LOL
As usual nothing to respond.
LOL
Idem.
You keep dodging the topic
Go read.
Well you provide no alternative explanation
It is your topic, not mine. And what you have proposed is not convincing , whatever it was : 1)Sebeos 2)John and the Amir attesting of a religion linked to Abraham via :
Chjronical of Khuzistan does mention "they worship there to the honor Abraham", Jacob of Edessa speaks about "the patriarchal place of their race aka the kaba", Anastasius speak about "he place where those who hold us in slavery have the stone and the object of their worship" so namely places in the Sinai/Neguev region, Nobody asked a question about your theory to specify some point of it. I devoted myself, to try to understand it. I remarked that you take sources at face value, that you do not criticise them, etc. Penn did the job at you place holding that John and the Amir was (probably) a fake ; therefore the text attests that nothing of all of this has happened in 640 . Nothing, Including the all episode. I consider that the sole interesting thing of the text from the author is to point Jewish role as adviser and friends of the Arabs. That is all.
And when a text mention some data about the religion of (some) of the "conquerors" by refering to Judaism but separating it from Jews or Samaritans,
- either scholars like Penn don't adress the issue,
Somehow he allude in one phrase. So it is not really addressed. For one good reason you did not get.
Because the
main topic for scholarship is not
YOUR issue. It is the date.
You even did not realize why. You're pathetic. Really. It's a profession Marc. You're an amateur. (yawn).
Could possibly
YOUR issue be in an scholarly article one day? Why not, and not From what? Is the episode is true?
No. then you ask scholar to work on something they know (very probable) is a FAKE? the data "mention some data about the religion of (some) of the "conquerors" by refering to Judaism but separating it from Jews" is a FAKE MARC, a fake, it is what have invented the 8th c. author : pointing the Jews as as adviser and friends of the Arabs. It is not a historical episode. You get me, or not ? I think you're not.
"Arguments such as these depend on John and the Emir being a historically accurate rendering of events, otherwise issues such as the lack of explicit Qur’anic citations or the overlap between Islam and Judaism simply reflect the ignorance or the polemical choices of a later Christian author and do not require an early date for the text’s composition. As with most other disputation texts, John and the Emir does not reflect an attempt at objective historiography as much as an act.of apologetics, polemics, and meaning-making70. This conclusion does not lessen the importance of John and the Emir for the study of early Christian/Muslim interactions, but it does highlight the need for particular reading strategies to effectively analyze this document, strategies that focus more on questions of ideology and representation than on historical reconstruction." or the overlap between Islam and Judaism simply reflect the ignorance or the polemical choices of a later Christian authorI will say it in French, as you are French : tu sais lire Marc ? I do not think so. I translate in French : ou bien le chevauchement [toute
ta théorie] entre l'islam et le judaisme reflète l'ignorance [autrement dit, il invente] ou la
POLEMIQUE. Against who the polemic?
Me?
Ask Penn on Academia. (yawn...)
- or revisionnist will say they were Judeo-Arabs, Abrahamists or hanif and they link it with the Quran that is not mentioned here,
Hanif is a Quranic category. Abrahamists is a Nevo one. These guys existed? Yes in 400/450. Then the Christianization has come. Petra got a bishop in c. 450. A bishop for Abrahamists /Hanif ?
Bishop?
- or you say this is anti-semitism and the Torah is mentionned because it is a source of guidance in the Quran, but the Quran is not mentionned here nor do we have any hint from where this information comes from
I say it is a anti Jewish polemic text. The more interesting
for me is that. The rest has no real interest as such.
I know what the scholars say.
Nope, you do not. You continue with Abrahamists whereas they are Christianized. You cannot make sense of all the sources. You're totally lost. Why? Because you are not trained. That is the only reason. You struggle with theses source with which you're lost (you said it). Abandon Marc, you're not made to continue. Go to your garden with Lafontaine and you will go to your dialogue thing (very fun in fact there is a curious guy there (hahaha!) I wont say more (hahaha) From what I see here, you have not the simply basics to make history. Sometimes, things have to be said.
Very precise
Yes, wherever in the wilderness. Arabs believed it, and they built Mecca/Kaba/Zem/Zem in the wilderness. As there was no Mecca. Get the Hawting paper.
Now you change the translation of the Quranic verse to fit your narrative
"And [mention] when Abraham " with Ishmael" (haha) was raising the foundations of the House " 2:127
As usual you modify sources ; lack " with Ishmael". Ah yes, "Muslim writers!" Hahaha!
And yes it is sufficiently ambiguous, about the arabic word "RAISED". But why not, you may be right. But it has no importance ; what count is what you have cancelled (as usual...) namely " with Ishmael". It fits better my logical deduction. The Arabs build House of prayer as they are son of Ishmael. Gallez is
perfectly right here. Then when they are in Jerusalem, they build because as the sons of Ishmael they have an example that their ancestor [ISHMAEL] build. And the example is in Q 2,127.
No Jews, no alien, no Japanese build in 637 :Arabs whose ultimate origin of the decision is (probably, I'm not H.G Wells) is the reading of Q 2,127 and not were doing that because of the Jews like Sebeos said.
By the way, if we look at the previous verses :
And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers." 2:124
And [mention] when We made the House a place of return for the people and [a place of] security. And take, [O believers], from the standing place of Abraham a place of prayer. And We charged Abraham and Ishmael, [saying], "Purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who are staying [there] for worship and those who bow and prostrate [in prayer]." 2:125
And [mention] when Abraham said, "My Lord, make this a secure city and provide its people with fruits - whoever of them believes in Allah and the Last Day." [ Allah ] said. "And whoever disbelieves - I will grant him enjoyment for a little; then I will force him to the punishment of the Fire, and wretched is the destination." 2:126
And?
Doing a cross analysis of 2:124 and of the Bible do tell us when those verses did happen and 2:125 kind of confirm where it was but this look awkward though ; it doesn't 100% tie up with the biblical narrative ; but this is another issue.
News : the Quran do not tie up with the biblical narrative. Thanks Marc.
It makes it clear it cannnot be Jerusalem nor Mount Moriah for obvious reasons in the text.
Mecca then? Mars?
Second forgery of the Quranic text
Hahaha you're the master of forgery "the
NEW Jews" hahaha but "
seriously " for "raised" Gallez has an interesting and a plausible explication (p.471-72-73, vol I). But it is not the main argument for me, the main is what you cancel (hahaha!) "with Ishmael!" Nothing to see with the Bible (of course, if the Quran was the Bible one would knows it ! Hahaha!)
Me : The Quran is ambiguous about whom has been sacrificed on Mount Moriah (haha!)
Who cares? ; the Quranic text cannot mention Jerusalem as already stated above.
1/Scholars. Thanks to remind us that you are not one.
2/the Quranic narrative necessarily allude to Jerusalem as Mount Moriah/Jerusalem is the place where Abraham sacrifices Isaac in the Bible. It is ambiguous about whom has been sacrificed and it do not talk of a specific place, therefore it is the Mount Moriah/Jerusalem place. He cannot change/question this place as it was a well established and that it serves its interest to not change/question it. The Quran changes or questions only what is serves it.
But as you're not a scholar, it's perfectly normal that you don't see anything.
You are afraid to ask Penn, showing again that the way what you want to appear here, a gentle amateur scholar, as soon as he is deeply questioned, is crumbling, wanting not to be grounded by an accessible scholar in Academia. Therefore I consider you as a fraud. (yawn...)
Topic: Qur'anic studies today