Altara on August 01, 2018, 10:35 AM
    Hahaha! Poor revisionists ...They're trapped...

    Accepting : "Muhammad" in "Mecca"/"Medina"/"Zem-Zem"/"Kaba" is to be badly crushed like that...

     Altara says on THE TITS AND BITS OF THAT GUY  Professor, Historian, Orientalist from  OhioState University ....  well let me put that tit and more from him
    Quote
    Most s r assumed to be dubious by modern scholars. However, perhaps we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps there exists another "constitution of Medina/ummah document" out in these texts (accepted by revisionists and on revisionists alike)?

    WHAT BABY WHAT WATER?? RUBBISH...

     Sean must realize there was NO BABY.. it was doll and it was made by those converters and inverters who moved in to Islam .. .....RASCALS drink juice  and move  in to Islam for LOOT & BOOTY or to protect their ancestral wealth/loot booty made  a  doll out of simple faith of a simple preacher.....

    any way it is good to have these pics from Sean tits...

     

    well on that pic Sean  uses that statement  "we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater "
    Quote
    Quote
    shahanSean : (T-S 16.353) A 9th- or 10th-century copy of a letter ascribed the prophet Muḥammad and reputedly copied down by ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib addressed to the Jews of Khaybar and Maqna.

    The letter is preserved in Judeo-Arabic (i.e., Arabic written in Hebrew letters) on a fragment discovered in the Cairo Geniza corpus; the fragment was first published, edited, and translated by Hartwig Hirschfeld in 1903.  See:   The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge by Hartwig Hirschfeld The Jewish Quarterly Review Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jan., 1903), pp. 167-181

     
    NOTHING IS UNQUESTIONABLE is the basic parameter that must be used to explore history of the old world faith heads ..


    *************************************************************************
    http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/
    https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000639632
    ***************************************************************************
    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 #2742 - August 01, 2018, 01:49 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 01, 2018, 12:33 PM
    Here is how Gallez presents her view on Q 2:135 and 3:67:

    Her interpretation actually makes a lot of sense. It also fits very nicely with Gallez's meta-thesis or, at the very least, his suggestion (following Antoine Moussali) that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are interpolations.
     
    Édouard-Marie Gallez, “Gens du Livre” et Nazaréens dans le Coran: qui sont les premiers et a quell titre les second en font-ils partie? Oriens Christianus 2008; 92: 174–186.

    The quote from Gallez comes from the English translation of his article in French (referenced above), which you can access here: http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Ahl-al-Kitab_people-of-the-book.htm

    My fascination with Gallez's thesis has no limit. Following his master Moussali, Gallez argues in a very convincing fashion that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are indeed later addition to the Quran by the Umayyad Caliphs. Among the many potential interpolation suggested by scholars, this makes the most sense.


    There's important thing to note here. That Gallez deals with hard and difficult things.
    I think he's wrong when he states :

    Quote
    From the outset, the problem around the term nasârâ-Nazarene is weighty. Christians never called themselves Nazarenes (except roughly during the ten years that followed Pentecost): what they have been called and have called themselves is Messians (Messianic), i.e. khristianoi-Christians in the Greco-Latin Empire, and its equivalent mešîhâyê in Aramean (and the Persian Empire).


    I (already...) said that "nasara" is the arabic transcription of syriac  "nasrayé" which means "Christian" in Iraq in the Persians mouth. For me, that demolishes the theory of Gallez. We know that "nasara" means "Christian" because of Q, 9,30 and because of the Persians of Iraq which ruled them. If the Quranic meaning can be ambiguous, the Persians one is not : Christian.
    Then we have to deal with the ambiguous use of "nasara" in the Quran what does Gallez in responding that "nasara" is not "Christian", that it is a mention of another group that he holds as the authors of the Quran. What of  Q 9,30 then?  An interpolation?

    He states :
    Quote
    Surahs were designed to convince: they were composed in a perfectly clear and coherent oral style. It was the successive manipulations that made them often obscure and incoherent, to the point that they are no longer truly read: one looks at the text not in term of what is written but in terms of the Islamic dogma and the more recent commentaries.


    For him, the only solution is "interpolations" to make exists his another group "nasara". Why not? But I hold that for the Persians, "nasara" is Christian. Who is wrong? The Persians, or Gallez? I really think that the work done by Brelaud (academia) and F.BC is convincing about that stuff. Really. And that Gallez is wrong on this. As it is one pillar of his thesis, it'll be difficult to admit for him, I could really understand that, he has done a monumental work (cf Moezzi) but errare humanum est, persevare diabolicum!




     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2743 - August 01, 2018, 02:50 PM
    For someone who always emphasizes the importance of the Syriac substratum of the Quran (as he does in this article as well), I find it very peculiar that Gallez did not realize - assuming you are correct - that, the word Nazoreans comes from the Syriac nasraye; and that this word designated ordinary Trinitarian Christians in Iraq in accordance with the Persian tongue. 

    Your point about Q 9:30 is, like the previous one, is very significant and indeed a strong objection to Gallez's meta-thesis. But, to be fair, Gallez has a response. Similarly to Dye, Gallez thinks that the Quran is a layered text. Q 9:30 is part of the later layers and does not fit the previous usage of the term Nazoreans, as it was certainly added in the context of an already existing Arab empire. A parallel can be drawn with Luling and Luxenberg's thesis. Both agree that the earliest layers of the Quran was very much Christian, despite several verses at first sight indicating a non-Christian book.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2744 - August 01, 2018, 03:14 PM
    I also have a response to the Kirdir inscription. Actually, there are two possible interpretations of the inscription.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2745 - August 01, 2018, 03:54 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 01, 2018, 02:50 PM
    For someone who always emphasizes the importance of the Syriac substratum of the Quran (as he does in this article as well), I find it very peculiar that Gallez did not realize - assuming you are correct - that, the word Nazoreans comes from the Syriac nasraye; and that this word designated ordinary Trinitarian Christians in Iraq in accordance with the Persian tongue. 


    Because it is a pillar of its thesis.The word "nasara", not Nazoreans. via the syriac word employed by the Persians.

    Quote
    Your point about Q 9:30 is, like the previous one, is very significant and indeed a strong objection to Gallez's meta-thesis. But, to be fair, Gallez has a response. Similarly to Dye, Gallez thinks that the Quran is a layered text. Q 9:30 is part of the later layers and does not fit the previous usage of the term Nazoreans, as it was certainly added in the context of an already existing Arab empire. A parallel can be drawn with Luling and Luxenberg's thesis. Both agree that the earliest layers of the Quran was very much Christian, despite several verses at first sight indicating a non-Christian book.


    That the Quran have known many interpolations yes. Dye has shown in
    "Réflexions méthodologiques sur la « rhétorique coranique »" that the end of many sura have been added and are interpolations. Kropp has shown that the Quranic Arabic have been largely Classicised  by the grammarians. So I'm not at all against interventions in the text. But I consider that when Arabs arrive in Jerusalem in 637, they do not enter in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They build a "mosque" in the Temple Mount. Layered text, or not, I think it is significant ; they read Quranic texts (no codex) (leaders, chiefs, and their literati ) at that time and that is why they did this. So the "interpolation" of Q 9,30 after the conquest by caliphate orders, etc, is wrong.  You see, I take attestations of this build to set aside the theory developed by Gallez which is only because he need it to build his own thesis.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2746 - August 01, 2018, 03:56 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 01, 2018, 03:14 PM
    I also have a response to the Kirdir inscription. Actually, there are two possible interpretations of the inscription.


    Bring them!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2747 - August 01, 2018, 04:26 PM
    Quote from: Altara on August 01, 2018, 03:54 PM
    Because it is a pillar of its thesis.The word "nasara", not Nazoreans. via the syriac word employed by the Persians.



    Yes Gallez needs to show that his hidden christian-jewish sect did exist.

    Quote from: Altara on August 01, 2018, 03:54 PM
    They build a "mosque" in the Temple Mount. Layered text, or not, I think it is significant ; they read Quranic texts (no codex)


    Source ?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2748 - August 01, 2018, 04:34 PM
    From where they have the idea to build a "mosque" on the Temple Mount in 637? I think that it comes from Q 2,127. I do not see other reason. They're redoing what Ismael and Abraham did. It is even possible that they thought that the text is about is Jerusalem!

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2749 - August 01, 2018, 04:46 PM
    The architecture of the Dome of the Rock was inspired by the Kathisma church/mosque situated between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

    According to Muslim scholars, Q 2:114 was revealed in a Jerusalem-Christian/Byzantine context. That would be in line with what Altara said, even though he referred to an another verse, but still the same chapter.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2750 - August 01, 2018, 05:01 PM
    Quote from: Altara on August 01, 2018, 04:34 PM
    From where they have the idea to build a "mosque" on the Temple Mount in 637? I think that it comes from Q 2,127. I do not see other reason. They're redoing what Ismael and Abraham did. It is even possible that they thought that the text is about is Jerusalem!




    They built a place to pray (masjid).

    The fact masjid is translated as mosk today doesn't mean that that it can only be used for a muslim place of prayer .

    Why are they doing this ? We don't know but it seems strange that, decades later, Abd al Malik would build a church there (the dome of the rock).

    Therefore I wouldn't say that they are reading quranic texts because there is no proof for this.


    And yes the Quran is about Jerusalem, not about Mecca because Mecca didn't exist at the time.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2751 - August 01, 2018, 05:01 PM
     I remind that I talk of the first "mosque" build in 637 whose we have many attestations... The description is interesting, as the Arabs who enter, build the "mosque" right away. ( do not know the texts, easily findable on the internet...)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2752 - August 01, 2018, 05:08 PM
    Quote
    The fact masjid is translated as mosk today doesn't mean that that it can only be used for a muslim place of prayer .


    Yeah. Gallez emphasized this. Gallez reasons that the term mosque is anachronistic and that the term masjid actually referring to Christians who bow down in their Churches, whilst the faith is not pure. But Gallez was talking about Q 9:17-18.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2753 - August 01, 2018, 05:09 PM
    Quote from: Marc S on August 01, 2018, 05:01 PM
    They built a place to pray (masjid).


    Yes, Masjid/mosque = same thing.

    Quote
    The fact masjid is translated as mosk today doesn't mean that was the case before meaning that it can only apply to a muslim place of prayer .


    And?

    Quote
    Why are they doing this ? We don't know but it seems strange that, centuries later, Abd al Malik would build a church there (the dome of the rock).


    1/because they read Quranic text (2,127) and they REDO the same thing, as the Temple is destroyed.
    2/The dome is not a church...

    Quote
    Therefore I wouldn't say that they are reading quranic texts because there is no proof for this.

    Then give an explication of this build. Since you have none, it seems to me interesting to see in what they could have found an action like they did. In  Quranic text (2,127). If you have a better idea, of course, tell us...



  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2754 - August 01, 2018, 07:43 PM
    Quote
    Then give an explication of this build. Since you have none, it seems to me interesting to see in what they could have found an action like they did. In  Quranic text (2,127).


    Deducing from this verse that the reason why arabs built a mosque on the Tempelmount is because they READ 2:127 is a bit a wild step. Why do I say that:

    1/ Notice the brackets in the translation of the verse. We are dealing here with a dense verse. Could be that in 637 the verse was less dense, but then by consequence the reading would have been different and have nothing to do with Abraham building a mosque on the Tempelmount.

    2/ Isnt a more logical explanation that the Arabs, being an eschatological movement and believing that the Messiah would return once they conquered the Templemount (Gallez thesis, no?),and were indeed eager to do that to fulfill the prophecy?

    3/ I doubt that all these warriors were with their noses in the Quran. They just conquered Jerusalem! No time to loose, first enjoy the advantages of winning, because the end was near.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2755 - August 01, 2018, 08:14 PM
    Quote
    Deducing from this verse that the reason why arabs built a mosque on the Tempelmount is because they READ 2:127 is a bit a wild step.


    It's especially what comes closest to what we observe of what the Arabs do in 637. The rebuilding of a building consecrated to prayer, as Ishmael.

    Quote
    1/ Notice the brackets in the translation of the verse. We are dealing here with a dense verse. Could be that in 637 the verse was less dense, but then by consequence the reading would have been different and have nothing to do with Abraham building a mosque on the Tempelmount.


    1/ Yes. When I read the Arabic text, it does not need brackets ...
    2/  Less dense :
    Quote
    Arberry: And when Abraham, and Ishmael with him, raised up the foundations of the House: 'Our Lord, receive this from us; Thou art the All-hearing, the All-knowing.

     
    Why not. But, what's too much here?
    3/ I'm talking here about the textus receptus. Of course, we can rewrite the Quran, it is always possible...

    Quote
    2/ Isnt a more logical explanation that the Arabs, being an eschatological movement and believing that the Messiah would return once they conquered the Templemount (Gallez thesis, no?),and were indeed eager to do that to fulfill the prophecy?
    3/ I doubt that all these warriors were with their noses in the Quran. They just conquered Jerusalem! No time to loose, first enjoy the advantages of winning, because the end was near.



    1/Where in the Quran Messiah Jesus is returning? No matter how much I look, I cannot find that. Sorry but (for me...) Gallez is wrong. There's nothing like that in the Quran. Of course if it has to be rewrite, why not?

    2/ Warriors have leaders and chiefs, who command them.  Leaders and chiefs have literati   who reads and write to advice them. In all Late Antique society... Since Arabs of Iraq and Palestine are integrated since ages in this society. Academia offers many articles about that specific topic... I invite you to read them.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2756 - August 01, 2018, 08:41 PM
    Altara,

    What if you read the rasm, same clarity?

    My suspicion about the meaning is that I recall that for the previous verse 2:126 the word "baladan"for city can be disputed. Apparently (if I remember correctly, I dont have my source work with me), the meaning of baladan as city is not pre-Quranic semitic. The verse should be read as something "My Lord, make him a faithful boy", the baladan having simularities with a Hebrew word that I dont remember...

    But of course, if you say that the Arabic makes perfect sense and that there is no possibility that it is a hineinlesung, I believe you.

    But I really am not ready to believe that a piece of written  text on a palm leaf or a camel shoulder blade was the incentive to start building that mosque.

    PS
    Also there is no tradition that the house to be build by Abraham and Ishmael would be in Jerusalem. Plus the Quranic text that you regard as hyper inmportant concerning the Jerusalem mosque building doesnt mention Jerusalem. I see zero connection between that text and the mosque.

    I could understand that the first mosque ever built might have been "inspired" by this verse (understand but not believe). But the Tempelmount mosque???
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2757 - August 01, 2018, 09:18 PM
    Quote
    What if you read the rasm, same clarity?


    Magraye who is fluent in Arabic (I think...) will confirm this. There's no issue with the rasm here. About a building of a bayt (House/Temple, etc)

    Quote
    My suspicion about the meaning is that I recall that for the previous verse 2:126 the word "baladan"for city can be disputed. Apparently (if I remember correctly, I dont have my source work with me), the meaning of baladan as city is not pre-Quranic semitic. The verse should be read as something "My Lord, make him a faithful boy", the baladan having simularities with a Hebrew word that I dont remember...


    I do not know this issue.

    Quote
    But I really am not ready to believe that a piece of written  text on a palm leaf or a camel shoulder blade was the incentive to start building that mosque.


    A piece of written text is incentive to commence believing that a man is resurrected from the dead, right?
    As I say the narrative should be set aside, there is no bones of camels, etc. There is papyri...
    You still do not have an explication of the building of that mosque in 637, on this specific place... I have one. Enough interesting and related to what the Arabs do.

    Quote
    Also there is no tradition that the house to be build by Abraham and Ishmael would be in Jerusalem.


    Of course. It is often in ambiguity that the Quran talk...

    Quote
    1/ I see zero connection between that text and the mosque.

    2/ I could understand that the first mosque ever built might have been "inspired" by this verse


    It was on the place of Abraham 2,125 : maqāmi ib'rāhīma muṣallan waʿahid'nā ilā ib'rāhīma wa-is'māʿīla.
    Where is the place of Ibrahim? Miami? Or Jerusalem? In 637, Arabs enter where? I think you have the response.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2758 - August 01, 2018, 09:25 PM
    Altara,

    The Abraham story certainly has OT roots, no?

    In what location does the bible say Abraham left Ismael and built a house? Not in Jerusalem in any case. Even the Islamic tradition doesnt say that. Is this again a case of absence of evidence is a chance to imagine lots of things?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2759 - August 01, 2018, 09:33 PM
    Quote
    The verse should be read as something "My Lord, make him a faithful boy", the baladan having simularities with a Hebrew word that I dont remember...


    Waladan? The rams could not be read that way. Very weird. There is no waw in the verse. Please provide the source.
  • Previous page 1 ... 90 91 9293 94 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »