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
Yesterday at 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 1492036 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 169 170 171172 173 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5100 - February 02, 2019, 02:56 PM
    Altara,

    The fun of a forum is  sharing knowledge . For self study, one doesn't need a forum.

    What motivates you to participate in this forum? The fun of  knowing everything better?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5101 - February 02, 2019, 07:48 PM
     It is a respectable opinion, but not mine.  Curiously Your last phrase induces that I know better than you and that it is fun for me. Maybe, why not?  Yes sometimes it's fun. But, I intervene quite often, responding to some questions or give my two cents but I consider that questions which engage to give the all responses that I have cannot be responded because it necessitates a same level of historical knowledge.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5102 - February 04, 2019, 10:44 AM
    Islamic Origins...  A  lecture   by Peter von Sivers is an associate professor of history at the University of Utah. ...............  16 Nov 2017, 3:00 PM.........


     Von Sivers’ research focuses on classical Islamic history, medieval and early modern Spain and North Africa, as well as Islamic philosophy and science. He is working on a monograph with the working title Islamic Origins and the Umayyad Empire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6__C7Wu8qV4

    that is 2 year old....
    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 #5103 - February 04, 2019, 03:52 PM
    Thanks yeez. Von Sivers is always interesting. It has to be indicated nonetheless that the institutionalized Churches (Chalcedonian, Monophysite, Nestorian) consider that Jesus is the Son of God and God. The inners disagreements between these Churches do not (at all) regards the formula :Jesus is the Son of God and God, which is the only concept that the Quran contests.
    The Jesus described in the Quran is nor Monophysite, nor Nestorian. Even if he is described as the Word of God and helped by the Spirit, it is not what "believe" Monophysite and Nestorian (and of course Chalcedonian)  since they ascertain it in the Gospels. They which believe that Jesus is the the Son of God therefore God, concepts contested by the Quran. Therefore what can one understands is that from the moment where you do not believe that Jesus is not the Son of God and God, you are not part any more from Christianity of these institutionalized Churches (Chalcedonian, Monophysite, Nestorian).
    On the other hand, when one looks to the maps that von Sivers gives in describing the actors involved and their roles in the political landscape of the time this gives keys to understand what happened.
    The problem of von Sivers in this video is that he is taking into account to describe the actors involved, their roles in the political landscape of the time and the events, the Muslim narrative ("622",  "the Quran" etc) whereas to describe what will happen ( the "conquest") there is no need of this narrative ; actors involved explain the situation and what will happen ( the "conquest") without this narrative. There is no need of the 9th Muslim narrative (the frame Mecca/Medina/Muhammad) to explain the war between Arabs and their Persians masters. Not a piece of "need".  This is logical, that there is no need of the 9th Muslim narrative  as there is no trace anywhere  (Mars maybe?) of Mecca/Medina/ Zem Zem /Kaba before "Islam". Nothing.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5104 - February 04, 2019, 07:45 PM
    Talking about Von Sivers and some private discussions I had with him a 2 years ago or so, he did write for Inarah an article in german, that I could not get my hands on, called " Mu'awiya Commander of the Believers but which Faith " and he told me he would be using part of this article for that book he was writing on the origins of islam ; he was planning to release it in 2018 ; he is a little bit late.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5105 - February 04, 2019, 09:20 PM
    Very strange affirmation of von Sivers in 36'20 : Eastern Nestorians Arabs (Iraqi) and Western Christianized Arabs (Monophysites and Chalcedonians ?) corresponds to when Muhammad was in Medina with its efforts of Muhammad to return to Mecca and to convert Mecca from polytheism to monotheism.
    In what it 'corresponds'?
    It is what happen when one mixes real history (heavily) presence of Christianized Arabs in the East and the West (since ages) and the 9th Muslim narrative which is not history. The outcome is an incomprehensible mess. Later, He says in cold blood that the Quran is very friendly with Monophysitism and Nestorianism, forgetting that these institutionalized Churches believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God like the Chalcedonians that the Quran denies!!! They are therefore  "Christians"  Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius or not, from the point of view of the Quran since they believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God no matter what else they think about the inner constitution of Jesus whose the Quran (never) engage since for it he is human.
     Von Sivers in 43,20 summarizes the anti Christian passage of the Quran  which are believed as well by the Monophysitism and Nestorianism (haha!) denial of the Jesus sonship, etc. The mushrikun would be  Monophysitism and Nestorianism Christians to which the Quran would be friendly! Hahaha! Friendly? The Quran believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God like Monophysitism and Nestorianism Christians??? Well, why the Muslims are not in the Churches then?
    Because the Quran is not friendly with Christianity. That's why. Because the Sonship and Godship of Jesus is the basis of Christianity, not Mary as the Virgin or whatever which are later dogmas. Interesting of how von Sivers is totally framed here by the Quranic text.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5106 - February 05, 2019, 03:11 AM
    Carlos A. Segovia (2018) - The Quranic Jesus: A New Interpretation

    Available: https://bit.ly/2Sr4FOH
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5107 - February 05, 2019, 03:14 AM
    Segovia's recent book deals the Quranic view of Jesus and his status as the son of God.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5108 - February 05, 2019, 03:20 AM
    Nicolai Sinai (2018) - “Muḥammad as an Episcopal Figure”

    Available: https://bit.ly/2Sb3oft
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5109 - February 05, 2019, 03:25 AM
    Ghānim Qaddūrī al-Ḥamad (1402/1982) - Rasm al-muṣḥaf: dirāsah lughawīyah wa-tārīkhīyah

    Available: https://bit.ly/2Tvv5fB
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5110 - February 05, 2019, 03:33 AM
    Munther Younes (2008) – “Charging Steeds or Maidens Doing Good Deeds? A Re-Interpretation of Qurʾān 100 (al-ʿādiyāt)”

    Available: https://goo.gl/pcibcU
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5111 - February 05, 2019, 03:33 AM
    Munther Younes (2009) – “Ungrateful or Honorable: Re-examination of the Word Kanūd in Qurʾān 100 (al-ʿĀdiyāt)”

    Available: https://goo.gl/hoSKqR
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5112 - February 05, 2019, 03:34 AM
    Munther Younes (2017) – “Blessing, Clinging, Familiarity, Custom – or Ship? A New Reading of the Word Īlāf in Q 106”

    Available: https://goo.gl/AXAdzU
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5113 - February 05, 2019, 03:36 AM
    Ahmed Amine (2017) - “Réponse à Edouard-Marie Gallez au sujet de « la question des deux Marie »: Pourquoi Marie est-elle dite soeur d’Aaron dans le Coran?”

    Available: https://bit.ly/2RC1TBO
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5114 - February 05, 2019, 03:38 AM
    Ahmed Amine (2018) - “Réponse à la thèse d’Edouard-Marie Gallez: La prétendue origine Judéo-Nazaréenne de l’islam”

    Availble: https://bit.ly/2DaSZ9i
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5115 - February 05, 2019, 03:40 AM
    Ahmed Amine (2019) - “Les ‘origines’ de l’islam: le déni du musulman et la myopie de l’hypercritique”

    Available: https://bit.ly/2HTDwjm
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5116 - February 05, 2019, 03:44 AM
    Hocine Kerzazi (2019) - “Origines de l’islam: le déni musulman”

    Available: https://bit.ly/2S7VUtu
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5117 - February 05, 2019, 04:48 AM
    Peter von Sivers considers the formula on the Dome of the Rock to be Jewish-Christian.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5118 - February 05, 2019, 08:59 AM
    Thanks Yeez for Von Sivers link. Very useful to understand the ME situation of 6-7 C without going to Academia as Altara would suggest.

    Von Sivers at 35:40 says that in 622 the Western and Eastern Arabs declared the Arab Kingdom.

    First time I heard this. I don't see a mentioned source. Anyone knows more about this?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5119 - February 05, 2019, 10:36 AM
    I suggest as well to search on YT. Better, the all Internet (including therefore Academia...).

    He mentions a source (not orally) without giving the exact reference. Rewatch the video. I did not check yet the source he gives.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5120 - February 05, 2019, 10:41 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on February 05, 2019, 04:48 AM
    Peter von Sivers considers the formula on the Dome of the Rock to be Jewish-Christian.


    They were not Monophysite or Nestorians any more then? Because in the video he says that the Eastern Nestorians Arabs create a realm in 622... In this perspective they are therefore the "Muslims" (unless I did not get what he says...) and suddenly they become Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem in 690? How's that?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5121 - February 05, 2019, 10:55 AM
    Arab realm:

    1/This notion of the Arabs being left out of the fighting btw Byzantine empire and Persians is new to me.

    2/I checked twice for the reference of the 622 statement and  did not find it.

    Is this a "Von Sidow only" position or is it general knowledge I happen to have missed because not reading academia enough?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5122 - February 05, 2019, 11:48 AM
    Quote from: mundi on February 05, 2019, 08:59 AM
    Thanks Yeez for Von Sivers link. Very useful to understand the ME situation of 6-7 C without going to Academia as Altara would suggest.

    Von Sivers at 35:40 says that in 622 the Western and Eastern Arabs declared the Arab Kingdom.

    First time I heard this. I don't see a mentioned source. Anyone knows more about this?


    Peter Von Sivers is a member of the Inarah gang and this is their view for the meaning of the year 622, the year when the christian arabs set up their kingdom. However, he seems to go into different details than what I heard before on this. Too bad he doesn't quote the sources for his claim.

    You can read the 1st article of the book by Volker Popp    http://benjamin.lisan.free.fr/jardin.secret/EcritsPolitiquesetPhilosophiques/SurIslam/livres/The-Hidden-Origins-of-Islam-New-Research-into-Its-Early-History_Karl-Heinz-Ohlig_Gerd-R-Puin.pdf
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5123 - February 05, 2019, 11:51 AM
    Quote from: Mahgraye on February 05, 2019, 03:20 AM
    Nicolai Sinai (2018) - “Muḥammad as an Episcopal Figure”

    Available: https://bit.ly/2Sb3oft


    Thanks for the different links Maghraye.

    Ahmed Amine is an interesting guy but he is a "believer" as Altara would say. No one has his book on the Dan Gibson 's Petra assumption ?
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5124 - February 05, 2019, 11:53 AM
    Quote
    Thanks for the different links Maghraye.

     

    No problem.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5125 - February 05, 2019, 12:01 PM
    Quote from: Altara on February 04, 2019, 09:20 PM
    Very strange affirmation of von Sivers in 36'20 : Eastern Nestorians Arabs (Iraqi) and Western Christianized Arabs (Monophysites and Chalcedonians ?) corresponds to when Muhammad was in Medina with its efforts of Muhammad to return to Mecca and to convert Mecca from polytheism to monotheism.
    In what it 'corresponds'?
    It is what happen when one mixes real history (heavily) presence of Christianized Arabs in the East and the West (since ages) and the 9th Muslim narrative which is not history.

    The muslim narrative does hold some kind of history but it is hard to extract it because it might have been rewritten


    The outcome is an incomprehensible mess. Later, He says in cold blood that the Quran is very friendly with Monophysitism and Nestorianism, forgetting that these institutionalized Churches believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God like the Chalcedonians that the Quran denies!!! They are therefore  "Christians"  Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius or not, from the point of view of the Quran since they believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God no matter what else they think about the inner constitution of Jesus whose the Quran (never) engage since for it he is human.
     Interesting of how von Sivers is totally framed here by the Quranic text.


    I think that the main issue here, and I haven't finished to watch the video, is that Von Sivers wants to link the Quran, the arab conquerors of the 7th century and the different and sometimes incoherent tales about the faith of the arab conquerors. If the Quran is against the christians and the arab conquerors come with the Quran, how come they side with monophysites in Egypt, how come Mu'awiya go and pray on Golgotha,etc,etc.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5126 - February 05, 2019, 12:12 PM
    Von Sivers-linking Quran with historical events:

    I think it is logical to try to find some historicity in the Quran that seems to have a late 6 early 7 th C foundation.

    Loyalties change. Those who were friends at a certain time can become enemies the next year. But the portrayal of the milieu where the Quran  emerged (Syrian steppe) "dotted with monasteries" is interesting. I could imagine a complete new theology being born in such an environment of competing monasteries. What may have started as a new christology may have ended with the complete denial of divinity of Christ.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5127 - February 05, 2019, 02:44 PM
    Quote from: Marc S on February 05, 2019, 12:01 PM
    I think that the main issue here, and I haven't finished to watch the video, is that Von Sivers wants to link the Quran, the arab conquerors of the 7th century and the different and sometimes incoherent tales about the faith of the arab conquerors.

    Events reported by externals sources  (which have no real agenda as nothing is at stakes- God, religion whatsoever...)are incompatibles with what can be extracted as historical in the Quran as the text is  a-historical and the 9th narratives.

     
    Quote
    If the Quran is against the christians and the arab conquerors come with the Quran, how come they side with Monophysites in Egypt, how come Mu'awiya go and pray on Golgotha,etc,etc.


    A little part  (the elite) of  Arab conquerors comes (in the West) with Quranic texts (not necessary all), they side in Egypt with Monophysites. against Constantinople,  Normal strategy.
    Mu'awiya is not "Muslim" designation of today. Visiting Golgotha (after 640) does not mean that he is Christian. There is already a prayer building in the Temple Mount since 637 made by those in command who have came in the West, Mu'awiya never destroyed it. So he is aware that there is something, Is he an adherent of this prayer building? Maybe yes,  maybe he is not already, as he have not real consistent informations about the "texts" (future "Quranic" ones) therefore of "Islam", as those who have the texts around him. They're all monotheists. He has let the prayer building being built. That poses no problem for him.Visiting Golgotha can be a respectful visit, either he does not know that the texts his friends have, denial the Crucifixion, either it is a respectful visit because all the Jerusalem population is Christian or both.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5128 - February 05, 2019, 02:46 PM
    Quote from: mundi on February 05, 2019, 12:12 PM
    Von Sivers-linking Quran with historical events:

    I think it is logical to try to find some historicity in the Quran that seems to have a late 6 early 7 th C foundation.




    There's many texts that have no historical information in Late Antiquity.
  • Qur'anic studies today
     Reply #5129 - February 05, 2019, 03:22 PM
    Early Islam:

    Look at all the early mosques (Ayla, Qastal...) for sure built in mid 7th C. They have distinct features including a mihrab. Clearly they are not churches and that in a Christian conquered environment. Conquerors don't seem to have taken over the Christian buildings but built their own.

    If they were just a different kind of Christians they would have taken over existing buildings. They didnt. They set up their own.
  • Previous page 1 ... 169 170 171172 173 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »