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


AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
December 11, 2024, 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 1509835 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 99 100 101102 103 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3000 - August 08, 2018, 09:57 PM

    Quote
    I think that the writers of the tradition in the 9th century had nothing to do with the writers of the Quran.


    Of course. Therefore, the Quran does not date from the 8th c.

    Quote
    Gallez does not think that those targeted by the verse are Nazoreans, but Trinitarian Christians


    Yes.

    Quote
    then the only logical conclusion (to be rejected, of course) is that Mary should be divine too.”

    Of course.



    Quote
    In sum, and no matter the preferred explanation, the verse targets Trinitarian Christians and is by no means misrepresenting their doctrine by erroneously considering Mary as part of the Trinity.   

    Of course.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3001 - August 08, 2018, 09:59 PM

    Altara agreeing with comment in its entirety is an honor, ha ha.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3002 - August 08, 2018, 10:34 PM

     Cheesy
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3003 - August 08, 2018, 10:49 PM

    EDIT: not only is it an honor, it is a miracle as well, ha ha.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3004 - August 09, 2018, 04:49 AM

    Michael Pregill, Interlocutor at the Institute for the Study of Muslim Societies and Civilizations, Boston University:

    Quote
    On the other hand, nāṣrāyā is the standard term that was supposedly applied to all Christians by non-Christian Persians, at least according to the testimony of Sasanian-era Syriac texts; the possible derogatory connotation in that context is interesting when we consider the term’s largely polemical use in Qurʾānic discourse.


    Mehdi Azaiez, Gabriel Said Reynolds, Tommaso Tesei & Hamza M. Zafer (eds.), The Qurʾan Seminar Commentary / Le Qurʾan Seminar: A Collaborative Study of 50 Qurʾanic Passages / Commentaire collaboratif de 50 passages coraniques (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 136.

    For you, dear Altara.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3005 - August 09, 2018, 05:25 AM

    On the use of Nasraye:

    1/How did Persian Christians call themselves?

    2/What does it say about the author of the Quran? Seems to indicate a Persian connection.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3006 - August 09, 2018, 07:09 AM

    Michael Pregill, Interlocutor at the Institute for the Study of Muslim Societies and Civilizations, Boston University:

    Mehdi Azaiez, Gabriel Said Reynolds, Tommaso Tesei & Hamza M. Zafer (eds.), The Qurʾan Seminar Commentary / Le Qurʾan Seminar: A Collaborative Study of 50 Qurʾanic Passages / Commentaire collaboratif de 50 passages coraniques (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 136.

    For you, dear Altara.



    Yes, Nasara is Christian.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3007 - August 09, 2018, 07:12 AM

    On the use of Nasraye:

    1/How did Persian Christians call themselves?

    2/What does it say about the author of the Quran? Seems to indicate a Persian connection.


    1/Kristianyé (sort of...)
    2/Haha!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3008 - August 09, 2018, 07:45 AM

    Use of Nasraye:

    The strange thing is the consistency that Nasraye is used in Quran. If a recall well, there are different names for Jews, but only one for christians.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3009 - August 09, 2018, 08:57 AM

    Quote
    The strange thing is the consistency that Nasraye is used in Quran. If a recall well, there are different names for Jews, but only one for christians.


    Yes. There is one important thing about the Quran I cant tell here (but if I understood it, others can do...) which gives a response to what you say.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3010 - August 09, 2018, 08:58 AM

    EDIT: not only is it an honor, it is a miracle as well, ha ha.


    Like the Quran. Afro
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3011 - August 09, 2018, 09:08 AM

    Quote
    There is one important thing about the Quran I cant tell here (but if I understood it, others can do...) which gives a response to what you say.


    Can't tell here??? Huh?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3012 - August 09, 2018, 09:11 AM

    You have to discover it yourself. And to discover things, you have to ask yourself questions about the text.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3013 - August 09, 2018, 09:51 AM

    Altara - Of the two explanations I provided for Q 5:116, which one do you prefer? The verse being about the Trinity or Mariology?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3014 - August 09, 2018, 09:57 AM

    Repeat them.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3015 - August 09, 2018, 09:58 AM

    Every Aramaic speaking person of the region, including mostly Christians, but also Jews and Nazoreans, understood “mother” as a reference to the Holy Spirit, as it is still used today among Aramaic speaking Christians, such as Chaldeans. Support for this can be found in the writings of Origen and Jerome:

    “But in the gospel written according to the Hebrews which the Nazoreans read, the Lord [Jesus] says: ‘Just now, my mother, the holy spirit, lifted me up.” (Jerome, in Esaiam 40:9); “Just now my mother, the holy spirit, lifted me up by one of my hairs and brought me to the great mountain Thabor.” (Origen, in Johannem 2:12)

    Looking at the exegetical literature from the ninth century onwards, one notices that this crucial observation did not escape all Muslim commentators. Some, most notable Ṭabarī, Zamakhsharī, Bayḍāwī, and a few others, were well-aware that Christians do not consider Mary as being part of the Trinity. For them, the verse refers to the Holy Spirit and not the Virgin Mary.  

    Moreover, the word rūḥ (“spirit”) in ancient Arabic, just like in Hebrew and Aramaic, is feminine.

    As it is to be expected, not everyone is going to be convinced by this rather ingenious explanation. One could also, as some scholars do, interpret the verse as typical polemical text were the Qurʾān’s creative rhetoric is at display. The text is by no means pursuing accuracy, but rather, is intentionally being polemical, employing a reduction ad absurdum argument: “if you make Jesus God and the son of God, and if you say that Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but also the mother of God (Theotokos), then the only logical conclusion (to be rejected, of course) is that Mary should be divine too.” In other words, the verse has as its target the concept of Theotokos: Mary, mother of God. Thus, and contrary to the first explanation, here it is an issue of Mariology, not the Trinity.

    Other instances were a similar rhetorical stratagem is employed can be found at least two additional verses: 9:31 (Jews worship their rabbis) and 25:3 (so-called “associators” having “gods” [āliha]).

    In sum, and no matter the preferred explanation, Q 5:116 does not imply that Christians worship Mary by including her in the Trinity. Excepting the second explanation, the verse does not even address the Trinity to begin with. The Qurʾān came about in a monotheistic milieu. A Christian milieu, to be precise. Claiming that it misunderstood the Trinity in such an egregious manner is not only implausible, but impossible, and an insult to the Qurʾān.

    Sources:

    Édouard-Marie Gallez, Le messie et son prophète: Aux origines de l’Islam, tome 2: “De Qumrân à Muḥammad,” (Versailles: Éditions de Paris, 2005), pp. 74–83.

    François de Blois, “Naṣrānī (Nazoraios) and Ḥanīf (ethnikos): Studies on the Religious Vocabulary of Christianity and of Islam.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 65 (2002), pp. 14–15.

    Gabriel Said Reynolds, “On the Presentation of Christianity in the Qurʾān and the Many Aspects of Qur’anic Rhetoric,” Al-Bayān – Journal of Qurʾān and Ḥadīth Studies 12 (2014), 52–54

    Guillaume Dye, “Jewish Christianity, the Qurʾān, and Early Islam: Some methodological caveats,” in Jewish Christianity and the Origins of Islam, ed. F. del Río Sánchez (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2018), pp. 22–23.

    Joseph Azzi, Le prêtre et le prophète: aux sources du Coran (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2001), p. 169.

    Mehdi Azaiez, Gabriel Said Reynolds, Tommaso Tesei & Hamza M. Zafer (eds.), The Qurʾan Seminar Commentary / Le Qurʾan Seminar: A Collaborative Study of 50 Qurʾanic Passages / Commentaire collaboratif de 50 passages coraniques (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), pp. 260–261.

    Tor Andræ, Muhammed: hans liv och hans tro (Stockholm: Hjalmarson & Högberg Bokförlag, 2008).
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3016 - August 09, 2018, 10:05 AM

    Dear Mahgraye,

    I do no see any two explanations here, I see a redux article.
    Thanks to give your 2 explanations (in 4  lines?) without the apparatus
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3017 - August 09, 2018, 10:07 AM

    Well, there are two explanation. The first argues that the verse targets the Trinity and that mother is the Holy Spirit, not Mary. The second rejects this, arguing that the verse is about Mariology and targets Theotokos. In other words, according to the second explanation, the verse does talk about Mary, not the Trinity.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3018 - August 09, 2018, 10:29 AM

    What you think?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3019 - August 09, 2018, 10:35 AM

    Must say, the first explanation is just ingenious. Even those who reject it admit to that. The second one works as well. But I might favour the first one, since it is based on the actual text, and thus is the simpler explanation. It also has the support of some Muslim commentators. One thing these two explanation have in common is that both agree that the verse is polemical, ironical, and employs a reductio ad absurdum.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3020 - August 09, 2018, 10:46 AM

    What is a redux article, by the way?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3021 - August 09, 2018, 10:50 AM

    Must say, the first explanation is just ingenious. Even those who reject it admit to that. The second one works as well. But I might favour the first one, since it is based on the actual text, and thus is the simpler explanation. It also has the support of some Muslim commentators. One thing these two explanation have in common is that both agree that the verse is polemical, ironical, and employs a reductio ad absurdum.


    Ok. It is an illiterate "prophet" who have produced that in the basalt of "Mecca"? Or literati? What you think?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3022 - August 09, 2018, 10:51 AM

    What is a redux article, by the way?


    Well, your text, a small article!
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3023 - August 09, 2018, 10:54 AM

    Here you seem to ask whether Muhammad was literate or not. My opinion is that he was literate. The very story used to justify his illiteracy showcases that. But the Quran was most likely not written in its entirety during Muhammad's lifetime. So it is probably that others wrote this verse.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3024 - August 09, 2018, 10:56 AM

    Therefore no need to be "prophet" in contact with God.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3025 - August 09, 2018, 10:58 AM

    Maybe. For me, there is nothing improbable that there was a preacher at the very beginning. 
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3026 - August 09, 2018, 01:58 PM

    Quote
    Maybe. For me, there is nothing improbable that there was a preacher at the very beginning.


    Agree, there might have been a preacher in the beginning. Religion and support from God was very important when starting a military campaign.

    What I think is very improbable is  that that preacher's word would have been written down as we see in 5:116. A scholar type Jerome, Augustine, Originen could have produced this type of text from behind their desks. The type of prophet who was a warlord and a general might have produced some slogans but nothing like the Quranic text.

    Getting something "on parchment" would probably have been ordered at the local scribal workshop in a monastery wishing to make an extra buck. Maybe the guidelines were given by the preacher (eg something strict monotheistic, allow polygamy, put in rules of war) but that is it. De detailed text and worked out theology must be separated from the warrior/prophet Mohammed.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3027 - August 09, 2018, 02:50 PM

    Here you seem to ask whether Muhammad was literate or not. My opinion is that he was literate. The very story used to justify his illiteracy showcases that. But the Quran was most likely not written in its entirety during Muhammad's lifetime. So it is probably that others wrote this verse.


    well literate/illiterate state of a person  is very relative .. Suppose I say

    Quote
    "Mahgraye  is "COMPLETE ILLITERATE WHEN IT COMES QUANTUM MECHANIC AND  QUANTUM ELECTO-DYNAMIC " and yeezevee is a fool when it comes to string theory "


    I don't think I am wrong dear Mahgraye

    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 #3028 - August 09, 2018, 06:17 PM

    Marc S - You said that Florence Mraizika, author of Le Coran décréé, was in Gallez's camp, affirming the Nazorean thesis. But I don't think that is the case. Just like Luxenberg, she thinks that the Quran affirmed the Trinity, or at least the Divinity of Jesus, and that this belief was subsequently changed at the hands of later redactors by tampering with the manuscripts. She gives as an example an instance were the word “Mary” was (allegedly) added after the word “son” as to make it “Son of Mary” instead of “son”. What do you and the other guys think?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #3029 - August 09, 2018, 06:46 PM

    Yeezevee - I actually have a degree in quantum physics. Just kidding, ha ha. Your are right in this point. But it is very clear what Altara and I meant by the word illiterate, especially in the context the word was used. Once could say that Muhammad was not a learned man, as the story used to imply illiteracy indicates, at least what it sought to indicate.   
  • Previous page 1 ... 99 100 101102 103 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »