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

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
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 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 1492744 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 146 147 148149 150 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4410 - October 01, 2018, 09:35 AM
    Yes. Not necessarily.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4411 - October 01, 2018, 09:38 AM
    That verse is a Gallez favorite, ha ha. I kind of makes the sense to read it as he does (not saying it is correct), ironically.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4412 - October 01, 2018, 09:42 AM
    Yes.
    Quote
    Surah 5:82   You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.


    That is the fundamental point in his thesis.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4413 - October 01, 2018, 09:45 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on September 30, 2018, 09:50 AM
    I don't know. If Q 97 is about the Nativity why does the Quran say "hu" and not Jesus. Not sure.


    Then why would it be ambiguous so badly? Ask yourself the question.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4414 - October 01, 2018, 10:40 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on October 01, 2018, 09:12 AM
    Q 5:82 does not necessarily - going of the translation - include the Jews into the mushrikun-


    That is what I am saying. It does exclude the Jews from being the mushrikuns.

    Then, there is the issue of the christians and the believers vs the mushrikuns.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4415 - October 01, 2018, 10:55 AM
    Yeah. Taking mushrikun as a reference to Christians makes sense, them believing in the Trinity, and especially when they are contrasted with the Jews, their predecessors.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4416 - October 01, 2018, 10:58 AM
    John of Damascus also writes that the early Muslims called the Christians associators.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4417 - October 01, 2018, 11:00 AM
    Most scholars nowadays have acknowledged that mušrikūn are not actual of pagans, but some sort of monotheists.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4418 - October 01, 2018, 11:08 AM
    Quote from: Marc S on October 01, 2018, 10:40 AM
    That is what I am saying. It does exclude the Jews from being the mushrikuns.

    Then, there is the issue of the christians and the believers vs the mushrikuns.


    Nope.
    It does not exclude or not include the Jews from being the mushrikuns.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4419 - October 01, 2018, 11:17 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on October 01, 2018, 11:00 AM
    Most scholars nowadays have acknowledged that mušrikūn are not actual of pagans, but some sort of monotheists.


    Some sort of monotheists can be mušrikūn then?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4420 - October 01, 2018, 11:20 AM
    It is polemical. Monotheist calls other monotheists pagans all the time. You can see it today.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4421 - October 01, 2018, 11:39 AM
    Then when the Quran calls mušrikūn some sort of monotheists, it can be wrong? Then why (apart polemical aspect) would he do that?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4422 - October 01, 2018, 11:44 AM
    Not sure I understood the first question, but as to the second one, I can only refer you to the scholars who have written on this topic: Hawting, Crone, and Azaiez. Others have accepted their results as well, see the comments in Azaiez, Reynolds, Tesei, and Zafer's edited volume.  

    The term mushrikūn is thus - according to these scholars - only a rhetorical stratagem adopted by the author(s) of the Qurʾān to attack a group not considered to be “real” monotheists.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4423 - October 01, 2018, 11:56 AM
    Quote from: Altara on October 01, 2018, 11:08 AM
    Nope.
    It does not exclude or not include the Jews from being the mushrikuns.


    Not sure I understand what you mean.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4424 - October 01, 2018, 11:57 AM
    Quote
    The term mushrikūn is thus - according to these scholars - only a rhetorical stratagem adopted by the author(s) of the Qurʾān to attack a group not considered to be “real” monotheists.


    The Quran would consist in this then?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4425 - October 01, 2018, 12:00 PM
    Assuming I understood you correctly, I think the Quran is (maybe) consistent in its usage of the term.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4426 - October 01, 2018, 12:00 PM
    Have you read Hawting, Crone, and Azaeiz on this?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4427 - October 01, 2018, 12:00 PM
    Quote from: Marc S on October 01, 2018, 11:56 AM
    Not sure I understand what you mean.


    That the text says in fact nothing clear about the affiliation (or not) of Jews to the group he calls mushrikūn
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4428 - October 01, 2018, 12:04 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on October 01, 2018, 12:00 PM
    Assuming I understood you correctly, I think the Quran is (maybe) consistent in its usage of the term. A rhetorical stratagem adopted by the author(s) of the Qurʾān to attack a group not considered to be “real” monotheists.


    Does the Quran would consist of  attacking a group not considered to be “real” monotheists?



     
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4429 - October 01, 2018, 01:57 PM
    Different groups of litterati versus different authors with 1 editor:

    Why not go for different authors with 1 editor?  In the discussion plays

    1/ very high amount of hapaxes (12 000 out of 77 000 words). (compare to 686 in Greek New testament). I would think a single author or a close knit group of literati would have a common vocabulary with less hapaxes.

    2/ Quite some contradictions in the Quranic text. Again the single literati group would have talked that through. Points to single authors "doing their own thing".

    3/ A lot of repetitions, so no close coordination or task distribution.

    4/? (someone wants to add to the list?)

    I think above points to a bundle of collected text written by different individuals, edited as a whole by 1 or a group of editors.

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4430 - October 01, 2018, 02:17 PM
    Quote
    Does the Quran would consist of  attacking a group not considered to be “real” monotheists?


    I don't see any problem with it. Does seem consistent.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4431 - October 01, 2018, 03:06 PM
    Quote from: Altara on October 01, 2018, 12:00 PM
    That the text says in fact nothing clear about the affiliation (or not) of Jews of the group mushrikūn


    I would say 2 things :

    - in the Old Testament, Jews could sometimes be viewed as mushrikun and that would have made perfect sense,
    - now, at the time of the Quran, Jews were not mushrikun anymore but that could be the case for christians or pagans in general
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4432 - October 01, 2018, 03:07 PM
    Makes sense. Two similar cases could be given were a similar rhetorical stratagem is employed: 9:31 (Jews worship their rabbis) and 25:3 (“associators” having “gods” [āliha]). No one seriously thinks that Jews actually considered their rabbis to be deities and worshipped them.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4433 - October 01, 2018, 04:15 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on October 01, 2018, 03:07 PM
    Makes sense. Two similar cases could be given were a similar rhetorical stratagem is employed: 9:31 (Jews worship their rabbis) and 25:3 (“associators” having “gods” [āliha]). No one seriously thinks that Jews actually considered their rabbis to be deities and worshipped them.

    I would question that  "No one seriously thinks"

    We all must realize at initial stages of Islam "in and around Arabia all the way to  1000 AD or so" ... many folks ..Jews..Christians.... Pagans... and even those under  that Roman Arabia

     

    ...the so-called "Diocese of the East"  around 5th century converted to Islam .  And some of these converts who were well versed with the Abrahamic faiths  could accuse Jewish folks and Christian folks .... WRITE  SONGS.... PREACH THEIR ISLAM  BY ACCUSING . "THAT THESE JEWS & CHRISTIANS CONSIDER THEIR RABBIS OR THEIR PRIESTS AS DEITIES OF THE SOCIETY"  .......

    why at that time?? .. it happens even today.,  forget preaching and teaching Islam.,  Some of these converted Muslim guys could give their life to their new faith .. and you can find them on you tube in 21st century 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 #4434 - October 01, 2018, 04:42 PM
    My point is that Jews do not worship their rabbis. The Quran knows that. It is only being polemical as the Jews obeyed their rabbis.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4435 - October 01, 2018, 04:44 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on October 01, 2018, 04:42 PM
    My point is that Jews do not worship their rabbis. The Quran knows that. It is only being polemical as the Jews obeyed their rabbis.

    THAT IS YOUR POINT .. But it  is not the point of Quran writers.,  neither it is the point of those who converted in to Islam from Judaism and Christianity   of that time..
    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 #4436 - October 01, 2018, 05:43 PM
    Quote from: Marc S on October 01, 2018, 03:06 PM
    I would say 2 things :

    - in the Old Testament, Jews could sometimes be viewed as mushrikun and that would have made perfect sense,
    - now, at the time of the Quran, Jews were not mushrikun anymore but that could be the case for christians or pagans in general


    1/ viewed by Jews themselves.
    2/ Yes.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4437 - October 01, 2018, 05:48 PM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on October 01, 2018, 04:42 PM
    My point is that Jews do not worship their rabbis. The Quran knows that.


    Then why he says it? (yawn)

    Quote
    It is only being polemical as the Jews obeyed their rabbis.


    Do you think that the (first) receivers of the Quran reflected like this : "Hahaha! I know that it is polemical, Hahaha! It is not serious, hahaha!"
    Really?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4438 - October 01, 2018, 06:44 PM
    Sociological aspects of the Quran and its milieu:

    What does the sociological aspect of the Quran tell us about who wrote it or who instructed the literati to write it?

    1/ strict dietary laws
    2/ circumcision
    3/ explicit ok for polygamy

    I think it points to a strong Jewish influence, no?

  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #4439 - October 01, 2018, 07:33 PM
    Yeah. Read Zellentin.

    As for the third and last point, I think Luxenberg (and following him, Ibrahim Malik and Mohammad Lamsiah), argues that the relevant verse does not refer to concubines but to views. Just realized that you wrote about polygyny, but I think Luxenberg thinks the same about that verse: it does not legislate polygyny. But keep in mind that we are here talking about Luxenberg, so his reading might be way off. Personally, I found his explanation about the verse discussing concubines to be unconvincing.
  • Previous page 1 ... 146 147 148149 150 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »