Qur'anic studies today

Previous page 1 ... 203 204 205206 207 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6120 - March 18, 2019, 01:03 PM

Quote from: Marc S on March 18, 2019, 10:54 AM
But I have a simple rationale for all this :

- muslims in the 9/10th had to explain the Dome of the Rock that is un-islamic ; therefore, they created the fairy tale of the Night Journey and added verse 1 in surah 17,

Add verse 1 in surah 17 to explain the Dome? But they had eyes to see that it is not the Dome the more ancient Arab building on the Mount.

Quote
- if they had used 2:127 to build on the Temple Mount, then they wouldn't have needed the Night Journey and 17:1,

You're totally lost.

Quote
- therefore they never saw 2:127 as a reason to build on the Temple Mount,

They might have seen, yes. It is a logical explication about what they did (see previous post).

Quote
- However, they needed to explain the Ka'aba and legitimate it ; 2:127 perfectly fit into this,

Surely not as it is not "Ka'aba" which is named in 2:127 . But "bayt". If you were right they would have write "Ka'aba". Therefore you're wrong. Your theory collapses, (yawn...) . But one knows you, you will not stop. You will continue.

Quote
knowing that no Jewish tradition mention Abraham/Ishmael building anything anywhere

You're totally lost (bis)...
- mundi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6121 - March 18, 2019, 01:08 PM

Marc,

Quote
Weitzstein II is a palimpsest so the text might be much older than the datation of the manuscript itself.

Are you sure its a palimpsest? It say "uberschrieben", I read it that the letters have been traced over. Adding some verses wouldnt work. Changing a letter here or there could. But we are talking of more here.

There are other manuscripts in the list that are quite old..
- Marc S
- Member
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6122 - March 18, 2019, 01:46 PM

Quote from: Altara on March 18, 2019, 01:03 PM
But they had eyes to see that it is not the Dome the more ancient Arab building on the Mount.

The building you are refering to didn't exist anymore at the time the Dome of Rock was built.

Quote
Add verse 1 in surah 17 to explain the Dome?

Yes because they had to find an explanation why muslims built on the Temple Mount. According to you (and Gallez), it was based on 2:127 but no muslim scholar never raised that argument ; if it had existed, people would have remembered it ; therefore, this argument never existed.

Quote
You're totally lost.

Primary School argument ; is this how they train scholars nowadays ?

Quote
They might have seen, yes. It is a logical explication about what they did (see previous post).

Logical explanation should read here "this is your opinion".

Quote
Surely not as it is not "Ka'aba" which is named in 2:127 . But "bayt". If you were right they would have write "Ka'aba".

Why should they have written "Ka'aba" according to you (according to me they didn't have to ) ?

Quote
Therefore you're wrong. Your theory collapses, (yawn...) .

You mean my theory collapses based on the arguments you chosed to prove it right or wrong.

What is Bayt Allah ? Why Bayt and 2:124-127 perfectly fit specific biblical chapters ?
- Marc S
- Member
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6123 - March 18, 2019, 01:54 PM

Quote from: mundi on March 18, 2019, 01:08 PM
Marc,

Are you sure its a palimpsest?

When I looked at the manuscript by following your link, it seemed to me like one, and searching through the net I ended up on Lafontaine's Grand secret de l'islam where he refered about it as such.

Quote
There are other manuscripts in the list that are quite old..

As you told me this was the oldest one, I didn't look any further.

But Altara, who based his arguments on C14 dating, will probably lead us to a manuscript whose date and content fit his theory.
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6124 - March 18, 2019, 01:56 PM

Quote from: Mahgraye on March 17, 2019, 11:04 PM
Carlos A. Segovia:

Accompanying footnote:

Oops Mahgraye.. adds a big name a very big name in to his post.. Segovia..Segovia... let me add a wonderful guitar music on that name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjRLpE_TzdA

beautiful....beautiful .. off course that tube is nothing to do with Quran... except that is also a book of SSS "songs sonnets and stories" and sounds impressive if proper person recite a proper surah... but but.. his son did a great job in exploring Quran..

dear Mahgraye and friends .. did you guys read Carlos Andrés Segovia books/ works on Quran... I tell you it is worth reading.. let me add some of his stuff links here..

The Quranic Noah and the Making of the Islamic Prophet (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - Tension, Transmission, Transformation) Paperback – 2017 by Carlos A. Segovia r)

Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism...... 2016 by Gabriele Boccaccini and Carlos A. Segovia

******************************************************************************

I think he being Spanish guy and being faculty in Spain.. very few people read him... great guy .. great works...

Carlos Segovia Saint Louis University, Humanities, Faculty Member

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
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6125 - March 18, 2019, 02:25 PM

Quote from: Marc S on March 18, 2019, 01:46 PM
The building you are refering to didn't exist anymore at the time the Dome of Rock was built.

See Arculf in 670 Arabs would have lost memories about what was before the Dome?
I try to stop smiling...

Quote
Yes because they had to find an explanation why muslims built on the Temple Mount.

As if it was a big issue for them; it is for you that it is one, not them... They have accommodated the Isra about that.

Quote
According to you (and Gallez), it was based on 2:127 but no muslim scholar never raised that argument ;

Why would they have raised it lol? This Gallez' argument consider that muslim scholar think in the frame Mecca/... as which has happened, and not the real history which have nothing to see with it; muslim scholar are stuck to the all narrative they've earlier built as it is the only one which give an explication to the existence of the Quranic corpus.

Quote
if it had existed, people would have remembered it ; therefore, this argument never existed.

You do not get anything. You drink Marc?

Quote
Why should they have written "Ka'aba" according to you (according to me they didn't have to ) ?

Because you said it is ("Ka'aba") . Or they did not wrote it. Therefore it is not.

Quote
You mean my theory collapses based on the arguments you chosed to prove it right or wrong.

Collapses yes (yawn...)

Quote
What is Bayt Allah ? Why Bayt and 2:124-127 perfectly fit specific biblical chapters ?

"Bayt Allah " the Temple of God. And there's only one.
- mundi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6126 - March 18, 2019, 02:40 PM

Marc,

Wetzstein II:

Quote
When I looked at the manuscript by following your link, it seemed to me like one, and searching through the net I ended up on Lafontaine's Grand secret de l'islam where he refered about it as such.

Well, it's not a palimpsest, it is retraced. You can see that on Corpus Coranicum. Does that change your position about closure of the Quran to the 9th C?
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6127 - March 18, 2019, 02:51 PM

Quote from: Marc S on March 18, 2019, 09:55 AM
For me, this verse is an addition/alteration that was implemented after the narrative about Muhammad was fixed (the Sira by Ibn Ishaq). It does only relate to the Ka'aba and cannot relate to the Temple of Solomon. Why ? Because of the interpolation in Surah 17 with the addition of verse 1 and the fairy tale about the Night Journey.

By the way, Q 2: 125/126/127 looks like an altered/conflated copy of 1 Kings 8.

Just my 2 cents, and Raymond Dequin is not involved here

Marc S is laughing ....laughing is good but that is insane laughing dear Marc..

anyways.. what say ? where is that word Ka'aba ..

where do you get that from??? Quran? .. I don't see anything in Quran ..

I see neither Ka'aba/ka'bah... Nor Kabab... in Quran dear Marc.. Please refer and read the verse again..

May be you are thinking about Kabab for dinner

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
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6128 - March 18, 2019, 03:16 PM

Understanding Nicene Trinitarianism

https://www.academia.edu/37198253/Understanding_Nicene_Trinitarianism
- Marc S
- Member
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6129 - March 18, 2019, 03:35 PM

Quote from: Altara on March 18, 2019, 02:25 PM

See Arculf in 670 Arabs would have lost memories about what was before the Dome?

I only replied to this.
Quote
But they had eyes to see

Quote
As if it was a big issue for them; it is for you that it is one, not them... They have accommodated the Isra about that.

You seem to contradict yourself here but that is probably your English so only you know what you wanted to say.

Quote
Arabs would have lost memories about what was before the Dome?
I try to stop smiling...

So they would have lost the memory that the Quran urged them to do it as Ishmael did but they would remember the place of the building according to you ? Why not.

Quote
Because you said it is ("Ka'aba") . Or they did not wrote it. Therefore it is not.

Apply the same rationale to your theory. Result kaboom ; is it gone ? No, because it is YOUR opinion ; otehrwise, it would.
- Marc S
- Member
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6130 - March 18, 2019, 03:49 PM

Quote from: mundi on March 18, 2019, 02:40 PM
Marc,
Wetzstein II:

Well, it's not a palimpsest, it is retraced.

By retraced, you mean some of the text was washed ?

Quote
Does that change your position about closure of the Quran to the 9th C?

It depends what you mean by closure but I see your point ; however, eventhough I think the narrative about Muhammad was fixed beginning of the 9th century, it doesn't mean the Quranc had to reach its final form by that date ; one when reading the Quran struggle to find any of the islamic items that you find in the ahadith/Sira/History of Tabari. Muhammad narrative existed prior to the 9th century.
- mundi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6131 - March 18, 2019, 03:59 PM

Marc,

By retraced I mean that the original inkt faded and a scribe went over the letters to make it more vivid.

With the manuscripts we have, saying 2:127 was added later on seems untenable. So Quran reached closure imo latest eind of 7th C. Maybe a later small Surah was added, but probably not.

Means 2:127 was there "from beginning"and Hadith was adapted to explain it.
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6132 - March 18, 2019, 04:29 PM

I am completely lost in "who said what" and who started that word "Ka'aba" being in one of those Quran verses.......
Quote

Quote from: Altara on March 18, 2019, 02:25 PM
You do not get anything. You drink Marc?

Because you said it is ("Ka'aba") . Or they did not wrote it. Therefore it is not.

Quote from: Marc S on March 18, 2019, 03:35 PM
...............
Apply the same rationale to your theory. Result kaboom ; is it gone ? No, because it is YOUR opinion ; otehrwise, it would. ..............

Is there a reverse psychology posts each one heckling others here??

It seems neither Marc nor Altara said "that Quran highlights that Story of Kabah in Islam., we must realize the story came in to Islam some time 9th century "

yet I see that word in their posts as if it is there in Quran.. Nooooo., Quran says NOTHING ABOUT KA'BAH .. Foolish people translated/assumed "Prayer Place" as Ka'bah...

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
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6133 - March 18, 2019, 04:34 PM

Quote from: Marc S on March 18, 2019, 03:35 PM
I only replied to this.

They do not see ruins, they do not see people recounting past. I try to to to smile.

Quote
So they would have lost the memory that the Quran urged them to do it as Ishmael did but they would remember the place of the building according to you ? Why not.

It's much more serious than I thought.... Call Raymond Dequin that he explains what I say, I'm sure he'll get it.
- Marc S
- Member
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6134 - March 18, 2019, 04:35 PM

Quote
With the manuscripts we have, saying 2:127 was added later on seems untenable. So Quran reached closure imo latest eind of 7th C.

the C14 range you gave was from 64x to 765 if my memory is correct ; this is from middle 7th to 2/3 of the 8th century ; I am not sure to tie this up with your end of 7th century assumption.

On a side note, I don't know if someone tried and listed the verses and suras we have per manuscript date ; that would be interesting though the dating would still remain an issue on its own.
- Marc S
- Member
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6135 - March 18, 2019, 04:42 PM

Quote from: yeezevee on March 18, 2019, 04:29 PM
I am completely lost in "who said what" and who started that word "Ka'aba" being in one of those Quran verses.......

I will make it simple for you :

- I think 2:124-127 is a calque of Genesis/1 Kings8 twisted in order to legitimize the Ka'aba by linking it to Abraham/Ishmael and a later addition
- Altara disagree and think it is a verse that linked Abraham/Ishmael to the Temple Mount but it was there from the start of the Arabs invasion

But Allah knows best
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6136 - March 18, 2019, 05:02 PM

Quote
- Altara disagree and think it is a verse that linked Abraham/Ishmael to the Temple Mount but it was there from the start of the Arabs invasion

The verse read by the 637 elite Arabs to think that they have the permission to build, as it corresponds and validates to what they knew since ages, namely that they were sons of Ishmael. It was then normal for them to build on the place where the Temple/Bayt got foundations, a House of prayer, believing what 2,127 said : that the Temple before had been constructed by Abraham and Ishmael or that Abraham and Ishmael had, one way or another, built something to pray God.
All of this being based on the postulate that Quranic texts existed before 637 and that those Quranic texts have nothing to see with the frame Kaba/Zem Zem. That Quranic texts probably existed before 637 one knows it by the C14 radio carbon results . Therefore one can think that (some) Quranic texts probably existed before 637. I'd tend to think that (some) if not all are far more ancient that generally thought. So it does not surprise me that the 637 elite Arabs could have been inspired by 2,127 to build in Jerusalem.
- Mahgraye
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6137 - March 18, 2019, 05:58 PM

Quote
Thanks to give the reference!

My pleasure.
- Mahgraye
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6138 - March 18, 2019, 06:00 PM

It seems that I did not receive any notifications that you guys had posted. Can someone bring me up-to-date on what is being discussed?
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6139 - March 18, 2019, 06:37 PM

Q 2,127
- Mahgraye
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6140 - March 18, 2019, 06:39 PM

Thanks. Took a quick look at the previous posts. Very interesting verse. Do you agree with Witztum's proposed Biblical precedent for the verse?
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6141 - March 18, 2019, 06:41 PM

What he says exactly?
- Mahgraye
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6142 - March 18, 2019, 06:42 PM

That the verse “draws on the Syriac ‘homiletic’ literature on Genesis 22”.

Witztum's paper might be of interest to Marc S, too.
- Mahgraye
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6143 - March 18, 2019, 06:43 PM

Marc S' proposal is, in my humble opinion, very improbable and does not do the topic any justice. The verse simply can't be an interpolation added sometime in the ninth century. That is just precluded by all the evidence. If anything, Altara's suggestion, following Gallez and others, is more probably and has some explanatory scope.
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6144 - March 18, 2019, 06:51 PM

Abstract Witztum's paper

In Quran 2: 127 Ibrahim founded "the house" (most probably a reference to the Kacba) together with his son Ishmael. This scene does not appear in the Bible and none of the attempts to find a literary precedent for it are satisfactory. This paper argues that this scene reflects post-biblical traditions concerning Genesis 22. The argument is based on a comparison of the Quran, quranic commentaries, rabbinic sources and Syriac homilies on Gen. 22. After suggesting an origin for the story, the paper analyses the ways in which the Quran adapted and appropriated the story to its needs. The replacement of Isaac with Ishmael is a central point addressed in this context.
Quote
That the verse “draws on the Syriac ‘homiletic’ literature on Genesis 22”.

Why not dear Maghaye, why not. But for me the important thing is that it can be this verse the responsible of the 637 Arab building on the Mount.
- Mahgraye
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6145 - March 18, 2019, 07:16 PM

Robert M. Kerr:

Quote
L’historicité de Muhammad est au mieux discutable. Les sources utilisées pour sa biographie traditionnelle – en fait une hagiographie – sont toutes tardives et souvent fantasques. Le « Muhammad de la foi » doit plutôt être considéré comme une construction littéraire destinée à légitimer le Coran, selon le modèle prophétique de la Bible. Tout comme le Moïse biblique, il peut être vu comme une figure spirituelle mais non comme un personnage historique.

Il est clair que le Coran a été écrit par plusieurs auteurs et a émergé sur une longue période, de deux siècles au moins. Il est le fruit de débats théologiques persistants dans l’Antiquité tardive proche-orientale. Il devait s’agir initialement d’un recueil ou lectionnaire de textes plus ou moins bibliques destinés aux arabophones, qui a été peu à peu modifié et islamisé à un stade ultérieur – au point même que de nombreux passages n’ont souvent aucun sens en arabe ! Nous sommes face à un texte composite contenant de nombreuses interpolations, comme les quatre mentions supposées à « Muhammad » qui sont clairement des rajouts tardifs. On ne peut donc attribuer la paternité du Coran comme nous le connaissons au « Muhammad de l’histoire ».

Le site de La Mecque et, plus généralement, le Hedjaz en Arabie comme lieu des origines de l’islam posent problème : on n’y retrouve pas les traces de l’environnement juif et chrétien originel que le récit traditionnel a occulté mais que l’analyse critique du Coran et de la tradition a établi. On ne peut résoudre cette contradiction en inventant ce contexte ex nihilo, comme le font beaucoup de « traditionnalistes ». C’est ce que montrent en particuliers les études linguistiques : l’essentiel du vocabulaire théologique du Coran, dont de nombreux concepts théologiques, a en fait été emprunté au syriaque et arabisé, à l’image par exemple du vocabulaire culinaire anglais qui a été en partie emprunté au français. Le syriaque étant la langue liturgique du christianisme du Moyen-Orient de l’Antiquité tardive (et toujours aujourd’hui dans la Syrie moderne, l’Irak et le sud de la Turquie, la jairat al-`arab, ou « l’île arabe »), il y a donc eu une forme d’exposition des populations arabes proto-musulmanes au christianisme syriaque, laquelle est inconcevable dans le Hedjaz. Ce qui force à conclure que les origines du Coran sont à trouver ailleurs.

https://lincorrect.org/lislam-a-lepreuve-de-la-critique-historique/
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6146 - March 18, 2019, 08:06 PM

Le site de La Mecque et, plus généralement, le Hedjaz en Arabie comme lieu des origines de l’islam posent problème : on n’y retrouve pas les traces de l’environnement juif et chrétien originel que le récit traditionnel a occulté mais que l’analyse critique du Coran et de la tradition a établi. On ne peut résoudre cette contradiction en inventant ce contexte ex nihilo, comme le font beaucoup de « traditionnalistes ». C’est ce que montrent en particuliers les études linguistiques : l’essentiel du vocabulaire théologique du Coran, dont de nombreux concepts théologiques, a en fait été emprunté au syriaque et arabisé, à l’image par exemple du vocabulaire culinaire anglais qui a été en partie emprunté au français. Le syriaque étant la langue liturgique du christianisme du Moyen-Orient de l’Antiquité tardive (et toujours aujourd’hui dans la Syrie moderne, l’Irak et le sud de la Turquie, la jairat al-`arab, ou « l’île arabe »), il y a donc eu une forme d’exposition des populations arabes proto-musulmanes au christianisme syriaque, laquelle est inconcevable dans le Hedjaz. Ce qui force à conclure que les origines du Coran sont à trouver ailleurs.

https://lincorrect.org/lislam-a-lepreuve-de-la-critique-historique/
- Altara
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6147 - March 18, 2019, 08:07 PM

This forum is becoming slowly but surely totally FRENCH haha, hahaha, hahahaha!
- Mahgraye
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6148 - March 18, 2019, 08:08 PM

Quote
This forum is becoming slowly but surely totally FRENCH haha, hahaha, hahahaha!

Hahahahahahahaha. Altara made us all French, haha. I don't even know French, and yet I am posting French texts as if I do, hahaha.
- mundi
- Pub Regular
- offline
Qur'anic studies today
Reply #6149 - March 18, 2019, 08:13 PM

on Kerr:

He makes a lot of sense I think! What I do question is his time frame of 2 centuries for the composition of the Quran. I think that is speculation. Could be much shorter.
Previous page 1 ... 203 204 205206 207 ... 370 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »