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


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 02:56 PM

German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 10:31 AM

New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding

 (Read 21293 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #60 - May 15, 2015, 10:07 AM

    This is a quote from Al-Qabanji:

    "I have established in my lectures and in my book "The Secret of the the Qur'anic Miracle" and with many proofs that there is no scientific, linguistic, or metaphysical miracles in the the Quran as the scholars of Islam claim."

    (لقد أثبُّتُّ في محاضراتي وکتابي سّرالإعجاز القرآني وبأدلةٍ کثيرةٍ عدم وجود أيّ إعجاٍزٍ علميّ أو بلاغيّ أو غيبيّ في القرآن کما يدّعي علماء الإسلام)

    http://www.arabatheistbroadcasting.com/essay/120700435300
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #61 - May 15, 2015, 10:49 AM

    [post deleted as it has nothing to do with the thread]
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #62 - May 15, 2015, 12:37 PM

    Is this more of a disconnect between people who are from a muslim background and people who aren't? I imagine that the semi-mythical Muhammad of muslim tradition must have deep roots in the thinking of anyone brought up as a muslim. I'm from a Christian background that was really very mildly religious, to the point of being effectively agnostic, but it still leaves me with an image of Jesus that is hard to shake off. Intellectually I can accept that the historical Jesus probably bore little resemblance to the figure I was taught about as a child, but really that's still the Jesus of my imagination. It isn't that it's hard to reject the idea of miracles and the resurrection and so on, but at some level I think I still want the Jesus who didn't rise from the dead to look like my Sunday school image of Jesus. I can only look at the experience of muslims and ex-muslims from the outside, it isn't my experience, but I imagine something similar applies for their idea of the story of Muhammad.

    I'm not interested in finding out whether or not Muhammad was a real figure or how the historical Muhammad, if he was indeed a real figure, is similar to the Muhammad the mythical figure in people's imaginations. What I'm interested in is how Muhammad in people's imaginations affects people, and the role he plays in people's cultures.

    Muhammad is so deeply rooted in Muslim culture that asking whether or not he existed is effectively an exercise in ivory tower scholarship. What would the answer reap? Why does it matter whether or not a real, historical Muhammad existed, when a huge chunk of the world's population believes he did? Muhammad exists not in the past, but in the present. Muhammad exists in the culture. He plays a huge role in the way Muslims act. And that's all that matters. Any historical Muhammad only matters insofar as he influences the mythical Muhammad.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #63 - May 15, 2015, 12:53 PM

    I disagree. The real Muhammad is far more interesting to me than the fantasy Muhammad.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #64 - May 15, 2015, 01:13 PM

    As regards Timothy's comments about prevailing winds, I've no idea whether what he says about them is accurate


    The reason why I was persuaded by Timothy without seeing his sources was because I had read about the facts he had presented before, I had just never connected them to the importance of the location of Mecca before. A quick google search brings up this article that I have seen before:



    https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200506/queen.of.the.india.trade.htm

    An excerpt:
    Quote
    .....This is because in the northern half of the Red Sea above Jiddah, the prevailing wind blows from the north the whole year-round. Even in the southern half, the wind blows from the north for most of the year. It is only during a relatively short time between October and March or April that a southerly wind blows, and it blows reliably only as far north as the latitude of Jiddah and, on the African side, ‘Aydhab.
    That left sailing in the northern part of the Red Sea to smaller coasting vessels, which could take advantage of on- and offshore breezes at most times of the year, provided they were not in too much of a hurry. (Fleets of Ottoman galleys could, and did, make their way from Suez all the way down the Red Sea and back again, but galleys can be rowed.)

    This natural fact of Red Sea winds is a constant in the history of those waters. It provides some explanation why, both far back in antiquity and in Islamic times, ports on the Egyptian side show a tendency to be some way down the coast and not at Suez, at the farthest north. Suez might look on the map as if it were in an obvious position geographically, but in navigational terms it was inaccessible. That is why we find, under the Ptolemies and Romans, Myos Hormos (Qusair) and Berenike (Ras Banas)—both quite a way down the African coast of the Red Sea—developed as ports and served by well-maintained land routes from the Nile Valley. Only with the coming of steam in the 19th century did the wind regime of the Red Sea become irrelevant to the location of ports, and it is only then that Suez rose to preeminence.

    The Jiddah–‘Aydhab latitude—the northern limit of southerly winds—was thus always the limit of sail-powered direct trade bound for Alexandria or Cairo. But after Roman times, why did the major commercial port of the Red Sea develop on the Arabian, and not on the African or Egyptian, coast? Only the pilgrimage to Makkah explains that: Islam changed the pattern of the centuries-old India trade by making the Hijaz coast of the Red Sea a destination for the first time. And on the Hijaz coast, there was no better-placed port than Jiddah.


    What I found persuasive about Timothy’s argument is that it not only explained why Mecca was located where it was at the 22nd parallel, but it is also explained why Berenice had been located at the 24th parallel (without him actually mentioning Berenice specifically):

    Quote
    Another question might be, why didn't traders land on the African coast and then transfer to the Nile and use the current to move trade up to the Mediterranean basin? The reason is the river bends far to the west at this point and would involve a prolonged over land drive through the eastern Saharan dessert.


    So Berenice was located as far south as possible where the Nile and the Red Sea Coast are still reasonably close.

    But the main point is that Patricia Crone’s criticism that the location of Mecca as a major trade city just didn’t make sense at all, and that no early sources prior to Islam mention it, that always struck be as the most convincing part of the alternative ideas about formative Islam. But now I can actually see that the location of Mecca does make sense after all when considering the practical realities of the prevailing winds in the Red Sea. And it also partly explains why the early sources do not mention Mecca (because in the earlier period the Red Sea trade had been conducted mainly through Egyptian side).

    What it does not explain is why the shift from Egypt to Arabia? It could be something to do with the plagues and other natural disasters that were hitting Egypt at about that time. Alexandria had been hit twice by devastating earthquakes and Tsunamis in the 4th and 6th Centuries. Or it could be that the wars between Byzantines and Persians had cut Egypt off from the Levant at times so it just made more sense to take the trade up the Arabian and then Levantine coast rather than via Egypt.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #65 - May 15, 2015, 01:36 PM

    As someone of Arab heritage I find that quite offensive, Tony.


    Let me rephrase what I was trying to say, how's this:


    There may be firmer evidence buried deep within the sands of Arabia. And perhaps it is better if that evidence stays buried until a more enlightened time. Sometimes it is better to leave these secrets to our children’s children, even if it means that we ourselves with never get the answers we seek.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #66 - May 15, 2015, 02:04 PM

    Well...I think a lot of the original problem with your comment was your lack of fair specifics on who was the problem. Zeca mentioned that, too:

    Quote
    Tonyt - My thought on this was that if you specified the Saudi government and religious establishment that would be nearer the mark, though in fact there is Saudi support for some archaeology so it's probably not that simple.


    I think you kind of rephrased it to say the same thing more politely. Now you're not saying that the Arabs are unenlightened, per se, but that it's an unenlightened time for the Gulf region, but honestly, what's the difference? Grin Just say the fair and specific thing to say: there would be the chance for opposition to a fair analysis of archaeological findings by some members of the government or some Saudi scholars.

    Although "enlightened" is literally a fine word for this, I have to say that it has an uncomfortable connotation, particularly when you're comparing the West to Muslim countries, and starting to describe enlightened and unenlightened groups of people/areas/"people or areas in the current time period" is tricky business and you're likely to cause offense or attract some unsavory individuals to your support.

    If you're talking about how the general Saudi population may not be ready to accept the implications of archaeological findings and analyze them fairly, go ahead and call them unenlightened, but then you also have to call the United States and Americans unenlightened, because have you fucking seen us lately? Show me another country that has such easy access to all of this knowledge and education, where we've been taught science and reason from tender youth, and we still have huge chunks of people denying or doubting evolution, for which there is an abundance of archaeological evidence, or doubting the findings of geologists, or radio carbon dating, or geneticists? Or at least unable to accept the implications of those findings on their faith?

    We're talking about some tricky stuff here, TonyT. And you are, like I am, an outsider trying to talk about issues certain groups of people might be having among representatives of those groups and expecting a productive discussion. And we're also trying not to be a lightning rod here for the kind of people who have poor views of Muslims or of "Arabs," etc, and to create a space where people of all countries will feel comfortable coming to for fair and sympathetic discussion. So yes, language matters, specifics are crucial, and you're on a platform here. Better break out the fine-toothed comb.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #67 - May 15, 2015, 02:32 PM

    Has anyone here done any Coursera courses?

    Would it be possible for the CEMB members who actually know something about this subject (not me shouting from the peanut gallery!) to collaborate with a university or group of Universities and people like Tom Holland to produce an introduction to Islam that actually looks at the core issues openly, and at least states what the core problems are!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #68 - May 15, 2015, 02:42 PM

    Quote
    The Jiddah–‘Aydhab latitude—the northern limit of southerly winds—was thus always the limit of sail-powered direct trade bound for Alexandria or Cairo. But after Roman times, why did the major commercial port of the Red Sea develop on the Arabian, and not on the African or Egyptian, coast? Only the pilgrimage to Makkah explains that: Islam changed the pattern of the centuries-old India trade by making the Hijaz coast of the Red Sea a destination for the first time. And on the Hijaz coast, there was no better-placed port than Jiddah.


    So might there be a trade and climate  reason for the development of the hajj and Mecca?

    If travel up and down the Red Sea became complex, why not off load at Jiddah and go overland to the Indian Ocean ports?  Were there changes to El Nino and La Nina around then that made an overland route with stop off at Mecca far better than all the way down the Red Sea for a few years?

    All the Islam stuff would then be "just so" tales to explain a daft camel route across a desert, that at one point might have been reasonable because of weather patterns for a few decades in the 600's.

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #69 - May 15, 2015, 02:45 PM

    Another train example!  The collapse of the Dawlish route caused all sorts of adaptations!  Did something similar cause traders to go across a desert with a godforsaken oasis Mecca complete with awful water?  Other options would include powerful states in Aden area charging too high taxes.

    Marketing the water is brilliant pr!  Make it somewhere to go - Abraham was here, look we have a special rock!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #70 - May 15, 2015, 03:13 PM

    If travel up and down the Red Sea became complex, why not off load at Jiddah and go overland to the Indian Ocean ports?


    The problem is sailing northbound from Jiddah, not southbound. Southbound is easy. But climate change and a change in the directions and strengths of winds could well be a factor.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #71 - May 15, 2015, 04:17 PM

    The reason why I was persuaded by Timothy without seeing his sources was because I had read about the facts he had presented before, I had just never connected them to the importance of the location of Mecca before. A quick google search brings up this article that I have seen before:

    (Clicky for piccy!)

    https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200506/queen.of.the.india.trade.htm

    An excerpt:
    What I found persuasive about Timothy’s argument is that it not only explained why Mecca was located where it was at the 22nd parallel, but it is also explained why Berenice had been located at the 24th parallel (without him actually mentioning Berenice specifically):

    So Berenice was located as far south as possible where the Nile and the Red Sea Coast are still reasonably close.

    But the main point is that Patricia Crone’s criticism that the location of Mecca as a major trade city just didn’t make sense at all, and that no early sources prior to Islam mention it, that always struck be as the most convincing part of the alternative ideas about formative Islam. But now I can actually see that the location of Mecca does make sense after all when considering the practical realities of the prevailing winds in the Red Sea. And it also partly explains why the early sources do not mention Mecca (because in the earlier period the Red Sea trade had been conducted mainly through Egyptian side).

    Thanks, that looks like a useful article. I was jumping on the comment from Timothy because it seems to me he was wildly overstating his case by not mentioning galleys and the use of Egyptian ports further north in the Red Sea. In a sense the real age of sail came in the early modern era when technological advances made rowing redundant for the most part. Imagining sea transport before then as all about the use of sails seems anachronistic. But yes, a weaker version of his argument could give a reason for the existence of Mecca as a trading centre.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #72 - May 15, 2015, 04:33 PM

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=blBTHAY_A4wC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=persian+gulf+red+sea+trade+patterns+600&source=bl&ots=lTb1KTAVPK&sig=LS2m0J6PZ2212rJlQVUW7Zr2_Sw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gh5WVaOwNcGyUZOsgPAM&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=persian%20gulf%20red%20sea%20trade%20patterns%20600&f=false

    Book about trade in this area and influence of Buddhism.

    Part of the continuing wars between Rome and Persia were about shipping in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, so maybe a good look at trade patterns and changes is required to work out why Mecca became a "strange attractor".

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #73 - May 15, 2015, 04:58 PM

    Has anyone here done any Coursera courses?

    Would it be possible for the CEMB members who actually know something about this subject (not me shouting from the peanut gallery!) to collaborate with a university or group of Universities and people like Tom Holland to produce an introduction to Islam that actually looks at the core issues openly, and at least states what the core problems are!


    Gabriel Said Reynolds has already written a very good book which does exactly that --- I highly recommend it as an introductory book, both objective and critical.  IMO, there isn't really any need for another book on the subject, at least not until the field settles down a lot more.

    http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Islam-Traditions-Contemporary-Perspective/dp/0800698592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1431708894&sr=8-1&keywords=emergence+of+islam

    Also, Donner's essay in the book "The Qur'an in its Historical Context", which I think Hatoush has cited, is about as good of an overview of the 'open issues' in the field as you'll find anywhere.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #74 - May 15, 2015, 05:09 PM

    Btw, as to the conversation about the importance of critical scholarship ... as I said before, I think the fascinating academic issues are not at all what drives people when it comes to matters of religious faith.  The kinds of issues that people struggle with when it comes to their personal relation to religion are so intense, so all-consuming, so fundamental, that they are on a totally different level.  If somebody says that a technical analysis of Q 17.1 is far less important, in the grand scheme of human existence, than the struggles and conflicts that Muslims and ex-Muslims go through in relation to Islam, I'd have to not only agree entirely, I'd be embarrassed that it was even made a comparison in the first place.

    I think there can be *some* role for critical analysis in how people deal with their religious faith, but in my admittedly limited experience, it tends to be a lot more like what Hatoush is talking about -- first there is an existential change, based on deep individual experiences, only second is critical analysis potentially used to help understand and underpin that change.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #75 - May 15, 2015, 05:32 PM

    I do want to make it clear that I only wrote what I did in response to this part of the OP:
    Quote
    Reading through these forums, there seems to me to be a disconnect between those who are interested and invested in the modern critical scholarship regarding Islamic origins[...] and the rest who seem to still want to analyse Islam according to the traditional framework [...] I would like to kind of set this thread out as a simplified intro to some of the more arcane topics discussed in this forum.


    It may not have been OP's intention, but that kind of gave me a vibe like there are only a few members who are interested in approaching Islam critically and the rest are stuck in their old, simplistic ways and would need the whole subject dumbed down for us to see the value in it and sit at the big kids' table. Grin

    But yes, although it's clear that this is awesome information and you guys are doing great work, its real life applications and relevancy is regrettably little in comparison to what we typically discuss and so it's strictly just interesting instead of practically useful for most of the users here. But I didn't mean to in any way undermine the value of these threads. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is amazing and a ton of people are genuinely impressed by the quality of the posts here, and I'm extremely grateful that these discussions are happening here on the forum. You are a fantastic credit to us.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #76 - May 15, 2015, 05:33 PM

    Yes, critical scholarship is secondary, though I guess it will have some effect in the long term as the ideas trickle through, as I think happened with Christianity a long time ago. Anyway here are a couple of BBC documentaries on early bible scholarship if anyone's interested.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ccyibMVEJ60
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xagNSUAcnF8
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #77 - May 15, 2015, 06:06 PM

    But yes, although it's clear that this is awesome information and you guys are doing great work, its real life applications and relevancy is regrettably little in comparison to what we typically discuss and so it's strictly just interesting instead of practically useful for most of the users here. But I didn't mean to in any way undermine the value of these threads. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is amazing and a ton of people are genuinely impressed by the quality of the posts here, and I'm extremely grateful that these discussions are happening here on the forum. You are a fantastic credit to us.

    Actually as far as the real life issues go I probably don't have much to contribute as most of it is so far from my own experience. I suppose I'm working under the assumption that putting forward an alternative, and more realistic, historical narrative has some value. But I guess that's something a lot more nebulous than directly addressing the immediate problems faced by ex-muslims.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #78 - May 15, 2015, 06:17 PM

    Sorry, Zeca, I don't mean to say that it doesn't have value in the grand scheme of things, and I do think we'll eventually reach a day when this analysis of Islamic history is more predominant when the climate is right and the religion is more relaxed, but I just wanted to reiterate (not for you or Zaotar, though, because I'm pretty sure you always knew this) that it's not like we other members are in a rut and can't look outside of the framework the religion constructs, it's just also not something we're all able to use in our daily lives. At least not right now. But someday, inshallah!
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #79 - May 15, 2015, 06:18 PM

    Does anyone know which is the earliest mosque which has Mecca as its qibla?I was watching a video with a christian speaker who often debates muslims.He mentioned that the earliest mosque facing Mecca is in Pakistan and that all earlier mosques don't face Mecca.Does anyone know the accuracy of this ?
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #80 - May 15, 2015, 06:31 PM

    I think the problem is that most of the mosques have been continuously rebuilt and redesigned. I have heard that the oldest is the Dome of the Rock, built by abd-al Malik, and the Ummayad mosque of Damascus, built by his successor al Walid I. But I don't know if they have the same qibla as when they were first built during the Umayyad era.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #81 - May 15, 2015, 06:34 PM

    Masjid al-Qiblatain, i.e. the Mosque of the Two Qiblas, is where Muhammad was praying when he got revelation to change the qibla to Mecca, so he changed halfway through his prayer. Thus the mosque has historically had two qiblas, one facing Jerusalem, the other facing Mecca.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #82 - May 15, 2015, 06:37 PM

    Skywalker, I have seen those Christian presentations on early mosque qiblas.  My sense is that their basic point is roughly correct, it is true that the earliest mosque qiblas seem to point towards Jordan (Crone made a version of this argument), but they seem awfully credulous and uncritical about the dating of the specific mosques they are talking about.  This is actually pretty characteristic of Christian polemic against Islam, it is very critical when it helps them and remarkably credulous whenever it helps.  There is no consistency.  Islamic Awareness actually has a pretty good discussion of these issues, attempting to rebut Crone on the early qibla.

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html

    They admit that the qibla of the early mosques did not point towards Mecca.  Their explanation for this strikes me as painfully contrived.

    "But still a lingering question exists. Why did the Muslims chose the winter sunset for the mosques in Iraq and winter sunrise for the mosque in Egypt for their respective qiblas? What was the relationship of this astronomical phenomena with respect to Kʿabah? The answers to this is in the astronomical orientation of Kʿabah."

    They then give a very complicated argument for why this would somehow relate to the Kaba.  But it doesn't work, because you can't explain why mosques to the East would have their qibla pointing West, while those in the West would have their qibla facing East.  The qibla was clearly geographical, directed at a specific point on earth, not astronomical.  And saying that all of these were mistakes of some sort requires imputing a rather incredible degree of geographical incompetence to early Muslims across the globe.

    Btw, I have to enjoy the rhetoric:  "The notion that early mosques were oriented toward northern Arabia/Jerusalem insidiously suggests the possibilities that the earliest Muslims did not pray toward Makkah and that the Islamic traditon of a qibla facing Kʿabah was a later development, hidden from history by some sort of a conspiracy."  Hmm, it's almost as though that exact scenario is discussed in the Qur'an itself!  So is this the insidious conspiracy they speak of?  Q 2:142-145:

    "We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

    The foolish among the people will say, "What has turned them away from their qiblah, which they used to face?" Say, "To Allah belongs the east and the west. He guides whom He wills to a straight path."

    And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided. And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful.

    We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

    And if you brought to those who were given the Scripture every sign, they would not follow your qiblah. Nor will you be a follower of their qiblah. Nor would they be followers of one another's qiblah. So if you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, indeed, you would then be among the wrongdoers."

    I don't think conspiracy is quite the right word for a change of qibla that the Qur'an itself is so explicit about!  Yet again, the change of qibla is explained as a 'test' for how obedient you are to the prophet, which the surah acknowledges is 'difficult.'
  • Re: Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #83 - May 15, 2015, 08:36 PM

    Masjid al-Qiblatain, i.e. the Mosque of the Two Qiblas, is where Muhammad was praying when he got revelation to change the qibla to Mecca, so he changed halfway through his prayer. Thus the mosque has historically had two qiblas, one facing Jerusalem, the other facing Mecca.

    There's another mosque with the same name, Masjid al-Qiblatayn, that is located in Somalia.It also has two qiblahs, facing different directions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Qiblatayn_%28Somalia%29
    Quote
    Masjid al-Qiblatayn (Arabic: مسجد القبلتين‎; "Mosque of the two Qiblas") is a mosque in Zeila, situated in the northwestern Awdal region of Somalia.

    The masjid's construction dates to the 7th century, shortly after the hijra.[1] It is the oldest mosque in the city, and contains the tomb of Sheikh Babu Dena. Though now mostly in ruins, the edifice features two mihrabs: one oriented to the north toward Mecca, and the other oriented to the northwest toward Jerusalem.[2]

    As you can see, it assumes the traditional view of hijra.It wouldn't be a suprise if it was actually dated from the 7th century.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #84 - May 15, 2015, 09:28 PM

    Do mosques face geographical or astronomical points and might some be older than say 620?

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #85 - May 15, 2015, 09:33 PM

    Al-Walid I refurbished a lot of mosques; al-Aqsa and the Damascene are just the two most famous. The one, to me, which is the most telling is the mosque of 'Amr at old Cairo ("Fustat", then). It was under Walid's governor Qurra bin Sharik that this was repointed toward Mecca. This is noted in Crone and Cook, "Hagarism", 24.

    I'd suggest that al-Walid was the first Umayyad to accept Mecca officially as the focus of God's presence. (Elements of the Muslim popular culture had already accepted this.)
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #86 - May 15, 2015, 09:44 PM

    Why would a religion with clear astronomical leanings choose geographical points?  Feels like an import!

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #87 - May 15, 2015, 09:45 PM

    But yes, although it's clear that this is awesome information and you guys are doing great work, its real life applications and relevancy is regrettably little in comparison to what we typically discuss and so it's strictly just interesting instead of practically useful for most of the users here.

    I think my first post here touched on that - I saw a couple of posters tackling these issues, so I dropped in, but nervously.

    That's why we have these more "scholarly" fora: the Z's can drone on about whatever it is we drone on about, and if the rest of the forum are interested in catching some Z's then they can come here.  grin12

    edit: Seriously, though; I'm grateful to be allowed this use of the forum's soapbox. Also flattered by the forum community's regard for me (I can probably speak for zeca and Zaotar on that). To the extent my posts are helpful and informative, I'm glad of it.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #88 - May 15, 2015, 10:01 PM

    Cheesy Oh my god. And you're funny, too!

    Yeah, I got the feeling that was all understood and the only reason I said anything was because of the way I interpreted the original post. But really, we're lucky to have you all.
  • Findings of Critical Scholarship vis-a-vis the Traditional Islamic Understanding
     Reply #89 - May 15, 2015, 10:09 PM

    I do want to make it clear that I only wrote what I did in response to this part of the OP:
    It may not have been OP's intention, but that kind of gave me a vibe like there are only a few members who are interested in approaching Islam critically and the rest are stuck in their old, simplistic ways and would need the whole subject dumbed down for us to see the value in it and sit at the big kids' table. Grin


    Wow, I am sorry if I gave that impression. What I meant was that I see a lot of members of this forum engaging with people who have done some reading in the critical side of things, and they often talk past each other. To give a good example, only I, Zeca, Hassan, and Zimriel seem to take much of an active part in Zoatar's threads on his papers, and when others do take part it seems to me like the two sides are often talking past each other. People without much of a knowledge of what critical scholars have been up to have one set of assumptions, more critically-minded folks have another, so they're not talking the same language, so to speak. Threads like Zoatar's papers don't help this much, since they address very specific issues with a lot of assumptions about the Quran and early Islamic history that are left basically unstated. My intent was to make these types of threads more intelligible to more folks, in so far as my list would provide kind of a crash-course to the working assumptions of critical scholarship. Even if you don't agree with them, at least you'll know what you're disagreeing with, and this will provide for more fruitful discussions. If I came off as condescending, I do apologize and ask your forgiveness.

    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »