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

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
Yesterday at 01:25 PM
News From Syria
December 10, 2024, 09:35 AM
New Britain
December 08, 2024, 10:30 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
December 07, 2024, 09:26 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
December 06, 2024, 01:27 PM
Ashes to beads: South Kor...
December 03, 2024, 09:44 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 30, 2024, 08:53 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

Theme Changer

 Topic: Qur'anic studies today

 (Read 1509367 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 96 97 9899 100 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2910 - August 06, 2018, 04:22 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 06, 2018, 02:26 PM
    Oh! So you find the fact that many seem pleased by seeing said verses as later additions to be suspect?


     Afro
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2911 - August 06, 2018, 04:23 PM
    But why?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2912 - August 06, 2018, 04:24 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on August 06, 2018, 02:30 PM
    strange  .. many of you guys make Quran incoherent by picking a verses somewhere in a Surah..

    well that Surah-1 of the book was such a small one  ..let us put all verses and read again and again..

    Question to you guys ..

    why do we need to remove those words of verse 7(they are in bold).. they sound good,  they rhyme well with other verses ..  why do you guys think that they were added at later time in to that surah?

    well I say  who ever they are.,  THEY ARE ON TO NOTHING


    Cuypers thinks like you, Dye not.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2913 - August 06, 2018, 04:24 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 06, 2018, 04:23 PM
    But why?


    Why what?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2914 - August 06, 2018, 04:27 PM
    Why do you think it is suspect?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2915 - August 06, 2018, 04:30 PM
    Ha ha ha (positive laugh). Yeezevee does indeed have a point. Many scholars always portray the Quran as an opaque text that is unintelligible. His sentiments is similar to that of the German school in this regard. In responding to such scholars, Walid Saleh and Nicolai Sinai cited Angelika Neuwirth's now classic study of the so-called Meccan chapters. This is somewhat surprising coming from very skeptical revisionist as Yeezevee. I am of course saying all of this in a positive tone.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2916 - August 06, 2018, 04:34 PM
    Altara - I presume you agree with Dye and Younes in regards to Q 1:7?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2917 - August 06, 2018, 04:36 PM
     I'm ok about Dye end of sura ; he right on this, but the rest...Why they do not take the text as it is and need to remove this or that... it is interesting...
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2918 - August 06, 2018, 04:37 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 06, 2018, 04:34 PM
    Altara - I presume you agree with Dye and Younes in regards to Q 1:7?


    I do not now. I'm not convinced.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2919 - August 06, 2018, 04:41 PM
    Well, just like Dye has his reasons, which he has outlined, as to why certain verses are later addition, other scholars have theirs. What do you think of Younes' argument? He approaches these topics for a linguistic point of view. His other suggestion are very interesting. But I am not sure his argument is suspect?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2920 - August 06, 2018, 04:43 PM
    Quote
    I do not now. I'm not convinced.


    Oh! I see. You basically accept some of Dye's suggestions and not all.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2921 - August 06, 2018, 04:53 PM
    Yes. He's right on end of sura. There's no doubt for me, suffice to read his article. But the rest... Q 19,34-40, or Q 1,7b... I'm not convinced.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2922 - August 06, 2018, 04:53 PM
    Quote from: mundi on August 06, 2018, 03:18 PM
    Walters would say that with the code theory, one can distinguish authorship in a scientific way... The only requirement is that the text needs enough characters.


    The issue with Walter book is that it gets to conclusions that are in line with Gallez thesis. They obviously belong to the same entourage so you wonder if he isn't biased in his analysis though he pretends to use an objective tool. Different authorship is obvious (just compare the verses using rabb/Allah for example)
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2923 - August 06, 2018, 04:56 PM
    Quote
    The issue with Walter book is that it gets to conclusion that are in line with Gallez thesis. They obviously belong to the same entourage so you wonder if he isn't biased in his analysis though he pretends to use an objective tool. Different authorship is obvious (just compare the verses using rabb/Allah for example)


    Oh! How is Walter's work in line with Gallez's thesis?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2924 - August 06, 2018, 05:13 PM
    I'm not convinced in fact because removing (not the end of sura which have generally no importance) leads to the conviction of Segovia, Zeca, Dye et al. stated here :

    Quote
    Altara - are you proposing an early Quranic text that looks a lot like the text we now have, or something that was substantially altered, edited and added to over the course of the 7th century?
    A further question - would you see the early Quranic text as one composition, or as a group of texts that were collected and edited together at a later date?[/u]


    It is a paradigmatic question on which depends how you will understand the text. It is not at all the same thing  when you consider it as synchronic text or a diachronic one.
    I consider  (for me) that  what Dye did in considering the end of sura as interpolations does not make it a diachronic text.
    That is why the alternation proposed by Zeca is not the good one. It is much much more complicated.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2925 - August 06, 2018, 07:09 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on August 06, 2018, 04:56 PM
    Oh! How is Walter's work in line with Gallez's thesis?


    Some of his rationale and conclusions do tie up with Gallez's , look at 9 : the duration of the writing of the Quran

    https://www.academia.edu/31194818/Analysis_of_the_Koran_Using_Mathematical_Code_Theory
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2926 - August 06, 2018, 07:20 PM
    Oh! Now I see why Marc S meant. I just took a brief look at Walter's essay. At the very end he discusses what he thinks to be later interpolation in the Quranic text. Like others before him, he also thinks that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are later additions. In other words, we now have four (maybe more) scholars who argue that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are indeed interpolations: Antoine Moussali, Joseph Azzi (aka Abū Mūsā al-Ḥarīrī), Édouard-Marie Gallez, and Jean-Jacques Walter. Maybe they are unto something. Their arguments certainly make sense.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2927 - August 06, 2018, 07:21 PM
    Marc S - Thanks. Just saw your comment. Not sure if I am willing to accept that verse were added to the corpus as late as the year AD 800.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2928 - August 06, 2018, 07:41 PM
    Alba Fedeli - Collective Enthusiasm and the Cautious Scholar: The Birmingham Qur’ān

    https://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/collective-enthusiasm/
    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2929 - August 06, 2018, 07:44 PM
    Maggraye, Marc

    Quote
    Not sure if I am willing to accept that verse were added to the corpus as late as the year AD 800.


    Walters is obviously wrong concerning this late dating.  Easy enough to check some of these post 800AD additions in Corpus Coranicum and see that.

    But that doesnt mean that his work is not a good method to establish different authorship and later additions. Someone should build on it, refine it and see what it leads to.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2930 - August 06, 2018, 07:55 PM
    Mundi - You are correct. His late dating is untenable. But as I noted myself, the number of authors he posited is reasonable, and his suggestion that expressions like and/or [the] naṣārā are later additions also makes sense. He is certainly not the only one who has argued for that. 
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2931 - August 06, 2018, 08:08 PM
    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/therealsidky/status/1022435602178994176
    Quote
    Back with another installment of #QuranStylometry . In this thread we will explore the idea of redaction, expansion, and interpolation of the Quran. In a recent book chapter https://www.academia.edu/33620100/_Processes_of_Literary_Growth_and_Editorial_Expansion_in_Two_Medinan_Surahs_in_Islam_and_its_Past_Jahiliyya_Late_Antiquity_and_the_Qur_an_edited_by_Carol_Bakhos_and_Michael_Cook_Oxford_Oxford_University_Press_2017_pp._69_119 Nicolai Sinai asks how we might go about detecting secondary additions to the Q.

    Which side are you on?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2932 - August 06, 2018, 08:16 PM
    Stylometry:

    Sidky avoids the question of multiple authorship and tries to drown the fish by complicating everything.

    Like Dye said in his commentary, for some reason the authors of the Quran are not analysed very much.

    What would the reason be that Sidky doesnt want to address this topic? Huh?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2933 - August 06, 2018, 08:24 PM
    Mundi - Well, he does cite Guillaume Dye with approval. So, I am not sure if there is any problem. He will address the issue of authorship in another thread.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2934 - August 06, 2018, 08:42 PM
    Maggraye,

    Will Sidky address authorship? Didn't read that. But if he does, he will find a single author.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2935 - August 06, 2018, 09:01 PM
    Maybe. He did refer to Sadeghi's stylometric analysis which concluded that only one author is behind the Quran.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2936 - August 06, 2018, 09:03 PM
    Quote from: mundi on August 06, 2018, 07:44 PM
    Maggraye, Marc

    But that doesnt mean that his work is not a good method to establish different authorship and later additions. Someone should build on it, refine it and see what it leads to.


    I am not questionning his mathematical model but I think he has been discussing too much with Gallez instead of doing his thing with an open mind.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2937 - August 06, 2018, 09:09 PM
    Are they acquainted? He does not cite Gallez even once.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2938 - August 06, 2018, 09:13 PM
    Walter and Gallez:

    They both come out of the same frenchosphere. Yes, they must know each other.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #2939 - August 06, 2018, 09:15 PM
    Funny that he does not cite Gallez. Also funny that Walter's article appeared in a Inarah publication, considering that they (at least Luxenberg) envision early Islam as Christian sect. Walter's hypothesis would be incompatible with that.
  • Previous page 1 ... 96 97 9899 100 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »